Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 11

Science versus faith
Intelligent Design's most vociferous supporters and critics sometimes portray the debate as between science and faith. These advocates imply that to support ID is to support belief in higher power(s), while to oppose ID is to oppose belief in higher power(s). One example is a statement from Focus on the Family, which, holds that "Secularists have dismissed Christianity as an acceptable intellectual option." and that "Intelligent Design" promote their views on Christianity.

While science, faith and religion have been at odds throughout history, prominant scientists and religious leaders have tried to bridge that gap. Furthmore, critics of ID have not only questioned whether ID is good science, but also whether it is good theology. The Pope John Paul II issued the following statement in an address entitled "Truth cannot contradict Truth":


 * "The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."

Here, Pope John Paul II suggests that science, philosophy and theology are not at odds, merely responsible for diffrent sections of human knowledge.

Moving this section to the movement article. Seems more appropriate there.--Tznkai 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TOC
Anyway we can tighten up sections 5-8? (see also, further reading, external links, misclaneious) Its taking up a lot of space and it bothers me aesthetically.--Tznkai 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not being able to pay more attention to them. I do what I can later.--ghost 21:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Micah Fitch's edit
Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, Intelligent Design is not a specific scientific theory, but the idea that finding an objective theory to explain the existence of the universe in terms of an intelligent designer is possible, and should be considered possible, although not necessarily plausible, by science. For this reason, it is closely related to the philosophy of science, which deconstructs science in to is philosophical elements. Intelligent designists question the atheistic assumption underlying evolution that an absolute truth (not referring to closely related metaphysical objectivism) is not necessary; they replace this idea with their assumption of an absolute truth. The question best associated with intelligent design might be "who wound up the clock?" Intelligent design may be as simple as the idea that universal constants were key in the formation of life and they may not have been arbitrary but instead chosen by an intelligent designer or as complex as literalist Christian creationism.

ID was not necessarily born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, but out of opposition to the philosophical assumptions typically thought necessary to support the theory. For this reason intelligent design includes investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents.

I deleted this because I felt it was overly long for the intro (which is already huge) and is strikingly discordant with the rest of the article. It has some intresting ideas however, and I should have stuck it here in the first place.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 00:54 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tznkai, I'll be interested to see what people think of this intro.  I actually did a semester independent project about creationism (mainly YEC) and evolutionism, objectively comparing the two.  If I had to rate this article as subjective or objective, I would definitely say that it is subjective right now.  While many intelligent designists are strictly opposed to evolution, intelligent design doesn't oppose evolution in it self, it simply opposes the idea that evolution could have "just happened" whether that means that the process of evolution it self was at fault, or the constants of the universe were set up just right, etc.  Here is an excellent objective look on ID: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2571 .  Furthermore, I don't know what "theory" intelligent designists are trying to push;  all I can see so far is a collection of broad ideas that they feel helps support the idea of intelligence beyond human existence.
 * Sorry. that site isn't very good.--Silverback June 29, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
 * While he could have said it nicer, Silver back has a point. That is the work of the Discovery Institute, which as the rest of the article points out is less than objective and neutral. As for what ID is not, we have that section already. The bit on Philosphy of science is intrresting, and I'm sure theres a place we can put it, but ID, atleast the kind we're talking about here, posits that their theory is scientific, and can prove that a designer is not only feasible, but likley, perhaps even necessary.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)
 * OK, well my point is that intelligent designists would probably consider anyone who thinks that Universal Constants cannot be a mere coincidence on their side. Also, the beginning of the article ("ID was born out of opposition to evolution") most certainly does not match with the section "what intelligent design is not." Micah Fitch
 * The fine tuned universe is orthogonal to the main ID arguments. We even considered having a separate page for it.--Silverback June 29, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. At this point we're talking less about intelligent designists and more of ID itself. ID did grow out opposition to the Theory of Evolution, which will work without a designer, or even with one. ID, if true, posits that a designer is needed. As Iunderstand it anyway.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)
 * Yea, I have gotten quite sick of the bashing on both sides of the Creation/Evolution controversy. The point is that we don't know history, and any evidence we have can be manipulated for use in many different arguments (take Walt Brown for example); obviously the success with which evidence is manipulated varies greatly, but the point remains.  For this reason, my personal conclusion to the current controversy is that it is too political, and it would benefit me more personally to examine my philosophical assumptions and come to a conclusion about whether an absolute meaning is morally or philosophically necessary.  Furthermore, as of right now, the creationist argument suffers.  There aren't enough good people working on it (I'm not trying to say that the argument isn't worthy of good people, but there simply aren't good people working on it most likely because it is too politically volatile) and the bad people arguing for creationism are horrible (Kent Hovind, etc.).  Hopefully, people will soon be able to kindly look at both sides and reach a reasonable middle.  Not all creationists are idiots, and it doesn't help the controversy to treat them all as so (although I do hope people consider Kent Hovind an idiot).


 * I think it might help rabid politically motivated people on both sides of this controversy to look at the philosophy of science. It is an excellently written article about the philosophical assumptions of science.  I do believe that this controversy is being mistreated because people are ignoring philosophical assumptions.  Instead of arguing for their philosophical ideas, they are arguing ideas that require them.  Things don't work very well this way.  Micah Fitch 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)


 * You rambled a bit there, but I think I've figured out what you're getting at. A large part of the problems the ID and the contraversy have to do with basics within philosophy of science, important primer material for understanding the debate. Is that it?--Tznkai 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)


 * Yes and that is why it is blatantly obvious to me someone writes a section who is against anything but atheistic evolution. I think the intro needs a slight revamping to fit with the section "what ID is not."  If you don't mind, I will attempt to add a little bit.  Feel free to edit it if you feel it doesn't fit.

Political cases
I'm really not happy with this section. Its mentioned in the movement article, and if we do need to repeat it breifly, as it has been done, it shouldn't be its own orphaned section. Anyone have an idea where to stick it?--Tznkai 29 June 2005 01:03 (UTC)


 * My intent in keeping the section, rather than moving it to the Intelligent design movement page, was for it to be expanded. Perhaps, it's better handled as a reference section in the main article, and we could provide greater detail in the subarticle(s).--ghost 29 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)
 * Ghost! I thought you had died or something. I was thinking we could roll it in to the design movement section, but it seems a little tricky. Possibly just remove all together.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)
 * if you mean political issues then I say keep it. It is all of a couple sentences per case, and the political repercussions of ID are important enought to at least mention here. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)
 * FW's comment got eaten during an edit conflict. Replaced it--Tznkai 29 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had the problem yesterday. I stongly believe we need a sentence or two per in the main, with links.  Heavy on the wikify in this section.  There's too many educators and educatees (sp?) involved not too.--ghost 29 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)
 * Granted, its important, but it doesn't seem deserving to be sectioned like that. I'd like to roll it in somewhere else, just for my asthetic sense of how the article should look. Perhaps just have the "political cases" subsection, and then wikilink each case.?--Tznkai 29 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * Works for me!--ghost 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
 * I'm luvin the 'ID in US politics' subsection. It's less Amero-centric, and cleans the overall appearence of the article.  Good job, Tznkai!--ghost 30 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Made a few comsmetic changes and a content change to the new addition. tell me what you all think.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Definition of "expert"
the link to Michael Wong's Analysis of Intelligent Design was deleted on the grounds that "he isn't an expert". The guy has a degree in mechanical engineering, which would seem to indicate that he's got some sort of formal training. I'm curious, does someone offer a degree in "Intelligent Design", and if so, should we whittle down our links to only include them? An alternative would be to consider the fact that critics of ID come from all stripes and at least the ones with a degree in some sort of field of science or engineering ought to be included. If we limit criticism to people with PHD's in philosophy, then all criticism will generally be unreadable to the average reader off the streetFuelWagon 29 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)


 * Ok, here we get into tznkai's personal (non scientific) theory on External links: They should be of the highest quality, representing diverse approaches and views, and have as little venom as possible. The expert part of that is widely recognized figures in the debate, well known persons, and yes, PHDs. These people should have immpeccable credentials, a civil writing style, or being incredibly notable. Micheal Wong seems to fail all of these. I can't in good faith link to someone who writes so causticly. Certainly much of his writing would fail wikipedia NPOV and civility standards.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)


 * "These people should have immpeccable credentials, a civil writing style, or being incredibly notable." OK, what is wikipedia's requirements for external links? cause that's whose game we're playing. As for "much of his writing would fail wikipedia NPOV", I think that is the POINT, namely that he represents ONLY one point of view: that ID is a bunch of horse manure, except you can't use it to fertilize your garden. Behe isn't NPOV in any sense of the word, he's a complete pro-ID partisan. and I would expect his links to be in the reference section. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)


 * Behe is notable. Wong is vicious and not notable. I don't think that page should be linked. External links lists taste as one of its guidlines, but otherwise seems to leave it up to its editors. I have described my reasons above.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)


 * Wong is vicious Uhm, not by my standards. Here's an excerpt from his first paragraph: Biblical Creationism is dead. No one in the general population takes it seriously, because its fallacies are so ridiculously easy to point out. The notion of the universe being a mere 6,000 years old is so easily refuted that only the most ignorant and radical Christians will seriously propose it in public. If someone said the world is 6,000 years old, I'd call their claim ridiculous to their face. Same goes for someone who claimed the Earth was flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth. It would take someone of complete ignorance to claim the Earth is flat, and it would take someone raised as a radical Christian to attempt to pass of Intelligent Design as science rather than DOGMA. Wong actually has the guts to call it what it is. Pushing dogma as science is ridiculous and can only be done from a position of ignorance. Dogma requires belief over rationality. I don't take flat-earthers seriously. And I don't take Intelligent Designers seriously either, except for the damage they could inflict in having creationism taught in schools as if it were science. So, the question of visciousness is your subjective measure. The question of "taste" as required by wikipedia is another matter completely. Pro-ID sites present their point of view in far less friendly terms on occaission, crying about the "dogma of science" and whatever garbage they want to dredge up. Wong is doing no worse than some article on the Discovery Institute site or some main ID proponents say, except he's using it against them. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)


 * Then if they are not notable, I will cull similiarly vicious pro-ID. Hell, I wouldn't mind wiping all of them off myself, but thats a personal bias, just as your notions on ignorance. Wong's "guts" or what not besides, I think we have a responsiblity to present things fairly. Wong's arguments are over the top and vicious, doing as much to damage his side as to support it. His words appeal well to aiethists and secularists, but a lot of what he says will turn off moderates. Linking Behe and the Discovery Institute allows people to see the claims first hand. Linking Wong is similar to linking Jerry Fawell. They both know they're right, they both use language that appeals to people who already agree with them, and they both are damaging to the human spirit.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 23:57 (UTC)


 * So, it sounds to me like you are "culling" this, not because it violates NPOV or any wikipedia requirement for links, but because you feel it will offend "moderates". FuelWagon 30 June 2005 00:28 (UTC)


 * Put another way, we SHOULD include the Wong and the Falwell as references specifically because they ARE part of the spectrum (the ends of the spectrum, but still part of it), rather than omit them because they may offend the middle of the spectrum. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * I really need a more compelling reason to link to someone's extensive rantspace than representing "ends of the spectrume." And no, this isn't about NPOV or wikipedia policy, it has to do with my editor's opinion on what is a good link and what isn't,--Tznkai 30 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)


 * There is a very simple reason: Wong reflects a point of view that ought to be referenced in the article. You've removed it. This "end of spectrum" is simply another point of view, and you've decided to only include more "moderate" points of view. This isn't to say that we use Wong's POV as fact in the article, but all points of view should be at least be mentioned or referenced or somehow included in the article. The color spectrum is red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet. you dropped red and violet from the article. FuelWagon 30 June 2005 01:11 (UTC)


 * Since people are afraid to violate NPOV by saying the truth, we should at elast link to it. FuelWagon is on to something. You people are disturbing. You would rather have an article biased towards an unsubstantiated dogma than be neutral, and factual and risk offending soem religious nut. You give pro-ID people room for arguments, and then fight any critisism of it due to being afraid that it would look like a straw man article. GROW UP! If the BEST argument for ID is something easily refuted, refute it. It is not our resposibility to make their case look stronger, this is wikipedia, which is trying to be an encyclopedia, and thus should not be political. Screw worrying about "straw man" arguments. If you are not going to allow the facts that prove these arguments wrong to be displayed to the best of their abilities, don't post the pro-ID statement that is so easy to refute. Just because Wong might offend someone doesn't make the link any less approprate. I would not be saying this if this article wasn't so pro-ID biased anyway that a few links like Wong's are needed to help balance the thing. IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)


 * I think we've done a pretty good job keeping the article Neutral. I'm not sure if I have a track record that explicitly backs this up, but I am more than willing to fend off bothsides, whos POV, bias, and epistomological commitments make them think that this article is incredibly POV'd. At anyrate, IR, you're breaching WP:AGF here. As Ghost stated, our job is not to criticize ID, but to report on it, and the defenses and criticisms of ID. Wikiinfo would be a great place for you to go on exstensivly about what is wrong with ID, but it isn't what wikipedia is for. Quite frankly, no, I am not intrested in the "truth", but intrested in cataologing observations. Wong to me is an example of an intelligent argument marred badly by viciousness and self rightousness, and I would rather not link to it, based on my opinions as an editor. If you are concerned about my bais, I have several more links on both sides that I'm eyeballing for oblivioin. And yes, offenssiveness is in fact a criterion for appropriate. Someone wise (or maybe it was TV) once told me that compromise happens when both sides hate the result. I've had ID sympathists, and ID critics both tell me my edits were too baised to the other side. Evidently, I'm getting near compromise.


