Talk:Intelligent design

Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.
Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
Please use edit summaries.

Future research? Possible applications?

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

I was disappointed to find that this article, like so many resources concerning Intelligent Design, contains almost no mention of either future research or the field's possible applications. Does Intelligent Design as it stands tell us everything we could ever need to know about the history and structure of life, or is there more research pending? Does ID have future applications in fields such as Biology or Medicine? What will the concepts of "Irreducible complexity", "Specified complexity", "Fine-tuned universe", "Intelligent designer" actually mean after the evolutionists concede and ID replaces Natural Selection as the dominant paradigm for the study of biological systems? Can we include some sense of the long-term scientific plan in this article? TheDewi 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This kind of comment just is pure nonsense. If our attempts are so bad, why do you not just go to the Discovery Institute Website and find it there? Because it does NOT exist!!! Or at least we, and all the other skeptics, and all the >99% of the scientists and the courts have not found any research in this area, and the way things are going, it looks like ID will not replace evolution as a paradigm. It explains nothing. It is just a waste of time and energy. And it if is admitted as science, it will be flushing real science that our medicine is based on down the toilet. The long term plan is to create a theocracy and to force you to worship in their way and to acknowledge they and only they and their interpretation are correct. It is basically a plan for a new Dark Ages. Read what Johnson et al say is their plan if you do not believe me.--Filll 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We gladly would - but unfortunately ID does not have any of those. DLX 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What will the concepts ... actually mean after the evolutionists concede and ID replaces Natural Selection as the dominant paradigm for the study of biological systems? If ID replaces natural selection as the dominant paradigm in biology, it will mean the end of biology as an experimental science. It will also mean a revolution in modern religion, since the "paradigm" of Faith will be replaced with a materialistic "paradigm" looking for Proof. Guettarda 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Future research and applications? How about some present research and applications? Intelligent Design as it stands tells us nothing whatsoever about the history or structure of life. Tsumetai 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now be fair, didn't the New Scientist find something about the DI having a secret research program, carrying out... secret research..... which they can't divulge because those scientist chappies will ask for.. um.. peer review or something. Don't miss the next exciting announcement. Should bode well for faith healing...... dave souza, talk 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh man, now they're going to have to kill you for divulging the secret research program publicly. Dave souza said it, I didn't. Please don't have me shot. Really, I don't know anything about the cough...secret...ahem.....research....program......sssssshhhhhhhh. Orangemarlin 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we include some sense of the long-term scientific plan in this article? Absolutely we can and will, when and if the IDers ever develop such a plan. We'll even include any ID scientific theory if they ever develop one. Mr Christopher 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In response to the feeling that I keep getting from ID proponents that we are too heavy handed with the scientific view, I will move Michael Behe's comments about ID as a science (very reliable source: a Christian under oath) from the overview to the lede. That way, the ID proponents get their view in first, and the tone of the introduction is less oppositional.Trishm 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have any ID proponents contributed to this section? . . ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Umm, I don't think so. They've argued a lot, though.Trishm 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that. ID, Creation and anti-evolution proponents tend to yell and scream Except for Homestarmy. He seems to know how to make a cogent, calm discussion. Orangemarlin 02:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Drat. I was rather hoping some IDers more knowledgeable than me would bite, and furnish me with a less woefully incomplete view. I hear a lot about ID being unfalsifiable or non-materialistic, but the lack of any substance (beyond discrediting other theories) is just as grievous in making ID unrecognisable as a science. But please, feel free to prove me ignorant if I'm missing something! TheDewi 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just look at youtube and google video videos of Johson and hear what he says and his plans. --Filll 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The part you're missing is that ID is unrecognizable as a science, because it isn't one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice bit of fishing, the problem is that the IDers who are so quick to complain that the article is biased are remarkably slow when it comes to producing any substance for their claims. ... dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Recent minor changes

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Kenosis has made two small changes to the article that I feel we should discuss. The first is the recombination of the opening two sentences into one. This is purely a stylistic point, but I think that the opening reads better as two sentences: "ID is an argument for the existence of God. It is expressed in secular terms...". Secondly, and more importantly, is the change from "which" to "that" in the "Controversy" section. As the article stands ("They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science that is limited to dealing only with the natural world;") it implies (perhaps unintentionally) that there's such a thing as "science that is not limited to dealing only with the natural world", and, moreover, that the supporters of theistic evolution consider their faith to be incompatible with this "supernatural science". With "which", the sentence just describes science as being limited to nature. I think that the second meaning is what's intended, so "that" should be changed back to "which"; however, I'd just like to confirm that before doing it. Tevildo 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Quick follow-up). If the first meaning is intended, I think we need to make it more explicit; perhaps "compatible with science, insofar as science is limited...", or "compatible with the areas of science that are limited..." Tevildo 17:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I support a change in the Controversy section to read "... science which is limited to...", for the reason just given by Tevildo. ... Kenosis 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - it's open to revision, of course. Tevildo 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Surely that needs a comma: "...science, which is limited to..."? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has one. :) Tevildo 12:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kenosis has also moved Behe's testimony that ID is not science from the lead. I would have thought that this is particularly important, because it shows that it isn't just the scientific community who says that ID is not science. As it stands, we have:ID proponents say this (unequivocally) and the scientists oppose it (unequivocally); and that is just not true.Trishm 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I integrated it into the second paragraph, with a comment in the edit summary. You'll see the relevant summary if you flip through the history. ... Kenosis 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Sorry. I guess I am surprised to see Behe grouped with the scientists, rather than the ID proponents.Trishm 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I grouped it, albeit somewhat hesitantly, according to issue rather than class of person. As I said in the edit summary, I don't think the lead is the place to put it. But since it was there in a stranded paragraph, I integrated Behe's admission as best I could rather than revert it back into its earlier placement in the Overview. ... Kenosis 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we put him at the start of the paragraph? It would lessen sense of mindless conflict between the ID proponents and scientists.Trishm 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that the first paragraph is quite awkward, from an English comprehensibility point of view. It is just two long sentences, with tons of clauses separated by commas. Not good.--Filll 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed "stated in secular terms" from the first sentence. The extra little clause turns out to have been superfluous because the premise is stated right there. Offhand, I would not be in favor of breaking up the second sentence, as a great deal of work by many editors went into arriving at it in its present form. When it was recently broken up, it had the quirky feature of beginning a related sentence with the word "they". The second sentence appears to read just fine as it currently is, so long as it's not on the heels of an excessively long sentence. ... Kenosis 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also removed the parenthetical with the abbreviation "ID" from the first sentence, as it was wholly unnecessary there. I hadn't realized it, but bit-by-bit that first sentence had accumulated more chrome than a '58_Oldsmobile. ... Kenosis 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FA

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Well! The first FA objection came up: The section on Intelligence is under-cited. Let's go fer it, laddos! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this article is attempting FA, this might help, but the introduction seems to developpe on how it isen't considered as a science than what ID claims to be. I don't know what equilibre the introduction should achieve but in my opinion the "this is not a science" seems much too excessif in the intro. I didn't read the rest of the article, because I might to waste my time with pseudo-science not being published in credible peer-reviewed journals, so my opinion is only relevant for the intro. Fad (ix) 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you're trying to say, because your English is a bit broken (not a criticism, just hard to read), but ID is absolutely not a science. The lead must say this, or the article is not worth anything. Orangemarlin 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The most important thing that one can find out about ID, the lead, is that it is a rehashed argument for the existence of God, that is not scientific. The Lead says this. What is more important than that? Nothing to my mind. If you want more details, you can read further.--Filll 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry guys for the broken English, I did not read myself. I've convinced myself to jump in and read the rest of the article, which is OK and very well written. But I still am under the impression that something is not right with the introduction, I agree it is pseudoscience and all that; but that introduction seems as if it was trying to convince and remind over again that it is pseudoscience. I may be mistaken, but I don't see the necessity of that, highlining what most scientist consider this hypotheses to be is verry relevant and a must, but in my opinion the introduction is not the place for developping on that, a résumé is enough. Fad (ix) 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do I smell a raspor?--Filll 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No. Coming from a different place.Trishm 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what or who is a raspor, but I am intelligent enough to assume that you think I have some ill intention. I didn't think that this might make any difference, but I am a very strong adherent of natural selection, even Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection, also the bioneurologic natural selection hypothesis of self-awarness. Oh and, and... Darwin is the scientist I place in the highest estime, since I consider that his hypothesis could be applied in favoring cosmological constants. But again, I really didn't thought that I would be needing to developpe on what I adhere to. Anyway, I am done with that, my opinion on the introduction was an opinion afteral. No hard feelings. Fad (ix) 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our apologies. You were mistaken for a moment for a certain banned editor, who has a troubled history on this page and no intention of contributing productively. Your personal views are yours to hold. Any editor who is constructive is welcome.Trishm 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh OK I understand, anyway, I wish good luck for the FA. Fad (ix) 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fadix is a reliable, established editor. Granted, this article makes you paranoid, but it's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on this. Guettarda 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A concern was raised at the FAC page that this page has too many external links. While I am not saying that we should trim the section, but it is pretty long, and wouldn't hurt to have a look at it, make sure that what we have there is the best of the best. Guettarda 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't like how it's written in a box down the side, but as in Talk:Evolution, there needs to be links to the same old rehashed discussions, so that we don't rehash the same old discussions. I actually like easily finding the archives, especially when someone needs a reference source. But I don't like the box down the side, not to rehash something. Orangemarlin 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually the organised archive here is the inspiration for the one over at Evolution. I believe this one is largely the work of Ec5618. Guettarda 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The issue of the fair use magazine cover has been raised at the FAC discussion. I agree that, unless the magazine issue is discussed in some way, that it's hard to justify fair use. It's a shame, because I like the picture, but they're right probably should go. Guettarda 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Amazing Templeton Foundation guidelines on ID

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

From our FAQ...
Does the Foundation support I.D.?
No. We do not support the political movement known as “Intelligent Design.” This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the “Intelligent Design” movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.
It is important to note that in the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the Intelligent Design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the Intelligent Design movement, but, as outlined above, this was not our intention at the time nor is it today.

