Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 13

The Article Is Too Long

The article is longer than other similar articles, such as:

• Evolution
• Human Evolution
• Christianity
• Creationism

There are way too many references and it's too long, to the point that it's a thesis paper on ID, not an article. I base my claim based on its relative size to other related articles. I'll try to shorten it, later today, by mostly removing the redundant references.

• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
• Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
• Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files 69.138.24.96 14:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles on allegedly similar subjects can be of different lengths for various reasons. For intance, evolution is so pervasive a theory, that details and tidbits are spread throughout hundreds of articles on wikipedia, so the total body of work on evolution dwarfs this article. Similarly for Christianity. Creationism is no longer on the front lines of controversy, the apologias and responses are more practised and settled there. Most of what there is to say has been said before. When you gain experience on wikipedia you will learn that on controversial subjects, no POV wants to be shunted off into side articles, in fact, it is an disengenuous tactic to cite article length and suggest moving the material elsewhere, after you have gotten your side into the article. On a fairly new "science" like ID (barely a decade in the limelight), there is not a lot of established authority, or critical review, and definitely a paucity of peer reviewed journal articles, so some original criticism, as is typical in scientific summaries is in order. For example, if in global warming, someone posts a summary that reaches a conclusion that GW the more extreme predictions are now confirmed. It is not original research to point out that the work was based on the same models that had been acknowledged to be weak in cloud physics and that the advances that merited peer review publication were unrelated to such known issues. This is ordinary scientific criticism and is accepted in most of the scientific articles here, although admittedly with less opposition in the less controversial areas. Similarly when some notable ID researcher claims a new instance of "intelligent design", it is not original thought, to make explicit, what the researcher may or may not have stated, that this implies a new designer at a place and time, that may represent a problem for various single designer or multiple designer hypotheses. Problems and implications of scientific results for other scientific results are routinely discussed and summarized, and because some segment of ID apparently rejects any specific discussion about hypotheses about the designer(s), and leaves that out of their result, does not negate the fact that they loudly and clearly put the designer at a particular, place and time, engaged in a particular activity, even if only implicitly. The article is not too long for this kind of article, and the best tool for compromise, NPOV, and avoiding edit wars is slack.--Silverback 13:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a feast for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL

C Scientism critique ==

But the critics themselves can be critiqued for their scientism, their narrow-minded contention that the only kind of thought (i.e., the only kind of theory) that counts is thought that produces testable hypotheses. Science can be defined this way for the purposes of setting up axiomatic definitions. But the concrete evidence of centuries of human thought shows that other forms of thought are possible and are meaningful.

There's not a single established fact in that, personal criticisms are out of place in WP, and it's not even a personal criticism of the subject of the article. 68.6.40.203 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Dripping with POV and of questioable relevance, certainly not in the lead. Probably can be pointed out somewhere in the movement article, after being cleaned up. The accusations of scientism are relevant to the motivations and rehtoric of the ID movement however.--Tznkai 12:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I consider this relevant info for the scientism article, but not for ID. I mean, we could literally add dozens of "Group X thinks this about ID" sentences if we covered every little special interest group. David Bergan 18:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The only kind of thought (i.e., the only kind of theory) that counts for science is thought that produces testable hypotheses. If ID chaps want to be scientists, they should behave like scientists. No scientism here. --Hob Gadling 11:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism of the critics of the theory" - come on - this could go on forever... The article describes the "theory" and then the criticism of said "theory" - this should of course, in all fairness, also apply to the scientism article - but it is not relevant here. Celcius 00:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing the section on criticisms of the design. Again.

First off, notability has not been proven. (FYI: Scavanger hunts are disengenous Silverback, thats not how we do shit 'round here). If ANYONE wants to point out a good refrence for it, go right ahead.

Second thing is relevance. As per the scientism critique above, we have a massive article where lots of extraneous issues are related. This does not mean they are salient, relevant, and pertinent to Intelligent design. In fact, I would suggest they are not. If ID is a recylcing of bad pseduoscience, these critiques of "flawed design" are recycled bad philosiphy. Most trained aithiest debaters don't touch this stuff, cause it gets no where. Trust me, been on both sides of that one.

I don't trust you on that one, because you are wrong. Much of the interest and momentum of the ID movement comes from believers in the omniscient, omnipotent God. What pointing out the problems this hypothesis poses does, is remove any illusion they have that they can preserve this hypothesis scientifically. They have to resort to assumptions about the unknowability or unfathomability of omniscience, i.e., they once again are appealing to mystery and faith. Getting them back to this point is not getting them no where, but rather gets them to the long standing consensus of religious apologia.--Silverback 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The section lists a number of flaws with various designs. All from a human perspective (questionable already), and also we are lead to ask are they really flaws? By who's definition? Every improvment has its cost. Humans can't stick to walls. Is this a design flaw 'cause flies can? O.o These are questions we've been asking for ages in our elementary science classes, I'm not really sure why its come back here.

See, "human perspective (questionable already)", you are already appealling the mystery of "greater" intelligence. However, as a compromise, instead of calling these flaws, how about just calling them "issues" that need explanation.--Silverback 19:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Third is quality. This article, at last check, was still over the 32k suggested "limit". This suggests to me that we can start being picky on what we choose to include. The best written, most salient, most convincing and most major arguments are best.

As far as I can tell, and feel free to chime in here, the major criticsms and defences of ID lie around: The "flaws" of science in general, the specific group of hypothese (CSI, IC, etc etc etc.), the supposed flaws in evolutionary theory (I don't think they are flaws at all, but thats my POV). There are also a few parting shots at the big wigs on both sides about them trying to "destroy science" and "destroy faith." And finally, the peer review bits, the distinct failure to describe what the hell the designer is, and the argument from ignorance.

These are all unquestionably salient. Criticsing an unidentified God (singular) with qualities not proven needed (omni-ness), with criticisms about supposed flaws from an unprovenly notable perspective, does not belong. If you think it does, find a refrence, clean up the prose. We'll even help, but only after you find the refrence.--Tznkai 17:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Many science articles also venture into the political, see Global warming. Whether omni-ness is "proven" or not, believers in omni-ness are an important constituency and driving force behind the theory, and this alone can make it notable, despite the weak grounding of their omni-ness beliefs.--Silverback 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for irrelevant. Silverback, assuming your argument is accurate, the BEST it does is show that the designer was not omniscient. It doesn't prove there was no designer... thus it doesn't faze ID. Dante's Peak was a crappy movie loaded with flaws, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a designer. I think your criticisms would be more relevant on the omniscience page. David Bergan 20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Proves our designer is imperfect. Assuming we have an agreement on what perfect means. If that was to work, that implies there IS a designer. If proving a designer existed for the universe is questionably solid science (which I think it is), determining qualities of that designer based on his will, intent, and capabilities is equally unscientific. In fact, its so unscientific that I don't think theres a good structure for arguing about it.

But forget all that. The first thing we need to do is find some refrences.--Tznkai 23:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

a "new" hypothesis about the designer?

Recent AP articles about Bush's position that ID should be taught in the schools present this definition of ID: "The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation."[1] Perhaps we need a section on the "higher power" hypothesis, although, perhaps the AP is assuming that even humans or some other intelligent species is a "higher power" than evolution. Of course, that might be the human perspective, evolution might have a different perspective about which is "higher".--Silverback 19:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This week's Economist Magazine and introduction

Some interesting excerpts from the article that would be topical.

Intelligent design derives from an early-19th-century explanation of the natural world given by an English clergyman, William Paley. Paley was the populariser of the famous watchmaker analogy. If you found a watch in a field, he wrote in 1802, you would infer that so fine and intricate a mechanism could not have been produced by unplanned, unguided natural forces; it could have been made only by an intelligent being. This view—that the complexity of an organism is evidence for the existence of God—prevailed until 1859, when Charles Darwin's “Origin of Species” showed how natural selection could indeed “explain so many classes of facts” (as Darwin put it).

Proponents of intelligent design are renewing Paley's argument with a new gloss from molecular biology. Darwin himself acknowledged that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Intelligent designers claim that living things are full of such examples at the molecular level. Blood clotting is one: ten proteins have to work together in sequence for the process to occur. So-called eukaryotic cells, which digest nutrients or excrete waste, are another: these cells contain an elaborate “traffic system” which directs proteins to the right compartments.

In both cases, argues Michael Behe, whose book “Darwin's Black Box” is one of the bibles of intelligent design, you have complex systems that will work only if all the components operate at once. He argues that you could not get such a thing from “successive, slight modifications”. Hence the molecular machines inside living beings are evidence of an intelligent designer—God.

Intelligent design asks interesting questions about evolution, but since all its answers are usually “God”, scientists have rejected it. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. (Instead, intelligent designers poke holes in evolutionary theory.)

In addition, biologists point out that the intelligent designers' favourite examples of “irreducible complexity” often prove not to be. Some organisms, for example, use only six proteins to clot blood—irreducibility reduced. In other cases, single parts of a complex mechanism turn out to have useful functions of their own, meaning that the complex mechanism could have been produced by step-by-step evolution. When the Discovery Institute, a promoter of intelligent design, came up with a list of 370 people with science degrees who backed their ideas, the National Centre for Science Education responded with almost 600 scientists called Steve or Stephanie who rejected them.

Second, though there has been no big increase in opposition to evolution, there is enough to be going on with without it. Two-thirds of Americans think humans were directly created by God (as opposed to 22% who think people “evolved from an earlier species”). Half do not think apes and men had a common ancestor.

With its claims (however spurious) of scientific respectability, intelligent design promises to reconcile mass anti-evolutionism with science. Strict creationism has been long discredited and, since the Supreme Court decision of Edwards v Aguillard (1987), may not be taught in state schools. But intelligent design is a different matter. Its proponents accept that the earth is billions of years old. They agree that gene mutation and natural selection occur within species, though not necessarily between species. They concede that scientific method, not biblical authority, is the arbiter of truth. Proponents do not even demand that intelligent design should replace evolution in the classroom, merely that schools should “teach the controversy” (which they themselves have created). In short, religious Americans who find evolution distasteful are jumping at the chance to teach an alternative that claims to be science.

Whichever way the argument over intelligent design is finally resolved, it is likely to damage science teaching. This is not because bad science standards will necessarily be adopted but because—as Diane Ravitch of the Brookings Institution showed in “The Language Police” in 2003—the biggest threat to high standards is the unwillingness of state Boards of Education to offend any sort of pressure group, whether right or left. Instead, they avoid controversial topics altogether. In 2000, a survey by the Fordham Foundation found that only ten states taught evolution fully, six did so skimpily and in 13 the treatment was considered useless or absent. (Kansas received an F minus, and “disgraceful”.) These failings shame American evolution teaching, and the manufactured controversy over intelligent design will do nothing to make them better.

So essentially intelligent design tries to find holes within evolutionary theory that have not been fully researched and explained with science and fills those holes with the philosophy of intelligent design? And the widespread support for this philosophy in America may be caused by poor evolution education?

• In a nutshell, yes. ID has two major flaws not addressed here at all: Both revolve around the fact that ID is a belief, NOT a scientific theory. 1) ID exists to "prove" there is a God, or deity, 2) ID utilizes any odd, inexplicable, or complex factor in the natural world to do so. "We can't explain this, therefore there *must* be a God involved" is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. I believe religious beliefs should be treated respectfully; however, I do not see how calling a religious belief a scientific theory is anything other than inaccurate use of language and terminology, regardless of how many people have done so. The poor qulaity of American education is a subject in and of itself, suffice it to say that due to the strong infulence of Christian fundamentalists, the natural world in general and evolution in specific has been given short shrift and it is likely to get worse. Scopes didn't help much.

Philosophy in the introduction

Philosophy is such a broad category that to say that ID is a philosophy says nearly nothing. In one sense, all of science is a branch of philosophy (the philosophy of science is a very exciting subject). So anyway, it's not wrong per se to call ID "philosophical".