 * So, again concentrating on the matter at hand, Wong is not needed. Nor is that link Good. I use the following criteria. Is the link to a notable site/primary source? If not, is the link representive of an under represented group (such as pro-life aethiests, pro-choice priests). If not is the link of particularly high qualitly and usefulness?. For extant links, I add the criterion "Is it tasteful, appropriate, and relativly benign? If not, remove."--Tznkai 30 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)


 * Ok, I appologize for violating WP:AGF, however it is frustrating how much struggle it takes to get minor changes TOWARD neutrality here. See my other posts as to what needs changed. If you deny that it is biased towards ID, you would have to admitt it was "too neutral" and still partially is. By "too neutral" I refer to when ghost was hesitant to allow the arguments against irreducably complex to be presented clearly, out of fear of appearing anti-ID. That is BS, and can be likened to an article saying "the moon is made of green cheese" and then hiding the fact that the moonlanding crew didnt see any cheese when they were their due to the fact that it might offend the pro-cheesers. It is very frustrating to see a potentially excellent educational article/resource/project flounder due to lobbists and politics. Anyway, thats my side and I appologize for caring. IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)


 * I disagree that links should be POV forks, I really think they should be informative and useful. Wong really doesn't seem that way to me. Ultimatly, I do not find him notable or relivant enough. You'll find I apply a similar razor to a great many external links. Would you be more assuaged if I trimmed from both sides more?--Tznkai 30 June 2005 01:55 (UTC)

This can be difficult. Many who claim to be experts are not, and many intelligent people are bashed because they are trying to explore the concept of a god. I personally think PhD's (doctorate of philosophy) are a very good sign of an expert, but I think it is also important to make the background and biases of any "expert" or "non-expert" clear in the article. Staying objective is clear to staying clearheaded in this controversy. Micah Fitch 29 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

I think that we should narrow expert a bit from merely a PhD to a PhD(or equivilent) in a real science. While I have had some BRILLIANT professors with PhDs, I hardly think that my humanities/english/econ/art/P.E.!!/math/theology professor would qualify as an "expert" on what is mainly a biology/chemestry/physics/"hard science" topic, unless for instance, the math PhD was discussing probabilities.... a doctorate/terminal degree indicates they are bright and hard working, but not necissarily an expert in this generic field... Of course that would probably POV the article quite a bit, as nearly all of the pro ID "experts" would be tossed out.IreverentReverend 29 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Removed links
When tidying up the notes and references to remove ugly formating from the article I removed two links altogether from the Scientific peer review section. These were links to sections of Wikipedia's own article on the scientific method but which were formatted as though they were references. Just incase anyone was wondering why: It's possible, however, that the person who added the links simply did not know how to link directly to an article subsection, so used external style rather than internal style linking, in which case here's how: etc. Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 01:46 (UTC)
 * 1) They didn't seem to be references for the claims being made (from the context I expected it to be a reference backing up "the perception that ID proponents are attempting to "end run" the Scientific method", but it mentioned nothing at all about ID or indeed anybody "end running" the SM).
 * 2) Wikipedia should not be a reference for itself: the point of the NPOV policy is that we describe a topic in terms of what other people have to say about it.


 * Thanks, Joe. I think I may've been the culprit.  I remember making an effort to provide a sub-definition of "Scientific peer review" at one point to contrast it with Peer review.  This is relevant on topics such as Dembsky's Intelligent Design, which received a peer review but not a scientific one prior to publication.  I'll tackle the corrected Wiki format for subsection links later.--ghost 30 June 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Teleogical attacks
The basis for this argument rests, first, on the nature of many ID arguments being updated versions of old teleological attacks on evolution. These include the "watch requires a watchmaker", "lack of intermediate steps" and "improbability" arguments. According to critics of ID, all of these arguments rest on a fundamental disbelief in evolution, which rests, in turn on an unstated belief in something else.

This bit could use a bit of rewriting for neutral language and coherency, and then plugged into "what designed the desginer." and an attrubtion of a link--Tznkai 30 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Breif Segway
Alright, we all know that ID as it stands, is logicaly invalid, and pseudoscience.

Heres the 50 million dollar question: is one of thier basic contentions right? Can design be infered by observation? Is that inherently impossible or just currently impossible?--Tznkai 1 July 2005 01:30 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I know that Wiki is not a discussion board, but I think we should explore this and see if our conclusions can be backed up by some quotations and stuck in the article somewhere.


 * Probably better at talk.origins but here goes. If we accept the ID movement's God of the gaps arguments as being legitimate, and very loosely interpret philosophy (such as reversing Ockham's Razor) and allowing the supernatural a role to play, then we are left examining an evidential basis of natural history. Even if we are generous to the IDists, that evidential basis is almost completely lacking, and those gaps are getting smaller and smaller.  The best they have come up with is Behe's irreducible complexity argument, which involves a few novel protein folds being created. That came out over 10 years ago - do you know how much proteomics has advanced since then?  That's why they have to wave their arms around lots and talk of conspiracy theories and methodogodical naturalism and teach the controversy and so on. Dunc|&#9786; 1 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
 * Alright, so irrededucible complexity is flawed, but is the underlying contention correct? To put it anotherway, can construct this


 * Event A has characteristic B
 * B is highly imporbable
 * Event A happening by random chance, is thus possible, but improbable.
 * Therefore, Occam's razor allows for intefering event I, or atleast seeking evidence for it.


 * As understand it, science works on finite determinism, everything can be attributed to a source until you get to the point of X to the n-1, at which point you have your personal belief in either random chance, or Aristotle's God. So, this brings up two intresting points. Can our designer be a featureless uncaused causer, and can the above logic ever work? I'd really like for us to get into this somewhere in the article, discussion the philosphical and essential flaws/merits of the ID argument ,not just its specifics.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)


 * Tznkai, you're asking a Zen question. Not unlike If a tree falls....  My answer is circular, so bear with me.  The brief answer is, "It doesn't matter."  With a background in physics and Six Sigma, I approach this from a relativistic mindset.  In our frame of reference, we can't easily observe a causer.  In order to observe a causer, we would have to examine the evidence from the causer's frame of reference.  At which point, we become a causer.  The fact that this lines up with numerous non-Christian faiths I find hilarious.--ghost 1 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
 * And this is the reason that Dembski's Mt. Rushmore analogy may fall on it's face. If one is an ant on one of the faces of Mt. Rushmore, all the things that might indicate Design cannot be perceived.  Even if they could, the ant may lack context to perceive them as such.  It is not until the Observer can attain the proper frame of reference that Design can even be infered.  And for one to attain a frame of reference on the level of a cosmic Causer, the Observer most become equal to the Causer.--ghost 2 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)


 * um.... without evidence, all we can do is state that people saythe universe was created by an uncaused causer, and that a single uncaused causer invalidates every argument they use as to the necesity of a causer in the first place. IreverentReverend 1 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)


 * That's the problem of infinite regress. ID attempts to dodge the problem by leaving it unaddressed. The problem with doing that is, quoting Ian Pitchford, "Claiming that X explains everything and that X requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, it's a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating clichè." FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)


 * You are oversimplifying this. Would a causer that is outside of time (who "created" for lack of a non time specific word) need a cause?  Do you really think that this is a "thought-terminating clichè?"  Stop bashing the philosophy as if you understand it perfectly.  Micah Fitch 2 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)


 * um.. yes, it would.even if it is out of time, if you use the argument that anything complex needs a designer, then even a complex object out of time needs a designer. If you allow that some complex things don't need a designer, then ID loses all the arguments that are used for it. IreverentReverend 2 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)


 * I'm not over-simplying it at all. Saying the causer is outside of time and therefore needs no cause is both unexplainable and unprovable, so there's literally no justification for anyone accept it as an answer. Its a meaningless statement; it posits nothing of substance which can be agreed or disagreed with, hence its thought-terminating.
 * The problem with your example is that followed to its logical conclusion it results in a logical contradiction, a paradox. If IDs premise is that 'design' requires a designer, and ID posits a designer, he will by necessity appear designed himself, and you wind up in a circle. Any attempt to wriggle out of it by saying that the designer always existed (is "outside of time"), you could also say about reality. Furthermore, invoking the claim that the designer has always existed undercuts the very argument that got you there (design requires a designer). That entire line of reasoning arises from and results in logical fallacies. No amount of apparent 'design' in the universe could ever prove an ultimate designer. It is completely circular reasoning. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)


 * I think ya'll missed my point. The question is not on ID itself, but the underlying axioms. Heres the tricky bit:


 * Event A has characteristic B
 * B is highly improbable to happen spontaneously.
 * Event A happening by random chance, is thus possible, but improbable.
 * Therefore, Occam's razor allows for intefering event I, or atleast seeking evidence for it.


 * Actually works, and here is why:


 * Event A (A gigantic building found underground) has characteristic B (A plate that says in seven diffrent langauges, Hi, I am God, I designed this building, how are you all doing?)
 * Event B is highly improbable to happen spontaneously. (Let us assume it has been verified, carbon dated etc.
 * Event A therefore, is also improbable to have happened without help (a giant building out of nowhere)
 * Therefore, Simplest and Best explanation is that some being called God, put a building here, some time ago.


 * Now, I'm not going to argue that irreducable complexity is correct or incorrect, since I don't have the mathamatical background to do so. The idea of ID is old, as shown with the Aquinas bits, (thanks FM). I'd really like to show that under certain circumstances it is reasonable to infer the existence of an outside agent, but we don't have to validate the current ID arguments. In fact, we can concede that ID is not impossible, just wrong, unfalsifiable, and thus not Science, but Philosiphy.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

"Event A has characteristic B. B is highly improbable to happen spontaneously. Event A happening by random chance, is thus possible, but improbable. Therefore, Occam's razor allows for intefering event I, or atleast seeking evidence for it." Uhm, you've accidentally created a strawman. The crux of the strawman is the phrase "highly probable". This is impossible to determine from a "where did life come from?" question, because we have NO CLUE how much time this "highly improbable" event has had in which to occur. Given infinite time, everything that CAN happen, WILL happen, from a probabilistic point of view. But we have NO CLUE how much time we've had to evolve. a billion years or so for this universe. But how many big-bangs have there been? How many universes have come and gone with no life evolving because a planet with just the right conditions wasn't created? ID looks at the wildly complex forms of life, combines it with an extremely small and finite window of time (6,000 years is at the heart of creationism), and says "it is impossible for this to happen naturally, randomly". The same probability arguments are often used to argue that humans are the only life in the universe since it is "highly improbable", but that too is a creatinist's view. The bible doesn't mention god creating Bob and Alice on another planet. FuelWagon 3 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
 * I see where you are going FW, but I wasn't talking about life in this case. I mean, I've never thought the infinte monkeys explanation made it irrational to infer a creator in general--Tznkai 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

The syllogism at first glance to some might appear logically valid and reasonable, but it is quite demonstrably wrong:
 * Its second premise ('Event B') is false - improbable does not equal impossible. To claim it does requires some improbable assumptions itself.
 * The syllogism makes the logical error of leaping to a conclusion of what is "best explanation"; in other words, it's a hasty generalization, an error made in most ID syllogisms.
 * The syllogism is an ignoratio elenchi: it presents an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. The proposition actually proves is that our understanding of Event A or of its validation is flawed.
 * Occam's razor never permits an unnecessary entity to be added. If there is an explanation that does not require a supernatural cause (which is by necessity unverifiable) such as God, that explanation is preferred.
 * Assuming a supernatural source is never justified since any posited supernatural cause can never be more than an arbitrary notion as it is by necessity unverifiable and unprovable. That complexity entails design remains a non sequitur. FeloniousMonk 3 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
 * FM, you made one major mistake here. I was not trying to use deductive, but inductive logic. The second premise does not imply impossible, but simply states impossible. I think this is the crux of how the ID arguments work. In themselves, they are talking about inferences and probibilities, but they are cloaked in the language of certainty. Occams razor does not allow unecessary enities, but likewise, it doesn't allow us to assume that if we found a working computer on Mars, that that computer spontaneously happened. FM has done what ID wants people to do, take a basic arguemnt structure and extrapolate to supernatural causes. What my syllogism and example proved was not that there is a supernatural expanation, but that there is an unknown entity, who calls itself God, that somehow stuck a building down under the surface of the earth. Like the pyramids, we assume that there was someone who built them. We just don't know how.


 * By going through this thought exercise, I think I can identify some of the flaws that ID's general argument has. To put into laymans terms


 * P1 Parts of the natural universe are demonstrably improbable to happen spontaneously.
 * P2 A designer could make those improbable things.
 * C Therefore, a designer is plausible.


 * As has been pointed out, P1's veracity is questionable, but P2's is not. The soundness is questionable because of p1, but I think the structure is valid. ID then has us infer this next step.


 * P1' A designer is plausible
 * P2' A designer is the most probable explanation for improbable spontinaity.
 * C' A designer is therefore probable


 * P1' 's veracity I personally do not doubt, but P2' is very flawed. As has been pointed out to me, the universe is very old. By now our nearly infinte monkies with their equally infinite typewriters may have in fact written Hamlet.
 * It seems to me then, this part of the ID argument actually works better for someone seeding life on earth. (since we have a better timeline on that then the age of the universe), even though the argument in general doesn't work that well. At this point, infering God gets you into extremly sticky trouble, because "What designed the designer?". At this point ID takes a rather deep dive into philosiphy and starts looking to Aristotle and Aquinas. ID depends on a reasonable and rational inference while cloaked as deductive logic. Reasonable inferences is the realm of philosophers.