Take a look at [1] and [2]. Think we can squeeze something like these in?--Filll 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the Templeton Foundation? Orangemarlin 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Templeton Foundation funds religious research and scholarship. They funded the Discovery Institute when it started some years back. They were not very happy with the results they obtained-lots of promises, but turned out to be political hot air instead of serious research. Just basically jerks and crooks. So they lost their funding.--Filll 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

They also offered to fund ID research, but there were no takers. It's referenced somewhere in the archives. Guettarda 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Time magazine image

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wasn't the one to remove it, but I'd like to point out to anyone readding it that doing so is not fair use, and is a legal liability for wikipedia. i kan reed 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lead Section

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The lead section of this article is particulary good, and does exactly what a lead section should in summing up all the information about intelligent design. This might sound weird but I think it might be a little two heavily referenced. Most of the references mentioned there will be used later on in the article (maybe I should have finished reading it :p), and personally so many references so early on is both distracting and slightly unattractive. I feel lead sections should be alot like abstracts, which don't reference at all. Though in this case you would put the reference in if it is not used again.

Uh, just a thought! (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Actually, without them the statements are regularly challenged, hence the somewhat excessive use of references. Guettarda 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Shame people can't be bothered to read the rest of the article to find them :p(a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

I suppose we could use "hidden" references in comments. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's a hidden reference? (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Comments in the text which don't appear in the article - have a look at the wikicode of the lead, there's one in there. Guettarda 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In response to the original comment, if you read what the MoS says about the lead section, it appears that lead sections should be referenced. A lead is a summary of the article, but it isn't an abstract - more like a Micropaedia article. Guettarda 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not difficult enough?

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

For those editors for whom the monitoring of this article simply isn't enough of a challenge - might I invite you to wander over to Marriage where there's a heck of a bun fight.

I think the gang who work here do one of the best jobs on the wiki, and your help would be appreciated - thanks folks! Petesmiles 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow. That wasn't fun to read. I'll stay here :) By the way, there are many other controversial articles that work out. First of all, you need to train editors who have an agenda to learn NPOV. Second, you need to drink wine. Lots of it. Orangemarlin 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

i've pretty much have given up on it. when you know your own POV is NPOV, what's there to learn? r b-j 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a level of arrogance that might not help in discussions. How can you know your POV is NPOV without getting a consensus. Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have found stout beer has a similar effect. Mr Christopher 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And it has all the nutrients for strength and stamina. Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll buy you one if you can make the article better.... 'course i may have to drink it for you too..... Petesmiles 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's better now than last november, when it simply stated that "A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants." ^[3] -- Ec5618 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is much worse than the stuff going on here. Orangemarlin 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

i fail to see how the present machinations are better than that. (but it is a pretty bad lead sentence.) r b-j 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Scope (FAC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Piotrus raised the issue that the article didn't cover the attitude to ID outside of the US, the UK and AUS. While I think this may really be something for the intelligent design movement article, offhand I can't think of much to say about ID outside of these three countries (there's the guy in Turkey, but I can't say I have read much about a movement there. Surely there is an impact in other countries, via the internet if nothing else, but how much documentation is there of any of this? Guettarda 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was an article in le Monde a couple of years ago, but it was about one presentation which failed to do anything but amuse the French. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suppose there's this story [4] [5] [6] (second story) - I had forgotten about it. Guettarda 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, here's something in Germany [7], Turkey [8], Canada [9], some weird creationism from Poland [10]... So how do we use this in a way that's proportionate? Guettarda 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest the global influence go under the inteligent design movement and not this article. Only because the primary focus on this article seems to be ID itself. Perhaps the movment article needs to be broadened. Mr Christopher 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I perked up at the link to Canada, but having read the article I'm not sure it applies. It appears that a social science funding organization used some odd wording in rejecting a grant application and the researcher in question jumped on them for it. I don't really see any indication that his claim is correct, that the organization in question is harboring ID proponents. Mountain? Molehill? YOU be da judge! Maury 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually I find it hard to believe that there isn't an active ID community in Canada - after all, the DI is based in Seattle, which is practically a suburb of Vancouver, at least on a world map. Guettarda 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

<reduce indent> I used to live in Seattle and they would not agree with you on the staturs of who is a suburb of who :-) And Canadians don't often import US styled religious extreemism (teaching creationism as science). Mr Christopher 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Next you'll be saying that Detroit isn't a suburb of Windsor. Guettarda 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Link to ResearchID.org

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Attention admins at this page: I wanted to bring it to your attention that ResearchID.org has a hyperlink under "ID perspectives" on this article.[11], and that this may be a violation of Wikipedia standards of notoriety. I want the admins here to be aware that I, the founder of ResearchID.org, had nothing to do with this, and that to my knowledge this link addition did not originate from our admins or members. Please take any necessary actions in accord with Wikipedia standards of notoriety.

Of course, I do not mind that ResearchID.org is linked on the ID article. And I think that ResearchID.org has more potential than some of the sites listed. I must also add that, beyond any doubt in my own mind, ResearchID.org is much more important to the topic of ID than the link to the page on the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.

I do not think we have attained the level of notoriety necessary to be linked here YET. Most importantly, I do not want to give the appearance, even for a moment, that we at ResearchID.org have acted inappropriately towards this ID article, or Wikipedia, in any way. --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall anyone complaining about that site being linked under "ID persepctives". ... Kenosis 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify a potential area of confusion here - the standards for inclusion as an external link are at WP:EL, and are fairly relaxed; I don't see any obvious reason why ResearchID might fail them, as it seems (on a cursory examination, admittedly) to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Joseph might be worried about the much stricter standards of WP:WEB, but those are for articles about individual websites, not merely articles which reference websites. Tevildo 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The website appears to have 78 active members[12]. I don't see much of a reason to include it at this time. JoshuaZ 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe 78 users is nothing to sneeze at. My understanding is the average readership for blogs across the entire web is, when rounded off to the nearest whole number, a whopping one-reader-per-blog. ... Kenosis 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but the author doesn't count. ;) Jim62sch 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FM seems to be M.I.A., maybe he'll chime in later. Back to it, so in determining the permanency of the link to ResearchID.org, it seems that there are a two for inclusion of the link, one against. (I’m not counting my own vote.) How does that pan out as far as making a decision? Do we need more votes? --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's safe to say that this particular link isn't a controversial issue. My comment above just expresses my view that we're not obliged to remove it under the terms of WP:EL; I wouldn't say that I actively want to keep it. However, if anyone actively wants to remove it, then I'm sure its departure wouldn't cause a fuss. Tevildo 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think we ought to keep it. WP is supposed to be a useful source of information, including its links, and frankly I find the links in WP very useful. WP can function like an annotated google search, which is extremely convenient, although I know that is not the intent of WP. I do not really care about the WP intent, what I care about is usefulness, and it is useful to include links like ResearchID.org.--Filll 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

With all that has been said here, it would seem that the link to ResearchID.org is a permissible (but not-yet-having-enough-notoriety to be strictly permanent) inclusion in the list of links. Given this, would anyone object to me changing the label of the link from "Research Intelligent Design" to "ResearchID.org"? --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have heard no objections here for two days now, so I will change the link label to show "ResearchID.org" --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wider focus

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This website is full of information on ID in Turkey, and would help us have more of a whole-world perspective. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This does not appear to be ID per se, but creationism generally. ID is primarily an issue in the United States, an attempt to bypass the Establishment Clause of the First amendment, and in particular the 1987 decision Edwards v. Aguilard. The material put forward by the NCSE in that link would be more appropriate to note in creationism, the creation-evolution debate, or other similar article, or alternately in a separate topic fork linked to from such an article. ... Kenosis 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually Edis makes the point that he is surprised that there isn't more ID in Islamic creationism, because Islam isn't hamstrung by a Genesis narrative. Guettarda 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a very interesting article, and I would recommend it to everyone.--Filll 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kansas School Board

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I note that the KSB has now voted to remove ID from the curriculum - which article is best for noting these kind of changes?