However, my guess is that the edit was made to call ID "philosophy" as opposed to the "science" of evolution. Most readers, then, would be confused as to the intent of ID wondering if it could legitimately oppose evolution, when they seem to be in different domains. But since there is no doubt that design theorists intend to oppose evolution on its own grounds, ID is therefore science or pseudoscience. So, because calling ID "philosophy" is confusing, I reverted to the earlier version. David Bergan 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Do they intend to oppose evolution "on its own grounds", if their position is as stated here in this quote from the article "challenge the principles of philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism that are "dogmatically held beliefs" of the scientific mainstream". This looks like they are trying to change the grounds, by questioning the philosophy of science orthodoxy rather than merely focusing on the evidence.--Silverback 02:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

But here we're getting the design theorists' supposed intentions from an article that doesn't think much about ID. If you read ID literature, they make their intentions pretty specific. And yes, there is some argument about philosophy of science (because some scientists consider any explanation that may be supernatural to be unscientific)... but Dembski and Behe make no bones about showing that they're arguments are falsifiable, etc. Thus showing that they satisfy those areas of scientific methodology. David Bergan 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Appealing to the supernatural is unscientific, because it leaves no evidence and is unpredictable, so no knowledge, predictive ability or benefit can be gained from studying, so it is just an excuse not to study or conduct research. If, the design theorists intentions are what you state, I doubt those who claim to be scientific resort to supernatural explanations, can you document such conclusions on their part? --Silverback 15:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

ID is trying to "change the grounds". Natural science is based on repeated observation, prediction, and confirmation. ID is based on single observation, no ability to predict, and nothing that can be confirmed. Mutations is something that can be repeatedly observed, patterns noticed, predictions made, and confirmed. ID looks at something it can't explain, invokes mathematically probabilities of how something it doesn't understand naturally could happen naturally, and determines it must have been designed. None of which can ever be proven. If natural science disproves the need for a designer to explain one particular instance, ID simply retreats to another topic that it doesn't understand. ID can never be proven right, because the designer can never be observed. On the other hand, when natural science declares something to be true, it means it is based on something that was repeatedly observed to be true. The philosophical grounds of natural science are wholly different than the approach used by ID. But I'd stick with the article saying it's pseudoscientific, not some "philosophy" because it is more a matter of handwaving to conceal an underlying dogma than any philosophical pursuit of knowledge. FuelWagon 15:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know intelligent design is not a science, it is a philosophy. If intelligent design advocates were trying to challenge the science of evolution they would need to do it thru the proper scientific avenues such as expirements and so on. But the truth is they cannot because their arguments are philosphical. At least this is what I gather from all the mainstream scientifc channels. 70.57.82.114 04:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

this is what I gather from all the mainstream scientifc channels. And there's the rub. If you were to read about ID from the design theorists, there is no question that they intend to fight the fight on scientific grounds. Now, it's quite possible that they fail miserably... I'll let individuals make up their own mind on that. But they specifically distinguish ID from the teleological argument so that it is not seen as mere philosophy. (read The Design Revolution chapter 7) David Bergan 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They're not fighting on scientific grounds. They may claim they are scientific, but they are not. They're approach is more similar to the Cat in the Hat's approach to finding something that is lost, namely "Calculatus Eliminatus", which entails looking everywhere that a thing is NOT located, and it must be in the place you haven't looked. The only problem is that the process of elimination doesn't work when you have an undefined set of locations to look in. ID attempts to say "We looked everywhere scientifically, and flagellum can't be there. The only place we haven't looked is in the place called "intelligent designer", so flagellum must be there". Uhm, no. It may make for an entertaining Dr. Seuss story, but it ain't science. FuelWagon 15:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

FW and Silverback. I'm half-unconvinced that ID is science, too. All I'm trying to say is that the design theorists intend for it to compete in that realm. And to get it to compete there, they feel they need to change some rules (that they consider prejudicial)... but not all the rules. All I'm saying is that to call it merely philosophy is misinformation. So, if science isn't accurate, and philosophy isn't accurate, pseudoscience works for me. David Bergan 16:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. No ID book ever says anything like "We looked everywhere scientifically, and flagellum can't be there." That's a misrepresentation. Read the book and they will present arguments that there is a limit to what nature can do on its own (a limit they suggest is scientific, not philosophical), and that something like the flagellum is on the other side of that limit. David Bergan 16:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of the article's footnotes

I don't know if anyone has noticed that the numbering and ordering of the footnotes does not correspond to the article. You probably all have and were smart enough to wait for someone dumb enough to make mention of it. Fine. Anyone want to tackle this thankless task? Anyone aware of a numbering ordering method to avoid this in the future? Steinsky, where are you? This was your idea. Help us out. FeloniousMonk 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets stick it on the to do list after we settle things about how we're going to pare down the article.--Tznkai 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the size of the article now?

How do you find out the size of the article? Many of the petty back and forth of proponents and opponents were being reproduced in unnecessary detail. I have whittled it down some.--Silverback 00:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's real cute. Out of petty spite you've managed to undo in less than 20 minutes three months worth of hard-fought compromise of many regular contributors, not to mention all the cites and refs in the footnotes that are now orphaned, all to save 6kb! What you call "petty back and forth" others call making a case for their position. Now do you revert it or do we? BTW, WP:Point FeloniousMonk 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

More to the point (ignoring the personal attack). How do you know I saved 6kB? -- thanx in advance.--Silverback 01:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're dodging the issue and flouting convention. You're edits were against consensus, undid months of debate, and invalidated the recently completed peer review. Judging by the facts I can only conclude that you're being disruptive in the article out of spite because your content you repeatedly insist on reinserting has failed to gain consensus here.

I should note that I was intimately involved in peer review earlier this year, and the text that the supposed consensus keeps deleting survived that peer review.--Silverback 05:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

But since you insist, the article size is displayed over text box when editing an article that is over the recommended optimum article size. I do not support your recent edits. And any goodwill I may have had toward your previous content offered, has been removed by your actions here today. The article should be restored. FeloniousMonk 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, if we are concerned about "paring" the article down to size, my changes do so without significantly reducing the information content. Also, note that several sections I deleted or modified, were not documented, but just original content summarizing what "many" or "most" argue. I seriously doubt there are supporting polls. Furthermore I am surprised the "supernatural" references were allowed to be portrayed as intrinsic to the theory despite the clearly stated intent of the theories proponents. Documentation is needed here. It is interesting that you cite consensus and compromise, yet, have been unyielding on the text I was restoring that was itself the result of months of compromise. Given the concern for "paring" and keeping the article within size, that is usually expressed when text opposing one's viewpoint is proposed, the type of hard paring, that I craft with great care and without bias, should be welcome --Silverback 02:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

While being bold is all fine and good, the article's current state represents the results of a delicate compromise between strongly pro and anti ID writers, minimalists (like myself), and completests. We are concerned with paring the article down some, but we're not sure exactly how to do it yet. After all, ID is a hot issue, so there is a LOT of notable issues out there.--Tznkai 03:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You seemed sure about how to pare it down earlier. You also just did a mass revert, of legitimate changes that had informative edit summaries. Apparently you did not consider the merits of the changes.--Silverback 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again

In my lecturing Silverback about consensus, I've failed to mention that I'd like to see him get what he considers a fair bite at the apple here, and as many as the rest of us have had in months previous. Perhaps we've all gotten off to a bad start, and starting with a clean slate/white board/etch-a-sketch/whatever is a good idea. SB is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable on the topic, and obviously he'd like to participate here. I'm certain that the article could benefit from his efforts if we all choose to work together and not ignore the necessary role consensus plays here. We've all had tough time earning our respective places here, so lets give SB the opportunity start afresh.

SB has proposed two things for the article... his oft suggested content addition, discussed above, and paring the article down further. I'm not dogmatically opposed to either, but I do strongly feel the only way to construct a robust article is that any substantial additions or subtractions represent consensus. Which first? FeloniousMonk 05:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Wake up one morning, check Wikipedia on my first break, and the whole article goes out of whack. I gotta hand it to Silverback, some of those truncations did make a lot of sense. But you gotta have consensus. If we want to go tabula rasa, perhaps we should each make our own ID page using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design/Dbergan or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbergan/Intelligent_Design Just copy and paste the existing page onto the new one, edit it to the way you would like to see it (try to get under the suggested size), and then we'll compare. It would be an undertaking, but I'm guessing we would find out what we consider the essentials of the article and also probably a few parts that everyone would cut. David Bergan 15:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't need consensus, just slack. Slack, not consensus is what makes wikipedia works. What often passes for consensus here is really a cabal. In wikipedia practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, reason or summaries. Consistently applied, it does not allow anything to be written, just quoted. The article size "limit" is similarly corrosive in practice, yes repeating some information already better handled on other pages can improve readability and is a service to the readers, but this cannot be tolerated if a particular page's community is without slack, how can you defend such repetitive information, if you are suppressing further relevant information in the article using the 32k "limit" as an excuse? If you want an article that is well written and fair to the various nuances of controversial issues, you have to have slack. We can either operate under a fundamentalist interpretation of wikipedia "rules", or we can be fair to each other and make things work.--Silverback 16:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise and cooperativeness also help SB. The fact is, you made edits, and they were thought overall determimental. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. FM has done his best to extend an open invitation to help out. We're all here on good faith to edit the article to the best we can make it. FM, Dbergan and I represent three pretty conflicting views, yet we've managed to find a way to work together. You're welcome to join as long as you try your best to work with us instead of telling us our standards, policies, etc are wrong.--Tznkai 16:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They ARE wrong if you are unwilling to consistently apply them. I think I can probably work with FM, he just wasn't paying attention, it is you who have been unwilling to consistenly apply the rules. Your mass revert completely ignored the rules that were applied in each of the edits I made as cited in my edit summaries. It appears you like rules only when they suit you, and that you hope that by calling text which violates the rules "consensus", you can escape the rules when you like. Your appeal to consensus shows that you are hoping to develope a cabal. You should learn that the rules are mere guidelines, the real goal is to produce a good encyclopedia article. If something gets into an article you disagree with, join the crowd, perhaps the real lesson of wikipedia is to bring a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking when reading so called "authoritative sources", like encyclopedias.--Silverback 16:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I may be getting FM and FW confused.--Silverback 16:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback. I'm afraid I've made a mistake here, in picking and choosing my words. Your edits I reverted because I thought they were bad edits. I thought they were flagrantly disrespectful to us, as well as a violation of WP:POINT, and completly uninformitive. Under WP:AGF and my own foolish hope, I thought by couching my words with refrences to rules, I could get things across clearly without getting into messy accusations of cabalism and so on.

First, and foremost, your conduct on this talk page and article is highly questionable. While claiming not to have pared down the article in a fit of pique, you just did your best to show how we're all hypocrites, and so on. You'll have to understand that I'm a bit suspicious of your motives after an admission like that.

Secondly, WP:NOR comes up often, and when it does, the person defending the section does their best to find someone notable who said it. I am NOT convinced about the relevance of that section. I am not the only one. This sort of objection has come up before. The split of the article in half was a hard fought compromise. Not once did anyone just removoe large swaths of the article without atleast discussing and an open mind. Furthermore, if the section cannot be defending as not original research, the points can still be made by rewriting and finding supporting refrences or passages and statements that, by consensus, we all agree to, or rather we all can live with.

Third, your edits were poor, in my opinion. They reduced the encylopedic content of the article. Many of them are refrenced in their main articles. I reverted them. I did not make accusations about your motives, I felt no need to. I have now, see the first point, but thats seperate from them being questionable edits. At the very least, you have strong opposition from diverse viewpoints. That should tell you something

Fourth, I feel compelled to ask for an apology, but I think that would be counterproductive. I think if you just agree to cooperate with us without accusations of POV, Cabalism, etc, we can move on. Or atleast I can--Tznkai 17:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's understandable, we look so much alike ;-). DB makes a good point, many of SB's truncations do make a lot of sense, and I wouldn't mind seeing them rolled back into the article in some form if there is consensus. Can we all agree on this one point before tackling the next?

I acknowledge the importance of Slack, having long ago discovered the revelations of Bob Dobbs. It's just that this article, like most related to creationism, has been the scene of some ugly battles and has only recently settled down, primarily by reaching consensus and peer review. So some of us are reluctant to abandon consensus. Whether consensus creates great articles is admittedly arguable, true. The way forward is to work together here. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the truncations seem to make sense, I'd just prefer a little bit of disscussion. No so much permssion to edit, but atleast, as FW suggests bellow, an agreement on the direction.--Tznkai 17:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You apparently don't really believe in discussions, since you have asked for the protection to be continued. You prefer more authoritarian means. If we don't accept your position are you going to request protection again?--Silverback 18:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, just an interjection on the current direction of this thread: your question bifurcates the issue and escalates the discussion rather than resolving things. given your edits and little context from you via the talk page, I would likely have supported locking the talk page until we sorted things out, since it wasn't clear where you were headed by your edits alone. I would like to at least get some direction (as I indicated below), before I'd feel comfortable dropping the lock. Rather than ask Tznkai to defend how he decides to ask for a page lock, let's focus on what it is you want to do and see if perhaps we could have a bit of input on that direction ourselves, so the end result is a better article that all the editors support. FuelWagon 18:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are a late arrival. Tznkai has shown an unwillingness to compromise, and to be a selective stickler for rules. My intentions have been clear all along, but I think it is wrong to reward behavior such as requesting protection or its extension, when there isn't a serious need. --Silverback 21:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am so very confused. Can you explain that one to me please? This the discussion page. We're supposed to discuss on it before getting back into revert wars. So and so forth.--Tznkai 18:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where was the revert war, I reverted maybe three times in ten days. The current page is being protected in a version you prefer. Why should I think you more likely to compromise now than before?--Silverback 21:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone else field this question? I'm starting to think that Hanlon's razor has been lost on Silverback.--Tznkai 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Silverback has obviously realized they protected the wrong version →Raul654 21:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

They usually do protect the wrong version, when there is secret communication rather than open transparency. You should know that.--Silverback 21:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not usually, always. Didn't you read the wrong version? 68.6.40.203 08:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I am suprised that someone with your reputation would engage in a personal attack. Have you read the discusion for that page?--Silverback 11:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I am the person who had the article protected. FeloniousMonk 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"For the record", how was it communicated, it wasn't on the protection page or Slim Virgin's talk page. Why wasn't it "on the record"?--Silverback 21:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you're obviously ticked at some (or all) of us and feel that some injustice has been done to you. What precisely was the injustice that we did? From my point of view, I thought we were having a civil (albeit rudundant) conversation about design flaws and their impact on ID up in the "unintelligent design" section. That, and we all had taken a turn or two reverting the design flaw section when you put it into the ID article, because all of us seemed to agree that we needed consensus here before making a change like that. And the consensus here was looking like it was headed toward not including it.