 * Assuming I didn't make a massive error somewhere here, anyway we can point this idea out in the article without breaching original research rules?--Tznkai 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it is inductive or deductive reasoning, it's still a flawed syllogism, but this is common to many ID 'proofs' so that alone would not prevent its inclusion in the article. The actual test for inclusion would be how common this line of reasoning is among ID proponents. Were the proof/syllogism included in the article, we would have to note its flaws: An inductively valid syllogism defines a reliable generalization from observations. Since the topic here is the origin of life, such a syllogism would define reliable generalizations about how life arises based on observations. Since observations on how life arises have yet to occur, assuming that it cannot happen naturally because it is improbable is premature. Since as you say the syllogism's second premise does not imply or assume that such an origin is impossible, but explicitly states it is impossible, it means the syllogism is rigged to produce a desired result; the exact converse of ID proponents primary complaint about the scientific method. FeloniousMonk 4 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
 * By flawed, I assume you mean unsound, specificly because of P2'? (Valid refering to structure and Soundness require true premises and valid structure). Disclaimer: I am not trying to defend ID here so much as try to understand exactly how it works. ID is powerful precisely because it sounds like it makes sense. I figured there was a reason for that. Afterall, they are right. Watches must (I'd be willing to bet large sums of cash on it anyway) have a watchmaker. The mistake is in assuming the universe is a watch.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

Theological debates
Needs major work. The 'Materialism vs. Spirituallity' section is basically 'Nature of the Designer' stuff. But there's good stuff. It could also use some of the 'Other' links from the former arguments section. And a brief overview of "deck-stacking".--ghost 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics.
What the hell does this mean??? metaphysics means "outside" physics or outside science or outside nature, i.e. super-natural. how can science be called metaphysical when it by definition is within physics? this quote is from ID as a movement. FuelWagon 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a clue. Ask FeloniousMonk.  I think it translates to, "Movement proponents charge that methodological naturalism in science requires the a priori adoption of a constant set of rules or laws of nature.  ID claims to free science from the assumption that the laws of the Universe are fixed."  I'm not sure if that's exactly what he means, but I think it's in English.--ghost 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Metaphysics simply means ontology. Graft 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Graft is partially correct. Metaphysics is the study of knowing and being . This being true, then ID movement proponents alleging that science (in relying upon methodological naturalism) demands a priori adoption of a naturalistic way of knowing (metaphysics) is also correct. The original passage was correct as it stood. I'll be restoring it or a more clear version of it. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I skimmed metaphysics, the bit that stood out was that it is a study of "first principles", which I think is what should go in this sentence, rather than "metaphysics". The metaphysics article seems to spend a bit of energy saying that metaphysics is hard to define, however I think "first principles" are fairly easily defined, and much more accurate for what's being talked about in this sentence. FuelWagon 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * First principles would be preferable because it seems this bit conflates metaphysics with epistemology. --Rikurzhen 23:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone changed it to "naturalistic philosophy" which is OK by me. FuelWagon 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of the a priori/a posteriori text should be trashed. It's original research. --goethean &#2384; 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * dude, give it a rest. Some of us can put two and two together without having to quote someone else on it. Go work on integral-wiki since you claim to have it all figured out over there. FuelWagon 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Right here I think they are referring to the part in "ID as a movement" where design theorists claim that science is skewed because it currently operates under an a priori assumption of naturalistic philosophy. It's certainly true that design theorists think this way, I could quote several ID books to that end. David Bergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See below.--ghost 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the a priori/a posteriori thing in "ID in summary" paragraph 5

 * As far as the a priori/a posteriori thing in the intro regarding ID's legitibility (which goethean is referring to)... do we have any notable person on record for holding this opinion? This is the first time I've ever encountered it.  David Bergan 17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * and so commences the moving target again. This time dbergan wants a notable person on record. tune in again next week when it will be a completely different target. FuelWagon 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you consider me to be such a pain in the ass. I was just wondering if we had any outside basis for that paragraph, because it was new to me and I thought one of the planks of wikipedia is no original research. David Bergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC


 * You and goeth are both pains in the ass. ID is attempting to redefine science from "the world rules are constant" (current scientific defintion) to "the world rules can be changed as god intervenes". ID argues that natural rules by themselves are INSUFFICIENT for life to develop on it own, and so god (or some designer) must INTERVENE, CHANGE THE RULES, and then let nature take over from there. Science will not INTUIT a god or anything else that it cannot prove through obsevability. science is a posteriori (go see the wikipedia page on natural science). id WILL intuit a god, without direct observation of a god, which is a priori. If you can't fucking figure out the difference between a priori and a posteriori, you are an idiot. I don't need to fucking quote someone to take ID's arguments and piece them together in contrast with science. This is not "independent research", this is taking the arguments of ID and piecing them together in contrast with the definition of natural science. My guess is that you DO understand the difference but your feigning ignorance and claiming a quote is required to cut out criticim of ID. FuelWagon 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies FuelWagon. ghost pointed out the source below.  Hate to tell if I'm a pain in your ass, the feeling isn't mutual.  I actually like to see what you're going to say next.  Sure, I'm convinced your prejudice blinds you from actually learning what ID is (you seem unwilling to separate the scientific study of ID from a supposed religious conspiracy)... and I find it humorous that you talk as an expert on the topic when you probably haven't even read one book on the subject... but I have to respect a man who says what he means and means what he says.  David Bergan 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. FuelWagon 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure (if I read this all correctly) this is just the formal philisophical term for axom or basic assumtions or postulates. In semi-plain english, this is how I understand it; The field of science is only concerned with that which can be fallsified repeated and empirically observed. Thus nature is the focus of study, and that which is supernatural is ignored. A contention of ID is that science should not do this, the contention of mainstream of science is it can, it will, and it must. Or something like that. At any rate, if this is somewhere close to correct this assumtion is found in every single science textbook worthy of the name. The better ones will note that supernatural is not so much disproven by science, but ignored.--Tznkai 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've heard the falisification and repeatability arguments before (and do not object to their being presented here), but not the a priori/a posteriori one. If this just one of our own personal arguments, it should be scrapped.  Who wrote it?  Fess up.  Show us where you got it, or else take it down. David Bergan 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's some relevant quotes from ID proponents: Hope this helps. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "I got the opportunity when I was on a sabbatical in London in 1987 or 1988 to read more about Darwinism. It was immensely interesting to discover that it’s all circular reasoning, deception, and pseudo-science. I had suspected that, but I saw that it was really true. It is a pseudo-science that simply works for confirming examples of a materialist philosophical system that’s held up by a priori grids." --Phillip Johnson
 * "With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative. We can be absolutely certain that the Academy will not say, "The evidence on the whole supports the theory of evolution, although we concede that the apparent abrupt appearance of many fully formed animal groups in the Cambrian rocks is in itself a point in favor of the creationists." There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism. When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate..... When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes rather than in science class." --Phillip Johnson. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism.

Link to one more quote FeloniousMonk 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you FM, that design theorists cite science as having an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism. No argument at all there.  I started this section to refer to "ID in summary" paragraph 5.  Where are the quotes that the evolutionists (or anyone) think that recognizing intelligent design is based only on 'a priori' intuitions?  I know it's confusing with the term 'a priori' being used in both parts.  David Bergan 18:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, we're talking about different things. I was confused. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Folks, the link that David requested was in the Anti-ID Links section. FuelWagon took the liberty of translating it into something approaching English.  Let's please read the references before we start beating each other up asking for links we already have.--ghost 21:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks ghost. Sorry for not checking that before raising the issue.  David Bergan 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It happens. I'm as guilty as anyone else.  Let's move on.--ghost 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"When pressed about the unfairness of disqualifying their opponents a priori, naturalists sometimes portray themselves as merely insisting upon a proper definition of "science," and not as making any absolute claims about "truth." By this interpretation, the National Academy of Sciences did not say that it is untrue that "the creation of the universe, the earth, living things and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding," but only that this statement is unscientific. Scientific naturalists who take this line sometimes add that they do not necessarily object to the study of creationism in the public schools, provided it occurs in literature and social science classes rather than in science class." --Phillip Johnson. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism."

Just reread that quote. Is it just me or did Johnson state explicitly the position of people like Me (Theisitic Evolutionists) that while ID is intresting as a philosiphy that it explicitly is bad science? --Tznkai 7 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)


 * No he didn't. He's saying that, when pressed, naturalists don't accuse IDers of untruth, but that instead naturalists accuse IDers of doing something other than science. The whole paragraph is about what the NAS is accusing the IDers of, not what IDers actually believe. Slick! --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
 * This man's [Johnson's] writing makes my head hurt. If he was a wikipedian he'd have arbcom cases against him every thirty seconds. Anywaaaay I think that point should go somewhere in the article in clearer simpler words than apriori postiri. hell, I'd like to avoid using the word "truth" entirely as the truth, as it often is, is irrellivant. So, Johnson understands that ID's major cticism isn't that its untrue, but that its unscientific. I would follow that up with, if its unscientific it shouldn't be taught in science classes.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
 * Right. Of course, Johnson doesn't grant that ID is not science. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
 * About as much as Jesus didn't claim to be god. They didn't say it explicietly, but they essentially have.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

NPOV
I want to thank those that have been watching the page recently. It appears that we have a few people trying to insert the NPOV flag, without first discussing this here. Since I've been heavily involved recently in trying to rebalence the article, trim the fat & remove POV tone I'd like to offer this space for those that still have POV concerns. I won't pretend that the article's perfect, I still think is needs plenty of work. But I think on the whole, it's vastly improved in the last several weeks.--ghost 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see a need for the flag. The article is indeed much improved. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Strongly. This article is as neutral as an Al-Qaeda recruit with IED's strapped around his waist. It is better than it was, I will give you that. It is still full of misinformation. The section on peer-review is either poorly researched or is full of lies. Here's an example of what I am talking about:


 * "To date, the intelligent design movement has only succeeded in publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal..."


 * This statement is ridiculously ignorant. What "date" might that be? Must have been back in 1992, before anyone even knew what the phrase "intelligent design" meant.--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- try any date bub. intellegent design is almost as much of a laughing stock as creationism.-uber


 * The article is listed in the article with a proper reference.--ghost


 * Did anyone bother to look in the journals? Obviously not. Are we relying on pop-news to provide fact? Yes.--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. I lost count of how many I searched, all in the last month.  Links to two journal search engines used at listed in the ref section.  I also used Google and AltaVista--ghost


 * Below are a few peer-reviewed works that have been published (and not "disowned"). There are many more, ask me in this discussion section if you would like to see more.


 * Would anyone mind if I edited this section to report facts?--netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome too.--ghost


 * Thanks for the info, I'll dig thru it this afternoon and evening. BTW, since you seem to have come here with an agenda and disrespected the work of a large number of editors with your Al-Qaeda remark, do you expect us to treat you differently than you have us?  No?  Good.  Expect me to double check your work with a fine-tooth comb.  And treat it as you have others.--ghost 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Al-Qaeda recruit??? Good grief. This is the new variant of Godwin's law... FuelWagon 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow... Mr. Tact and Respect is on my side? Great.  Nothing like joining in on a discussion and offending everyone else.  David Bergan 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Moved netcody's peer-reviewed articles to it's own section below. David Bergan 17:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

quantum physics
what does this mean?

"In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities which every consciousness goes about creating (according to science), then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existance of a creator is assumed. However, since all consciousnesses are affecting the universe(s) that we share, it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one... but that is only one possibility which does not reach beyond the paradigm of causality."

How can something be in such mumbo-jumbo? The lead section from a while back was much better. Dunc|&#9786; 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just had an edit conflict with you about the same thing. I removed it. FuelWagon 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's nonsense. Maybe Sokal wrote it as one of his jokes again ;-) FeloniousMonk 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure I understand Tznkai's reversion of Dunc's addition of the position of the scientific community to ID to the intro (which I have no objection to; it was brief and factual). He seems to be invoking discussion on the talk page as justification for the revert, but I see nothing here that supports that. If no one else objects, I'll be reverting to Dunc's version. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That portion of it wasn't the main problem, it was the removal of the redirect tag. I considered the entire edit suspcicious since it seemed that Dunc has not been paying attention to whats been going on.--Tznkai 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Thanks. I'll just re-add the scientific pov then. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I think we need to clarify that ID propose "directed" evolution while scientific community at large simply feels evolution happens, directed or otherwise. No evidence of direction, so we don't think about it.--Tznkai 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. ID specifically rejects evolution of certain physical structures. They could ONLY exist, according to ID, by special creation. That is, God (or something else) came down and wrote DNA sequence (or whatever) from scratch, NOT that God merely encouraged evolution to move in specific directions through His divine influence (which is more like evolutionary creationism). Graft 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I get the diffrence. God stacks the deck so dna has to show up, or God waves his hands and dna appears. Seems pretty similar to me if you accept God as a supreme being...--Tznkai 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, ID only rejects the plausibility of evolution of some structures (i.e., natural evolution of them has a low probability) -- not that they are logically or physically impossible. --Rikurzhen 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understnad it, it goes a little like this Science: Random mutation! ID: not-so-random mutation! Science: well, maybe, but you can't prove that, its a matter of faith. ID: yes we can! See? Science: No you didn't! Thats crack!. Logic being on science's side by quite a bit--Tznkai 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ID proponents generally reject "deck stacking" because it means that god wound up the universe like a clock at the beginning of time and hasn't touched it since. ID proponents want an interactive god. A stacked deck means that the rules of nature are fixed and unchanging, and therefore science, which has fixed world rules as its only assumption, is sufficient to explain life. ID isn't really needed if the rules are fixed but the deck is stacked. ID is arguing that god changed the rules and THAT is specifically outside of what science can detect. FuelWagon 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I'm still a little confused here. As I understand it, ID claims to prove scientificly there there is evidence for a designer (god) without really explaining much about the designer, see Rikurzhen's comment above. Not to say I agree, I just thought thats what they asserted.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Quantum physics

 * In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existence of a creator is assumed. However, since every consciousness is capable of affecting the universe(s), it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one, but only if the ontology used to define Intelligent Design is congruent with the paradigm of causality.

The above is the current version as of 6/16. I moved it here because: I'm all for reinserting after a major rework, but let's make sure it makes sense.--ghost 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not in English. Yes, I understand it, but our goal is to make the article accessable to the average reader, and encourage them to learn.  Not make their head hurt.
 * It smacks of Original Material. I've been thru the links, and this is new to me.
 * It needs major Wikifing.
 * It fits more logically in other sections, such as 'Fine-Tuned Universe'.

24.64.223.203 & the intro
24.64.223.203 has violated 3rr already with his repeated insertions in the intro, in case nobody noticed. I say give him one more chance to play ball, and if not, then report it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

quoting sources, the word of god
Since some editors hold the position that we can't put subject and verb together unless we quote it from someone, I thought this might be a good quote for the article :


 * Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").


 * Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir."