BTW thanks to whoever posted the link to the Marriage article discussion - now I've got something else to amuse myself reading during the slack moments at work (although nothing yet tops the Death Star discussion IMHO) Tomandlu 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This spot comes to mine [Kansas evolution hearings] Mr Christopher 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

many tnx - article updated.... Tomandlu 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, i'm reading ...

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

... a book by Owen Gingerich, an astronomer, Harvard prof, and theist, called "God's Universe" that takes issue with both the Dawkins's and the DIers (not to be confused with IDers). i think that the article injects POV when it insists that any present day scientist who believes in "design" is part of or associates with or is even sympathetic to the DI. some scientists accept, on a philosophical level the concept of "design", yet still reject both the scientific assertions and the political positions (regarding education, the bogus "teach the controversy" thing) of the DI.

just something to think about. i have no intention of attacking this article. but my experience here and with Fine-tuned universe is that there is a little bit of systemic bias that causes the article to misrepresent what some people are saying. r b-j 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

But intelligent design isn't a simple argument for the concept of design, but that such design is scientifically demonstrable. That's what this article is about. And, as far as I can tell, all of the major proponents of this idea are associated with the DI. Guettarda 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

there have been some hijacking of terminology. it's not the first time "Christian" "Fundamentalists" (both quotes are independently meaningful) have hijacked perfectly good terms and turned them into excrement. r b-j 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since I'm too lazy to read the whole article trying to find it, r b-j, could you please point out where the article "insists that any present day scientist who believes in "design" is part of or associates with or is even sympathetic to the DI." .. ? ...... dave souza, talk 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"... its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." can't this be toned down to "most", or better yet, can there be something in the lead that differentiates the common theistic Teleological argument from the DI crap? r b-j 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are many "design" and "teleological" arguments that have floated around for centuries. But the version called "intelligent design", aside from a very few historical antecedants, is almost exclusively associated with the DI. I bet [[Owen Gingerich does not call his ideas "intelligent design" in his book, does he?--Filll 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

he does but with a small "i" and a small "d". he says that the DI guys are basically full of crap (my interpretation) and that, from the other end, it's not just bad science but bad theology (but he qualifies himself as an amateur theologian). he basically says that the mindless probabilistic models that create complicated molecules for life are, by themselves, not persuasive (P = 10^-321) and supports the common teleological explanation for the existence of such stuff. r b-j 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

the sound of a back fire

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

It seems a Texas law maker was sending around a letter to other Texas law makers promoting teaching creationism/intelligent design and dogging evolution in Texas public schools. He failed to actually read some of the propaganda he was distributing and it turns out one was promoting the idea that Jews are behind evolution and its a Jewish scheme to undermine Christianity ("The memo points to "indisputable evidence" that "evolution science has a very specific religious agenda" and refers readers to a Web site that asserts the universe revolves around the earth. It also suggests that Jewish physicists are part of the force behind a "centuries-old conspiracy" to destroy the Christian teachings of Earth's origins.") This is one of those many "whoopsie" moments we see amongst the ID supporting politicians. Anyhow, I thought it was an yet another interesting example of how many ID advocates don't really understand or bother to read what it is they are advocating. Read it here. Mr Christopher 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Warren Chisum, the lawmaker in question seems to be more of a creationist than an IDer so I'm not sure how relevant it is here. Anyways, I already added a note in his article about it. Feel free to expand it, since I was very brief. JoshuaZ 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is where it all started (from yesterday) Memo: Stop teaching evolution House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges. The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools." Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.... And you're right, it may make a better home in the evolution article or creationism or even blunders. :-) Mr Christopher 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

creation-evolution controversy maybe? I enjoyed his "don't blame me, I was doing it as a favour for a friend"... Guettarda 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I am an idiot or something, I cannot find Ben Bridge's article. Did anyone add this? The AJC link is probably better for his update. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont think Bridges has one yet. Not surprising since he is a state rep. JoshuaZ 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is great amazing stuff. Go check out the website for yourselve at [13]. I am stunned and speechless. Wow.--Filll 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now I'm officially sickened by these people. So Chisum is either stupid or a racist. Good job Texas. You really know how to pick those politicians of yours. OK, you did give us LBJ. And I hope maybe some of you understand when I fear these Christian Taliban members represented by Creationists. The cultural memory of 2000 years of hatred of Jews by some Christians seems to have not evolved. Great. Orangemarlin 02:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A reminder that this page is for discussing article content and how to improve the article, not vent our opinions about politicians. JoshuaZ 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmmm. OK, sure, let's put this right in this article to remind everyone of the hatred they have. Orangemarlin 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should go somewhere, but to put it into one of the main articles is POV, because it implies that most creationists think this way, for which there is no evidence. Indeed, the US Christian religious right tends to support Judaism for various doctrinal reasons of their own. The place to use it is on the article for the individuals who used it. If the State Senator doesn't have a WP yet, now he will deserve one. Let one's opponents be the fools. Over-reacting makes them feel righteous. DGG 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the first part, that to put it in a main article without a neutral third party referencing it is probably POV. On the Christian support for Judaism, that is an article I would like to read. It puzzles me. In some cases I suspect many right wing talk show hosts who happen to be Jewish are part of the puzzle. In other cases, I think the Christians are just happy that the Jews who do not accept Christs are instrumental in bringing about the end times. On the last part, I caution you (personally) that your motives could be better; rather than worrying about how inclusion would affect your intellectual opponenants, you should be more focused on NPOV and RS, regardlesss of how your intellectual opponents may take advantage. You should not fear intellectual honesty (not that you do), but should work toward it. StudyAndBeWise 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

AGF. The message was not that my opponents are or will be fools, but that my friends should not heedlessly put themselves in the position of looking a little foolish themselves. I think that the opponents of evolution show great restraint in not complaining about some of the language on this talk page. 06:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This material and similar material belongs someplace, but not necessarily here. Definitely on the politician's pages if they have them. Maybe a new article? I notice that there are a few fundamentalist Christian sects (dominionism and some others) that favor supporting Israel because they hope it will bring about Argmageddon and the Rapture and other assorted nonsense that mostly came out of a fevered dream of a young girl sick in bed in the early 1800s. And there is a branch of Shiites (including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that hopes to have some sort of cataclysm to bring about the coming of the 12th Imam. Are there other religious sects that have a sort of "paradise will result if we can bring about a disasterous end of the world" philosophy?--Filll 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, it has already been added to the Warren Chisum page. JoshuaZ 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI [14]; adds some more context. Apparently Bridges and Hall were involved in trying to ban the teaching of evolution in GA in 2005. Which reminds me...do we have an article on the GA textbook disclaimer thing? Guettarda 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's here: Selman v. Cobb County School District. 151.151.21.99 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

New AfD

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The decision there was that this article was keep DGG 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I've no objection to keeping or deleting. But this has only been under discussion for two days, and does not appear to properly be a candidate for a "speedy keep". There were many opinions expressed thus far on both sides of that issue. Why do admins so often make these kinds of hasty judgments without allowing the community the full reasonable range of their input?? ... Kenosis 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My point had to do with the sometimes premature implementation of "speedy keep" prior to the 7-day minimum normally alloted for community discussion. I just ran across an instance of this happening at Category:Articles with unsourced statements. But I see the discussion is still ongoing in this instance-- sorry, I took it as closed based on DGG's comment above. ... Kenosis 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a clear keep - the article may not be entirely encyclopaedic, but it's well written and well researched. Any other decision would have been pedantic IMHO. Tomandlu 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The discussion still looks live, as of now: no indication of a decision or of the discussion being archived. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I need to apologize here, -this AfD is still live--I was judging by the support that some of the more prominent evolutionists have given this article. Anyway let me also mention the debate on Creation according to Genesis which is also still open. DGG 01:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Status of Intelligent Design elsewhere

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I've added a section on "Status of Intelligent Design elsewhere" to deal with a suggestion in the Featured Article candidacy, but it could use a bit more work. Please help. Also, what do you think of temporarily removing the section on Intelligence to the talk page, so that we can work on it without it delaying the FA? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I adjusted this material to include a treatment of the international status generally, with subsections on UK, Australia, and "other nations". I left the material added by Adam untouched except for the resectioning here. This all takes into consideration, of course, that ID is primarily a response to the 1987 US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. ... Kenosis 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aye, understood. But we were asked by an FA contributor to include more on ID outside of the english-speaking world, and, well, this is what I could find and source. He made a couple suggestions, but they were actually Creationists - I'm going by the "If they say it's ID, it is, else, no" method, which seems the only sane way to judge without OR. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Adam, I would point out to a user advocating a non-US-centric treatment as an expectation for this article, that the relevant information is already in the article. “Intelligent design” is a response to Edwards v. Aguilard (U.S. Supr. Ct., 1987), which prevented U.S. states from enacting legislation to teach creation science or creationism in the publlic schools, while allowing that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Within two to three years of this decision, the intelligent design movement had begun to publish its first books (Charles Thaxton’s Of Pandas and People, which changed uses of the word “creationism” to the words “intelligent design”, published in 1989; and Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial, published in 1991, with the Discovery Institute founded in 1990, etc.). ... Kenosis 16:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

True. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any link between the Letizia Moratti affair and ID or ID proponents? Or was it simple creationism? Guettarda 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" in the journal Nature, she removed evolution from the curriculum because it "promoted materialism". That's more of a Creationist line. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Materialism" is a key word for the whole DI CSC/wedge strategy, so it works as well for ID as other creationism. Guettarda 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Starting to get diminishing returns, but: is this notable? http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/784 Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting find, but a 3.5-year-old press release, noting the first non-US IDEA club isn't really evidence of great deeds, especially given the final line: For more information about the IDEA Club at Braeside High School in Nairobi, Kenya, please contact Caleb O. Seda at . Hmm...when I type "." into the address line of Thunderbird, nothing happens. Is it a bug in my software? :) Guettarda 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Seda has moved up in the world [15] Guettarda 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Full list of international clubs [16] - one in Kenya (links to press release), one in the Philipines (press release + dead link), one in Ukraine (link leads back to "About student clubs"), one in Canada, which has a live website which asks you to stay tuned for summer events. Guettarda 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found another definite hit: [17] - Unfortunately, I feel just now like my head's packed with cotton wool and can do nothing about it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Condensing footnotes

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Zleitzen suggested condensing some of the footnotes down in the lead, into single references (except, of course, the ones that are cited more than once. It seems reasonable, per readability. Any objections? Guettarda 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fully support this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The criticism that anti-evolutionists deny the omniscience of God

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article includes many criticisms of ID from a scientific perspective. It would benefit from a semantic criticism. The quote "undirected process such as natural selection" is a semantic confusion between "undirected" and "randomly directed". Further the semantics actually lead to a theological criticism which in light of the controvecy the article would also benefit from including. The criticism in full:

Natural selection does not deny that creation is directed. It proposes a mechanism by which random events interact to create. The key failure of those who reject natural selection is their failure to grasp what is meant by the term "random". A random sequence of events is one whose information content is infinite. God being omniscient is quite capable of infinite knowledge of an event. Humans on the other hand cannot predict the outcome of a random event because that would require them to be omniscient. Thus random events are distinguished from events that have finite information content, i.e. those knowable by humans.

By rejecting the role that randomness plays in creation, anti-evolutionists are claiming that creation takes place through events that only contain finite information and are thus knowable by individuals. Thus they deny the need for an omniscient presence in the process all together.

In other words, not only are the anti-evolutionists not proposing empirical science they are, through their lack of understanding, arguing against the need for an omniscient, omnipresent God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.203.4.2 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Can you cite an authority who wrote something to that effect? —xyzzy_n 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There might be references we could find that demonstrate that the God advocated by creationists and Intelligent design advocates is a weak and error prone bumbler. The reason they do this however is a frantic desire for God to be understandable and personally involved in day to day events. However, I am not sure that this discussion belongs in this article.--Filll 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

do not delete parts of this discussion page please

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

When discussion pages need to be archived, or something really, really, really, and very, inappropriate is posted here, an admin can be called upon to properly format the page. Otherwise, discussion pages are add only. Jerimee 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What policy says that? 151.151.73.166 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Jeremee. My earlier deletion (reverted by Orangemarlin) was prompted by the sentence above: "Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time." The section I deleted was not dealing with the article, it dealt with a general debate of the topic.

Now, if the community prefers that such deletions be done only by admins, that's fine--but if that is the case, the "Please read before starting" box needs to be changed. Justin Eiler 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing that says that Justin can't archive sections which appear non-productive. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the issue raised is non-productive - the poster seems to be asking about is about religious criticisms of ID - the whole "not only bad science, but also bad theology" line (now I wish I could remember who that came from). Guettarda 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, actually I didn't archive that section, I deleted it. Again, if that's a problem, the Please Read box probably needs to be updated. Justin Eiler 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Archived in the page history" ;) - that's the correct way to archive trolling (not that I think this was, but anyway...) Guettarda 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Astonishment at the first phrase of the article

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

"Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God..." sayeth Wikipedia. Really? I thought that was the teleological argument. Intelligent design is a claim that an "intelligence" created the universe "by design". The creationists who advocate it are careful to keep the door open a crack so that it isn't just about proving God's existence. --71.57.90.96 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree that the phrasing is a little dogmatic (although essentially true). How about "Intelligent design, whenever examined by US courts, has been found to be an argument for the existence of God..."? Tomandlu 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactamundo! Any credibiity this aricle may have had is overshadowed by that whopper at its very beginning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.235.101 (talk)

How about "Intelligent Design is an attempt by certain US religous institutions to circumvent various court rulings that prevent teaching Creationism in US science classes?" That seems to be a pretty accurate summary. SheffieldSteel 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or: "Intelligent design is a legal strategy specifically designed to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Edwards v. Aguilard, which prevented teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.". It could give the whole article a fresh start-- a bit more honest and direct about the verified facts. ... Kenosis 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

all of these things are true (in my opinion), but why not let people say what they mean (and pick it apart later)? the lead sentence is nearly inflammatory anti-ID POV. is it not obvious? (as obvious that ID as science is a load of crap?) r b-j 05:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No it is not obvious, and it is not solely a personal POV of any of the participants in this page. What it is is thoroughly verified by WP:reliable sources in the scientific and legal communities. This article has been discussed more thoroughly than nearly any article on the wiki. It is highly restrained in its judgments, thouroughly sourced with nearly 150 footnotes, and has been repeatedly gone over by numerous participants with an exteremely fine-toothed comb. The term "intelligent design" was only evident in modern discourse after Charles Thaxton changed roughly a hundred instances of the word "creationism" to "intelligent design" in a later draft of the 1989 book Of Pandas and People. This, and the events that followed, were in direct response to the Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard. The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover ruled that it was not science but instead an argument for the existence of God, and therefore could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes in the US. The opening statement, and indeed the entire article, is quite consistent with the verified sources concerning the subject. ... Kenosis 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kenosis, even though it is my judgement as well that ID is, in the final analysis, a Teleological argument, and is not science. and i am completely sympathetic with detractors that are alarmed that they want to put this in the science or biology classroom, it is really not good faith to define a person or a group of people, not as they define themselves, but in a negative analysis of them. i may think that Republicans are crooks and hypocrites (and i do in most cases), but to go to the article on the Republican party and define in the lead that it is the party of crooks and hypocrites (rather than the party that supports less government, strong military, free enterprise, family values, whatever) is obviously POV. let people define for themselves who they say they are. THEN deconstruct it, if the evidence allows (which it does, in my opinion). r b-j 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Personally I agreed with earlier versions of the article, but this was changed by a fairly strong consensus in recent months, which decided to "cut right to the chase", so to speak. If the article is to read differently then it should be re-consensused. ... Kenosis 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm open to revision, but think the one suggested today was a poor choice of quote, and that it needs a bit more attention paid to the rest of the paragraph after the addition of the quote, so that it doesn't keep repeating itself. Perhaps we could jump between the two extremes - mention the most pro-ID definition we can find, followed immediately by Edwards vs Aguilard? That might be a bit much, of course Remember, though, that ideally the first sentence should stand on its own as a fair assessment of the whole. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

just say, very briefly and concisely, what IDers say that ID is (they've coined the term, they get to define the term they've coined otherwise i'm gonna go define Republicans as lying stinking bastards - but somehow, i don't think that edit would stick). and then, immediately say what science and/or the courts or whatever say that ID is. that will capture the controversy (not in science, there is no controversy there, but in the overall political millue) in a nutshell. r b-j 07:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, but if we spend a little time selecting quotes, we'll probably hit consensus faster. Anyway, the front page is hard to edit with all those reference tags interrupting the flow, so we'll save a lot of grief by planning it out here. So... suggested quotes? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn;t object to some version of RtG's that started as "according to its proponents...", semicolon, and then the part about it being an argument for the existence of God. Or some similar arrangedment. JoshuaZ 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The defining purpose of the IDM is to advance the argument that neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of the highly complex information systems and structures of living organisms, from the first cells to new body plans. This makes it reasonable to infer that the evidence of biology, if not the philosophy that dominates this science, suggests the need to consider that some intelligent cause may have played an indispensable role in the origin and development of life." [18]

Do you think that "Intelligent design is an attack on evolution that claims it is insufficient to explain the origin of complex information in biology" is a fair summary? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huzzah! FA!

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Great work, everyone! Only wish I had done more - my role in the FA is miniscule. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations and well done all – from someone whose role in the FA was nil, since y'all seem to be doing pretty well here without my less well informed attention. The article's been excellent for a long time, and recent changes have made modest but useful improvements. ... dave souza, talk 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well done! That's excellent work. I'd long ago given up on it ever being possible (despite the article's quality), so am another negligible contributor. It certainly should give hope to editors working on similarly controversial subjects. Again - fantastic! --Plumbago 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made precisely one edit, so I didn't do much. It's hard to edit something that is so disgusting to me personally. But it really is a great article, if you want to know how the anti-science fringe thinks. I'm curious as to why it is categorized under FA as "Philosophy." Anyone have any ideas? Orangemarlin 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Page protected

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm seeing a lot of reverting here, so I've protected to give people a break and time to work on a compromise. Let me know when you're ready to start editing again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My vote is for the prior consensus header using the definition of ID from the federal court. Using a definition from a proponent of ID is problematic, because they say one thing to the general public and a different thing to their religious supporters. -- Cat Whisperer 12:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Without wanting to tar the few intelligent creationists we have about as editors, I have to say I don't think this is terribly problematic with a little research, because, frankly, the leading ID proponents aren't very good at keeping their mouths shut about what they're doing.

