User:Andrew Lancaster/ID RfC draft

Concerning the article Intelligent design. Proposal is that invitations would go to:

• NO individual users.
• All of the projects listed in the talk page header, which means:

WikiProject Alternative Views

WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design

WikiProject Christianity

WikiProject Conservatism

WikiProject Philosophy

WikiProject Skepticism

WikiProject Religion

• Possibly also to noticeboards or forums concerned with specific policies or guidelines mentioned in the RfC, with message specifically asking for input on the relevant policy. This would presumably include:

WP:RS. Post at WP:RSN?

MOS:LEDE (concerning the lede). Post at WT:MOS?

WP:NOTDICT (concerning the lede). Post at WT:NOTDIC?

WP:COMMONNAME (concerning the lede). Post at WT:TITLE?

WP:FRINGE. Post at WP:FTN?

WP:UNDUE. Post at WP:NPOVN?

WP:DAB. Post at WT:DAB?

Draft questions for RfC (by Andrew Lancaster)

1. Meanings of the term "intelligent design". Are the following statements accepted or not? (Sourcing notes to be added below.)

• a. Reliable sources use the term "intelligent design" as a short form to refer to the creationist (or neocreationist) intelligent design movement and associated things such as its actions and strategies.
• b. Reliable sources use the term "intelligent design" as a short form to refer generally to various types of "arguments from design" (also known as teleological arguments). (Arguments from design are attempts to prove the existence of a creator deity based only upon evidence seen in nature. Also see Natural theology.)
• c. Reliable sources use the term "intelligent design" as a short form to refer specifically to the "intelligent design theory" of the "intelligent design movement". (This is based upon an argument from design, but is unusual in that as part of an attempt to have creationism taught in schools, it claims to be modern empirical science.)

Examples:

• "Agree, disagree, agree" would suggest that there is no such thing as a proponent of intelligent design who is not a proponent of presenting argument from design as empirical science.
• "Agree, agree, agree" would suggest that reliable sources sometimes use the term "intelligent design" outside of the context of the intelligent design movement.

2. Subject of Wikipedia's current Intelligent Design article. Please respond to the following two questions. Please also note that Wikipedia presently has separate articles for Teleological argument (also a redirect for Argument from design), Intelligent design movement, Creation science, Discovery Institute, and Neo-creationism.

• a. Is it agreed that the subject of the article is the same as 1.c. above?
• b. Is it agreed that it should remain so?

3. Name of the article currently named Intelligent Design.

• a. Is it advisable to use a less ambiguous name for this article, such as Intelligent design theory (currently a redirect to Intelligent design)?

(It is proposed that this term is used in many sources to refer to 1.c. above in contexts where the term "Intelligent design" might be ambiguous, whereas WP is currently being deliberately more ambiguous. See the references to "Natural disambiguation" at WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB.)

• b. If your answer to 3.a. is "no", please name any concerns, or any evidence that this name does not help.
• c. If the answer to 3.b. is "yes" then concerning disambiguations and redirects, should the search term "Intelligent design" go to "Intelligent design theory", or should it become a disambiguation page (replacing Intelligent design (disambiguation))?

4. The lede. Long-term debate shows the following points need confirmation concerning how the lede should be written:

• a. Is it desirable that a lede (and not just for example the HAT and/or a history section) should use wording which makes it clear, or at least allow for the possibility, that there are other related meanings which could be confused with the subject of our article?
• b. Is it forbidden by policies and guidelines such MOS:LEDE, WP:NOTDICT, WP:COMMONNAME that a lede (and not just for example the HAT and/or a history section) should use wording which deliberately makes it clear that there are other related meanings which could be confused with the subject of our article?
• c. Is it desirable according to any other argument (such as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE) that Wikipedia should deliberately seek to de-emphasize any links between a pseudo-scientific and politicized movement (the intelligent design movement), and an older and more supposedly respected philosophical and theological tradition, even if our sources do the opposite?

Attempt to make short RfC

The lede. Long-term debate shows the following points need confirmation concerning how the lede should be written:

• a. Is it desirable that a lede (and not just for example the HAT and/or a history section) should use wording which makes it clear, or at least allow for the possibility, that there are other related meanings which could be confused with the subject of our article?
• b. Is it forbidden by policies and guidelines such MOS:LEDE, WP:NOTDICT, WP:COMMONNAME that a lede (and not just for example the HAT and/or a history section) should use wording which deliberately makes it clear that there are other related meanings which could be confused with the subject of our article?
• c. Is it desirable according to any other argument (such as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE) that Wikipedia should deliberately seek to de-emphasize any links between a pseudo-scientific and politicized movement (the intelligent design movement), and an older and more supposedly respected philosophical and theological tradition, even if our sources do the opposite?