 * The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no

Anyway, since a quote is the priority around here, I thought it was cool that we can quote someoen as saying ID is "crap". FuelWagon 19:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, actually, this guy says right there that "creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data", which means we can quote that and then expand on the definition of "scientific reasoning", which I'm pretty sure is a posteriori. But I might be thinking for myself a bit too much...FuelWagon 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh. Who are you quoting, again? Graft 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. Although I find this quote funny as hell, it's not appropriate for the body of the article.  If you wanted to provide a link to it to support some other "ID is not science" statement, I'm good with that.  The article's here to present the concept, and let the reader conclude whether or not it's crap. (I think you told me that once. ;-] )--ghost 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that the quotation is referring to Scientific Creationism, which is different from ID. --goethean &#2384; 21:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft, I'm quoting from talkorigins.org, a paper written by Chris Colby. the page didn't have his resume/background, but his email address is bio-bu.bu.edu (or .org, cant remember now). FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goeth, since most critics would say that ID actually IS "scientific creationism" in sheeps clothing, I think it's still on topic. Not that I'm saying we quote the "crap" part. I was having a little fun and you're still a pain in my ass. I'm curious, if ID, changes its name tomorrow to "SmartEngineering", would the SE article only get to quote SE critics? Or can we connect some fucking dots and figure out that scientists consider SE and ID and ScientificCreationism to be cut from the same cord of bullshit? The article was last updated in 1996. Does every critic have to go back and update their articles every time the bible thumpers come up with a new name for their game? FuelWagon 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh. See above where you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same. you can't have it both ways--Tznkai 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "you explained to me how ID and scientific creationism are not the same" uhm..... what? I just searched for "creation" and couldn't find anything by me with that assertion. Not that I didn't say that, but I sure don't remember saying that. Unless it wound up in an archive, which I didn't search. Could you point me to the subsection at least? FuelWagon 23:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it wasn't you, but it was explained to me in the quantum physics subsection of this talk page
 * Damn it, man. was it me or not? You're the one making the accusation. Are you just gonna leave it hanging out there? FuelWagon 00:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I got confused. It wasn't an accusation, it was confusion.--Tznkai 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)
• W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a book, not a journal. It was not subject to scientific peer review.--ghost


 * Actually, this book was more rigorously peer-reviewed than most journal articles. Click here and scroll down to "2. Peer Review".  David Bergan 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait, citing Dembski's own site? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying Dembski made up the info about TDI's review process? Do you have any neutral sources that tell you it was reviewed in a different manner?  This is a simple question of fact that should be easy to find out if he's wrong. David Bergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that as a matter of policy the Discovery Institute and it's officers consistantly misrepresent their work and that of others, and so we need to be circumspect here. FeloniousMonk 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This illustrates a common thread that I've suspected since getting involved in this article. That the term peer review, and the requirements needed to reach acceptance by the larger scientific community are subjective.  In the case of The Desgin Inference the peer-review conducted was done by Philosophers.  The peer review conducted was based more on copy and content from a philosophical context; thus it might be called a soft-scientific peer review at best.  The hard-scientific peer review that many of our more skeptical editors refer to is the type conducted by, say medical doctors, mathematicians and analytical chemists.  Dembski himself admits that this is a different standard.  Felonious, gathering those sources discounting IDs peer reviews, and how these other articles were or weren't misquoted/misinterpereted, would be be best.  Netcody, TDI doesn't make the cut as scientific peer reviewed at this time.  The Discovery Institute wants us to buy into it as scientific fact comparable to evolution, not philosophy.--ghost 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of the aforementioned site says: "TDI appeared in Cambridge University Press's monograph series known as Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. This series is the equivalent of a journal. It has a general editor, Brian Skyrms (who, by the way, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences). It also has an editorial board, which at the time of publication consisted of the following: Ernest Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Buttterfield, Persi Diaconis, William Harper, John Harsanyi, Richard Jeffrey, Wolfgang Spohn, Patrick Suppes, Amos Tversky, and Sandy Zabell. This editorial board is a literal who's who in the statistics and inductive reasoning world. Persi Diaconis (Stanford) and Sandy Zabell (Northwestern) are personal acquaintances and are housed in the statistics departments of their respective schools" Math/statistics certainly qualifies as scientific... and the editor is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.  The reviewers weren't all from philosophy and humanities. David Bergan 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * David, you're assuming that the entire board reviewed the book. They did not.  Dembski states clearly the 5 philosophers reviewed the manuscript prior to publication.  No Math or statisics profs.  Sorry, move on.--ghost 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? I think you misread it.  He says 5 philosophy profs reviewed it for his PhD.  Afterwards, this math board reviewed it so as to include it in their Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory series.  We're talking about two separate reviews, one by the philosophers and the other by the mathematicians.  If anyone on the math board for this second review read the book, that consititutes a peer-review.  However, there is the possibility that Dembski's site is all lies... but then we should easily find someone who said that there was no review process for its inclusion in the Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory series.  If not, TDI should be mentioned in the peer-review section of our article.  David Bergan 19:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't misread. And I think you're missing my point.  The philoposphers read & peer reviewed the manuscript prior to publication.  Everyone else read it after.  This, according to Dembski.  He admits it not going thru the same type of critical review process that his mathematics dissertation did (which was not ID related).  Further, he states reasons for avoiding just such a review of his later works.  Unfortunately, this commercial decision left him and ID open to this type of critic.  In hindsight, it was a severe stategic blunder.  But we've all gotta put food on the table.  As to Dembski's comments about the eariler standards of peer review, although they might be technically correct, no one as accepted those standards on over a generation.  And the theories he quotes as being published without review have withstood the most intense of scrutiny, while lots more fell by the wayside.  ID has not (yet).--ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point... it was "published" (if you can call a PhD approval "publication") before the mathematicians reviewed it. But are you arguing that the mathematicians didn't review it and give it a pass before "publishing" it in their prestigious series?  Or are you saying that their review doesn't count for some reason?  David Bergan 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're making me repeat myself, but I'll give it a final try. Dembski 'feels' that TDI received a peer review greater than that of a normal scientific article.  This because, it went past 5 philosophers and the review process for the Cambrige University Press(CUP) prior to publication.  The more critical reviews that it received followed publication, so Dembski seems to write them off as sour grapes.


 * The arguement that undermines TDI's peer review is that same that underlies the ID debate as a whole. First, that the peer review of a PhD dissertation by Philosophers qualified TDI as a valid philospohical subject.  Nothing less, but nothing more.  Second, that Brian Skyrms is that only board member of the CUP that Dembski mentions being involved in the secondary review, thus we cannot assume that rest of this multi-disciplinary board was involved.  Third, that the CUP published this as a book on philosophy, not hard-science.  In this way, one could view the Discovery Institute's attempts to present it as hard-science as being disingenuous.  Finally, that Dembski's use of sales figures as a way to measure credibility is about as ridiculous as saying that magic exists because Harry Potter says so.


 * In this way, the debate over ID as a hard-science resembles the debate surrounding cold fusion. Even the scientists that might like the idea aren't about to back it up until they see some hard evidence.  They have no interest in putting their career's on the line for what could be a mirage.  A lot of people are more than happy to approach ID as a philosophical debate.  They draw the line where others attempt to cross it over to a hard-science.  So, if we want to characterize TDI as a peer reviewed book on philosophy, I'm all for it.  It's has failed subsequent peer review as a book on hard-science, so we cannot allow it to be construed it any other way.--ghost 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. The work does NOT show that. It shows that simultaneous conservative substitutions of several groups of amino acids can eliminate a specific function. It does NOT claim that neutral substitutions are impossible; in fact, it shows exactly the opposite. Graft 17:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My version of Acrobat's on the fritz, I'll have to confirm this tomorrow. But reading the abstract leads me to think that this is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to amino acids.  The only thing that appears to link this paper to ID is the accusation that the author is a closet-creationist.  I frown on guilt-by-association, even if it's true.  But no gold on this one.  Next.--ghost 23:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a rather long review about McClintock's theories of transposons and control of gene expression/influence on evolution. It contains a very BRIEF aside mentioning irreducible complexity, and ONLY mentions it to say that the given transposon mechanisms are a possible way that apparently "irreducible" systems could have developed. Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And, since the full text is availible by subsciption only, we're forced to work from the abstract.  If someone would be so kind as to make the full-text availible, it would be much appreciated.  One of the items I'm curious about is if any correlation was investigated between the TE "hotspots" and any known mathematical phenomenon.  Prime numbers and fractals in particular.  Both are seen in nature everyday, with little understanding of their causation.  If there's a solid link between the TE "hotspots" and mathematical phenomenon, large chunks of Irreducible Complexity go BOOM.--ghost 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, papers in Annual Review of Genetics are not peer-reviewed. --Rikurzhen 00:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s The Design Inference. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No gold here either. First, I can't access the full-text of this.  In fact, the only references that can be found are on websites that take an extreme position on one side or another.  We can't address what we can't access.  Also, I have some concerns that I'll address below.--ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. --netcody 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty silly review, NOT research. Okay, yes, there's a limited number of protein folds. So what? First of all, it's not even clear that, say, TIM barrels are not monophyletic. Even if they aren't, this doesn't mean much of anything other than "convergence occurs". That's like saying "Mountains are all pointy - why don't they take on any of the OTHER bazillion possible shapes?!? OMG!!!" Dumb.


 * Anyway, these are NOT ID proponents' writings, and as far as I can tell, none of them are actually writing in support of the idea of intelligent design, even obliquely or unintentionally. Graft 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You got me all excited for a minute. I thought, OMG a link! Little did I know that it was two paragraphs that concluded with:
 * "...If it does turn out that a substantial amount of higher biological form is natural, then the implications will be radical and far-reaching. It will mean that physical laws must have had a far greater role in the evolution of biological form than is generally assumed. And it will mean a return to the pre-darwinian conception that underlying all the diversity of the life is a finite set of natural forms that will recur over and over again anywhere in the cosmos where there is carbon-based life."--Denton & Marshall, Laws of form
 * And then your follow-up article destroyed the ID of the articles supporting ID with the statement:
 * "We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed."-- Denton, et. al., The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
 * Duh. Symmetry in nature.  Darwin does not discount symmetry in nature anymore than anyone else does.  In fact, symmetrical forms have been shown to be advantageous, therefore Darwinian theory reinforces the likelihood of symmetry.  If you doubt this, ask yourself why the model with the symmetrical face is more attractive than the Elephant Man.  No gold.--ghost 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on DB, citing Dembski's own site as proof of peer review? Not compelling. Other more reputable sources (like the National Academies) have emphatically stated that no ID research has survived peer review to be published in any credible, significant scientific publications. I can provide many neutral, credible cites on this if required. Further, that ID lacks formal, credible peer review is a fact easily verified-- a search of PubMed for the term "intelligent design" returns no hits for peer reviewed primary writings in support of ID. Netcody's cites are inconclusive. He alludes to each as supporting ID, I recognize several here as well-known examples of actual research that is often misquoted/misinterpreted by ID supporters, to the chagrin of the research authors. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I recognize from past months here most of the research cited on netcody's list allegedly supporting ID as being comprised of research commonly misquoted and misinterpreted by ID supporters. It was shown to be gratuitous then, read Archive 3. Nothing's changed in the interim, so no, there's no justification for claiming ID benefits from this or any peer reviewed works. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, Netcody, if you're going to put this number of people thru this much work again, please have the decency to provide links.--ghost 20:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And RTFA... FeloniousMonk 22:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies for my statement about the Al-Qaeda recruit, I did not direct the statement at any person(s) in particular; it was a rhetorical device to make a point. I understand that I have lost all respect in the eyes of everyone involved in this discussion, I had no idea this is taken so seriously. I apologize for my intrusion into this community.

On ID as the “antithesis” of evolution as “natural law”: ID supporters do not (or should not) claim that evolution is completely and entirely false. Nor will ID definitively disprove every shred of evidence that has been collected by biologist for the 100+ years. ID is seeking to understand how natural forces, random events, and intelligent activity each function individually and synergistically: INdependently and INTERdependently. Evolution and ID are not antitheses of each other, unless one forces them into opposition by making them say something they do not.

As to whether or not ID has credibility in peer review: of course, you are not going to find the phrase "intelligent design" in the “establishment.” There are, however, many quasi-design theoretic works being reviewed and printed. It was the same for Darwin: the establishment in his day rejected him outright. What began to happen was evolution-theoretic research accumulated, and eventually evolution gained a foothold. I see a similar pattern happening for ID. To speak directly to statements by the establishment (like the National Academies) about ID having no basis for research, ID scientists are building a basis, an intellectual foundation. Whether ID will directly benefit from the accumulation of design-theoretic peer reviewed articles is yet to be seen.

As for my future involvement with this discussion, I will submit any articles in this discussion to the community and do with it as you will, and certainly you will. --netcody 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the references I read (I haven't got access to the last) provide any arguments in favor of intelligent design. How can you pretend they do? The pretense that ID is somehow slowly gaining traction within the scientific community is absurd. Graft 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted (I can't speak for anyone but myself on that). In the future, if you come to a page such as this and use rhethorical speech, it's like shoving a stick into a hornet's nest.  Expect to get stung.  The references provided above are interesting, but either we can't examine them, or they don't back ID as you might hope.  Further, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that: a)all of these references are several years old; b)they are all used (abused?) repeatedly by the Discovery Institute in their rhetorical publications.  I challenge you to find something fresh that supports ID directly (not by insinuation), that isn't spewed from the lips of the pundits.  Might I suggest looking into string theory?  It's not there yet, but it's teetering on the brink.


 * For my part, I have no issues with ID being presented as a philosophical theory. The problem is that a vocal minority want to hold it up as scientific fact.  That is unacceptable.  We have a responsibility to the children who will read this reference we're writing to get it right.  I ask all the editors to review the article with the idea that your kid will read it, as mine already are.  Let's clean it up, it's too important not too.--ghost 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

false claims of vandalism
how does pointing out that everyone but kooks and religous nuts get called vandalism? all that guy did was clarify that no one with an education takes ID seriously and you folks jumped all over him. he did his best, and you nutcases insist on biasing this article into looking like people actually believe this drivel. wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, NOT lies and disinformation.


 * I'm glad you're talking to us. Thank you.  There are people, however misguided you and I might view it, that do believe in ID.  Wholeheartedly.  And they are as entitled to their views as you and I are.  Therefore, in the spirit of NPOV, we have to try presenting those views in as fair and straight-forward a manner as possible.  Please note, that as you dig deeper into the article, there is plenty of the criticism that you gave voice too.  But, as a dictionary starts with the definition, not the antonym, we must first open with what they believe.--ghost 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

maybe the article should be more modeled after flat earth's article then. They come right out an say that the belief is old and people moved on. people also beliew tha hallocaust never happened, that doesnt mean that an article about the hallocuast even needs to discuss it. infact, since ID is creationism plus an additional alien factor, shouldnt this entire article be covered by creationism?