Then while I was playing games and sleeping last night you decided to get your chainsaw out and start hacking up the rest of the article. Again, seemingly without consensus. A few other users were on and tried to restore the "standard" version of the article, and then locked it so they could get a good night's sleep.

I think I'm accurate in speaking for all the other main editors in saying that we weren't rejecting your edits per se, but we all felt offended by your unwillingness to achieve consensus before making them. Create subsections here for each of the massive trims you did and we'll take each one in a cool and calm, coffeehouse-like manner. Sometimes you'll get your way. Usually you won't. (I speak from authority on this. I hardly ever get my edits into the article on ID-related topics.)

Anyway please let us know who wronged you and how... and what he/she/they can do to reconcile. David Bergan 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You do me an injustice if you think I have some personal animosity. It is more, moral outrage at the hypocrisy, the secret communications, the resort to authoritarian means, the intellectual cowardice of using "consensus" as an excuse to dismiss without consideration, the contributions of others, and presumptiveness of those who presume to speak for the "consensus". I take no personal offense. One way to battle hubris and hypocrisy is to make sure it sees the light of day.--Silverback 22:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

So it's not personal, it's universal. 68.6.40.203 08:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep.--Silverback 11:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Secret communications"? Hm, even if true, I would consider it fairly irrelevant as I or someone else would likely have requested a page lock about the same time based on the extent of your edits. Now that the page is locked, how about we figure out what you want to do so that we can get behind it, tweak it where needed, and know where we're going when the page unlocks? FuelWagon 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I think its pretty clear now that you think your edits are being refused because we're a cabal. Or something like that. As I have pointed out, repeatedly earlier, FM, FW, DB, and myself are at odds more often than not. FM and I were at eachother's throats just a week ago, Dbergan and I get along but have diffrent positions on the merits, and lack therof, of ID, and FW has been involved in the throw downs as well. We're all trying to write a good article, and I think our history proves that.

"FW has been involved in the throw downs as well." Yes, and I usually win. (gives cheesy grin). Oh, all right, before anyone brings out the boiling oil, that was intended as humor. FuelWagon 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Next time Mr. Bond... Neeexxxxttt ttiiiiimeeeee!!!!--Tznkai 23:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But lets say it doesn't. If you really believe all of what your rhetoric suggests you do, what do you suggest we do to reach compromise, cooperation, and otherwise get on to editing? If you insist that you are "dragging our intelectual cowardice" into the light, you'd have to expect we're not just gonna say "Well gee, we're all scumbags, lets let Silverback lead us onwards." What is it you want? If you don't offer compromise, all we have left is dispute resolution.--Tznkai 22:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My goal is to see that ID gets a fair presentation, including any arguments that even remotely make sense or have some merit. In addition I want any reader who comes here to be able to find all the reasoned arguments ID is likely to meet in the field of ideas, and that those get a fair hearing, and the counters to those, as well. People interested in ID, should be able to learn from the article what position they are most convinced by, whether they want to adopt a position themselves, and whether they are properly armed to defend such a position against likely arguments or evidence and what the merits or strengths or weakenesses of each are. I am not being interested in being subjected to any rules that you wouldn't want the whole article ruthlessly subjected to, because we wouldn't end up with much of an article then. If it even managed to be readable, it wouldn't be of much use to the reader, we would be sending them out illinformed and unarmed.--Silverback 00:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page because of the reverting today. Give me a shout on my talk page when you want me to unlock, and if I'm not around, you can post a request on WP:RFPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've already posted the request to the RFPP page, and stand ready to edit now as before.--Silverback 06:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I haven't been following this page as much lately, or how it got to the point of being locked, and I'm not particularly opposed to or in favor of making the article smaller, however, I just wanted to point out that I'd support the notion that this edit by you made the article less encyclopedic. As for major paring down, maybe we could figure out some basic goals that everyone can agree to before we bring out the pruning tools. FuelWagon 16:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking That FM and I hit upon one particular area for trimming: example creep. We could stand to reduce the arguments about the example themsevles, especially since the main pages will likley have the information needed. Other than that, we can always just shuttle things off to their subarticles.--Tznkai 18:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

species extinction

The point was made in Archive #10 that it has been estimated that more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on planet Earth have already gone extinct. Would there need to be a citation to an external source in order for that criticism of Intelligent Design to be added to the article?

Uh. Kinda? I'm not sure what you mean. 99% of all species ever extant have gone extinct is pretty uncontraversial (although citations are always good), but it being a relevant criticism... well, I'm not really sure if it is. Can you eludicate? Also, please sign your comments using ~~~~--Tznkai 18:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this fact can be viewed as a criticism of certain, perhaps most past designs, rather than of the design theory itself. It probably be appropriate in the compromise text I have been proposing, as a difficulty not for the theory, but for those who argue that the designer is a "higher" or omniscient power. --Silverback 21:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the estimate that 99.9% of species ever extant having gone extinct is in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about extinction. What I was asking was if a citation should be given to an external source that makes the argument that the record of extinctions is evidence that there is no Intelligent Design. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to contain original content. My POV is that Intelligent Design is absurd, and the record of extinctions is evidence of that absurdity. On the other hand, I respect the Wikipedia directive for articles to be neutral. Maybe what I should do is look for an external source that makes the argument that seems obvious to me. Jkintree 15:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The tricky bit here is the question of "optimal design." Let me try spelling out your argument, and you can tell me if I'm wrong

P1 99% of all species have gone extinct.

P2 Species that are poorly "designed" go extinct

C Therefore, 99% of all species are poorly desgined

P1' 99% of all species are poorly "designed"

P2' (Supressed premise) no designer capable of designing living creatures would design creatures poorly

C Therefore, There is no designer.

The problem you get into is P2'. At this point you immediatly start asking about the will of a designer. For Intelligent design to work, it only needs to establish: That 1. There are physical characteristics (fingerprints if you will) that imply designers. and 2. Such a premise can be applied to certain fundamental parts of our existence (Life, the Universe and Everything). While Dbergan will probably chime in here that his view of ID ends at 1, we've agreed (I think anyway) that ID as a whole tends to refer to both 1 and 2.

P2' questions the will of our supposed designer. ID does not, and cannot determine characteristics of the designer, beyond its intelligence and sencience. It has a will and a capability. In many ways, ID is equally valid with the Marauder God, a concept used to describe an Evil Omni-being. --Tznkai 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to note two things. 1. the Marauder God term seems to be the personal use a history professor of mine, so to explain further, its usually used when critiquing Pascal's Wager. (Creating three posiblities: Good (Christian) God that rewards faith, Non existent or blase God, and Mean God that punishes faith. 2nd, if you can find someone notable producing your criticism, then its pertinent and notable, and will probably be slottedin the article, regardless of how I personally feel about its merits.--Tznkai 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There are other problems with P2 rather than just assumptions about the will of the designer. It assumes an almost mystical worhip of the capabilities required to design living creatures. Totally unjustified, even mere humans are nearly there now, and that is with just a few thousand years of technical development. There is no reason a less insightful, or intelligent species, couldn't also design life, although they might have taken more time to develop the technology. Of course there is also the possibility that these extinct species were not very flawed at the time of their design, their design may have degraded over time, which itself may be due to faults in the design. The designs themselves may not have been intended to be perfect, for instance, a less than omniscient designer, may have wanted to learn more, and so created competing designs with various tradeoffs.--Silverback 00:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai had my position right on how I take ID in relation to optimal design. However, I also want to raise the question of the factualness of this claim. What I gathered from reading the note at the extinction page linked to this statistic, was that these were estimates of the number of extinct species based on the theory of evolution and known prehistorical catastrophes. They don't actually have fifty billion fossils of extinct species. They figure (based on evolutionary reasoning) that they needed that many to get the diversity we have today. So that number was calculated by assuming ID is false to begin with. Therefore it obviously should arrive at the conclusion that ID is false.

How many extinct species do we have in the fossil record? Not a whole lot. The reason Stephen Jay Gould came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium is because the fossil record hardly shows any intermediate transitionary fossils... and but it does show lots and lots of fossils of species that are alive and kicking today. Translation: at all chronological depths, the fossil record showed lots of un-extinct species and very very few extinct species in proportion. Therefore, according to the fossils we have, rather than a calculation based on evolutionary theory, no one could get away saying that 99.9% of Earth's species are extinct. We would have to uncover (as the article said) fifty billion fossils to reach that percentage. That means we would have to have every person on Earth become a paleontologist and find 10 new, extinct fossil species... not just another T-Rex. David Bergan 05:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link that explains how the 99% number was determined? If it uses "evolution" theory to come up with 99%, then there's a circular logic problem when attempting to use the 99% number against Intelligent Design. The question is it based on "proven" stuff like mutations or is it based on "theory" of evolution alone? If all else fails, we simply report the criticisms of both sides, and if evolution says 99% of species are extinct therefore 99% of species were imperfectly designed, then all we can do is report it. FuelWagon 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't even have the link that was discussed above. But I doubt evolutionary theory would be primary, more likely the basis is paleontology. We know the species alive today, and how many of would leave good evidence behind in those environments that promote fossilization. The estimate could get really sophisticated if it took into account the various ecological environments in different time periods, and the species diversities generally associated with those environments. However, I doubt 99% is a peer reviewed number, it is probably more a figure of speech that gets repeated. I don't think it would be right to say that "evolution" says this. How many certain ancesters of todays species do we have in the fossil record? Yet they must be there, probably mostly among those species that are less likely to fossilize. Perhaps genomics can be used to contribute to an evolutionary reasoned answer. Most species alive to today would not have be able to breed with their geologically distant evolutionary ancestors, so it may be that there are 99 different extinct species, just in the ancestry of todays still existing species. There is probably a lot of evidence in the genome, of past chromosome doublings or repeats of parts of chromosomes. Some of these would create reproductive isolation over time so that new species were formed. Of course it also powered complexity, because multiple copies of the same genes allowed those genes to diverge and resulted in enzyme families that allow closely related genes to specialize in slightly different functions and different expression levels in different tissue types. It has been a boon to medicine, allowing drugs more or less selective for particular tissues. Of course, allele diversity and cross reaction with related enzymes in the same family also explains a lot of the side effects of drugs in small percentages of the population.--Silverback 07:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the fact is we hardly know about how many species we have the MODERN times, let alone the past. We've got some fancy estimates, but species are probably going extinct all around us. Certainly, we're doing a rather good job of killing a lot of em. I suspect through our analysis here this isn't the strongest argument for or against, without repeating a whole lot of what we were talking about.--Tznkai 14:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just read some of the articles referenced within the Wikipedia article on extinction. There are inconsistencies between some of the estimates that are reported. For example, in a couple of places it is stated that as many as 95% of the species alive 252 million years ago became extinct at that time. However, the Wikipedia article about the Permian-Triassic_extinction says that "about 90 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species" went extinct at that time. So, the 95% rate of P-T extinction sounds incorrect.

The basic point might still be correct. There was an extreme mass extinction 252 million years ago. The fossil record shows the existence of a lot of species prior to that which are no longer found in the fossil record after that. The estimates, or their reporting, might be flawed, but there is material evidence that supports the estimates.

The Permian-Triassic was the most severe of the five mass extinctions revealed by the fossil record. By the time you compound those mass extinctions, one can see that the total might be close to 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived on planet Earth. Lots of species have come, and the vast majority of them are no longer here.

It seems to me that there are several conclusions that can be reached that are relevant to this article:

1. the Designer is Stupid instead of Intelligent, or
2. the Designer is Intelligent and Vicious, or
3. there is no Designer.

Since this is an article about Intelligent Design, before trying to add this criticism to the article it seems fair to give an advocate of Intelligent Design a chance to speak to it. Is there such an advocate already participating in this discussion? If not, or if additional expertise is needed, I would be willing to try to locate the authority who could offer an explanation for how the more than 99% rate of extinction fits into Intelligent Design. This article is important enough that spending as much as two or more weeks trying to gain that input seems worthwhile to me. Jkintree 16:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we still have a problem of circular reasoning is the only problem here. We're using evolution to prove evolution. As for your conclusions for the designer, those aren't strictly speaking logical. In fact, using logic to describe the moral traits of a being is a trickly ground. I mean, we have whole swaths of reason, philosiphy and theology to deal with those questions. While you've got it generally correct, you're limiting the field a little to much. Anyway, if we could get around to writing and condensing the Designer Identity section, we might be able to settle all of this.--Tznkai 17:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not using evolution to prove evolution. I'm using multiple mass extinctions as evidence for the weakness of Intelligent Design. After reading an article by William Dembski, I finally understand why there are so many references to "optimal design" in this discussion. I'm not talking about optimal design, either. I'm talking about "good enough" design; design that is good enough for a species to survive.