This holds true for rather a lot of creationism. For instance, I was working on the Baraminology article. Here's one of the references:

Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. ...We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. See also A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.

This is an outright confession to choosing data after the fact. (With secondary reference to make it clear it's not OR, as others have made the same interpretations of such things.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Similarly - I did post this above, but...

"The defining purpose of the IDM is to advance the argument that neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of the highly complex information systems and structures of living organisms, from the first cells to new body plans. This makes it reasonable to infer that the evidence of biology, if not the philosophy that dominates this science, suggests the need to consider that some intelligent cause may have played an indispensable role in the origin and development of life." [19]

Seems to say, in summary, "Intelligent design is an attack on evolution that claims it is insufficient to explain the origin of complex information in biology." If this is considered a fair summary, we can probably use it without problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Adam and Glen both feel that full protection isn't necessary, so I've unprotected. Let me know if you need full or semi-protection again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is it?

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

Intro:

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a God

I would say rather:

Intelligent design (ID) is an alternative explanation for biological evolution which incorporates the teleological argument that God or a similar being must have designed the various forms of life observed on earth, from fossils to modern times.

It's not an alternative explanation for Evolution. It is a religious dogma that has nothing to do with Evolution, biological notwithstanding. Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We need a source for that. For example:

Prof. Charles A. Zebra of Michigan University wrote, "Intelligent Design is a religious dogma that has nothing to do with evolution" ^{[citation needed]}

I guess I never knew how to put verifiable statements in Wikipedia. Thank you for your teaching assistance. By the way, I don't want the intro changed, you're the one who wants to put in an explanation of how ID has something to do with science. I was just telling you that ID is religion. Therefore, the original intro makes complete sense. Your stuff is unverifiable garbage. Orangemarlin 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We need to mention straight off that ID posits a "designer". I assume it's God, as do virtually all ID opponents. The quibble about whether it "might be something else" has a whole article of its own: Intelligent Designer!

I don't care, since ID is bogus anyways. If you want to write aliens did it, it doesn't make it nothing else but pseudoscience.Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

To be sure, the intro should 'wedge in' the word "pseudoscience", which I think it already does. --Uncle Ed 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is pseudoscience. No need to wedge in anything. Orangemarlin 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then I would add:

ID is at adds with modern biology because it argues that science should not confine its search for causes to material forces in the material world. It insists that, unlike the force of gravity (which keeps the planets in the solar system moving like clockwork ^{[citation needed]}) major changes in descended forms are too complex to have "evolved" through "random" forces such as mutation. It specifically denies that natural selection can create new species.^{[citation needed]}

ID adds nothing to modern biology. Seeking supernatural causes for a natural process is still pseudoscience. Intelligent Design should be described as a religious dogma (as it is in the current article), and not imply nor infer that it is a real science. Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This needs a source, something like:

Ima Brayne, research biochemist at Taylor University, wrote, "Intelligent Design adds nothing to modern biology." ^{[citation needed]}

Once again, I appreciate your skills in teaching me the ins and outs on how to edit Wikipedia. However, once again, I don't want anything changed. You do. I was merely refuting your desire to convert ID into something that it is not. Orangemarlin 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A source for the supernatural objection would be good, too. Even a whole section, somewhere further down in the body of the article, since it touches on one of ID's main points. I'd like to see a quote like this:

Jerome Weinerberger of the Walker Plank Institute wrote, "It is pseudoscientific to seek supernatural causes for any natural process." ^{[citation needed]}

But does the article specifically call ID "religious dogma" or merely say that certain US courts ruled that it is part and parcel of Creationism? (Or do you see that as the same thing?) --Uncle Ed 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

After that, the usual reply by scientists and jurists should follow:

Scientists dismiss ID out of hand as pseudoscience because (1) it's not falsifiable and (2) science does not study the supernatural.

Fine. Don't care. Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So that part can go in? --Uncle Ed 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

US courts have ruled that ID is a form of Creationism and thus does not merit "equal time" in science classes.

I thought the article says that, right in the first paragraph. Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, sure, it does, but not in so many words. I'd want to use the phrase equal time because that references the Wedge Strategy, which wants to get the Creationist idea of "maybe God made them" grounds or standing in science class. --Uncle Ed 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would venture to say that my proposed intro is both factually correct and neutral. I might be a mite off in details, but the main points I make are agreed to by ID proponents and ID opponents alike. Moreover, my proposed intro does not say that either side is right, while carefully avoiding any hint of Wikipedia:Undue weight.

Note that ID is an "attack on" or "response to" evolution. The intro should indicate clearly that it is view espoused by a tiny minority. Perhaps we should add that, amoung bioligists, it is supported by only 0.2% (or whatever the figure is - maybe 0.0%). I'd be happy with Not a single bioligist supports ID. with a ref indicating a survey or other authoritative statment. No one's going to call Jon Wells a "biologist", for example: he's just an author with a Ph.D. who churned out a few papers in grad school. --Uncle Ed 14:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I prefer "response to" or "attack on" evolution - "alternative explanation" makes it sound like it's a variant of evolution. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, your wording is better. Moveover, the article needs to clarify better which aspects of evolution are accepted or rejected by major ID proponents. I think most accept the fossil record as geologically accurate; i.e., when biologists say a certain species first appeared 400 million years ago, they are right. But some design theorists may reject common descent, regarding the appearance of species as divine actes (see progressive creationism).

I'd also like to see more about the main argument of ID, that life is "too complex to have evolved" with God's help.

What may interfere with the process is the political attempt by some to distance (or link!) ID with scientific creationism. SC is an attempt to present theology as scientifically sound, and ID looks like more of the same. --Uncle Ed 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If ID proponents say ID is not religious but scientific and the scientific community and the courts say it is religion and not science, tell us how your version when it replaces "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a God, based on the premise that..." with "Intelligent design is an alternative explanation for biological evolution which incorporates the teleological argument that God or a similar being must have designed the various forms of life observed on earth, from fossils to modern times" does not promote the POV ID proponents to the detriment of the majority view on the topic. Not to mention being weasely and unecessarily wordy... 151.151.73.167 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am unaware of a proponents who says both things you mentioned:

that ID is not religious
that ID is scientific

Can you provide a quotation from a source? --Uncle Ed 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are actually unaware that IDers have said these things then you haven't read the sources already in the article and have no business editing it. I think you're simply being contentious, not genuine with your question. 151.151.73.167 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article did not adequately present the views of those asserting that ID is scientific. I did some googling, and I have some quotes at User:Ed Poor/Evolution. When I have time, I will present them here.

I gather you would prefer I made no changes whatsoever to the article without discussing them first. Am I hearing you right? --Uncle Ed 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but that claim is laughble. The intro of the article says right there 'Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory' and gives a great source: [20]

What I'd prefer is not relevent. What is relevant is that you are the subject of an arbitration committee ruling placing you on probation for disruption [21] of this article and others. Regardless of whether you choose to take it seriously or not, others do. And you have a history of pretending like you are seeking clarification while trying to sneak your POV in through subtle changes, [22], so don't make the mistake of thinking we're not on to you and start try it all over again. 151.151.73.167 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Didn't know this one. So I wasted my words above. It did read like POV pushing, but I thought I was just cranky this morning. Well, he is POV pushing, and therefore, I wish I'm glad no one is jumping on board with his Intro changes. Orangemarlin 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apparently Ed, you missed my points. NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. It's clear that my sarcasm was lost on you. Everything you suggested makes the intro less useful intellectually. ID has nothing to do with science, so to infer anything else is not acceptable.Orangemarlin 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Conflicting statements about ID

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the Panda's Thumb:

For a recent example of ID proponents from the Discovery Institute making conflicting statements for political effect, consider these DI statements made in August 2005:

Discovery Institute’s William Dembski, August 4, 2005

President Bush is therefore completely on target in wanting intelligent design taught in the public school science curriculum.