 * The belief isn't old, or nearly as invalid as you suggest it is. Whether or not we disagree (which the majority of the editors here do actually), we have an obligation to report the facts and opinions presented to us, not what we personally think it boils down to. and I believe the hollocaust article does mention holocaust denalists, but I'm not sure. Mentioning them doesn't make it valid, its just noting they exist--Tznkai 21:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--um.. invalid is invalid..... it is not like intellegent design is half right... in the explanation of ID you are obligated to be honest ond forthright about its bogus claims. Allowing them to appear valid isa misuse of power and a failure to educate. You are right you asre obligated to report facts. then do so, dont let ID even appear valid, since there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!--uber


 * Invalidity is actually a term used in formal logic to refer to the structure of an argument, as a side note. Do you want me to go onto love and say that it is invalid and an outmoded thing of the past? With strict application of your criterion, that'd be technically correct. Our obligation is to make a useful encylopedia. We're reporting what people say, what other people say, without making our own ontological, epistimological or ethical judgements.--Tznkai 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is why the table is at the beginning. (Note, this table doesn't work as well in FireFox) In the table you'll see the flat-earth link.  You efforts show that a overly brief intro maybe misleading.  We tried repositioning the Table of Contents and the creationism table to move the more thorough explanation up.  I'll give that a whirl now.--ghost 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

good deal. thanks for being honest, and open to reality. The flat earth example was simply that in the intro to that article, they come right out and say that it is a misguided beliefe from the past. --uber

I didn't mean to revert ghost's edit. I meant to revert the anonymous edit previous to his. I'm going to leave it alone now... --goethean &#2384; 21:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Goethean. Uber, we will do what we can to address your concerns. Alot of us agree with you more than you might think.--ghost 21:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No offense intended, but this anon should be conforming to NPOV policy, not the other way around. Or, at the very least, content should change, not the position of the TOC on the page! - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

Another School Board Attack
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution — a question already before a federal court — sparred in front of a state legislative panel. FuelWagon 05:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oy. BTW, we never did get good stuff on the Kansas Board of Ed. controversy a couple months ago.  Takers?--ghost 05:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

String Theory?
The paragraph on string theory seems out of place. The theory is in such an early stage of development that it would be hard to say what it even requires. Thus, it is pretty shakey as a criticism of ID. Objections to dropping the paragraph? S.N. Hillbrand 11:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but recent developments in Cosmology may be appropriate. Particularly since many may deal with Irreducible Complexity, etc.  Perhaps relocating it, or a rewrite is better?  What would be great would be to have a template like  .  It would reduce the appearence of the creationism template 'labeling' the article, and provide links for the reader to explore.  Thoughts?--ghost 15:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Would the template be about ID, or about recent developments in cosmology? (Assuming the former, I just inserted the code at Template:Intelligent Design)  --goethean &#2384;  16:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * edited to direct to the new name of the template.
 * Nice, thx. Let's use this too.  I was actually thinking of cosmology; is there one, or is it a hassle? (I really need to teach myself templates)--ghost 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's extremely easily. I'll set up a cosmology one if you'll insert the links. --goethean &#2384;  17:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Template:Cosmology --goethean &#2384;  18:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, thx.--ghost 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I made slight mods to the multiverse part but I am still of the opinion that it should go. Reasons:  1-multiverse provides the possibility for other physical laws, doesn't change the potential that powerful aliens in this universe designed us, 2-gravity leaks deal with extra dimensions, not extra universes, 3-It is hard to critique a non-falsifiable claim with another non-falsifiable claim.  Any thoughts?  Nice Template, BTW S.N. Hillbrand 18:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nurban- Thx, I had neglected the brane-ish link. However, gravity leaks are predicted only at distances at least 10^29cm. This is the current horizon in astronomy and therefore cannot be seen. A skeptic would say convenient. Still nothing falsifiable in string theory. S.N. Hillbrand 19:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What makes ID different than creationism
Arn't they the same with "god" replaced by "higher being"(which includes a "god")?


 * Replace "god" with "unknown agent(s)". P.S. sign your discussion with ~ . --Yath 20:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so why have 2 complete entries in the 'pedia for what ammounts to basically one thing? IreverentReverend 20:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the politics and strategy of the two groups differs. Joe D (t) 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * would it be a good idea to include a section highlighting that they are similar and pointing out said differences? the name "intelligent design" hides the closeness, as was it's intention, i bet... IreverentReverend 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and no. History of creationism explains why ID came about.  The big problem with the ID movement is that they're good politicians, it's all smoke and mirrors.  You accuse them of being creationists and they'll deny it, whilst at the same time refusing to criticise YECists, writing articles packed full of the age old lies in "Christian Monthly".  So to be NPOV you have to write that they deny it, and so on.  ID is a particularly clever type of creationism because whereas YECism is based on shaky foundations, ID consists of air.  Dunc|&#9786; 20:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * it seems to me that one could stay npov 'ed but point out that they use the same arguments, ignore the same arguments, ect? " rose by any other name" and all... IreverentReverend 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "ID was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution" would be a perfect place to include that it was formed out of creationism.... IreverentReverend 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that attempt is made (although doing so in the intro tends to infuriate partisans). The legitimate concern with doing that, is that you walk a fine line between presenting the topic and creating a straw man article. Thus the tone of the article becomes very important (and is not perfect now). Also, ID is modeled on many of the beliefs of non-Christians, forcing us to temper their point of view in the topics. This is why I've argued that the article should focus on ID as a philosophical concept, while presenting the scientific criticisms of those who view it as anything more. It's not perfect, but Wikipedia can't create an article only to turn around and call it crap.--ghost 21:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Holocaust denial does a pretty good job of presenting the evidence and stating that no one really takes it seriously. we could do more like them. I think you are taking impartiallity a bit far... wikipedia tries to be an encyclopia, and as such, should deal in facts, not emotions. so what if the 3 people that believe in ID get upset, as long as we stick to facts. I agree that impartiallity is important, but not to the point of allowing this entry to be misleading. If you avoid stepping on everyones toes, you end up off the true path and bogged down...--IreverentReverend


 * And if you go to Talk:Holocaust denial, you see something completely different. Such as one of the main editors stating, "...offending holocaust deniers is a GOOD thing."  While I happen to agree with the guy, this is not how the NPOV policy instructs us to handle minority ideas we do not agree with.  Particularlly minority ideas that are the main topic of an article.  One of the Mediators chided me to "love" the other POV, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.  If you think that ID is a minority opinion, not worthy of the time, fine.  But be aware that there are more than 3 editors who give ID the benefit of the doubt.  You're more the welcome to pickup the torch and run with it, but you'll need to answer to them.--ghost 08:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at User:IreverentReverend's contribution, I would ask him to write with more care. It disregards basic conventions of grammar, spelling and sentence and paragraph structure, and doesn't make much sense in its present form. Specifically, the sentence:
 * In the case of the clotting factors the counter example is in the digestive systems.
 * is too vague to be kept. --goethean &#2384;  20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And it was in the wrong section. One might be so bold as to ask him to RTFA. --goethean &#2384;  21:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * meh when talking about Behe's claims of irreducable complexity, it would be very appropriate to bring up that every one of his claims has been proven false, not a bunch of sections later in with the general criticisms of irreducable complexity. If you bring up the cases up above as exact examples, you should display both sides of the issue, not just his false claims and no refference to it's falsity.IreverentReverend 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So you ignore the layout of the article and insert your sloppily written, redundant verbiage where it doesn't belong? That's just rude. Similar contributions will be reverted. --goethean &#2384; 00:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so it was sloppy, doesnt mean it was not appropriate. the critisism section later on is for critisism of the idea itself. it is VERY appropriate to point out in the initial portion where you bring up the specifics that none of them are valid. Better yet, since they are not valid arguments just leave them out. By presenting the examples and hiding the flaws you are biasing the article into fiction-hood.IreverentReverend 03:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The intent of the current format was to give space to present the arguements for and against on their own merits. There is mention of controversy in the intro.  To start inserting falsifications in the body of the POV presentations turns them into straw man arguments.  We've already had our heads kicked in on this one for bias.  Therefore, it is inappropriate.--ghost 21:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * While I see your point, I contend that it would not be a straw man, per se, as in the wiki on straw men, it says that you don't use the opositions best arguments, only the ones you can contend.... um... that IS one of the best arguments, that is part of why ID is so very, very flawed, even the best arguments are easily proven wrong. I still say if you are bringing up a specific example you have to make it much more clear that the arguments are invalid. If you choose to include that those elements of a living being are belived to be iredducably complex, you have to point out science disagrees. if you say that they believe that their are irreducably complex elements in general, than the general arugments against it can wait for the critisism section.


 * Then how 'bout this? What if we 'gently' unified the debate section with it's subsection of crticisms?  So it'd be a point-counterpoint.  In order to avoid the appearence of a straw man (because appearences may be more important that the reader than they are to us), we need some clear break between.  Maybe, '===Irreducible complexity===' followed by '====Irreducible complexity - Criticism===='?--ghost 04:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That would make me much happier, as then the reader doesnt have to go looking for the rest of the information, and the article would apear less biased than it is when it hides the fact that the arguments are invalid IreverentReverend 05:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Gave it a whirl. It does seem to flow better.  We should review content for redundancies. I took the liberty of indenting the contents of the 'criticism' sections to further segragate the sections and try to make sure we don't create the appearence of a straw man argument.--ghost 02:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Much better, thanks IreverentReverend 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ID in summary== reworking, comments? ==

ID in summary
ID was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution and is investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. Proponents of ID study objects in an attempt to isolate what they call signs of intelligence &mdash; physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Examples being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these signs of intelligence, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to naturalistic theories of evolution, which explain life exclusively through natural processes such as random mutations and natural selection. ID, however makes no attempt to describe how the designer came about.

William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, uses the example of Mt. Rushmore to provide an analogy to the underlying premise of ID:


 * "What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence."--The Design Revolution, pg. 33.

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US.

Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. Additionally, by failing to explain the orgin of the designer, ID only moves the initial starting point farther back.

Critics contend that ID is attempting to redefine natural science. Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intuition is extremely important in natural science, but the scientific method holds nothing to be true until it can be observed repeatedly. The idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth is a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science). They intuit that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, it is a priori knowledge.

This a priori intuition that an intelligent designer (God or an alien life force) created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids ,,. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well, while not really explaining anything. Empirical scientists would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques.

Origin of the term
The phrase "intelligent design", used in this sense, appeared in Christian creationist literature, including the textbook Of Pandas and People (Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989). The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson is the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.

What Intelligent Design is not
Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature. This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics.

Theory vs. Claim
By my handy dictionary: Theory is a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something. Claim is the assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. In other words, to call something a claim is perjorative and, in this case, unnecessary as theory describes id quite well. S.N. Hillbrand 20:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * the·o·ry (th&#275;'&#601;-r&#275;, thîr'&#275;)

n., pl. -ries. 1A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


 * that is from dictionary.com... I have trouble seeing how ID fits any of those catagories...1) not repeatable, or if id is true, not natural,2) id is DEFINATLY not a scientific theory (what orig editor inteded, i think) 3)not about math, 4)might fall under this, but occams razor and other tools of logic say it is wrong, erog no in this section, 5)nope, fails to aid comprehension, doenst really answe anything, just shifts everything back a notch... or is it 6? not really comfortable calling this a theory like this... it implied to me the scientific theory bit as well..


 * Right, I was using my OED, dictionary.com uses American Heritage. Check www.m-w.com, where the definition of theory more closely describes what ID is to its supporters (which, I may safely assume, neither of us is).  In any event, I like "idea" as it stands.  Not as perjorative as claim, while remaining accurate. S.N. Hillbrand 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that this is an issue of tone, which we're cautioned on in NPOV. Fair warning: This was gone over in the Archives, and the text you're discussing was an eariler compromise.  We could use 'hypothesis', but that's not strident enough for the ID fans.--ghost 03:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't hypothesis technically incorrect as well, since a hypothesis is supposed to falsifiable? At any rate. this reminds me of what we're going over in talk:abortion dictionaries are a poor way to settle this.--Tznkai 17:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are right about hypothesis, but the alliteration "controversial contention" is sounds off. How about "tendentious assertion"?  I removed one the references to "Intelligent Design Theory" in the intro to eliminate some of the repetition. S.N. Hillbrand 18:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Going with controversial assertion for now. Contention is more neutral, but you're right, it sounds horrible.--Tznkai 18:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory
um... I was thinking, and if you people insist on saying that ID is not just creationism with god expanded to include aliens... Since ID doesn't answer the question "where did the designer come from", and all it does is introduce an additional layer of complexity, it doesn't really qualify as a creation myth... Additionally, should ID be both a member of the creationism catagory, and the intellegent design catagory, which is a sub catagory of creationism? elsewhere I have heard not to do that. Why don't we split the ID subcategory into it's own category, since it really doesn't fit there? IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 18:47 (UTC)


 * Exactly, if ID were really just a smokescreen for theological creationism, then nearly all the main proponents and supporters would be conservative Christians just like other more overt creationists. Oh, wait a minute... they are. ID is plainly creationism. ID holds that naturalistic causes are insufficient to create the universe, life, Hostess Twinkees, etc., therefore, they must have been "designed." In other words, created. That ID does not explicitly invoke a specific creator is not just a non sequitur but is explicitly called for by its main proponents as part of their agenda: According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Dembski also said: "As Christians we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. ... Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it since the people on this page insist that they are different, then make them different. Plus that still leaves it a member of a category and it's sub category.... Like I said, I was told not to do that.... it boils down to ID being creationism, or not an "orgin" article. Since we are not allowed to point out that it is creationism in sheep's clothing, it must ergo not be an "orgin" article IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be blunt here. Stop slamming creationists while excuse it as pursuit of truth or writing a good article. Do I argue against that its reasonable to believe that ID was born as a smokescreen for creationism? No. It is not however strickty logical to say: "Exactly, if ID were really just a smokescreen for theological creationism, then nearly all the main proponents and supporters would be conservative Christians just like other more overt creationists. Oh, wait a minute... they are." if suddenly only bridge builders believed that good bridges need to be structrually sound, it wouldn't make it more or less true. This is getting ridiculous. Readers are not stupid. People are not stupid. People have reasonable reasons to be for or against ID, usually because of disinformation and lack of information. Since I think the vast majority of this article's regulars agree the ID is not science, maybe, just maybe we should stop wasting time patting ourselves on the back about the stupidity of ID, and focus on creating a good article. I firmly believe a fair, neutral factual representation of ID will "expose it for what it really is", a series of intresting ideas, lies, and half truths strung together to make God seem scientific, and science seem deficient. Let the facts speak for themselves.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough I agree with you, especially on the "let the facts speak for themselves" bit, which is exaclty why I am struggling to unbury the facts from under the pile of BS that hides them. Look through all my arguments. I have consistently been arguing to stop pussyfooting around and state the facts bluntly. I agree that the misinformation and disinformation is a problem, which i why I say this. A few days ago all the arguments for ID were explicitly stated, while evidence showing the pro-id arguments invalid was hidden 1/2 a page down, with vague refrences to the original. By the time people got to the critisisms, they were likely not to notice that EVERY item used as an argument for irreducably complexity was discounted. Let the facts speak for themselves and move on. Like I said, if the best pro-argument that exists is easily dicounted, discount it. IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting my attempt at mixing humor and polemics should be included in the article. And I would say a fair, neutral factual representation of ID largely what we have now, or at least well on the way to. The rub is that we're writing about a topic which though some take at face value, is being used cynically by its main proponents as a useful adjunct in furthering their social and political agenda. That it be taken seriously as an actual line of inquiry by some is a requisite of their plan; that some do is a testament to that plan's success. This is the context of ID. Presenting ID outside of it's context is exactly what the Discovery Institute would like see more of; doing so can only serve their ends, but would not serve the reader. There's bound to be some denial and cognitive dissonance experienced by those who've taken ID at face value when confronted with the fact that the leading ID proponents are talking out of both sides of their mouth. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)


 * "One man's trash is another man's treasure" In Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell put forward that every culture has myths.  And that those myths can the factual within the context of that culture.  Removed from that context, they appear to be falsehoods.  ID is not more or less a myth than the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree.  This is why we must not discount ID out of hand.  We must treat it like any other Wiki subject.  IreverentReverend and I worked out the way to present the proofs and disproofs of ID was to clearly segragate them.  That way you present both POVs as POVs.