From now on, I will also try to conform to the IDers refusal to speculate on the nature of the designing intelligence. The question remains as to how Intelligent Design accounts for the estimate based on the fossil record, not the theory of evolution, of a 99.9% rate of extinction for all the species that have ever lived on planet Earth. 208.190.219.36 03:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Where was the reference showing us that the 90+% extinction rate was based on the fossil record? I've never heard anyone saying that they found 40-50 billion fossils of unique, extinct species. David Bergan 04:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to suppose that finding 40-50 billion fossils is a prerequisite for considering an estimate to be based on the fossil record. The statistical methods for these types of calculations have been used for decades now, for example estimating the number of fish in a lake by using a sampling intersection. On a less theoretical note, there are additional practical considerations that change the upper bound of potential fossil discoveries as well, for example "It has been estimated that fewer than 10% of the animal species living today are likely to be preserved as fossils." [[2]] That alone limits the maximum to only 4-5 billion species. --Unknown 21:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can anyone tell us exactly how many fossilized species we have, and how many of those species are also extinct? And then a mathematical framework that makes this 90+% (or even a 50+%) statistic plausible without assuming evolution? Before we can do anything with this number, we have to know how they arrived at it. David Bergan 21:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"There are about 1.5 million known species of living plants and animals. In all, there may be as many as 4.5 million living species. In contrast, there are only about 250,000 known fossil species" If we go on the assumption that 10% of extant species would be fossilized, and we further assume that our precursors were of a proportionally similar distribution, this implies that there were at at least 2,500,000 fossil species, and this comprises only those fossil species that we have found so far. This is already number in excess of the current known species. If you further assume that it's easier to find an example of a species that is presently living than a (potentially sole) remaining fossile of a dead species, then I don't think it's a far stretch to say that a conclusive case can be made based purely on the paleontological record for 50%. Furthermore, we should consider that while an animal may be a potential candidate for fossilization, it is no guarantee that it will in fact be fossilized. I would assume that there are records of the number of fossils within each of the various eras of Earth's development -- I'd guess that a relation could be found using that to estimate the number of fossils from each of those that we can't find. I also found a reference to 130,000 fossils at [[3]].

The reference for 250,000 came from [[4]]

Good links, but neither tell us how many of the fossil species are extinct, so we can't simply multiply 250,000 by ten. And the quote "It has been estimated that fewer than 10% of the animal species living today are likely to be preserved as fossils." doesn't sound like they are mathematically certain of that number. I mean it doesn't seem like they crunched a statistic and can quote it to us with a valid margin of error. Can anyone find some better links? (Is this really worth it?) David Bergan 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

According to [[5]] 250,000 is the number of extinct fossil species. I've always taken the term "fossil species" to mean only those species which were extinct. I wouldn't expect someone who found a fossilized cow to catalogue that as a fossil species. Living_fossil mentions that animals who are known from the fossil record who are known today have a special name, which implies that there's a difference between real fossil species, "living fossils", and modern creatures. --Unknown 04:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that the author of your site actually had his facts right by saying that 250,000 are indeed extinct species? 6-day creationists aren't always on the ball when it comes to scientific facts. Not saying the site is wrong, but it doesn't convince me. David Bergan 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, here is another link: [[6]] In general, this set of articles (which can be found in their entirety at a dozen other sites) [[7]] is actually quite good ("Proceedings of a symposium entitled Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?). It includes speakers such as Dembski, Behe, and well reasoned responses from other Christian thinkers who are on both sides of the camp. The auther is no 6-day creationist. From a memoriam on her, "In Memoriam: Prof. Leslie K. Johnson

LESLIE K. JOHNSON, a lecturer in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology since 1989, died on May 16 of breast cancer. She was 51. Johnson was an expert on the behavioral ecology of insects. She was active in the Teacher Preparation program and advised local science teachers. Born in New York City, Johnson earned her 1974 Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, and served in the Peace Corps in Lesotho. She had been a faculty member of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, for 13 years." Sounds like the kind of person who would probably do a bit of fact checking. --Unknown 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

208, I think you've missed it slightly. See, the number of species that are extinct is based on interpreting geological data, and evolutionary theory to arrive at an estimate on the total number of species to have ever lived, and thus, ever to have died. Removing Evolution, (and this is part of the threat that ID presents to scientists) is similar to removing the engine from a flying aircraft. SURE its aerodynamic and all, but its not really working to well anymore.--Tznkai 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

How is evolutionary theory involved in estimates of the number of species that have ever lived? Jkintree 17:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

fair representation

Silverback wrote: My goal is to see that ID gets a fair presentation, including any arguments that even remotely make sense or have some merit. In addition I want any reader who comes here to be able to find all the reasoned arguments ID is likely to meet in the field of ideas, and that those get a fair hearing, and the counters to those, as well

OK, sounds good so far. I'm not aware of any arguments for/against ID that didn't get fair representation though. I started a new section so that we could put them in here as subsections in an attempt to manage them somewhat. any artgument for/against that you don't think is getting fair represenation, put below in three "equal" signs to start a new subsection, and then we can comment on each argument individually. FuelWagon 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can stand to have a bit of reorganization, especially with the "additional criticsms" section, but thats old news.--Tznkai 14:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

President Bush

Should the article include the information that President George W. Bush has advocated that Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html Jkintree 16:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes — in the intro, I say.
• Once sentance blurb in lead as a current event, and then stick it in the political arena section in detail.--Tznkai 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bush's anything goes, academic attitude, more typical of universities rather than high schools is refreshing, but not particularly notable. However, this article's definition of ID is even more interesting than the AP version I cited above, "a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity". I have never seen the "unseen force" hypothesis about the designer before, and this probably should be included in the expanding hypotheses about the designer section. I'd like to include the "supernatural" hypothesis as well.--Silverback 23:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The implied definition of the Intelligent Designer is an incredibly capable person or persons, who "left his finger prints" all over things. When we talk about a bike, this is (fairly) uncontraversial. When we talk about evolution, the universe, etc etc. (where ID is most commonly associated), the designer is unseen (not communicated with directly in a provable simple, look here's a phone number sort of way), but infered by the complexity and imporbability of something's attributes. Thats where the unseen force comes from--Tznkai 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it. How is "unseen" intrinsic to ID. I thought in its pure form, ID could easily be alien came and left without leaving much trace that survived the intervening eons, other than what can be inferred from the nature and quality of the design. This isn't necessarily "unseen" at all. "unseen" should just be added as one of the many competing hypotheses about the designer and we just have to hope more evidence is found to distinguish these hypotheses.--Silverback 23:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and that same alien exits absolutley nowhere to be seen. Thats where its unseen.--Tznkai 17:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes (to be removed from the main article but left in "political movement" article after Bush leaves office. FuelWagon 06:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

New/Changed section: Designer Identity

Ok, before I write this section, I'd like some input here.

As the article stands, we are concerned with ID as a whole. ID that 1. asserts physical characterstics allow a scientific inference of a designer, and 2. asserts that 1 applies to the bigger and better things, Evolution, The Fine Tuned universe, etc.

ID spectacularly and noticably avoids speaking to exactly what the designer(s) is/are. All that is required for these designers is Capability and Intent, (teology anyone?).

ID advocates have listed God (presumably the abrahamic god) and Aliens.

What other qualities, if any, does the designer need?--Tznkai 17:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This should all fit neatly within an expanded "hypotheses about the designer" section. "Higher power", "unseen", "special interest in humans" are additional qualities hypothesized. Various places on the "intelligence" scale have also been hypothesized, from zero to omniscient. BTW, you misunderstood the "unseen" quality, that does not refer to our ignorance about the designer, but more to an invisible guiding or designing hand. Of course, each hypothesis has its critics and backers. Also, there is the multiple designer hypotheses, there is no reason to assume the fine-tuned universe designer is the same as the flagellum designer, is the same as the guiding towards humanity designer. So each time and place of design generates a designer hypothesis, and we await evidence that unifies them (or not), but without such evidence they remain disjoint.--Silverback 18:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rick Santorum is against intelligent design being taught in science classes

"I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Reuters

Although he was quite recently previously in favor of it (Washington Times, March 14, 2002): "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." [8]

ROFL, flip-flop.

lets try to avoid agreeing or forming a consensus

Let's try to avoid agreeing or forming a consensus, until the page is unprotected and we can prototype different proposals there. The problem with forming a consensus here, is that we neglect the rest of the community that has the page on their watchlist and just monitors it when it changes. I know I found it tough to be on vacation for several weeks and then come back here only to find that a small group thinks they have formed a consensus for the whole community and presumes to speak for it. I don't want to do that to others. We should stay flexible and open and avoid ossifying our positions, because once we do we have this knee jerk revert reaction to anybody editing the page without consulting the "consensus", and that really is not our right. We don't own the page. Anyone can come in and contribute without having to stand in judgement before a tribunal, it is the wiki way. So, as much as we are finding common ground here, let's go slow until a changing page can stimulate more diversity of interest via the watchlists. -- thanx, --Silverback 11:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute issues:

Currently this page is protected. As I understand it, I and others are waiting for Silverback to come to an agreement with others about the disputed content, and the whittling down of the article. Where do we stand on this? --Tznkai 16:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether the page can be unlocked over the next few days or sooner. Don't rush if you're still in discussion, but let me know when you've reached an agreement. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'll get back to you as soon as we're all on the same page, or we conclude that there is no way we're going to agree on the color of the sky let alone the article's direction. --Tznkai 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznkai. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is too soon to unprotect. I am in favor of growing the article. As the discussion has indicated, there are still more things to add. I think I can speak for the consensus, they don't want anymore whittlin'. That is what sent them running to their friends for protection.--Silverback 13:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to clarify what it is about

It appears from the article and the accompanying debate that so-called Intelligent Design is not a scientific topic but is instead a political or ideological topic regarding a doctrine developed for the purpose of circumventing the First Amendment in the drafting of educational texts. (That probably explains why the list of discussion topics under this category includes the names of prominent politicians but no reference to science.)

The article should make is clearer that so-called Intelligent Design is, apparently, a topic about a field of science but that it is not itself a part of that science. The article does, however, state:

"[Intelligent Design] does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change."

If that is indeed the case, there is no need to discuss "intelligent design" in order to understand evolution as a topic of empirical science, any more than there is a need to discuss Henry Ford in a manual of automobile mechanics.

The article continues: "Ostensibly [Intelligent Design's] main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents."

While this is an interesting objective, it may be a trivial one. Not only is one unlikely to be able to infer a Henry Ford through a complete and exhaustive study of the Model T, but one's inability to demonstrate the existence of Henry Ford on the basis of the Model T would not disprove the existence of Henry Ford.

Perhaps one basis of the perceived need for Intelligent Design is a belief that something does not exist unless it can be shown empirically to exists. While Thomas Aquinus held this belief, that possibility cannot be excluded that Aquinus was erroneous in this belief and that all attempts to prove the existence of God through deductive reasoning are folly.

Science deals with those matters which can be shown empirically to exist, but it does not follow (and it is not scientific to assume) that those things which do not lend themselves to scientific analysis do not exist. Similarly, it does not follow that well-reasoned, fact-based scientific conclusions are necessarily wrong unless they offer affirmative support for a particular religious dogma.

I think this is a request for a clearer introduction/summary section. Someone else able to parse this?--Tznkai 13:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is one unlikely to be able to infer a Henry Ford through a complete and exhaustive study of the Model T, but one's inability to demonstrate the existence of Henry Ford on the basis of the Model T would not disprove the existence of Henry Ford. Design theorists never claim that they are able to discover the identity of the designer. They only claim to know if there is a designer. Maybe the article needs to speak this more clearly. David Bergan 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the person who posted the henry ford bit, in quoting the article as saying "ID does not oppose evolution blah blah blah", is showing that perhaps the article is not clear that ID says basically "evolution is not enough". ID points to something like flagellum and says "evolution can't explain it, some intelligence must have put it there". I think perhaps that sentence seems to mislead a bit and could be read to say ID doesn't oppose the possibility that evolution could explain all of life in the universe. I'm pretty sure ID is clearly pointing to the idea that some outside intelligence is needed to explain some things. FuelWagon 22:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Plagues and People?