NOTES:

• If RfC will be about policy and lede writing, maybe the invites should mainly go to policy-focused community forums.
• For a short RfC, maybe a choice needs to be made about lede writing policy questions, or the sourcing question.

Still shorter

The proposal is that in future versions of the article, 2 principles should be:

• Wordings should be preferred which allow for the fact that in reliable sources the term "intelligent design" is not always used to refer to contexts related to debates about teaching creationism as an empirical science in biology classes.
• More specifically, concerning the most obvious source of such confusion, our article should pro-actively state that the term "intelligent design" is sometimes used to refer to arguments from design (teleological arguments) in general, rather than only as a specific proper name associated with the use of such arguments in the above-mentioned textbook debate.

Draft for sourcing section

A. Sources for "intelligent design" clearly referring to an argument from design, but not in the context of the intelligent design movement. If possible, please divide up by period of the published citation, and the period referred to...

• Publication before the intelligent design movement.

• Handy listing in a blog: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2013/11/the-origin-of-intelligent-design-in-the-18th-and-19th-centuries/

• Publication after the intelligent design movement came into existence, but referring to before.

• Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century).
• Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back).
• [1] Francisco Ayala, who I believe to have some expertise in this area, talking about William Paley (1802), and saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
• [2] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato
• [3] Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity using this exact term to translate the name of the fifth proof of the existence of God (see quinque viae) used by Thomas Aquinas (14th century).
• [4] Used to name a subject handled within David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (late 18th century)
• [5] Again being used to refer to Paley.
• [6] God, the Devil, and Darwin : A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, Niall Shanks Curtis, (2004) Oxford University Press. "The two main lines of modern reasoning about intelligent design - design of the universe as a whole (cosmological design) and design of organisms (biological design) - are present in Newton's writings on natural theology."

• Publication after the intelligent design movement, and also referring to that period.
• Any secondary sources which discusses such published references to intelligent design, when not in the context of the intelligent design movement.

B. Sources for intelligent design clearly referring to an argument from design, in the context of the intelligent design movement. If possible please focus mainly on the following 2 relevant categories...

• Citations where the source clearly implies that "intelligent design" is a term implying pretending to be science. (In other words the citations should not simply show that the pretending is associated with the intelligent design, but that it is actually part of the definition.)
• Citations where the source clearly implies that the term "intelligent design" does not necessarily imply pretending to be science. Some sub-categories of such sources:

• Citations showing sources saying that the "intelligent design" of the movement is simply an argument from design like the ones in the past, before the movement existed.

• Francisco J. Ayala. "The Blasphemy of Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse. The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest; Paul R. Gross Review by: Francisco J. Ayala History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2006), pp. 409-421 Published by: Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn - Napoli Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23334140 .: "The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument. The first prong asserts that the universe, humans, as well as all sorts of organisms, in their wholes, in their parts, and in their relations to one another and to their environment, appear to have been designed for serving certain functions and for certain ways of life. The second prong of the argument is that only an omnipotent Creator could account for the perfection and purposeful design of the universe and everything in it."
• The Discovery Institute itself, for example on their website, define the theory of intelligent design as an argument from design without calling it that. They are not a neutral source of course, but already cited by our article, and clearly relevant in many ways. For one thing they are a reasonable source for their own opinions and word usage. It is also argued that there are obvious reasons to consider the website a more considered opinion than some other occasions.

Kitzmiller v. Dover related sources (heavily used in our existing article):

• The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District textbook ruling is also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24: "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." Interpreting the expert witness John Haught the ruling clearly stated that this argument for the existence of God to be of a type also found in the works of Paley and Aquinas.
• The Haught expert statement itself [7], says: "The contemporary notion of ID is historically unintelligible apart from the religious agendas of Paley and Aquinas" and "Historically the notion of intelligent design has persistently been taken to be the Creator God of a theistic faith." So historically there already was a "notion" of intelligent design, as found in Paley and Aquinas.
• Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). "Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks". Biochemical Journal 417 (1): 29. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. PMID 19061485 pdf. This is a summary of the case written for scientists. Relevant wording: on page 33 they specifically distinguish "your father's 'ID'" and "The DI's version" or "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI".