Discovery Institute’s John West, August 8th, 2005

Discovery Institute opposes any effort to mandate the teaching of design. All it is asking for is the teaching of scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory as well as the best evidence for the theory.

he teaching of design Santorum shines

Perhaps the article should say that Panda's Thumb asserts that ID propononts have made conflicting statements about the teaching of ID in public schools: Dembski is for it; West says the D.I. is against it. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Opening sentence

Latest comment: 18 years ago24 comments17 people in discussion

I've had a go at a revision. I think it's balanced and fair. I suppose, given how this sort of thing tends to go, that means that it'll be universally hated and my name shall be taboo forever more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's less accurate. First and foremost ID is a version of the teleological argument . That it is an attack on evolution is clearly secondary. Furthermore, it's better to rely upon a direct quote from the most notable ID proponents for the definition since it is a very specific claim, otherwise there will endless twindling with it from every new arrival who thinks their understanding of ID is the only right one. The previous version was better. 151.151.21.102 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with 151. Why exactly did you feel a revision was indicated at all? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I'll never hate you Adam. However, the revision looks good, but I'm not sure it was required. Orangemarlin 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

why does there have to be so much vitriol in the lead sentence??? i don't get it, guys, why do you want to set the impression on the outset that this is an anti-ID article. it should be about ID. and the IDers coined the phrase, so they get to first say what they say ID is (in a nutshell), then do the analysis, get all of the data pro and con and put it in there. i want to make clear that i also think that ID (capital "I", capital "D", the stuff that comes out of the DI org not the general philosophical teleological thing which might sometimes be referred to as "intelligent design" with small case letters) is pseudoscience masquarading as legit science (which means it has no legit business in the science classroom of a public school), and i think that this article is pretty well balanced and accurate except for the lead sentence. i mean holy crap, don't you want to at least make it have the appearance of neutrality at the outset? r b-j 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

<removed indents arbitrarily, but kindly> RBJ, I'm not sure if I get your point. I don't see the vitriol. Evolution is a fact and is science. What ID does is attack Evolution and, by extension, science. The article is completely neutral, up to and including the lead sentence. If I were to extend your logic, I guess you'd want the start of the Holocaust article to state: "the holocaust was actually meant to be a birth-control methodology, but it accidentally got confused with something else." You kind have to say what it is right from the beginning, and not use weasel-words. Orangemarlin 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see where Rbj is coming from. When I first came across the article the lead sentence did seem somewhat POV, and it would probably irritate people who support ID, but I think Orangemarlin is right. However, comparing the Holocaust with ID is a pretty extreme, although I do see the analogy.CerealBabyMilk 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't help what the ID Proponents say. Phillip E. Johnson specifically said ""The defining purpose of the IDM is to advance the argument that neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of the highly complex information systems and structures of living organisms, from the first cells to new body plans..." If they want to to say the main goal of ID is to attack evolution to make room for an intelligent designer, all I can do is take them at their word. What are we supposed to do, ignore what they say to try and make them look better? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just think the word "attack" has a negative connotation and upsets CIers. In the context of the actual opening, however, it doesn't seem so bad. But perhaps one could say:

Inteligent design is an argument against evolution that claims...

I would also support the splitting of that opening sentence into multiple parts. Perhaps:

...organisms. The argument states that an inteligent designer is needed for that purpose: a variation....

---trlkly 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design theory accepts most of the theory of evolution so I do not see how it could be attacking it. It says that at least some parts of some living organisms had to be designed. Some IDers accept all of evolution theory except that humans were designed. Or that the first organism was designed and the rest evolved. Or that the coding was designed and the rest evolved. The point is that ID is compatible with most of evolutionary theory. Seems like it is just saying that evolutionary theory cannot adequately explain everything 68.109.232.53 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think this is Raspor. Wasn't he banned? 151.151.21.101 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should describe it as a "challenge" to evolution. Many sources write as if Evolution were an all or nothing thing. I tried to start an Aspects of evolution article to clarify this. For example, one can accept the fossil record while thinking that God personally intervened for each and every instance of speciation, which is called Progressive creationism. Some ID advocates accept the fossil record while denying common descent; I believe Wells is one of these.

ID is interesting to our readers because of its role in the creation-evolution controversy, and because of the Wedge thing. With just under half of Americans rejecting evolution outright (i.e., in all its aspects), getting ID into classrooms would tip the balance away from evolution as "solid science". Certain people just won't tolerate that.

I would love this article to be only about ID and not touch anything else, but by branding ID as "Creationism" the anti-ID crowd have created a connection. Come to think of it, one of the biggest points of contention is whether ID *is* creationism. One writer makes a point of always referring to ID as "intelligent design creationism", ensuring that readers always get the point that she regards ID as a form of creationism.

Meanwhile, some ID proponents claim that "intelligent design makes all claims under purely empirically-based scientific arguments, and makes no appeal to the supernatural and does not derive its claims from religious texts nor theological doctrines." [23] This is plainly at odds with Barbara Forrest's view.

The thing about NPOV is that, when there is a dispute, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take sides. They can say that 99.8% of scientists in a field support or reject something, as long as the percentage itself is not in dispute. --Uncle Ed 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow Ed promote a particular viewpoint often? In that single comment you manage to repeat ID rhetoric ('getting ID into classrooms would tip the balance away from evolution as "solid science"'), take a cheap shot at those who wrote the article (Certain people just won't tolerate that) while downplaying the majority viewpoint and the Dover trial ruling ('Come to think of it, one of the biggest points of contention is whether ID *is* creationism'). 151.151.73.164 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Challenge' suggest it stands a chance. -- Ec5618 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Critique', then. --Uncle Ed 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

(undent) All of which is ignoring the Wedge document. I see no need to ignore that in the lead - the goal is to promote religion. Teleological argument. I'm willing to work with others, but not to be inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And the Dover trial. 151.151.73.164 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll chime in here about the new intro. I don't like it. The version as of a few days ago, I thought was outstanding. Those are my € 0.02 --CSTAR 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, this version.--CSTAR 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the version I just saw (and watched disappear) was the old version, I agree. However, now that the article has been (re-)reverted, I'll comment again, taking what I consider the most valid of Uncle Ed's arguments into account. He is right that ID accepts certain parts of evolution, primarily "micro-evolution." So why not replace the word "evolution" in the intro with "the Theory of Evolution"? It fixes the problem. And, perhaps "critique" or "challenge" might be better. (I needed a noun, and "argument" fit.)

---trlkly 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)~

No, the rejection is of evolution in the ways that matter (and we don't need to support the essentially creationist POV of how to dinstinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution), the current wording is short and works fine. JoshuaZ 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree on the current language as a reasonable alternative to the prior consensused versions. both of which were also acceptable in my opinion.

The current version reads: Intelligent design is an attack on evolution that claims it is insufficient to explain the origin of complex information in biological organisms, and that an intelligent designer is required for that purpose.[1][2] It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God.[3]

The prior versions were:

((A) (the longstanding version through most all of 2006)): Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."[1][2][3]

((B) (The more recent version of the last month or so)): Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise 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."[2][3][4] ... Kenosis 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also think the day is not far away where we will need to mention in the article lead that ID is primarily a legal strategy born of the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. That is how current discussion about ID is increasingly seeing it, and I think it's now fairly likely, if not inevitable, that we will need to report it that way at some point in the future when the number of WP:reliable sources increases which refer to it as such. For the present, among the many possible ways to write the article lead, the way it's written is quite objective and well verified. ... Kenosis 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't say this is an improvement over the previous version (which carried the article through FA BTW) for all the reasons already mentioned. The previous version was more precise and accurate, and for that reason alone it should be restored. FeloniousMonk 04:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

would have to agree with felonius.... i think the FA version (now current) is much better than what was here - also, please note that the ID = argument for God is properly sourced, so the opening is a truthful, verified statement. thanks Petesmiles 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For what it is worth, I like the current version. --Michael Johnson 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Implication of a Christian God

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I apologize if I may be beating a dead horse here; however, I noticed an edit that caught my eye and thought I might interject. The edit that caught my eye was namely this one. I understand Kenosis' reasoning here; however, I must disagree and argue that this single 'a', frivolous as it may seem, makes a dramatic difference to the entire implication of the first paragraph. As it stands currently, "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God," the sentence implies, quite specifically, the Christian God. As the major debate regarding ID involves whether or not it is merely Christianity pretending to be science, I believe it to be of utmost importance that we excercise extreme caution in making any implication that could indicate a bias in this debate on our behalf. Furthermore, ID theorists often attempt to distance themselves as far from the word "God" as possible. If I may cite Dembski in his Design of Revolution:

The supernatural agent presupposed by scientific creationism is usually understood as the transcendent, personal God of the well-known monotheistic religions, specifically Christianity. ... By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligenct cause had to act.
—Dembski, William. The Design Revolution. 2004

Furthermore, ID theory does not ever attempt to discuss God after Creation took place; he is discussed within the context of ID only as a creator, or an intelligent cause for creation. Yet the word "God" carries with it the connotation a supreme, ultimate being, and the term God is also most commonly associated with the Infinite. ID theory in no way attempts to discuss the Intelligent Designer as anything more than a creator--not infinite, not supreme, not ultimate.