Under the 'External Links' / Neutral section, there is a listing for "Plagues and People by William McNeill, Anchor 1998" added[9]. After reading through the summaries available for this book on amazon[10], it is unclear how this book is related to the ID debate. The book "considers the influence of infectious diseases on the course of history", according to the amazon review. Can someone explain the notability of this book to the ID debate, or remove it from the page? Eclipsed 14:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The link was added here by 198.208.159.14. Apparently DDG reverted one of his earlier edits, and "Charlie" reacted on DDG's talk page here. DDG's response is still on 198's talk page. Anyway, here are some other ID edits 198 has made [11], [12], [13], [14]... which all leave me scratching my head. Probably not vandalism... but it's not relevant, either... unless 198 comes and successfully defends his case. David Bergan 17:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The book is six years old, does not have a prima facia relevance, I vote axe it. But note, I tend to prefer killing all that trailing stuff anyway.--Tznkai 18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the book was intended as a background reference for a wealth of problems for intelligent design. Many pathogens can cross species lines for instance. To the extent that humans were designed or evolution was guided towards humans, it would have been an improvement to use a different genetic code for humans that did not allow viruses that work in animals to also work almost exactly the same way in humans. Organs working the same way could be retained, just the code is different. This way transpecific organ transplantation would still be workable. Of course, pathogens and disease raise innumerable questions about the quality or intelligence or intent of the "design". They might even call into question WHETHER these life forms were designed.--Silverback 08:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The argument SB has presented is attempting to tell us that because morally it doesn't seem prudent that certain areas of life were designed as they are, therefore they must not be designed. However, the moral argument is not relevant to ID (as Dembski clearly says... I'll get quotes if you want them). A torture chamber and a computer virus are both morally abominable. But they were both designed. No one enters a concentration camp and says, "Man, how evil is this? I can't believe it. It must have just happened by nature on its own. It's too evil for humans to have made." David Bergan 23:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, I do mention questions about the "intent" of the designer. But you misinterpret the distinction here. The criticisms of the design deriving from the plagues and pathogens, is not an argument against the designers in general, but against a major hypothesis about the designer predominent in the ID movement, i.e., that the designer is the omnipotent, omniscient, Good Judeo/Christain God who created man in his own image. And the argument is not that the designer couldn't have mysterious, unfathomable reasons for his design that are beyond our ken. The argument is that once you appeal to the mysterious, unfathomable, and supernatural, you are abandoning your claim that ID is scientific, and losing any persuasive power you hoped that ID would have, because you are in the impossible position of defending the innumerable poor and flawed designs, that tend to raise doubts, and are once again back to the argument from faith and personal experience. The point is that ID fails to advance the apologia for this particular characterization of the Judeo/Christian God. --Silverback 04:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Science/Religion, Coke/Pepsi, Democrat/Republican, Roger Moore/Sean Connery

I would like to propose that some debates cannot be resolved. Clearly, this is one of them. The scientific community is not going to accept Intelligent Design as a valid theory. And they shouldn't. It's not science. The religious community is not going to accept reams and reams of scientific flaws with it, the Bible, or any other component of their particular flavor of mythology. And they shouldn't -- their belief isn't based on science, and those of us who believe in science, despite our higher I.Q.'s and better haircuts, need to respect their right to believe that. I am biased against religious mythology. I am a scientist. I might burn in Hell -- it's a directional bet I've placed, and if I'm wrong, I've erred badly. So be it. But the people who sincerely believe I'm Hellbound believe so with equal fervor to my belief that they've been brainwashed, and in a forum that is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal nor a religious text, both viewpoints have equal right to be present, and equal right to be criticized and ridiculed by opponents. In fact, I'm sticking my tongue out at the Jesus freaks right now, because I haven't yet learned that this medium doesn't convey facial expressions. But, I digress. I'm sure I had a point. Oh, right, freedom of expression and all that.

I would argue that we should take articles such as this and either separate them into two articles, or section them into multiple sections. Where there are clearly such polar opposites, let both present their side, unfettered by revisions from the other side, who are free to say what they want in their section. In the Miltonian marketplace of ideas, sometimes consensus is unattainable, and it is most fair to the reader -- a concept lost in these debates -- to present both ideas as persuasively as possible and let the reader decide for himself. If the reader is too stupid to make a decision on his or her own, I'm sure his or her minister will be happy to tell him or her exactly how to think on the matter. The current system is unfair to both sides, but more importantly, it is patently unfair to the critical reader, who would like to hear both sides. Put it all out there and let people think. Anyone who thinks this is a forum for suppressing ideas as either unscientific or unholy is in the wrong place. Preczewski 21:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) (whose eternal fate, should such exist, is certainly sealed.)

...unfettered by revisions from the other side...

I don't think complete unfettering is necessary, although tolerance is and a generally non-deletionist approach is, and definitely the 32k limit has to go out the door.--Silverback 09:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have understood you correctly, but keeping anti-ID people off of a pro-ID page would result in misinformation, and vice versa. --goethean ॐ 22:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No question whatsoever. And it's not the most desirable, generally. But I think some topics get to the point where both sides need to be allowed to make their point -- that is, consensus is impossible, and anything so bland as to be adequately inoffensive to be considered a consensus would do a disservice to the reader, who is misinformed if he does not get to read that the issue has two polar opposites, both vehement, and be left to himself. Ideally, such articles would have two sections and would leave each other alone. The pro-ID community would edit each other into their consensus. The anti-ID people would edit each other into their consensus. And the reader could take a side, or a middle ground, or whatever he likes. But some issues do not have an achievable middle ground, and forcing one to exist is a disservice to both sides, and anyone who wants to learn about the topic. Preczewski 22:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a Wikipedia article on a controversial subject could point to a debate page. The debate page could be divided into two columns. Point and counterpoint could be placed side by side in the two columns. Point and counterpoint could each contain links to supporting text, graphics, audio and video files. That way, Wikipedia articles could remain encyclopedia type articles and as neutral as possible, while the debate could be pursued to its fullest extent as a supplement to Wikipedia. Jkintree 03:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, anti-ID and pro-ID are both attitudes to be avoided. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate (well, except here in discussion) but rather a compendium of information, intentionally attempting a non-biased reporting of subjects. Hence, accuracy is paramount, not position. Preferably, the article will not indicate a "pro" or "con" stance but rather treat ID as what it is, with information on the "pro" and "con" movements and their relevance and positions. "pro" is religious, or some are saying philisophical. Perhaps Jkintee's desire for the debate to be fully covered could most easily be handled in the "external links" section. (?) --KillerChihuahua 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dawkins

The statement, "For example Richard Dawkins, a very prominent spokesman for evolutionary theory, has argued that evolution disproves the existence of God." does not strike me as quite accurate. Can anyone produce a quote of him saying this? In his Salon interview, he said, "the relevance of evolutionary biology to atheism is that evolutionary biology gives us the only known mechanism whereby the illusion of design, or apparent design, could ever come into the universe anywhere." That's a slightly different position. Quoting the whole thing would be awkward; perhaps a paraphrase like, "Richard Dawkins, a very prominent spokesman for evolutionary theory, has argued evolution supports atheism by explaining how apparent design could come into existence," or maybe simply "...supports atheism."--Uncredible Hallq 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement doesn't "support" atheism per se, rather its service to atheism is more in pointing out that evolution provides a plausible alternative to some of the usual arguments for creation.--Silverback 08:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Current Disputes:

Alright. Lets give it another shot so we can all get on the same page here:

What are the current disputes before we can return to article editing?:

• Hypotheses on the designer section
• Article Size

What else?--Tznkai 17:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Page philosophy. I've expressed mine. Slack (discussed above), plus this passage: [15] plus I generally agree with the science/religion point above except that we don't need a page split, if the two sides give each other slack, and help refine each others points, we can co-exist on one page. As to the details, I've already suggested designer characteristics that need to be added to the hypotheses of the designer page and given their fair hearing. "higher power", "unseen", "supernatural", in addition to those that are aleady in the existing and other proposed texts. Do we have a constructive community or a hacking one?--Silverback 18:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can we avoid argumenation on our individual POVs and just list what needs to be taken care of first?--Tznkai 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The article currently unattributedly calls belief in design a priori (prior to experience). That's POV. Most religious people believe that their beliefs are due to their experiences, not prior to their experiences. --goethean ॐ 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was an open dispute about the hypotheses section. I hope I haven't disrupted anything with my additions/changes. Dave (talk) 22:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design vs Benign Design

This needs to be included in the article in some way, shape, or form. Obviously not in its current state, but re-worded so the point is made.

Consider the title of Intelligent Design. This title has the implicit suggestion that life on Earth was designed intelligently by an outside force; it is the work of an intelligent designer. By making this statement, one has discerened a characteristic of God from his work, and in doing so has discerned God: God is intelligent, and a being that does not have attributes cannot exist, therefore God exists.

Once one has gleaned that the Creator is intelligent, this same method should also reveal his moral, as well as his intellectual attributes.

Let us now consider that creature which dwells within the intestines of all kinds of animals. Consider the tape-worm. Consider the malaria carrying mosquito. Consider the shark which attacks people on beaches, and consider the Gerbil as it cannibalises its children. Consider the badness, evilness, brutishess, and nastiness of life, which only our own scientific advancement and prowess has enabled us to obviate to any degree.

Taking all of the above into context, one can conclude that whilst the designer may well be intelligent, He is also a sadist. It may well be possible to teach intelligent design, but benign design is a wholly medaeival concept. To try and teach intelligent design with the slant that the creator is benign is ludicrous, and contradictory to the nature of the subject matter in question. It is equivilent to a psychologist stating that a sociopath would not cause harm to something/one because they understand what the victim would feel.

Semi-paraphrased from Cavalorn: More thoughts on Intelligent Design. --Veratien 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's all about ends and means. If God intended humans to be the center and glory of His creation, what happens to parasites and mosquitoes is irrelevant. If God meant for all animals to have equal opportunity for happiness, then He is a sadist. But then again, if He meant for all animals to have equal opportunity for happiness, then He probably would have given them all the ability to reason, a capacity for love, and the ability to learn of Him.

But I don't think any of this conversation means a thing as far as the ID article is concerned. ID is only concerned if an object is designed. And ID theory would tell us that the rack is an irreducibly complex (and therefore designed) object just as much as the Bible is intelligently designed because it carries information. David Bergan 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that ID is only concerned if an object is designed, but I am not sure why intelligence is the only attribute that is allowed to be inferred from that apparent design. If a humanocentric perspective (which ID does not, apparently, infer) is NOT a given, how does ID limit itself internally so that it avoids drawing other conclusions about the designer?Cavalorn 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligence is a valid scientific inference because we make that inference empirically. (Click here for more information.) Moral attributes are not quite as cut and dried. Generally going to war is a bad thing... yet Abraham Lincoln is respected for going to war to free the slaves. Lying is wrong, but if you were hiding a Jew and the Nazis asked you about that, it would be better to lie and save a life. We have bacteria in our intestines. No it wouldn't be a lot of fun to be one of those bacteria. But it wouldn't be much fun to be a human if we all had perpetual diarrhea, either. So a designer (if one exists) could quite possibly have considered the human's comfort more important than the bacteria's. (And who's to say that it isn't an Epicurean paradise for a bacteria to be in my intestine? I eat some yummy things.) Part of the limitation we have to deal with is that we don't know if bacteria feel pain, or enjoy anything. But if my intestinal flora is constantly suffering, they have managed to keep pretty quiet about it. We do know that humans experience suffering and joy. And some other animals probably do in smaller proportions (eg. dogs, dolphins, etc.). But when you get down to earthworms, insects, mushrooms, and sponges, you're making a stretch.

The problem of evil (and the problem of pain) are with us regardless of the merits of ID. Christians have answers to those challenges, and so do other religions. But I don't see why the debate on Intelligent Design somehow makes those problems MORE of a challenge. David Bergan 05:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It makes the problems more of a challenge because it makes them deliberate and intentional, without providing any evidence of the humanocentrism or doctrine of salvation that would potentially compensate for that. If one views the world as a vale of tears, as it traditionally is - the old 'nasty, brutish and short' adage - then one can take comfort in the observation that it is, at least, arbitrary. There is no design, and thus no meaning to human suffering. Thus, the revelation of a purposeful intent that made the world that way on purpose is wholly disastrous without the simultaneous revelation of a perspective that ameliorates that intent. ID does not offer such a revelation, though it seems its proponents bring it to the table implicitly.

One cannot arrive at humanocentrism or a doctrine of salvation from ID. It could be argued, however, that ID seeks to highlight the apparent need for the same because without it, the worldview presented by ID is a Lovecraftian one in which a cosmic sadist purposefully engineers a defective, meaningless and barbaric creation - a far worse state than an arbitrary traffic accident universe.Cavalorn 12:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I bascially agree with what you are saying. However, understanding the role of suffering in an intentionally made world/universe is not something that only ID has to account for. Anyone who believes there is a creator or designer has to answer that challenge - Young Earth creationists, Old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc. They each think the creation happened in different ways, but they all implicitly say that this suffering was intended.