• Sedley, David (2007), Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, University of California Press. See xvii. "the thesis that the world's structure and contents can be adequately explained only by postulating one intelligent designer, a creator god. This is indeed the primary issue which divides modern "creationists" from their Darwinian critics. It also divided the greatest thinkers of antiquity."
• Scott, Eugenie C.; Matzke, Nicholas J. (May 15, 2007), "Biological design in science classrooms", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (Suppl 1), United States National Academy of Sciences: 8669–8676, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104, PMC 1876445, PMID 17494747, retrieved 2009-06-02 abstract. "Long before the ID movement arose, creation scientists constantly invoked design arguments." "Design as an argument against evolution has historically been a constant theme in creationist periodicals such as the Creation Science Research Quarterly" [Should be checked for context. Who made these statements?]

• Citations which clearly distinguish the "intelligent design" of the movement from the pretending to be science of the movement. In other words such a citation should show these as two different things associated with the movement, not the same thing.

• I understand this is a quotation from a spokesman of the movement itself in Scott, Eugenie C.; Matzke, Nicholas J. (May 15, 2007), "Biological design in science classrooms", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (Suppl 1), United States National Academy of Sciences: 8669–8676, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104, PMC 1876445, PMID 17494747, retrieved 2009-06-02 abstract quoting Dembski 1999: "Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes, an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy, and a way of understanding divine action." At least this makes clear there are several things referred to by the movement as "intelligent design", one being the movement itself, and the other two being intellectual endeavours (science and theology).

C. Others

North8000's draft

#1 and #2 are the questions. 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 are some potential answers.

#1 Shall the article titled “Intelligent design” be about:

1.1 “Intelligent design” (with respect to the origin of man/life/the earth/the universe) in general. In general, statements identified as “Intelligent design” to the effect that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection . This would include everything under 1.2 plus those instances (identified by that term) that do not claim to be scientific.

1.2 Limited to variants of Intelligent design that claim to be scientific. The purportedly scientific theory that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

No party wishes to include items unrelated to the origin of man/life/earth/ the universe, such as an intelligently designed bridge.

#2 There is a dispute about statements that are worded to directly or indirectly make statements about “Intelligent Design” with no qualifier, and thus applying to all “Intelligent Design”. Most of these are statements (only) about those versions of intelligent design which purport to be scientific. Examples are:

• “It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"

• “The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience….”

• “Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion”

2.1 These types of statements (not just the examples) are NOT OK in this respect and should be avoided, modified (e.g. by addition of qualifiers) or removed.

2.2 These types of statements are OK in this respect.

Note: mention of versions / variants f ID that do not purport to be science is putative because there are arguments that such do not exist.

North8000 (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

North, a first comment:

• The example sentences you give in question 2, should be (IMHO) only used as examples, and not become the focus of all discussion. It is about a type of wording which keeps coming back.

(inserted later into the middle of Andrew's comment) Agree. I was thinking of emphasizing that more, and your comments reinforce that I need to do that. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I think it will be difficult to see the concern people have with such sentences when quoted in isolation. In our current article for example it is the combination of the first sentence and the second that lead to odd possibilities. Indeed the two sentences are odd. Both now mention A is presented by proponents as B.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What we see on the talkpage of the article is that individual sentences when looked at by less active editors do not look problematic. That is why I believe we need help defining the guiding principles. We can not have an RfC for every new sentence wording. But what I do see potential in is the idea of adding example sentences to my last question. However, I am thinking they should be generic examples of sentences from leads. Perhaps an example of a word with a similar potential confusion is Limousine for example (old term now less common and/or less well known, but still worth mentioning in the lead).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

North's comments

Hello Andrew. I wanted to respond to your request for feedback without a lot of delay. A thoughtful response will involve reading several more times and absorbing whatyou wrote, and then writing a thoughtful response which I think will take about an hour. My "short attention span" permitting, the soonest I could do this is tomorrow. So the best I can do right now (if you will forgive me) is a few knee-jerk thoughts:

IMHO an RFC needs to have 1 or 2 questions. Yours has about 12 questions. I don't think that any clear answer to the key points would emerge. On the flip side, it is much more thorough than mine, and opens the conversation up on many facets on a very high plane / "high road" basis. And so the way that it could do well would be to get more participants (which has always been the underlying problem here, folks getting chased away....you'll note the attempts by 1 or 2 people to villainize and threaten you). An important note is that the persons on the "other side" most active on the discussions (starting with MisterDub and DaveSouza) have also operated in a very nice manner and have NOT done any such nasty stuff) So I think that your RFC as drafted, regarding reaching conclusion in key areas would die under it's own weight/ complexity. But that it is a much more thorough, sound, higher-plane source-based discussion of the questions at the article.