 * As too what category it belongs in, I see no reason why it should not fit into Creationism. To the ID believer, the world was created, so it's Creationism.  To the disbeliever, it's Creationism by a different name.  Let's stop wasting time and move on.--ghost 30 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)


 * We've mentioned the DI enough. No reason to add on. I am pretty happy with the article as far as content goes, partially because we have people on both sides of the fence bitching about it (see my earlier comment on compromise). I am however hacking through the format and the external links because I feel they are bloating the article, not improving it.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * Which external links are you refering to? I'd advise against pruning the external links used as supporting reference, as many insist who frequent these pages insist that all controversial (a subjective standard) points be cited. FeloniousMonk 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)


 * I won't touch anything in the refrences section. I'd like to clip some of the further reading down, but havn't gone to a library to check these out so thats a later project. On the Pro ID the ones that immediatly stand out is the Crev-Evo news page. Its a pretty vicious blog more than a resource.. I'm not trilled with origins because it just strikes me as looking not quite professional, the millhousecreek is giving them advertisement, not giving the reader resource. The IDURC and the ISCID pages seem redundant, one should go. Going through anti ID now.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

They deny it's pseudoscience too and but it's in that category, despite complaints at category talk:pseudoscience. See "intelligent design is not creationism". It should be noted that they sometimes deny it (though they sometimes admit it), but by the admittedly rather vague definition of creationism in w:en, it is. Dunc|&#9786; 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)


 * Well, then there's a few ways to handle it's inclusion in Category:Pseudoscience. One, require that supporters prove it's something else.  I don't see that being successful.  Two, remove it on the premise that it's still under debate.  I don't see the detractors going for that either.  Three, put it to a straw poll.  My guess is the losers would claim that they were victim to community bias.  Anyone else got a better idea?  If not, and we don't want to do one of these three, I think it needs to stay by default.--ghost 30 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * It should stay, I agree. It's identification as such is an issue that resurfaces often, alternating monthly between here and there. FeloniousMonk


 * Psuedoscience should stay. No one has really responded to if it is kosher to be a member of a catagory and it's sub category both.... ie in creationism and creationism.id....  oh and by the way, the reason I don't think ID should be in creationism is due to the fact, that even if you assume ID is true, you are still left needing a creation myth. ID MIGHT fit with as to why their is life on earth, or even possibly an earth, the "creator" could have come from outside the earth/solar system. You can't do that when you claim the "creator" created everything, thus no outside for it to exist in.... IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)


 * oh and, take a look at the first line in psuedoscience. that scentence describes ID perfectly:"refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method." IreverentReverend 30 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

I don't know how many of you here are aware of the Fine-tuned_universe article (I just discovered it myself today), but it's in need of a deft touch for NPOV; the first sentence alone is an unsupported assertion. FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)


 * Sweet baby Jesus, just a quick glance shows the article of serious work, both style wise and content. Since fine-tuned_universe is eseentially a fork of this article, what say we invade, politely, and help out?--Tznkai 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)


 * ID isn't creationism. Is it possible to believe in ID and not believe in a creator? Absolutely! You cannot conflate a theory with the beliefs of the majority of those who believe that theory. It's extremely bad logic and does not bode well for science or any other kind of critical thinking when people are taught that it is legitimate to act this way simply to discredit a theory that one does not like or which one sees as "unscientific." This horrid explanation of ID, which has many other problems besides conflating

ID with creationism, causes people to lose faith in the entire wiki project. If we're going to give outright erroneous explanations of positions we don't like, why do wiki at all? Why not just retreat to our blogs where we can freely attack one another's positions without taking on the added hypocrisy of claiming "truth" for positions that are demonstrably false? It certainly clear to me that darwinists on wiki are being faithful to their "survival of the fittest" belief by ensuring that the strongest and loudest voice is the one that "rules" on wikipedia. For anyone actually concerned about it, an accurate explanation of intelligent design can be found here: http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Esejones/idfaqs00.html

Removed section: Nature of the designer
It has been suggested by some opponents that ID researchers who believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is the designer may face an additional burden of proof beyond the standard claims of the ID movement, by having to additionally demonstrate that the designs themselves are flawless and anticipate all eventualities. Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, for example:


 * the poor ability of the human body to repair spinal cord injuries
 * the inability of the human body to grow replacement limbs
 * the failure to anticipate the demands of a plentiful, sedentary lifestyle leaving the human body vulnerable to chronic diseases such as type II diabetes and atherosclerosis
 * the poor design of the human eye, which places the optic nerves on the "wrong" side of the retina, unlike that of the octopus
 * using the same genetic code for various species making it dangerously easy to transmit viruses across species' barriers
 * the requirement of a lower temperature for mammalian spermatogenes that results in the carrying of the testicles externally in a more vulnerable position
 * brain-imaging researchers find that 2&#8722;8% of ostensibly "normal" research subjects have "clinically significant" findings, such as tumors, malformations or serious disease (J. Illes et al. J. Magn. Reson. Imag. 20, 743&#8722;747; 2004).

Some of these ID researchers would instead argue that this is fallacious in that, when compared to that of an all-knowing God, our own knowledge is insignificant, so features that may appear flawed to us, are actually perfect to God; or that benevolence does not imply the need for physical perfection in Creation.

Discussion archived: Still pending refrence to prove as not violating WP:NOR.

This seems to be a criticism of Omnipotence and Omnicience, which, while intresting, seems irellivant.--Tznkai 17:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. Many involved in the ID movement have not thought through the implications for the nature of the designer of their various beliefs.--Silverback June 28, 2005 16:36 (UTC)


 * Which, while intresting, is not really a pertinent critiscsm. This might go well in Athiesm, but the ID article is focused on the concept and its proofs itself, and the critisms of those, not on critisms of the supposed designer.--Tznkai 28 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)


 * That ID proponents want to ignore any reference at all to what the designer is doesn't mean wikipedia should too. Critics take ID and extend it to what the designer might be and find major flaws in ID's assumptions. ID responds with vigorous hand waving. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)


 * FW makes a salient point. And not to mention the statements made by leading ID proponents for private consumption to their constituents that they believe the designer is the god of Abraham. FeloniousMonk 28 June 2005 18:13 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair crticism of the ID movement, but the passage I removed really isn't. Its close to strawman/red herring (always get those confused), and again, is a critiscsm of Omnipotence and Omnicience. Wikipedia is not a place for us to collapse the ID movement. We have plenty of venues to do that, nor is it a place to defend it. I think this is not a pertinent peice of information, and is certainly not useful enough to keep in an already 47kb long article. We're edging towards blogging here. Make no mistake, I am not an ID supporter in anything but a personal philosophical belief that there is a God who deals from a stacked deck. These criticsms are more like a list of things that are "wrong" or flawed with the human body, something ultimatly irellivant to ID. ID supposes a brilliant designer, not a perfect one. That suppostition has enough flaws to keep us occupied for a disseration. Lets not get too caught up in it.--Tznkai 28 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are wrong on two counts. ID does not suppose a brilliant designer, in fact our species is probably within a few decades of the required capability, and there is no reason to believe that a lesser intelligence couldn't also achieve such design capability, with a culture that allowed building upon past technological accomplishments.   Secondly, consider how you know that ID supposes a brilliant designer, not a perfect one?  By looking at the poor quality of the design.  This section you delete, informs believers in an ominiscient, omnipotent creator, who may be innocently supporting ID, that the theory poses problems for the nature of the creator they believe in.  ID theory is probably raising more questions than it answers for beliefs they consider core.--Silverback June 28, 2005 18:42 (UTC)
 * Not really. Perfect is one of those tricky words and philosophical concepts. Furthmore, much of this is preserved at the beginning of the article you realize. Again, not a criticsm of ID itself, because as discussed by Graft bellow, they've been rather flakey on who their designer is.--Tznkai 28 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)


 * Yes, really, the very trickiness of the concept of "perfect", will require believers in both ID and an omniscient and omnipotent designer, into the kind of spin/apologia, that gives lie to their claim of ID as a scientific concept.--Silverback June 28, 2005 19:08 (UTC)


 * Again, I really don't see your point. Up there is a bunch of philosphical rambling about how humans are imperfect from one POV, while from another, someone can find it perfect. Its useless, since perfection is a philosphical concept. How does this relate to ID? And who are these people who say this?--Tznkai 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

While I think the original passage is argumentative and unnecessary, I think there's definitely room for and a need for discussion of the "Nature of the designer" issue. ID proponents have, to date, refused to lay out a coherent theory for the design process which would make testable predictions (e.g., how, specifically, did the designer intervene, and can we detect supporting evidence for it?). This is a notable failure that means ID is not a scientific theory. Graft 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)


 * Also a good point. FeloniousMonk 28 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Graft has the right idea here.--Tznkai 28 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)
 * Note, this is in the article, just needs to be expanded.--Tznkai 28 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
 * I just expanded it. You try to develop an apologia for this flawed world with an omniscient/omnipotent designer, and see how testable it is as a scientific theory.  You would probably have to resort to somekind of mysterious purpose, unfathomable intent, or some other equally untestable/unscientific hypothesis.--Silverback June 28, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
 * Apologia? Huh? thats my point, perfection is outside the realm of science, as is ID, as proven on a number of points in the article. I really don't see your point here.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)

If critics of ID argue about a "perfect" designer, then their arguments ought to be in the article. If ID counters that they don't claim the designer is perfect, then that can be included to represent their point of view. But I don't think it is our role to say this criticism is valid or not. There no objective ruler here other than second hand empirical data and a lot of word/logical arguments to spin them into someone's version of reality. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)
 * I really don't think theres much discussion inherent in ID about a perfect desginer. Thats really the pervue of an argument about omniceince and omnipotence, which is something that theologians have been trying to wrap their head around for a long time. All of this critism is redundant and unsourced, and as I staated earlier, possilby irellivant.

This is my stuff that got caught in the Edit conflict bug:


 * Folks, this is exactly why I originally wanted the "Nature of.." section in "Additional criticisms of.." Having this strong, and this detailed of a rebuttal of the topic of the article in the intro conveys POV. I'm not debating the content, just the tone that's conveyed by having it this early in the article. The idea is to present the subject, state (and link) that it's controversial, and then get into the meat of the arguments. The last thing any of us want is to have some Idiot-with-a-conspiracy-theory hassling us over a problem with the tone of the article. The intro has crept from 3 paragraphs to 2 1/2 pages, and this is partially my fault. Let's get it under control. Stick to the bare bones; move the rest to the body of the article.--ghost 28 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)


 * My apologies. This issue slipped past me eariler. This section was originally removed by me, because it was extremely redundant when seen in the context of the "What designed the designer? section. Here's the removed copy:


 * ===Nature of the designer===
 * Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, many ID arguments are formulated in secular terms. Most ID arguments do not depend on Biblical fundamentalism. They do not explicitly state that their adherents accept the Bible's accounts, they do not explicitly state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened at so many different points in time and space (sometimes even outside of time and space) that only God or an extremely capable, long-lived and persistent alien culture could fulfill the requirements.


 * The key arguments in favor of the different variants of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation although the designers might be different. For example, the notion of an "intelligent designer" is compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia, but would not be with the designer(s) of the "fine-tuned" universe. Likewise, ID claims can support a variety of theistic notions. Some proponents of creationism and intelligent design reject the Christian concept of omnipotence and omniscience on the part of God, and subscribe to Open Theism or Process theology.