It's a question that humans always have asked. Case in point: probably the oldest book we have is the Book of Job. Read the rest of the Old Testament, and you'll find this challenge being raised over and over. Habakkuk starts with "O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen?" Ecclesiastes tells us, "What do mortals get from all the toil and strain with which they toil under the sun? For all their days are full of pain, and their work is a vexation; even at night their minds do not rest. This also is vanity." Book after book is filled with pleas like this to God, because it doesn't make sense that He would create us with the intention of suffering. The majority of the Old Testament was written to answer this challenge.

So what are the solutions? (1) Shrug off creation/intelligent design... disregard any empirical evidence they might have. If they can't answer the moral question to your satisfaction, their science obviously must be bunk. It's easier to think there isn't any moral question and that our lives are poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short. Moreover, they are purposeless, vain, and futile. (2) Adopt a Buddhistic or Jainist position that laughs at suffering because of its absurdity. Say to yourself, it is all absurd. It is all madness. And call this enlightenment. (3) Take a dualistic position like the Zoroastrians or the Manicheans. The good god wins some battles and the bad god wins some. Who knows which will win in the end? (4) Take the Christian position. A unique position among the world that says, "Man is fallen." He was intended for something greater and nobler, but he chose to rebel. God is at every moment trying to call His rebellious creations home. And at one point His only Son even stepped onto Earth to call us directly. Rather than staying up in lofty Heaven where all His needs were met and pain is impossible, He was moved to pity at the sight of our suffering. He became a man, humiliating on its own. But then, as a man, He was chased, mocked, threatened, beaten, persecuted, defamed, convicted without a crime, and crucified. How much more humiliating does it get for the Creator to suffer like that at the hands of His creation? But all that was done because God wanted to save us from the hole we dug for ourselves.

We are completely off the subject of ID, but those are the top 4 answers to the challenge of pain from the history of the world. If you email me your mailing address, I'll send you a copy of CS Lewis's The Problem of Pain. When Lewis was an atheist, it was precisely because the universe on the whole was cold, dark, and full of suffering. This book shows how he changed from that position. David Bergan 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He also ordered the slaughter of children and women, although sometimes, he ordered virgins to be spared. Of course, this may be his way of calling them "home". Given His power, if Christ was his only son, it was by choice, and any sacrifice or humilition, was voluntary and temporary, especially in eternal terms. "Trying to call" suggests, given history, an inability to communicate. A reputed supernatural designer should have a few more tricks up his sleave if he truly wants to communicate.--Silverback 14:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are stories in the Old Testament that make me shudder as well. A reputed supernatural designer should have a few more tricks up his sleave if he truly wants to communicate. What tricks do you have in mind? What is it that you would want God to do to reach out to people? He does an excellent job to my satisfaction. If He were to interfere more, He would be a tyrant. Not one of us could probably stand 60 minutes of Him micro-managing our day. Instead, He lead by example the life He wants us to lead. And gives us contact through the Holy Spirit and communication through prayer, for anyone who wants to talk to God. And His plan for individual salvation couldn't get any easier, if you think about it. David Bergan 16:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You're overlooking the Gnostic position, which holds that the world was designed intentionally by the false god, the Demiurge. ID supports this theory far better than it does the Christian one, especially given the manifold defects in creation. The Christian position in saying 'Man is fallen' is not unique.

You seem to be confirming that the intent of ID is not to present a viable alternate theory, but to present a worldview that is intolerable without the Christian brand of remedy.Cavalorn 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok sure, I overlooked the neo-Platonists. Make that 5. Which other worldview, besides the Christian (Jewish) one, ascribes that Man was created in a genuinely noble form, but fell by His own choosing? Just curious.

You seem to be confirming that the intent of ID is not to present a viable alternate theory, but to present a worldview that is intolerable without the Christian brand of remedy. ID doesn't have an intent. ID just tells you if things were designed or not. ID is just as happy saying that retarded aliens populated earth as a science project, as it is saying that Jehovah created life for His own glory. You are raising to me theodicy challenges, and I am defending my worldview, and how it seems more reasonable than the alternatives. David Bergan 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make them more of a challenge, but it doesn't eliminate the challenges either. Most Christians come to the ID movement with the idea that everyone will agree that the designs will be viewed as wonderful and amazing and proof of the existance of their God, and that their God is the obvious choice as the hypothesized designer.--Silverback 05:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Even the inference of "intelligence" begs the question how much intelligence. While, a rhetorical attempt to restrict ID to just the design inference and not to have any speculation about the designer. It hasn't been successful, even among those who claim to be practitioners. The media couldn't avoid adding "higher power" and "unseen" to the designer's qualities. Many in the movement admit they have the omniscient, ominipotent designer in mind, and believe the evidence points to that. Many hypothesize that the fine tuned universe and flaggellum designer are one and the same. After my attempt to whittle down the article, the reverters restored references to the hypothesized "supernatural" characteristic. Other times and places of a designer's presence are hypothesized, as this is implicit in each hypothesized design. Although perhaps there is an outside of time and place hypothesis of the creator. --Silverback 04:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought some of that whittling made a ton of sense. There is a reason why ID can't answer the questions of "what kind" or "how much" intelligence the designer has... because those questions are beyond empirical evidence and into the realm of belief. ID says the bike is designed. We know that through empiricism. But how could we guess at the designer's IQ based on the bike? The designer may have gotten the bike-making-plans from someone else. The guy making the bike could be Stephen Hawking or a junior-high dropout. Let's say that 99% of America believes that Hawking made my bike. ID doesn't say that. ID only said the bike was designed by something intelligent. So it wouldn't be useful to debunk the Hawking theory on the ID page. Nor is it relevant to bring forth evidence that Hawking is a mean and terrible man based on the other things he made. Put that stuff on the bicycle or the Hawking page. David Bergan 05:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

One can probably argue for some lower limit on the necessary intelligence, something less than human intelligence, although the technology may be more advanced, and definitely is if that intelligence arose on another planet. Of course, all this did not prevent ID proponents from hypothesizing greater levels of intelligence and other qualities for the designer that are notable.--Silverback 05:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You probably could set a lower bound. The bike maker has to have an IQ of at least 50; the bike maker can't be a beaver, even though they have some intelligence; etc. But your term "hypothesize" isn't quite accurate. The design theorists that believe in God don't "hypothesize" in an empirical way that the designer was omniscient. They have religious beliefs for philosophical/theological reasons, and the omniscient God they come to in that realm fits with the idea that an intelligence of some sort was behind the origin and diversity of life. David Bergan 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hang on. We can tell that a bike is designed, empirically, because we have prior empirical experience of bicycle design. We cannot know that an eye is designed through empiricism, because we have no empirical evidence of the process of eye design to refer to.Cavalorn 13:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

True. We don't have any empirical evidence for the eye being designed. Neither do we have empirical evidence for the eye being evolved. But if you generalize to the concept of irreducible complexity (of which both the bike and the eye are), we have plenty of evidence that empirically, IC things were only designed. We don't have any examples of IC objects just "happening" from undirected natural causes. Irreducible complexity seems to be beyond the limit of what nature can do on its own without a designer, therefore when we see irreducible complexity, it implies a designer. That's the reasoning behind ID. Some people think it's valid to generalize into IC, and others don't. But sometime in the future, we will have an empirical answer one way or the other. David Bergan 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Empirically, IC things were only designed? That doesn't stand up unless we can demonstrate the process by which such things were designed - an empiric link between intent and effect. Unless the process of design is comprehensible, one isn't justified in calling it 'design' at all. One can only call a bike designed because one has experience of the process by which it WAS designed; that is how one can identify it as the result of design. ID depends on a fundamentally mysterious and incomprehensible 'design' process. There seems little to choose between 'evolved by unknown means' and 'designed by unknown means'. It seems to be a matter of substituting ignorance of a hypothetical Creator's methods for ignorance of the potential of Nature acting solo.Cavalorn 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The process is irrelevant. You are using a computer, and you probably don't know what the process was for making it. But you probably think it was designed. The guys at Dell could run three laps around the building after installing the processor, but before adding the power source. Maybe. Maybe not.

Or consider a Stradivarius violin. We don't know how he made those things. We can't make one ourselves. We don't know the process. But that doesn't mean we think it wasn't designed. Empiricism is just the logic that connects, "Every violin we know about was designed. Therefore the violin in my hand was designed." It doesn't ask anything about how they were designed. Different manufacturers would have different processes. We know of some and can only speculate on others. But the question of process in no way invalidates the empirical link that each violin did have a designer. David Bergan 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary - every violin we know about was designed, and we know this because we are aware of the general processes by which violins are designed. When textile weaving by machine was first introduced, some believed the weavers must be in league with the Devil, because the cloth seemed impossibly fine to them. By contrast, the mermaid's purse was believed to be a manufactured object, rather than the egg sac of a fish. Flint arrowheads were believed to be the work of elves, rather than cavemen. In each case, ignorance of the process by which an object was created led to an erroneous conclusion about a 'designer'.

Furthermore, all IC objects for which we have identified designers have human designers. We are not aware of design other than human design. IC objects thus fall into two groups: designed by humans, and category X. We do not assume that objects in category X are designed by humans, because humans do not have the power to design such objects; to assume that they are therefore designed by something non-human is a fallacy - technically that of the undistributed middle, I believe.Cavalorn 17:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we are aware of bird design of nests that are IC, bees design honeycombs, spiders design webs, termites nests, ground hogs and moles design burrow networks, mice have designed a behavior that allows them to kill albatross chicks, these all seem IC, some are instinctual, some are learned social from a "culture". Can we rule out an instinctual designer of life, or space travel?--Silverback 14:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

None of those are designed. They're manufactured. Design involves a conceptual stage prior to the execution. A spider doesn't design a web conceptually before spinning it.Cavalorn 23:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking the examples in your [Cavalorn's] first paragraph (and ignoring the chronological snobbery), the only part that is relevant to ID is the fact that both alternative theories were intelligent. Either the cloth was made by a textile machine (designed by humans, who are intelligent) or by the Devil (who is also intelligent). The arrowheads were made either by (intelligent) elves or (intelligent) cavemen. A proper comparison to ID would be "Either these arrowheads were made by some kind of intelligence (elves or humans) or they were made by geological processes."

Furthermore, all IC objects for which we have identified designers have human designers. I agree. But let's analyze. Is it the human's warm-bloodedness that does the designing? Or how about the fact that humans are bipeds? Our fleshy exterior? None of the above. The trait that makes human designers is our intelligence. Therefore, if other intelligences exist, they too could design. An elf, a troll, a titan, a dragon, an angel, a genie, or even a really smart sloth (if any of these existed) could make a bicycle. David Bergan 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what you meant by chronological snobbery. You do (significantly) leave out the example of the mermaid's purse, which was believed to be a designed object, but was in fact not.

It's no single trait of humans that leads to the conclusion that humans did the designing, it's the observation of the process of manufacture. We know that humans wove the fine cloth, rather than the Devil, because we saw them do it. We know that humans made violins, because they were observed doing it. We know that humans made the arrowheads, because we can see how they were made. Extrapolating from 'human' to 'human intelligence' is an unnecessary additional stage. It is the agency, not the trait, that does the manufacturing and designing.

It's fair to say that if other intelligences exist, they too could design, but it's not germane to the argument. Design would indeed be one possible activity of a hypothetical intelligence, as would the playing of games, the expression of emotion and the making of mistakes.

It is evidence of manufacture, and not evidence of design, that tells us what agency was responsible for an object's existence. You cannot analyse an object's apparent design independently of its evident manufacture. Only manufactured objects can be designed, design being the template employed in the making of a thing. All of the examples of human design you cite, including a bicycle, bear the marks of manufacture. If we look at a written message in an alien tongue, we can say nothing at all about its design, because we do not know its purpose; but we can say that it is intelligently manufactured, because the shapes of the markings are obviously not made by chance.Cavalorn 23:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent definition

Given that Bergan and other ID proponents do not believe the intelligence of the designer can be measured, how do they know the intelligence is not zero? How do they know that there is an intelligence and how do they define said intelligence vis-a-vis the designer? Given that there is considerable debate over what intelligence as a concept is supposed to indicate, how does the ID proponent claim that the 'designer' has this attribute? Joshuaschroeder 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Start here. David Bergan 17:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Try again. The question isn't how ID determines whether something is designed. The question is how ID determines whether a design is "intelligent" and how it is determined to be "intelligent" and what it means by "intelligent". Joshuaschroeder 17:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's definition is good enough for me. 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations: the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

What do you propose to be an alternative designer? As far as I know, everyone believes that only intelligent beings are capable of designing. David Bergan 20:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Using a dictionary as a source for scientific definition hardly seems appropriate, but let's see where rigorously applying these definitions take us. First is the "ability to learn or understand or to deal..." All of these seem very subjective criteria. Are these attributes measurable in an objective scientific sense? If so, how would you measure or categorize them so that, for example, electromagnetic forces weren't "intelligent" but a two-year-old was? The second definition has been oft criticized by those who claim that the "objective criteria (as tests)" simply do not exist without the bias of the testmaker included. There is no objective way to determine the intelligence of a person, animal, etc. We do have a lot of people who make "obvious" claims about the intelligence or lack thereof of various beings, but we aren't talking about what's "obvious", we're talking about rigorous vetting via scientific investigation.