I think that your RFC ignores what I think of as the "vague religious" ID, basically that life/man/the/earth/the universe is an intelligent design created by God. No "claim to be science", no "argument" (e.g. teleological argument)

I believe that there are only about 2 underlying disputed questions, although the answer to them could lead to a second set of questions what articles should exist. I think that my question #1 covers one of them head on.....what should be the scope of the article that "squats" on the general title "Intelligent design". And I think that my question #2 does not directly address the underlying question, but addresses the only expression of it in a dispute. The underlying question is: Are the "other" ID's (those that don't claim to be science) going by that name so negligible that they can be ignored when writing? The only current "expression in a dispute" of this question is in the manner of statements. Which is my question #2. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I already realize my draft is too complex, which is typical of a draft for me. Maybe I should try to distill it into something much simpler, but then it is important to work out which issues can be handled alone in any meaningful way. I should comment more on your ideas:

• Concerning your first question, the way you describe the "other" ID strikes me as vague, and probably for active editors like myself and possibly Dave and MisterDub, it seems that the other one is the subject of teleological argument already. They would also argue that they have never denied a link to such teleological arguments, and that our article mentions them.

(inserted later, in the middle of Andrew's post) On your first question I was deliberately vague. It would be the common meanings of the term with respect to the origin of life/humans/earth/the universe. Basically everything encompassed by the Webster definition. "The theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence". Notably, it would include purely religious / faith based beliefs no claiming to be science, and not making an "argument". North8000 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• What you describe as your underlying one seems to me to approach the same aims as my question 4, and I should perhaps mention that even while writing the draft I constantly have felt that the final version might just be that one. Does that make any sense to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the expression of the underlying question is roughly the same point as your #4. The underlying question is not being directly debated.North8000 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So the aim should be to write the underlying question. I think it is a reasonable working assumption that we are both seeking the same question, and that the question is related to the frequent concerns raised by good faith editors on the article talk page. Concerning your first post, what is the Webster definition you are referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See my attempt above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The definition was what I had in quotes. And and so only acknowledging ID that is the Teleological argument leaves some out. Looking good. BTW, I was not arguing against length in the RFC.....some explanation to neutrally provide background and make the question clear is fine. I was saying to keep the number of questions down to 2. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe 1 would be better, in which case I think it is my 4 and your 2. I still find it a challenge to define the question, even though I think anyone who looks at the history of the 75 archives(!) will recognize there is a theme to the concerns raised. If we drop the sourcing question as a separate issue, then there would be sourcing discussion anyway, but less structured, with the risk that we once again get lots of unconstructive comments which make vague claims about sources (everything is already obvious to lots of people, and why should we explain it to you). Another idea that has come to mind many times is to try to carefully first define some of the key historic sourcing questions for discussion at WP:RSN on their own, first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that the big debate farther back was claiming the ID is just DI. The inevitable reality eventually prevailed, much delayed by the bullying tactics. The current debate is different. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way different? I am not saying you are wrong, but that I am interested to consider what you mean. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer, given that they were two different questions. In one sense they're are similar though, they both involve(d) overreaching manner of statements. Right now its about statements that say or imply that ID means only instances which purport to be science. But back then it was statements that say or imply that ID means only the Discovery institute form / initiative. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, to name my understanding... (It is my preference to always put my rationales out in the open.) I think that there is one problem that just keeps taking a different form. Hence my reluctance to spend more time discussing particular wording choices, and also my negativity about most options. I presume the all ID is DI claim is very likely to return to the article also, unless some sort of "constitutional" change can be made to the understanding of the local consensus of editors, and especially the less active guardian style editors who are clearly still defending the article from arguments that span years. The extreme all/nothing language is apparently seen as a target in itself, and therefore will be pushed again and again in different ways, even if no one sees themselves as consciously aiming at that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)