As such, I would like to propose we reach a compromise that, though it in many ways gives ID the benefit of the doubt, makes as little of a biased implication as I believe is possible. My suggestion would be to rewrite the sentence to the following: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a divine creator." I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are still using a singular term (creator), rather than a plural (creators). What terminology would you suggest that could encompass intergalactic teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles designer(s) [24]. Of course, we'd have to alter the Kitzmiller ref, as that's the legal basis for finding that ID is not based on *a* God, but simply "God". ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. Ronabop 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The WP:reliable sources used in this article say it's the teleological argument for the existence of God, period. I'd want to ask User:AmiDaniel just which "God" the ID proponents might be referring to for purposes of deciding how to write this WP article? perhaps possibiy an ancient Sumerian God? Caesar?, Extraterrestials? (well, per the verified shell game, three-card monte presented by the affiliates of the Discovery Institute, extraterrestrials, ancient Sumerian gods (pardon me, ancient Sumerians) and Caesar the Eternal God, all theoretically qualify for the role of intelligent designer). In general, the reference to "teleological argument" has to do with the estimation that the entire cosmos is not merely littered with competitive gods, but involves one coherent scheme of teleology (read that: "one God" with an "evolution" or forward progress towards an end of some kind, argued in the context of ID to involve the whole of life). But I don't want to get too far off-point for this article. Perhaps I'll make another comment here and might also be willing to continue the discussion of AmiDaniel's points on another appropriate page. More importantly to the topic of intelligent design, ID is primarily a legal strategy arising out of a 1987 US Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard , even leaving aside its related aspects of socio-political advocacy recently brought to bear in the US. Conceptually it's been shot down by the scientific community as not scientific, by the courts (thus far at least) as not eligible for teaching within secular pedagogy in public schools, and also by-and-large avoided by the churches and by experienced theologians as too weak a description of what God is. Nonetheless educated philosophers immediately recognize it as a teleological argument for the existence of God, and so has the US federal court system to date. ... Kenosis 07:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will have to admit that I may need some more reflection on this point (it's 1am presently, and my argumentative abilities are slowly fading), and my opinion may change when I have some time to think about this some more. However, presently, I would just like to rebutt one major presumption that you've made, namely the point that all reliable sources define ID as a theological argument for the existence of God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling does indeed express the official opinion that this is so; however, that is not the only source that speaks to this point. The texts of Behe, Dembski, and many other ID theorists state the exact opposite, one of which I quote above, and I do not see these sources as any less reliable. True, their claims can be interpreted as biased attempts to dilude readers into thinking ID is something it is not to make their philosophy more popular, or rather to push their belief that ID should be tought in school; however, that is just another element of the ongoing debate. The truth is that this is still an issue of heated debate in the scientific, philosophical, and legal community; the Supreme Court's ruling in no way finalizes the debate, just as their ruling in Roe v. Wade in no way concluded the national debate regarding abortion as a federal or state issue. As we have multiple sources on both sides of this debate, it seems to me that picking and choosing which sources to honor in our introductory paragraph serves only to interject a biased perspective on this debate. Apropos, do you consider Behe and Demski to be among the "educated philosophers [who] immediately recognize it as a teleological argument"?

In response to User:Ronabop, I must say, and I say this without the intention to offend, that your argument regarding my phrasing reminds me of a similar argument made by a proponent of leaving the words "Under God" unchanged and in the pledge--unfortunately I cannot recall where I read this, but the argument was basically "Should we then change it to 'one nation under one or more gods or godesses, devils, divine or ultimate entities or realities, sacred creatures, prophets, or lack there of'?" Nonetheless, I do admit that my phrasing here may not be perfect; however, I do not presently believe that the current wording is correct either. I do, however, believe that the correct wording exists and can be found. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

AmiDaniel, please read up on this subject before arguing further. You have said just above: "The U.S. Supreme Court ruling does indeed express the official opinion that this is so [that ID is a teleological argument for the existence of God]; however, that is not the only source that speaks to this point. The texts of Behe, Dembski, and many other ID theorists state the exact opposite, one of which I quote above, and I do not see these sources as any less reliable."

It is not the case that 1987 Edwards v. Aguilard ruled in this fashion, but rather that the Kitzmiller v. Dover District Court case held that it was a teleological argument for the existence of God, as stated in the footnote in the article. The WP editors are well within their rights within WP policy to use this particular WP:reliable source, along with others, to make the statement that ID is a teleological argument for the existence of God. The assertions of ID advocates online and in several books need not, according to WP policy, be given treatment on face value in the lead when the weight of the reliable published evidence is that there is a hidden agenda in "intelligent design", which is to teach creation as an alternative to evolution in the public school science classes. ... Kenosis 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This rather begs the point - if the designer is not God what is it? Of course by God I mean anyones god, of for poythiests, gods. Or is the proposition that there is a supernatural entity that has the power to create biological organisms, but nothing else? Or are the proponents of ID in fact agnostics, and argue that while we have no way of knowing if there is a god, there must be a designer? I'm confused. --Michael Johnson 08:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Intelligent Design theory makes no claim about what "the designer" is. It simply attempts to assert that creation cannot be explained solely as a natural phenomenon, but rather required the influence of an intelligent designer. I suppose you could say ID is sort of an agnostic pholosophy--although most (if not all) of the proponents of the philosophy are most certainly not agnostic. Some have taken this to extremes of saying that little green men from mars could have created humanity--ID does not rule this possibility out; rather, it refuses to comment on what the nature of the designer is except to say that it, in some form, exists. This is of course from the perspective of ID proponents, not opponents, who debate instead that ID is an attempt to prove and convince others of the existence of a Christian god and that this "agnosticism" in the philosophy is merely an illusion. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

All well and good except that a number of neutral sources such as a US federal judge have agreed that the opponents were correct. JoshuaZ 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I left a comment above with a request that AmiDaniel research the subject more thoroughly before arguing further about it. It is plain that some important things are being missed in the debate in this talk section. ... Kenosis 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Every notable ID proponent is on record saying that they believe the designer to be the Christian God -- this is covered at this article and others. Also sufficiently covered here and elsewhere is the fact that their claim of "Intelligent Design makes no claim about what "the designer" is" is actually a rhetorical device to avoid to running afoul of Edwards v. Aguillard. 151.151.21.104 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Invisible changes

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've made a few invisible changes to the introduction, using HTML comments to make it easier to find the text in between the references. I've flipped between the two versions repeatedly and can find no difference in display of the text outside of the edit window. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves. but i know you're not.

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

even though User:Michael Johnson claimed in his edit summary that he was "removing POV introduction", in fact he reinserted a highly POV introduction ("attack", come on) and removed an attempt to tone down the naked POV here. simply claiming something as true does not make it so. he did the opposite of what he said.

even so, that was not good enough for User:FeloniousMonk in reverting back to the even more naked POV introductions claiming it as having consensus when the opposite is true. (i'm not counting myself since i wasn't watching when such bogus "consensus" was determined, it's just obvious when someone comes here to resist the obvious bias in the article that they get repeatedly slapped down.)

at WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone it says:

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.^{[dubious – discuss]} We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible,...

at Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship is says:

Wikipedia's policy is to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate, that only one side is correct; however it can be difficult to maintain this policy.^[1]

i imagine that i am farther left of center than any of you because i find myself farther to the left of nearly anyone i meet. but this stinks. you guys oughta be ashamed of yourselves.

this is obviously not an article about ID, but one that is against it. i believe that ID (with capital letters, not to be confused with the many believers, within the science community and without, of some kind of intelligent design of the fine-tuned universe) as put forth by the DI organization is also full of crap. these guys are clearly trying to inject a religious POV where it doesn't belong at all, but this article stinks. and it is the lead sentence and the tone of the introduction that stinks up the rest of the article which would otherwise be good.

it does not adhere to Wikipedia policy (as i've cited above, but it was obvious even without the citation) and to claim it as worthy of FA status when it is so clearly biased in tone at the very beginning is shameful. you are giving the conservatives (Conservapedia) ammunition and you just don't give a rat's ass because you'ld rather see ID utterly crushed in the article (which will end up defeating the purpose of Wikipedia). r b-j 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, is it Sir? Madam? Hundreds of editors have participated in researching, writing, shaping, arguing and debating this article. Who the hell is user:Rbj to use this kind of ad-hominem attempt to shame those currently maintaining it into making the article read the way r-b-j wishes it would read. Or does the title of this talk-page section refer to all participants? except for r-b-j of course, and perhaps those who've argued for WP to essentially be a public relations conduit for the Discovery Institute.

that is a deliberate misrepresentation (otherwise known as a lie) and it is noted. what i am arguing for is that WP does not play into the hands of the DI and other conservative critics of WP by having such blatent POV in the very lead sentence of an article. r b-j 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll help address the errors in user:Rbj's statement(s) above later on; after I cool off a bit. Have a very nice day. ... Kenosis 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to in the current version - yes, there is some bias in the current article. That's unavoidable IMHO - ID has consistently failed to stand up to any proper scrutiny. An unbiased article about ID would make no more sense than an unbiased article about a flat earth. Asking for an unbiased article is pretty much what the ID promoters have done in real-life - i.e. that ID be treated as respectable science.

As far as it goes, the current version seems to state the ID position without any histrionics - are you sure you are not referring to a previous version? Tomandlu 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is not the first time that I've seen an ID opponent try and defend the bias in this article by comparing it to another article which doesn't show the same bias. The Flat Earth article comprises a history of the belief in a flat Earth and a round Earth, and an account of modern claims of a flat Earth. The modern claims are simply and neutrally presented as the claims, and they are not rebutted, as the claims of ID are in this article. I agree that an unbiased article would make no more sense than an unbiased article about a flat Earth, but as there is an unbiased article about a flat Earth, then this one could be also! Philip J. Rayment 13:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heh - fair point... sort of. My impression reading the flat earth article is that it doesn't even think it's worthwhile even discussing the 'controversy' - besides, I don't think there is a meaningful one - no one is suggesting that geography classes should teach the controversy with regard to a spherical(ish) earth...

holocaust denial would be a better comparison, but one I avoided for obvious reasons: a) it's too emotive and b) it would be insulting to suggest that there is a moral equivalence (whether inferred or implied) between IDers and HDers.