It would seem by these crude definitions one could say that all life has some level of intelligence including the monera. Indeed it would seem that there are situations where nature itself has intelligence (for example, Gaia theory or the anthropic principle). So how do we know that the "intelligence" behind "Intelligent design" is of the form of anything more than "nature" itself -- the very position which the intelligent design advocate disparages? If you are claiming that nature cannot be intelligent, how do you make such a determination? Who measures that?

I suppose that the problem comes from the coining of the phrase by Johnson. Dembski and Behe use "complexity" arguments to argue against "nature" as the source of "design" but don't say anything about intelligence except in the context of the Discovery Institute's POV-pushing. Johnson, however, didn't seem to investigate the scientific merits of the term he coined. Joshuaschroeder 23:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the etymology for intelligence... it was pretty surprising. This site says that it comes from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read". So, "intelligence" refers to a being that is choosing between 2 or more options. If you stop and think about that for a few minutes, it makes sense. Gravity doesn't have a choice in how it's going to act. The reason the tides are predictable is precisely because they aren't intelligent. Gary Kasparov is intelligent because he chooses moves on the chess board. And we consider him highly intelligent because the choices he makes show that he is a skilled choice-maker in the realm of chess. Similarly, User:Dbergan shows you on a daily basis what a highly skilled word-chooser he is through his intuitive examples, sparkling wit, and mastery of the English language. Someone, give him a barnstar!

The other factors of intelligence (memory, speed, focus, etc.) all contribute to the ability to make good choices. Earthworms, if they make choices at all, make pretty lame ones. Rats, on the other hand, can learn their way through a maze. In successive runs, they get faster and faster because they tuck information about the turns into their memory and recall it the next time around to make better turn-choices.

Raw nature, on the other hand, doesn't make choices. Events in raw nature are either (a) determined by natural laws (gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.) or (b) determined by chance (dice, coin tosses, finding an electron in a particular shell, getting a mutation, etc.). You can predict the outcome of natural law fairly certainly. You can predict the outcome of chance over a large number of events if you know the statistical distribution. You can't predict intelligence. You could neither predict if I was going to respond to your reply, nor how I would respond. Certainly you couldn't have predicted exactly which words I was going to choose. And just in case you did predict all the words up to this point, I'll make sure you don't predict the next sentence. At jelly rhino fast marry liquid travesty.

You're probably going to reply with something along the lines about how if intelligence is inherently unpredictable, how could ID ever be considered science, whose purpose is to understand and predict nature. But maybe not. You have that choice. I can't predict for certain, because you are intelligent. David Bergan 15:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But you haven't defined intelligence with a scientific standard. You claim that an occurence of intelligence happens when there is a choice made. But what "choice" was made in the design of life? Could life have been designed differently? Where is your evidence of this? All we have demonstrated above is that the "intelligent" claim is based on the axiom of choice. But does anything in nature really have a choice? Has free will been absolutely determined beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you really tell me there is scientific evidence for this? Because if there isn't there isn't any scientific criteria for claiming intelligence in a design. Joshuaschroeder 01:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Has free will been absolutely determined beyond a reasonable doubt? If there is no free will, then the most ridiculous thing in the world is to thank someone for passing the mustard. Choice is perhaps an axiom, but if you choose not to agree with it, then I choose not to continue the discussion. Unwrap that paradox. David Bergan 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the traditional part of the conversation where ID proponents lose the respect of scientists, though it is often not seen from the angle of defining intelligence. To wit, the social convention proof of your mustard example dictates a functional "free will" but is not a proof or an observation of free will's existence. This is, rather, an assumption that the social convention is a manifestation of something that actually exists in the world. (Noam Chomsky puts it as the question "Why does the cockroach turn left?") To base a fundamental assumption about the natural universe on this external assumption is not scientific. Mr. Bergan has assumed that there is real choice and free will, but this is simply a rewording of the ID proponent's assumption (and manifestly not an observed scientific fact) that the world is not deterministic. As seen before, Mr. Bergan's assumption of intelligence and indeed intelligent design itself is based on extra-scientific assumptions: here namely that there are agents which make "decisions" or "choices" which are entirely external to the laws of physics. (Apparently my "choice" to pass the mustard is not something that is comprehensibly determinable nor is it based on mathematical probabilities). As science is not based on such an assumption in its fundamental philosophy, this obviously makes the claims that the "designs" are "intelligent" entirely unscientific. Joshuaschroeder 23:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

---

This is far and away not reporting the different views on the toiic, which is what editors are asked to do by wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please consider taking this debate to your individual talk pages. FuelWagon 01:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject defines itself as "Intelligent" design. We should explore what the implications of the "intelligence" are. This is not adequately done on the page. Looking at the intelligence page gives me an idea that this is something lacking in this encyclopedia article. Joshuaschroeder 01:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it should be done based off of what views on "intelligence" haven't been covered in the article yet but exist somewhere out in the real world so we can report on them. FuelWagon 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Comment: Intelligent Design, as a conceptualization, is a stroke of genius. It strips Creationism from its emotional-based (bias) mythology. It seems that all of science is, in fact, a form of ID because without having discovered the laws of physics any scientific inquiry would continually discover a pervasive chaos (which hasn't happened). ID, without a personalized conception of "Creator" is a giant leap forward towards comprehending the obvious. Logically, without ID, we are left with no basis for scientific research because the alternative is "chaos" as the exclusive scientific cosmology. For the most part, all of Man's scientific exploration (aside from some technological innovations) has been to discover natural laws and to attempt to control nature. The entire scientific process is a tacit approval/expression of Intelligent Design. Intelligence, of some sort, is present in every facet of existence. Intelligence, to some degree, is embedded and expressed in everything. Perhaps Stanley Kubrick said it best in 2001 A Space Odyssey: we are, for the most part, monkeys throwing bones into the air. Whether they are femers or rockets we have always been attempting to discern the natural laws governing the universe. Intelligent Design may very well become the new name for the ancient basis of scientific research. Otherwise, why bother? --jcw posted August 13th 2005

Huh? David Bergan 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I told Silverback when I protected that it wouldn't say that way for long, and it's been a week now, so this is just to let you know that I'm inclining toward unlocking it soon. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Unfortunatly, we're on the "can't even agree the color of the sky" end of the dispute. Unprotect and see what happens or go straight to article mediation?--Tznkai 22:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The mediation committee was backed up when I last checked, so it might take a while. I'll unprotect now, and I'll re-lock it if the reverting starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Allright, we'll go with your lead here.--Tznkai 22:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to point to a reference that explains more clearly WHY ID is not a theory

I've been dismayed by conversations I have had with otherwise smart individuals who don't seem to understand why ID should not be viewed as a theory. They make comments such as "evolution is a theory, what's wrong with suggesting alternative theories". Of course, there's nothing wrong with suggesting alternative theories that are consistent, fit with known facts, are testable, etc but what I'm finding is that people don't quite understand what it means to say that "such and such" is (only) a theory. By the way, be careful with the part about predictions - I've seen confusion between the concept of a prediction in a theory and biblical "prophesies".

The second common retort I hear is that "science has been wrong before" so why couldn't it be wrong about evolution. Of course, they miss the point that when "science" has been wrong, the theory in question immediately gets modified or thrown out etc.

I'd like to suggest that someone should write a brief article using some examples to demonstrate how theories relate to understanding, how they get modified as we find more evidence that supports (or not) a particular theory, etc.

Some examples that come to mind on this topic would be

1) The idea that the speed at which objects fall is dependent on the "weight" of the object (which apparently many people still believe) and how Galileo performed experiments on this matter, discovering that the weight (of the small objects relative to Earth :-) was not relevent, leading to a new function ($v=at^{2}$), etc and followed by Newton's initial gravitational law

2) The Newtonian function F=ma which was a nice model for which there was lots of evidence suggesting it was correct, and the fact that it still works for every day purposes, and for which there was NO evidence that it might be wrong until Relativity came along and modified it to account for the new "fact" that mass could not be considered a constant, etc.

To summarise, people need to be able to more easily understand BY EXAMPLE how theories actually work.

Jerry Coyne piece on ID in The New Republic

There is a lengthy piece by Jerry Coyne on ID here which may be helpful in revisions of this page: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205&c=1

Lippard 13:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone needs access to the article, I have a subscription. I've already added a bit to improve the section on hypotheses about the designers by adding a quote from each side to replace the existing arguments. The TNR piece is very anti-ID, by the way. Dave (talk) 20:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

yes, I need access, could you email it to actionforum@comcast.net, thanx,--Silverback 07:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Go to http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tnr.com Dunc|☺ 14:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

MONS

I just created the Methodological ontological naturalism supernaturalism article and gave it a go. The title sucks, but it does give what I think is a good overview of the four terms, how they combine, and the three resulting worldviews that people can have. I was thinking we could polish it up and reference it in the ID article somewhere to describe the different possible worldviews that are at play. FuelWagon 23:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

rename: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

I've renamed the MONS article to Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. It seems to succinctly describe the scope of the article, and explain why it isn't part of some other page. The point of the article is that this is where the differernt philosophies on the different sides of the evolution debate are reported. FuelWagon 12:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I don't want to get involved with editing this article, so I just make some comments here:

1. ID summary is too long.
2. ID debate shouldn't be a debate - it should present the ID position. Pro/con lists are discouraged on Wikipedia for various reasons.
3. Criticisms of ID should clearly distinguish between (a) criticisms of the ID methodology (this is where all the discussion of what constitutes science should be) and (b) criticisms of particular points made by ID (the current "Criticism:" paragraphs in the debate section).
4. Mention issues raised by "Having Fun With Intelligent Design": that the ID movement, if not the ID "theory" itself, argues for a particular kind of designer; focussing on the reasons for the existence of homosexuality or the female orgasm is, for socio-political-religious reasons, not really on the agenda.
5. Somewhere in there, something about the nature of design from an engineering point of view. Many biological systems are excessively complex, to the point where if there were design, it would have to be considered Bad Design. (Honest creationism would merely reply that "the ways of God are mysterious" - is ID's response that we were unlucky enough to get a Bad Designer?) Rd232 11:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed →

Scientist defending ID as a theory identify it as a theory of information: "Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes." (this message was left by Ec5618, who forgot to sign his post --FM)

I've reverted all of 24.155.204.140's edits today; just too many errors of fact, grammar and logic to go through and edit out, and s/he deleted too many necessary bits and created a number of broken links and footnotes. FeloniousMonk 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am 24.155.204.140, I am new to the wiki community. Sorry for the many edits and errors, as I am still learning how the process works. Your guidance concerning the proper form an procedure for joining the ongoing consensus process will be welcome.

I see that we are struggling with the lenght of the article. I suggest that the main page concentrate on exposition and description of facts regarding ID, and that the sections relating to Criticim and Ongoing Debate be moved to stand as articles in their own right, referenced at the beginning of the article. User:erasmocbc

tautology?

Regarding this, it's actually an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. --goethean ॐ 16:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure is. David Bergan 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Re X is not only tautological but also untrue

Actually the above statement from the edit summary is patent nonsense. Tautologies are either true or logic is inconsistent. I don't think it is an instance of no true Scotsman however. --CSTAR 17:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Although on further thought, the content of that edit does seem to reasonably fall under this rubric.--CSTAR 17:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems pretty clearly fallacious to me:

No scientist accepts ID.

Michael Behe does.

OK...no real scientist accepts ID.

Of course, in the article, this is avoided. Instead, the article claims:

"The scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience."

...which is either false or fallacious. If, by "scientific community", "all scientists" is meant (as the wikipedia article seems to indicate), then it's clearly false. If by "scientific community", "scientists who reject ID" is meant, then it's a tautology. If by "scientific community", "real scientists" is meant, it's an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. --goethean ॐ 18:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There are scientists that believe in local realism (scientists with Ph. D's and tenured faculty positions). These scientists reject quantum mechanics. However the statement "the scientific community rejects local realism", is valid last I checked. Are you planning on revising that also? How far are you planning on taking us?--CSTAR 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The "scientific community" as I understand it, and I think in the common parlance, refers to the vast majority of so called real scientists, and their "official" positions. No organization is monolthic, but we can say "the Catholic Church is against birth control" despite a number of priests, bishops, etc on up who may feel diffrent. Scientific community is just a construct, and the VAST (vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST) majority do not accept ID as science.--Tznkai 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad analogy, because the Catholic church has a pope, who creates policy & official positions. A better analogy would be to Protestantism. The article on scientific community says that:

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.

Better wording would be:

the vast majority of scientists reject ID...