 * I'm not suggesting that we permanently yank this copy (or the older copy) altogether. But I don't see the purpose of beating the reader over the head with essentially the same argument 3 & 4 times. This also trims 1/2 a page of text out of the article.--ghost 28 June 2005 19:54 (UTC)
 * Agreed--Tznkai 29 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * I wondered about the "what designed the designer" section. It is really redundant, other than making basically a one line point, analogous to the who created the creator point.  Tznkai is failing to understand the nature of the designer point (as he admitted above).  This article is about ID being put forward as a scientific hypothesis (or really several hypotheses).  A requirement of every ID theory is a designer, and the lack of evidence of a designer's presence at any particular place and time other than the alleged "design" itself, is one of the weaknesses of the theory.  In a sense,  the presense of design on earth or the universe is being used as an argument and the only evidence of the existance of a designer.  Almost all, ID proponents have a designer in mind.  A subset of those, think the design they claim to see is evidence for their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God as the designer.   Perhaps the earlier version of this section which was originally titled "Hypotheses about the Intelligent Designer" made the intent of this section clearer.  Does the evidence of design support the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent God as the designer?  The most natural hypothesis about the intelligent designer, is "how intelligent"?  It is pretty clear that humans are intelligent enough, since their technology is already capable of patching the design, and may be just a few decades away from being able to make significant improvements.  Of course, human technological advance as seemed rapid, there was not necessarily a need for as much intelligence as humans have.  Some other species, given a longer period of time may well be able to accumulate enough technology to also design, and perhaps a less intelligent designer is the best fit for the evidence so far, since if they could have improved the design like humans will soon be able to do, they would have.  ID proponents of the omniscient, omnipotent God hypothesis, need to realize that ID merely adds other ID proponents to the lists of non-believers that they have to contend with.  It adds problems that challenge their beliefs, not evidence that supports them.  A small subset of the most obvious problems are listed as examples in this section.   Medical and biology references would be good sources for a plethora of more examples. --Silverback June 29, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
 * While very intresting and wordy, this is still missing the point. While I personally don't doubt that certain ID proponents also believe in an omnicient omnipotent god, it is not a part of the so called theory. Its an additional belief. Also, you're begging a few questions, are what level of intelligence is required, and to design what? Humans can't create life from nothing, and may never be able to. (I personally hope not.) Likewise, not all believes in an omnicient god are believers in ID (as a theory). Furthermore, talking about "flaws" with human design is a matter of point of view. Who makes these claims that these are flaws, why are they called flaws? What isn't a flaw from a certain point of view. Again, we're diverging rapidly into a discussion on perfection. There is nothing inherent in ID that creates additional problems for omnicience, nor vice versa. Lets concentrate on whats important.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 14:50 (UTC)
 * You say that omnicient omnipotent God is not part of the theory, yet you claim that ID supposes a brilliant designer, and that humans may never be able to create life from nothing. How is it that you establish that the designer's intelligence is limited to brilliant?  You can't.  You also don't know that for any particular design that is part of the theory that the designer  created life "from nothing".  Previous implementations of designed or evolved life forms may have been the starting point, so your skepticism about humans ever being able to create life from nothing posits an ability that may not be needed.  Of course, I'm not skeptical here, humans are already assembling viruses.  Omniscient, omnipotent God is among the spectrum of designers that some proponents of ID hypothesize, brilliant designer is another, etc.  As for "flaws", medical science has identified a number of diseases, defects, parts that can "break", injuries that can be repaired, etc. and even has discussions of limited functionally after medical procedures or natural healing.  While you think "flaws" would involve a negative normative judgement, the field of medicine is quite comfortable with a number of normative terms, such as disease, of course, some are disputed such as deafness, with the patients rejecting any labeling as flawed and in need of repair.--Silverback June 29, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
 * It took me a bit to sludge my way through the use of intelligent long words, but I'm sorta getting where you're going, I think. Ultimatly though, as noted by Graft, ID theorists have rountinely failed to posit exactly what constitutes a sufficiently intelligent designer. The use of normative statements in medicine is all well and good, but medcine isn't philosiphy or theology, using the same word and crossing over from field to field is equivocation, a classic accidental logical fallacy. The flaws of ID are sufficient and contained within itself without going into questioning the designer. In fact, to do so implies the correctness of ID (ID works, now lets find a designer. Your candidate is the wrong one, bring me a better one). At anyrate, I believe we need to be accurate and comprehensive, but not exhuastive--Tznkai 29 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)
 * sorry, ID is claims to be science, and crossing over with words is not equivocation. The designer is part of ID theory, just because it is flawed elsewhere, doesn't mean it isn't just as important to question the designer. Internal flaws in theory may show themselves in the requirements of the designer.  For instance, two simultaneous design events that occur too far apart, might require the designer to exceed the speed of light.--Silverback June 29, 2005 17:04 (UTC)
 * Erm. I'm sure you realize that not all science agrees witheachother normativly. At anyrate, if someone proves that ID, inorder to be sound, requires a designer that is omnicient, and omnipotent, then yes, this is pertinent criticism. If not, it isn't.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * The original title of this section was hypotheses about the designer. There does not need to be proof, just a hypothesis that the designer is ominiscient and omnipotent.  Hypotheses about the designer are intrinsic to ID, after all the name of the theory suggests that the designer has the quality of "intelligence".  Introducing the requirement of "proof" is a red herring, so far the ID community has not even proven the designer wasn't drunk at the time or times of the design.  The "intelligent" hypothesis introduces the quantitative spectrum of intelligence.  Most mammals and birds have some intelligence.  Most hypotheses about the designer seem to posit an intelligence greater than human intelligence, but it is not clear that is required at the low end of the spectrum.  Do the design candidates for which an inference of intelligent has been forward, also allow an inference about the upper level of that intelligence?  No one has proven that the designer could not have been omniscient, but when discussing the hypotheses, those proposing omniscience have to deal with some of the issues raised here.--Silverback June 30, 2005 10:23 (UTC)

(*shakes head to clear fog*) Ok, fine. But the section still is not appropriate for the intro. So, I moved it to 'Additional criticisms'. If you want to, provide a subsection link at an appropriate spot? But understand, the article's purpose is not to undermine ID. It is to inform the reader about ID, and allow them think for themselves. This section, the validity of which I needn't touch, needs to be presented in a manner that is factual, while still respecting the beliefs of others. The intro is not the place for that.--ghost 30 June 2005 12:41 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm not totally convinced by Silverback's arguments still, partially because sludging through his terminology, question begging, and paradigm is a bit beyond me. A major problem which I got sidetracked on this entire critique is this:
 * "It has been suggested by some opponents that ID researchers who believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is the designer may face an additional burden of proof beyond the standard claims of the ID movement, by having to additionally demonstrate that the designs themselves are flawless and anticipate all eventualities. Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, for example:

Some, As we all know, is one of those wonderful weasel words. This is definatly one of those times where we need refrences and critiques. Who said that ID claimed omnicience omnipotent god)s)? Who claims it was fallacious to say so? Who claimed that flaws in human design prove it? What makes this critique diffrent from the problem of evil, which is clearly theological and philosphical in base? If someone notable or just published has leveled this criticism, fine, I'll withdraw my objection, but until I see otherwise, we're looking at original research.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "some" weasel word, it wasn't contributing much here. Noone is saying that ID "claimed" omniscient, omnipotent gods.  The omniscient, omnipotent God, is just one among many candidates hypothesized as the designer.  The "critique", by which I assume you mean the list of medical and other facts, is not related to the problem of evil or to any theological or philosophical base.  I think you are jumping ahead and assuming that any response or apologia will be unscientific, appealing to mystery, evil designer interferance, or the unfathomableness of infinite intelligence.  There is no reason to assume the response will be unscientific.  Presumably, those committed to ID as a scientificly defensible hypothesis will try to come up with a scientific response.  The difficulty in coming up with a scientific response might cause some committed to this conception of God as the designer to rethink their support of ID as a scientific theory.  Just because the omniscient, omnipotent God is a pppular hypothesis for the identify of the designer, does not mean it is the one with the most scientific support.--Silverback June 30, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
 * I sorta see where you're going, but I think you Missed The Point. A major problem I have with this is not hte presensence of several occurances of the word "some" but that it smacks of original research. Second critique still stands, that unless Omnicient God is an integral part of the theory, attacking it really has little point.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which parts you think are original research. I agree that omniscient God is not an integral part of the theory, it is just one of many hypotheses, however, SOME designer is integral to the theory, and I think its inclusion, is more than justified because it is notable, because it is so popular, and it is the only hypothesized candidate designer mentioned by specificity, in a sense, it is mentioned by name.  Other candidate designers are non-descript, unnamed alien species or something.  I think every candidate designer with notable following within the community should be mentioned, including the evidence for and the problems with the hypothesis.  BTW, some of the edit summaries suggest a merger between this section and the "who designed the designer" section.  They are too different to merge.  The hypothesis section is science oriented presenting hyotheses and the evidence for them and problems or difficulties yet to be solved.   The who designed the designer section is a criticism or attempt at refutation that misrepresents the theory.  Nothing in the theory requires the designer to be irreducibly complex.  The designer may have arisen by natural evolution without the seemingly inexplication or impossible gaps that would become candidates for design because of apparent irreducable complexity.  In other words, nothing in ID theory requires that intelligence have been designed, or alleges that intelligence cannot exist without irreducable complexity.  ID, the science, hypothesizes that many structures in the life forms here on earth are irreducably complex suggesting an intelligent designer, but if a particular intelligent designer were found not to have any irreducable complexity, it would not invalidate the theory.  In fact, given the many structures that ID theories have analyzed and NOT argued as irreducably complex, it is clear that enough non-irreducable complexity is available to make the possibilities difficult to delimit.--Silverback June 30, 2005 20:55 (UTC)
 * I admit, I stopped reading seriously past your third sentance, so I'll just answer to what I think is original research.


 * It has been suggested by some opponents that ID researchers who believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God is the designer may face an additional burden of proof beyond the standard claims
 * Who?


 * Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, for example:


 * the poor ability of the human body to repair spinal cord injuries
 * Again, says who? That the human body doesn't deal well with spinal cord injuries isn't under contest, that this is a pertinent notable and non original criticism is what I'm getting at.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Aquinas' Five Proofs
Sorry, I know the article is on diet to slim down, but the background on Aquinas and the ID quote from his Summa Theologica is necessary for a complete article. Maybe we can lose an equal amount from somewhere else... FeloniousMonk 1 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)


 * Nice. I'm a casual Aquinas & Pelagius fan.  I don't have time to review this in-depth till later this wkd, but it feels good to put the article on a more Classical footing.--ghost 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)


 * As it says in the lead, that ought to go into teleological argument and history of creationism. ID arose in the early 1990s from Edwards vs Aguillard. Dunc|&#9786; 2 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)


 * Consider Aquinas' words here, taken from the quoted passage:
 * ''"Hence it is plain that they (natural bodies) achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end..."
 * While it's true the modern ID formulation and movement arose in the early 1990s from Edwards vs Aguillard, there have been scholars claiming that nature reflects intelligent design for at least 800 years; Aquinas even uses the very same terms above: intelligence and design. Omitting the historical context leaves the reader with the impression that the concept of ID is some new development, which the passage shows it isn't. FeloniousMonk 2 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)


 * After sleeping on it, I think Dunc makes a good point, but I still also stand by mine. Also, this quote was awfully long. So I've compromised and added Aquinas' quote to the teleological argument article, but left a sentence about Aquinas here addressing the absence of histotrical background for ID (Cicero should be mentioned as well). This solution is better for the article, I feel. FeloniousMonk 3 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

TOC Formatting
I think that the article looked much better with TOCright in place. Please give yopur views on the subject. the template involved is up for deletion at Templates for deletion. DES 4 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)


 * I think it looked just fine with a normal TOC. Joe D (t) 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)


 * I think the opinion is fairly well divided. My issue with using some alternate to the standard form of TOC is three-fold:
 * 1) If you dig into Talk:Intelligent design you'll see where we successfully used TOC formating to help address the POV concerns of an Anon user. His opinion was that some rebuttal of ID MUST appear "above the fold", meaning on the inital screen.  To do this without TOC formatting requires a rewrite of the intro that's already been fought with ID supporters.  We originally used TOCembed, but it was left formatted, and many users couldn't stand it.
 * 2) The TOC of ID needs to be longer than normal for navigation if the issues. Not everyone wants to read 10+pages.  So to shorten the TOC too much may be a disservice to the readers.
 * 3) You seriously prefer 3/4 of a screen of whitespace? Now it looks like a every newpaper in existence, so what's the hassle?
 * If you can't stand TOCright, give us a viable alternative. I don't think we should slash the size of the TOC too much.  Should we use _TOC_ to move it beneath the fold?--ghost 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
 * This, I'm very much afraid to say, was giving in to the anon. It should have been the anonymous editor who conformed to NPOV, not NPOV conforming to the NPOV policy! Basically, the content did not change, but the positioning of the TOC did: hardly making anything more neutral. If you feel that the position of the TOC caused a problem with NPOV policy, then all you've done is cause problems with Answers.com, who don't use a table of contents at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
 * Further, if the TOC is too long then portions of the article should be placed into summary style and split into different articles, as per standard practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what occured. The Anon user accussed the article of POV because the first sentence was so neutral that he thought we'd crossed the boundries set in NPOV.  He misunderstood that the presentation of ID as a minority opinion, followed by the scientific community's majority opinion was in the summary.  But the TOC had forced it below the fold.  When we used {TOCembed} to return the text above the fold, he saw that the article was not in POV violation.  This wasn't "giving in" to an Anon.  This was embracing the concerns of a User, and using them to improve the article.  That's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?


 * {TOCembed} was voted for deletion, a position I eventually supported once I was given the alternative of {TOCright}. As to reducing the size of the TOC, if you'll read above (I know there's alot), you'll see we're working on that.  As of right now you seek to remove this option, along with ALL TOC controls, leaving us nothing in return.  If you offer a viable alternative, we'll work it out.  Until then, I'm sticking to my guns.  The article's not for you or me.  It's for the Anons.--ghost 5 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu recently moved the TOC so that it started after the lead paragraph. I think this was a good thing. It meant that the TOC ddin't extend across a section break, and allowed the lead par to be full-width and so seerve better as a heading. User:63.105.65.9 moved it back. I think this was a poor idea. DES 5 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like it better too. That's where I originally put, when I intro'd {TOCright} to this page.  For reference, have a look at the article back when the Anon user flagged it.  The neutral opening sentence took a lot of collaboration to construct.  But he was right in arguing that the lengthy TOC hid the majority opinion, and gave the appearence of POV.--ghost 5 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)


 * I agree, I liked the article better with TOCright as well. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the TOCright template is the subject of another VFD, here: Templates_for_deletion. FeloniousMonk 5 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)


 * I was a bit too busy to pay much attention to the original debate, were there any good reasons given for why the criticisms had to be split out of the introduction section anyway? The introduction should give a general summary of the topic, there shouldn't be one intro from one POV and a responding intro from another POV.  If the intro was too long when it summarised both, it was clearly going into too much depth.  Joe D (t) 5 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)


 * The introduction under discussion was originally one sentence. It's now two.  Prior to that rework of the intro, ID supporters had been labeling the article POV, because the tone of the intro gave the appearance of a straw man argument.  The compromise (meaning, the agreement that everybody could live with, but wasn't completely happy about) was to have an extremely neutral intro sentence, followed by a presentation of the minority/majority opinions immediately after.