In the end, ID is not just pseudo-science (something an encyclopedic article must address), but also a fundamentally (sic) dishonest campaign to disguise creationism. To treat ID as just another 'theory' (lame or otherwise) would be to ignore its essential aims and character, and would not be encyclopedic IMHO.

Re-reading the article, I cannot find any bias that is not properly sourced (I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are exceptions). Tomandlu 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Holocaust denial is a better choice to support your argument, but even this article is not as critical as the ID article! It spends barely half of the introduction criticising the idea (compared to around two thirds of the ID introduction) and contains almost all remaining criticism to one section ("Holocaust denial examined"). This section, which is actually a bit shorter than the preceding section where the holocaust denial claims are listed, fails to actually answer many of the specific claims. In contrast, the ID article follows pretty well every ID claim with a rebuttal of that claim.

The bulk of the article looks at the history of holocaust denial and the participants. The ID article has a much smaller proportion devoted to such aspects. This makes comparisons a bit harder.

Another difference is that there is much eyewitness evidence in support of the holocaust, unlike with ID (who has seen the original development of the blood-clotting mechanism?). Thus you would expect the Holocaust denial article to be more critical of the idea than the ID article, but it is the ID article that is more critical!

You admitted earlier that there is some bias in the article, and you are now claiming that the bias is properly sourced. You are confusing two issues. The criticisms are, for the most part it seems, properly sourced. But the bias is in the article itself, in having so many criticisms, and so prominently, as mentioned above.

I agree, Tomandlu. I've spoken to P. Rayment about this very subject before- the articles on pseudoscience that we have here do not mention the major criticism of the pseudoscience because there hasn't been an outspoken response by the scientific community to those claims. As in the above-mentioned page on Hollow Earth beliefs, the reason it does not go into a serious discussion of controversy and commentary on its validity because the reliable sources that Wikipedia relies on for documentation have not seriously spoken up about it.

If Hollow Earth was a hotbutton issue to ID, about which parallels other than the pseudoscience angle could be drawn, then it would be more useful, but as it stands, ID has caused sufficient objection in the academic community, in my opinion, to merit the sourced criticism provided in the article. --HassourZain 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was the Flat Earth article that Tomandlu made the comparison with, not the Hollow Earth article that you previously tried to compare ID with.

Yes, ID is different to both those ideas because it is more actively promoted. But it would be nice if you actually admitted that your argument had failed and that you were switching to a different argument. At least Tomandlu did half-heartedly admit this.

But the prime point of this alternative argument is to show that the comparisons with Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Holocaust denial, etc. are not valid comparisons. They are not arguments that the ID article requires more rebuttal. That is, it does not automatically follow that because a subject is more promoted that it therefore has to include more criticism, to the point of because an article about why ID is wrong instead of an article about ID.

Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mr. or Ms "r-b-j" isn't objecting to diddlysquat about what the article says, nor about what it documents or explains about intelligent design. This user is objecting to the way it feels to Rbj, and because it doesn't read the way Rbj would like it to read. And moreover this user is arguing, essentially, that the many editors who wrote this article are, essentially, idiots who'd better come 'round to seeing it r-b-j's way so they won't be called idiots without any sense of shame anymore. Beyond the fact that r-b-j has made several statements already that betray either a major lack of having studied this topic or an insistence on seeing it from some as-yet-undetermined POV of r-b-j's choice, I should point out that it appears to me that perhaps r-b-j hadn't reviewed the massive talk archives on the subject. If so, the feeling of r-b-j iwould be more understandable than it currently is, and can be better addressed if r-b-j were to gain a better understanding of how both the broad tone of the article as well as virtually every little point within it have been gone over quite intensively by many, many editors. ... Kenosis 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

for the most part (heck, for the entire part) i agree with you guys about every major deficit of ID (with capital letters) coming from the DI. i fully agree with Robert Stevens that this "ID was created to advance the cause of a specific religion and to subvert science". i fully agree with that. it is my belief and judgement about both the quality of the "science" and the intent of the proponents of ID (capital "I" capital "D") that are affiliated with DI. but you wrote an introduction, particularly the first sentence that betrays bias and that poisons the credibility of the rest of the article. it makes it more difficult for a neutral reader (say a decent reporter for a decent journal such as NYT) to overlook this initial declaration of emnity for ID and get into the facts regarding the phony claims of scientific method or of "controversy" (as in "teach the controversy"). if you, like me, oppose what the DI is trying to do, you are hurting the cause by opening with such a blatently biased statement. for contrast, look at the Nazism article and you have to get down to the bottom of the intro to see the legitimate synopsis that

Nazism is not a precise, theoretically grounded ideology. It consists of a loose collection of ideas and positions: extreme nationalism, racism, eugenics, totalitarianism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, and limits to freedom of religion.

which is worse? Nazis or DI? who is treated more gently?

this defense of the status quo ignores the points and references to Wikipedia policy i made above about WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone and Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship.

if you look a little bit, you will see some participation from me in the talk page that is in the archive. e.g. i didn't just stumble upon this yesterday. but it is getting increasingly clear that there is an echo chamber going on here when blatent bias in the tone of the article is being mutually praised by the participants. as i have suggested before, for an neutral tone in an opening sentence, you might do well to define a group of people or a philosophy as they or it defines themselves or itself. then pick it apart with the hard facts.

something like:

Intelligent design is the belief 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." It has been determined by scientific consensus to be a pseudo-science, not adhering to the scientific method, and by legal ruling to be "not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life and have stated goals for the teaching of ID alongside of Darwinian evoluton as a plausible alternative to evolution. Opponents understand this as a disguised strategy to reintroduce Creationism to the classroom after being banned from state supported education by the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.

stuff like that. i don't mean that to be verbatim, but you can see that the tone is far less harsh, yet still states the facts (and the facts do not support ID as science). but by making such nasty opening sentence (calling it an "attack" rather than a "dispute") or by jumping immediately to the conclusion (that it is a teleological argument, which it is in my opinion, but it is denied by the other side) biases the tone of the article.

try not to confuse my criticism of the opener as one of a supporter of ID. i am not. far from it. i just don't want this (along with so many other systemically biased articles in Wikipedia, to play into the hands of Rush Limbaugh or the DI or James Dobson or others of their ilk and that is what you guys are doing. this could very well become an example of the "liberal bias of Wikipedia" that some NYT reporter uses in reporting about this ongoing controversy and with that kind of tone cited, readers will very well nod their heads in agreement. you guys have to be able to look at this from the enemy's perspective and you are not. r b-j 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

and Kenosis: "And moreover this user is arguing, essentially, that the many editors who wrote this article are, essentially, idiots who'd better come 'round to seeing it r-b-j's way so they won't be called idiots without any sense of shame anymore.", i never once said anything about anyone here being idiots. the issue is bias in tone and particularly that of the very first sentence, at least the appearance of bias and not caring what such appearance of bias looks like to others, friend, enemy, or disinterested observer alike. i'm outa here for now (traveling). i'll get back to it later. r b-j 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The last paragraph above is duly noted. So the participating editors are not idiots, but merely lacking in a sense of shame, which, according to Rbj, they ought have. And the participating editors are not necessarily comparable to Nazis, or even Nazi sympathizers, but merely have written the article in what ought be regarded as a shameful manner, by merit of the allegation that the tone of this article, in the opinion of User:Rbj, is more negative towards the Discovery Institute than the tone of the article on Nazism is negative towards Nazis. Yet the participating editors of this article on intelligent design are known by Rbj to be shame-less about the state of this article, a sitiuation of which they ought be ashamed. Gimme a break. ... Kenosis 02:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

at least one thing is misnoted in my previous paragraph. i said nor implied nothing comparing Nazis or Nazi sympathizers to the "participating editors". i was comparing the introductions of two articles depicting different things, both considered bad by the present company but at one time or another had some measure of support from humans. one is depicted in a manner contrary to proponents in the very first sentence ("so ID must be decidedly undisputedly bad, hunh?") and the other is depicted in a completely neutral manner in tone, but in the final sentence of the introduction you first start getting the idea that these guys are or were doing something wrong ("so Nazis must be less decidedly and less undisputedly bad, that so?"). what do you need a break from? illumination? r b-j 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I see it, there is one very important and noteworthy distinction between ID and most other forms of pseudoscience (astrology, hollow-Earthism, "pyramid power" or whatever): and that's the "Trojan Horse" issue. From the outset, ID was created to advance the cause of a specific religion and to subvert science (we know this from the Wedge document, among other things). That's why I think it's fair to say so from the outset, in the introdution. Generally, this is not the case for all pseudoscience: astrology, for instance, isn't a movement recently founded with the intention of presenting astrology as a branch of astronomy or of overthrowing astronomy. The need to convey this information to the reader will inevitably give this article a different "feel" to most other pseudoscience articles. --Robert Stevens 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

^ "The Examined Life". 2005-11-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] "The Examined Life". 2005-11-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]