 * On a drive-by, the Anon user saw the one sentence, followed by a lengthy TOC, and got the mistaken impression the the article was a POV puff-piece. He didn't bother to scroll what was a full screen down to read the presentation of POVs.  This is what illustrated to me and others the need to keep at least part of the more complete intro "above the fold" to communicate that there was more to the issues.--ghost 5 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
 * I think the intro as it stands works pretty well. It states rather quickly what it is, and that it is considered creationist pseduoscience by the scientific community (although technically this is redundant, I think its fine.)--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Kudos
As someone who has never worked on this article, may I congratulate all of you on producing what appears to be a fine contribution to Wikipedia. I have not read the whole thing from start to end closely, but what I have suggests it's very well structured and written. Considering how difficult it must have been to gain consensus, this is very impressive work. Well done!~ Neuroscientist | T  |  C  July 5, 2005 06:03 (UTC)
 * Awww. Thanks!--Tznkai 5 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Authorial Intent
Seeing the remarks to the Benchmark section makes me wonder, "What is our intent supposed to be?" Sure, the editors come from both sides of the issue... as I'm sure there are editors on both sides of the issue at the evolution article. But there is a huge difference in presentation. Tznkai's right that there should be some difference based on the newness of the concept, but how much? I have the feeling that some editors write with the force of mind, "Anyone reading this article should leave having no doubt as to the ridiculousness of ID." Tznkai seems to be more of the opinion that all the major issues should be brought up with a balanced account on each side.

Me... I think it should somewhat resemble a standard encyclopedia article (like evolution) where all the criticisms are brief and buried. I don't go to the evolution article and expect to see every evolutionary concept addressed in point-counterpoint. I expect to see their information laid out in an eloquent well-organized fashion with a very consise section at the bottom mentioning one or two good critiques and providing some links for the reader who is more interested in the other side.David Bergan 7 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
 * as I stated earlier, Evolution and ID are not comparable. Of intrest also, is I think your ID and the ID I had, and the ID that this article are totally diffrent things. Yours has to do with the concept of infering design period, my ID was comparable to theistic evolution, and this ID is about an assertion that is also part of a socail movement. Once I realized that, the edits came much more clear. ID is not a scientific concept, and can't be written like one. Glance at a couple of the religion and biography articles, and we're similar to those, if not better written.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)


 * The article is pretty good considering that it was largely written by avowed anti-religious advocates. The entire "a priori" section, however, is false and inappropriate to this article. It falsely claims that religious people do not observe the influence of a designer, when the opposite is true. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)


 * You can be such a PITA sometimes. religious people do not directly observe any divine influence. They see something they can't explain scientifically, and they intuit a divine cause. If God had a burning bush on the top of a mountain and anyone who wanted to visit could have a two-way conversation with god, then science would not have a problem saying there is a god. but there is no such direct observation. What you have are people who say ID is like "forensics" who investigate a crime scene after the fact. The only problem is that real crime scene investigators have NEVER come back and claimed ANY crime was EVER the result of paranormal, supernatural, or divine intervention. If a detective is investigating a crime and can find no logical, empirical, reason for how the victim was killed, he doesn't say "Act of God, case closed". ID DOES. Science says "we don't know exactly how this happened." ID says "and therefore GOD must have intervened." You're playing games with the definition of "observation". FuelWagon


 * religious people do not directly observe any divine influence. They see something they can't explain scientifically, and they intuit a divine cause.
 * That's your opinion.
 * The only problem is that real crime scene investigators have NEVER come back and claimed ANY crime was EVER the result of paranormal, supernatural, or divine intervention.
 * Theists would respond that that's because, after examination, no crime ever appeared to be caused by divine engineering, whereas the universe does. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)


 * "The entire "a priori" section, however, is false "
 * and that's YOUR opinion. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)


 * Theists would respond... the universe does
 * fine. but that doesn't mean YOU get to change the definition of what observation means. what "theists claim" and what "scientific observation" means are different. we're NOT changing the definition of science because of theist's claims. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
 * Uh. Don't we all have something more productive to do?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)


 * A posteriori means "after experience". Religious people believe that they observe god's work or even experience god him/herself. Thus, calling their claims a priori is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Thus, in a neutral encyclopedia, it should be properly attributed, rather than merely asserted. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)


 * Irreducible Complexity is NOT based on OBSERVATION of the formation of the complex thing. ID looks at an ALREADY EXISTING thing, such as flagella of bacteria, sees that it is a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. ID then says since we cannot explain how we got working flagella, IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD. THEY DIDNT OBSERVE GOD MAKING FLAGELLA. They looked at flagella, couldn't explain how it formed naturally, and INTUITED that SOMETIME IN THE PAST God must have made bacteria with flagella and put them on Earth. Unless some ID proponent is claiming they saw the divine formation of something that could not form naturally, then they are NOT OBSERVING its formation, they observe its existence, claim it can't be explained scientifically, and intuit that God must have done it. ID describes itself as FORENSICS, which is ALWAYS AFTER THE ACTUAL EVENT, making direct observation impossible. They don't observe the events, they intuit them. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)


 * "What is our intent supposed to be?" The intent is to present a group's claims in full context. The proponents of ID claim a designer is needed to explain life on earth. Those claims are to be presented in the full context of what the scientific community thinks, as well as the political motivations behind ID.


 * (like evolution) where all the criticisms are brief and buried. What a crock. Evolution and ID are completely opposite ends of teh spectrum. Evolution uses a scientific approach, has emperical evidence to support it, and doesn't have any ulterior motives like ID does. ID is a smoke screen invented by bible thumpers to jam bible study into schools any way they can. ID is nothing but a bunch of word games in an attempt to hide all the logical errors committed in their claims. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Tznkai, I really like you, even though I can't pronounce your name. Your comment has really put our efforts in perspective for me. And I think this drives at an even more fundamental question for all of us, one that probably deserves its own discussion section: David Bergan 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. Tznkai is a transliteration of my chinese name, so don't worry about pronuciation--Tznkai 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

observation or intuition
The question that the great and wise Goth has a problem with is this:


 * ID proponents intuit that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically.

Unless someone claims that someone has directly observed an intelligent designer in action, actually creating adam from dust, or creating DNA from simple organic compounds, then without that direct observation, it is simple FACT that ID can only intuit an intelligent designer. If you cannot observe and repeat one, then you must intuit one. This is simple fact and doesn't need any "claim" in front of it. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to use infer. Sounds better read outloud and is more familiar to most readers.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
 * After glancing at the intuition and inference articles, I restate my point stronger. Infer is much more correct than intuit. Intiution has no obvious connection with reality, including opinions, inference can and does.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)


 * I don't have problem with "infer". I have a problem with the whole thing being prefixed with "critics of ID claim". FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)


 * Can an inference be a priori? --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)


 * From induction (philosophy)
 * Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what is observed. Inferences about the past from present evidence (e.g. archaeology) count as induction. Induction could also be across space rather than time, e.g. conclusions about the whole universe from what we observe in our galaxy or national economic policy based on local economic performance.
 * I can accept "infer" as a plain-language version of "induce". I assume Tznkai would not want to use "induce" as a verb, since it is linguistically about as awkward as "intuit". FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)


 * Thank you, FW. Let me repeat: on the basis of what is observed. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)


 * So what? you conveniently ignored the first half of the sentence you quoted: it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things. ID observes flagella. It does NOT observe the CREATION of flagella. And ID intuits/infers/induces that it could not POSSIBLY have happened naturally, therefore god must have done it. There is no observation of god creating flagella. They observe some things that exist NOW, invoke a MATHEMATICALLY PROBABILITY, and WITHOUT OBSERVATION OF THE EVENT declare that god intervened on planet Earth to create flagella on bacteria. It is a priori. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking here, and wondering how salient the A priori part is in inference to the designer. I do think its a valid criticsm at various points. Might take me a nights sleep, but where I'm going with this is: Infering a designer in general may not be apriori, but infering a supernatural designer is. Give me an hour or so and I'll get back to you guys.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
 * Oh. Another thing. They are infering a designer, but they're doing it wrong. They focus on a lack of knowledge, not on improbablility. (see the pyramids) which is supported by an a priori assumption. In the pyramid example, its aliens, in ID, its god.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

re: a priori: it's a tough term to apply, and depends on your philosphical persuasion (e.g., rationalist vs empiricst). but, for example, mathematical truths are often considered a priori knowledge. so concepts like irreducible complexity might be described as a priori. --Rikurzhen July 7, 2005 19:02 (UTC)


 * I disagree (if I understand you correctly). One would not posit irreducible design without observing certain facts about things in the world. It is therefore an a posteriori claim. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)


 * What part of "observing the event" do you not understand??? No one has observed god create a species out of sand. No one has witnessed aliens attach flagella to previously immobile bacteria. ID is specifically about the event of creation or intervention by an outside source. these intervention events have NEVER been observed by humans. And if humans DO claim to have observed these moments of intervention, it is scientifically equivalent to Pond's/Fleischmann's claims of cold fusion: Neither can be confirmed by observation. natural science makes no claims about any knowledge which cannot be repeatedly observed. ID does. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)


 * Please lower your tone. Has anyone personally witnessed the creation of a new species through the process of natural selection? --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)


 * yes --Rikurzhen July 7, 2005 20:45 (UTC)


 * How about a new phylum? David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)


 * I think thats outside of the question of a priori and a posteri, rather its a definition and classification (which has questionable usefulness)--Tznkai 7 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)


 * I agree, Tznkai. This has no bearing on the ID article, its just that FW needs to rethink his declarations about science ("natural science makes no claims about any knowledge which cannot be repeatedly observed") since scientific theory says that natural selection leads to new phylums, and that has never been observed or repeated.  David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)


 * David, you know all the times you say I don't understand ID? Just try and imagine that you don't know science. You keep presenting scientific theories as if they were claims of absolute fact. The only time science will claim an absolute fact is when it gets to the point of scientific law. The theory of evolution says "we don't know EXACTLY how it happened, but we think it happened this way, and here's a bunch of repeatable and observable experiments that you can do yourself". Everytime you say "science says this" it is invariably a strawman version of what science really claims. Science isn't claiming absolute knowledge about evolution. It does, however, have strong experimental, observable, and repeatable evidence to support it. That's why its a theory. I don't need to "rethink" my declarations about science. You need to stop making strawman attacks on scientific claims. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, then what prohibits ID from being a scientific theory? Some people think the evidence points to natural selection birthing new phylums, others think that the evidence points to a designer designing new phylums.  Some people think the house burned down from natural causes, some people think the house burned down because of arson.  It all fits under scientific theory, then, and you shouldn't have a cow over ID theory if evolutionary theory isn't observable or repeatable.  David Bergan 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)


 * what prohibits ID from being a scientific theory? The fact that there is not a single, observable, repeatable, shred of evidence to say an intelligent designer exists. That is the requirement for a scientific theory. What you have is flagellum on bacteria that humans don't understand how it could have gotten there. stuff like that. science says "we don't understand how it happened" and stops there. That is what science does, clearly delineate between what it can know through observation and what it does not know. Do you understand that science and spirituality are completely compatible with one another? Science doesn't say "there is no God". It might say "there is no rain god." because science can fairly well explain the weather with meteorology. But Science doesn't rule out all spirituality or sense of the divine. Science just weighs in on what it can repeatably observe. It could be that Ponds/Fleishmann actually had cold fusion occur on their desktop experiment, maybe god stepped in and tweaked reality, maybe something entered the experiment that they were unaware of, whatever, science doesn't say that cold fusion is impossible, science simply says that the ponds/fleishmann experiment was unable to reproduce cold fusion. So, cold fusion might yet be possible, but it isn't a scientific theory, because there are no observations to point to how it could be done. There is nothing to point to divine intervention in evolution, there is only stuff which we don't yet understand, like we didn't understand the weather centuries ago and used rain gods as an explanation. If you don't understand how the weather works, it is unscientific to attribute it to outside intervention simply because you don't understand it empirically. if you are true to science you admit you don't understand it empirically, and put it in the pile "Unknown, need more research". The evidence that ID uses is, at best, stuff to be marked "unknown, need more research", it is not something to throw in the "an outside influence must be the cause". FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)


 * One significant difference between ID and Evo is the evidence points to evolutionary conclusions, instead of conclusions reinterpreting evidence (ID). There is no reason, nor evidence to conclude (let alone suggest) natural selection cannot give rise to phylums. Every shred of physical evidence (something ID lacks) points to phylums differentiating over very long periods of time. Us not observing it is consistent with evolutionary theory; and an argument from our collective ignorance (god of gaps) is not an affirmative reason to use, resort to, or believe in ID or to even consider it scientific; just as finding gaps in Norse/Christian creationism is not affirmative evidence for science or Hindu creationism. It has to support itself to be a viable alternative to a faltering theory; evolution is not faltering. - RoyBoy 800 8 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * Lower my tone? You arrogant cuss. Did you even RTFA? The answer to your (begging the) question is already there: "Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature[11]. This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics." Get off your high horse. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)


 * FW, that was uncalled for, as is the constant typing in capitals. We've all managed to get very well sidetracked from the issue at hand. I suggest everyone take a wikibreak, and come back, fed, watered and well rested.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, my missing a clause doesn't make your arguments valid or your text neutral. But perhaps name-calling will help. --goethean &#2384; 7 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)


 * Goethean, I urge you to remove your last comment as it was uncalled for and adds nothing of productive value to the discussion.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)


 * Dude, you didn't miss a clause, you got self-righteous and asked a moronic question that showed you haven't even read the article. but perhaps rewriting history will help. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling a bit like a broken record but I'm going to constantly repeat myself and hope one of you listens. Stop it with the inflamitory, uncivil and/or personal attacks. We've got an article to write.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

You guys need to archive part of this page.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 02:04 (UTC)