--goethean ॐ 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Baptists then if you prefer. Southern Confrence and abortion. (as I recally the converence has extremly limited power to declare official positions, but moving along) The scientific community rejects (6day) creationism. The scientific community rejects perpetual energy. The scientific community rejects ID. The scientific community believes in gravity. The fact that individuals may disagree is irrellivant, less we render the entire term "scientific community" useless.--Tznkai 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In the sentence in question, the phrase "most scientists" would be more accurate than "the scientific community". --goethean ॐ 18:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Most to me is a nebulous region between 65 and 85 percent. We're talking somewhere upwards of 95 here folks.--Tznkai 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll settle for your earlier formulation the vast majority of scientists reject ID...--CSTAR 19:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its important we atleast establish that ID is considered pseudoscience, whether or not we call it creationist.--Tznkai 19:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can call it "mainstream science" and report their view (That's pretty much what NPOV policy says). Am I missing something? FuelWagon 20:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Vast majority" comes close to what I'd like to express. Fact is, Behe is one of only a few credentialed biologists who attempts to challenge the modern synthesis. A bare handful of scientists out of probably hundreds of thousands of people studying evolution across the planet is... highly insignificant. The hyperbolic 99.999% is startlingly appropriate. So... wtf. Can we not equivocate about "true scotsman" and other such nonsense? ID is pseudoscience, and except for a bare handful of cranks, scientists worldwide believe that to be true. Graft 20:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a big difference (to me) between "scientists reject" and "science rejects". I believe that the former is NPOV, but the latter is not — people's definitions of science differ. I assume that FuelWagon is trying to get closer to the latter with "mainstream science". This is the real reason for my complaint. --goethean ॐ 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "mainstream" is a sufficient modifier that you can say "mainstream science" or "mainstream scientists" and it isn't NPOV. FuelWagon 21:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

True. But if you wanted to be more neutral (as well as accurate), you would say "most scientists reject" or "the vast majority of scientists reject". Science is a method. Philosophy dosn't reject a theory; philosophers do. The same is true of science. --goethean ॐ 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Antony Flew

I have, at this point, written on 3 Uner Talk pages, to explain the fallacy of the suggestion that anthony Flew is a proponent of ID. From the article:

In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew.

Flew has never made his actual beliefs known.

But in 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs.

-- Ec5618 17:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

For benefit of those who insist Antony Flew finds ID compelling, the statement made by Flew in the Habermas interview to that effect was later retracted by Flew in a subsequent letter: "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." Flew blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter". And this statement was another misstep by Flew, as Dawkins indeed has in "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," published in the 21 May 1992 issue of Nature. Hence, ID cannot lay claim that Antony Flew is a proponent. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides all of this, this is rather questionably relevant, especially for the lead.--Tznkai 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As is how the media portrays ID, but SB insists it's relevant. I agree with the suggestion above that the intro is still too long, and I liked SB's eariler paring down of the article, now reverted. Perhaps we should think about rolling his edits back into article? FeloniousMonk 18:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like to do them one at a time. So we get a chance to look at em all, and people who think its really bad don't have to keep loading up a diffrent version of this massive article to fix. Definatly don't clip the ID movement the way it was done though.--Tznkai 18:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The movement can be pared down too I think. For instance, we can probably lose the examples cited. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, probably. Its just I don't want it reduced to a single sentance again.--Tznkai 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been sorting out the Flew article this week. I don't think Flew's beliefs merit even a wikilink from ID to Flew. He considered it substantially (and all the Flew sources say as much), but he isn't any kind of a rah rah ID convert. If he were to go on to write a book about how awesome ID is, that's another story. But as is, his last statement (in the new introduction of God and Philosophy) is just that there are decent theories out there for the evolution of living matter, and that whatever conclusion science comes to on this issue would have bearing on the question of God's existence.

However, I do think that the Flew article deserves a wikilink to ID. And I laid my case out on the talk page there. David Bergan 19:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in David. What did the others on the Flew article think if you don't mind me askin?--Tznkai 19:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't authoritatively speak for the other main Flew editors, but the impression I get is that:

• User:FeloniousMonk (whom I take to be an atheist) doesn't think there is ANY connection between Flew and ID
• User:Andrew Norman (self-proclaimed atheist and thinks ID is junk science) doesn't agree with Flew, but thinks that an ID link is factually supported so long as it is clear that Flew isn't a Christian
• User:Chrysostomos (believes in God) hasn't contributed a whole lot to the discussion, but he says he heard Flew speak at a CS Lewis conference a few weeks ago where he verbally called himself a deist. No word from him regarding ID, though.
• User:Dbergan (brilliant Christian and eternal seeker of truth) likes ID, but doesn't think Flew is particularly relevant to the main arguments of ID... Even though ID is relevant to the deism debate regarding Flew.

As always, you can just go to the talk page and read all this for yourself. But I think I would be safe in saying that none of us think an ID→Flew link is justified, even though some of us think a Flew→ID link is. David Bergan 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• User:FuelWagon (contankerous pain in the ass) I can see an argument for putting him in, looking at his list of works, he seems to be a prodigious writer on religion/science and other topics. his comment on ID seems a bit thin, though, and doesn't seem to be as much an analysis as a personal experience of the topic, so I can see the argument that it isn't all too relevant. I'll go with out. FuelWagon 20:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, my read of the situation is we're mostly agreed that Flew is not notable in the context of this article? Unless of course we have a link from Flew saying "I support ID" which would be anecdotal enough for current events section--Tznkai 04:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Just for the record though, DB got my position wrong. It's not that I don't think there is any connection between Flew and ID. Flew first supported ID in the Habermas interview, then he retracted that support in the Carrier letter. There's no point in citing someone who is either too confused or dotty to have a valid opinion. That's my position. That and we need to be circumspect about who ID proponents cite as adherents, as they historically have exaggerated the ranks of those who support their position. Also, our personal views on theism are irrelevant to the article and citing them here is inappropriate and divisive. FeloniousMonk 15:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

In this case I think it served to show we've got a reasonably wide range of perspectives coming to similar conclusions.--Tznkai 15:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the IDists, and American protestant Christian apologists (there aren't any real boundaries between these movements) have taken a slight change in his position and blown it out of all proportion in order to further their own aims. Dunc|☺ 18:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup. David Bergan 20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What is ID?

I object to this sentence in particular:

Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for intelligent creation or for limited, undirected change.

ID is a big tent movement, encompassing a range of beliefs from YEC to Theistic evolution. Many IDists, like Discovery Institute fellow Stephen Meyer, come right out and say that ID is in opposition to macroevolution.

--JPotter 19:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I originally wrote that paragraph... it's been subjected to a thousand cuts since then. David Bergan 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is a highly controversial investigatation into the physical nature of designed objects. ID was born out of opposition with the theory of evolution and its central question remains whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by one or more intelligent agents. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, study the nature of objects to isolate what they call signs of intelligence—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 leading them to the conclusion that life must have been designed, contrary to Darwin's theory of evolution which explains life through random mutations and natural selection. William Dembski explains the study of intelligent design through the example of Mount Rushmore.

"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 Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence. Such features or patterns are signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, are not content to regard such signs as mere intuitions. Rather, they insist on studying them formally, rigorously and scientifically." (The Design Revolution, pg. 33, italics in original)

I rewrote the section to include information that ID is a range of beliefs and some IDists say one thing and some say ID is completely different. No theory of evolution is compatible with the idea that common acestry is false. --JPotter 19:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

ID isn't necessarily incompatible with common ancestry. Behe remarks the he believes in common descent. David Bergan 20:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

David - I agree that Behe is an IDist who accepts common descent. However, there are others who don't, see my citation. Meyer is a Sr. Fellow with the Discovery Institute and a spokesmen for them. Please don't revert edits calling them false. They are cited. Edit the text if you feel its not treating the subject fairly but the revision you have done takes us back to a version that does not describe ID fairly. On the 2nd paragraph that you restored, Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. Please cite a scholar who can tell us what ID is and what ID is not, otherwise the paragraph has to go. Also, the YEC and ID connection is a part of the ID Big tent strategy. Please see the Wedge document. Do you think that YEC's don't support the work of the Discovery Insitute? Claims that "YECS don't like ID" are your personal opinion. It is my assessment that YECs support the work of ID organizations like the Discovery Institute. Do you have an example of an YEC organization like AIG or CSM calling for ID to stop it's activities? I'm restoring my edits, please feel free to edit, not revert. Thanks. --JPotter 22:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

--JPotter 19:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

JPotter wrote: I object to this sentence in particular:

"Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for intelligent creation or for limited, undirected change."

I also object to the sentence because the 'may' clause makes it speculative when the summary section should be descriptive reporting facts about ID. As it is an ongoing controversy you will always have contrary allegations, therefore a fair presentation should accurately report both sides of the argument.

There are plenty of accounts of how ID "was born". If the summary will speak to that issue it should do justice to such accounts.

Also the ambiguity of ID in regard to evolution should become clear by acknowledging the difference ID advocates claim between evolution as a mechanism and Darwinism (evolution-naturalism) as a philosophy.

That is why I propose the following alternate writing for the corresponding paragraph:

Although Intelligent Design critiques Darwinism upon what it claims to be scientific and philosophical grounds, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for intelligent creation or for limited, undirected change. Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not the empirical evidence necesarily implies that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent cause or agent. For example, Dembski, has stated that the "fundamental claim" of ID is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

erasmocbc 02:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This sounds much clearer to me. I think it should go in. David Bergan 05:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The central minimalist theory of ID does not reject either macro or micro evolution, you are confusing it with creationism. ID merely identifies certain structures that it hypothesizes are intelligent design events from some point in the past. It does not reject speciation or other aspects of macro-evolution. If you are to claim that guided or directed evolution on a continuing basis then if it belongs in ID at all, it is as a new hypothesis about the designer, that the designer was supernatural, but limited in intelligence or power or obscure in intent, since he couldn't bring his design into existance all at once or was constantly changing his mind. --Silverback 17:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is hard to ignore the fact that Macro-evolution is the target aimed at through the minimalist theory of ID. It should be distinguished from creationism for other reasons (it requires no commitment to creation at such. Aristotle, who had no concept of creation developed a teleological understanding of nature, acknowleging 'intelligent' causes as a fundamental part of it). But this ID has in common with creationism, they aim at overiding the predominance of the Darwinian paradigm, by attacking what they define as Macro-evolution in order to accomodate the scientific observation of speciation (micro-evolution); while claming that the general theory of the evolution of all life forms from common ancerstors (Macro-evolution) has not been observed. Any way it should be clear that ID and creationism are both members of the same anti-darwinian family. erasmocbc 18:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that macro-evolution is the target, but as the minimalist proponents state the theory, it doesn't. When the go on to question macro-evolution, they may not being doing it as part of ID theory, but just as "skeptics", who are not convinced by speciation evidence. I don't see how they can do it within the theory except as a hypothesis about the designer's capabilities, activities and presense. They shouldn't be allowed to pretend science in one area and avoid scientific scrutiny in another. Their attacks on macro-evolution, are based on an alternate designer hypothesis, for which they have no specific evidence.--Silverback 07:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in a double strategy against the darwinian paradigm. One negative emphasizing its limitations, another positive proposing an alternative model. There is no reason why these two approaches should be muttually exclusive or dependent upon one another. They can and are raised upon their own merits. erasmocbc 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So, ID is one big happy family, right? --JPotter 05:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Moving section from Second Law of Thermodynamics article

There is a section in the article on Second Law of Thermodynamics which I think should be moved to another page and then linked to from the Second Law article. [[16]]. I think that this section should be moved to this page but I'm not entirely sure about that. I would appreciate the input of others before I go moving it here. If you don't think it belongs in the article on Intelligent Design, please offer other suggestions. --70.89.179.110 22:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to log in before making the previous post. --David R Wright 22:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is a Big tent

Intelligent Design is a Big tent movement comprising a range of beliefs and organizations, ranging from YEC to Theistic evolution. Intelligent Design was born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, and there are supporters do not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed change or for limited, undirected change. However, many supporters such as the Discovery Institute do state that Intelligent Design is incompatible with speciation, common descent, natural selection and "macroevolution". [5]

I have problems with this paragraph. 1. The 'big tent' idea tends to lump together various views that are not essential to the ID perspective. In a summary section this is not appropriate or helpful.
2. The focus of this article is the concept and the controversy surrounding it, not the movement itself.
3. Do we really want to open a section and discussion on the 'birth of ID', and if so why in the Summary section?
4. Finally the last sentence is a very strong assertion which would require specific quotations to validate it. who said what to whom in what context, other wise it is not more than a questionable swepping generalisation.
erasmocbc 03:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the ID movement, agreed, however it is essential to the ID perspective that the ID movement is Big tent, because there are so many differences in how people define ID.

I have to disagree. ID is very clearly defined within the scope of its advocates. It is a theory of information researching design in nature. They make the point again and again that to be commited to ID one must not have any particular view concerning the designer. Aristotle and plato notions equally qualify for their purpose, But that does not mean that they are a big undefined tent. To the contrary they are clearly defined and acknowledge that advocates and symphatizers may come from different contexts and coincide that there is indeed evidence of design in nature.

You're missing the point. What is ID's position on natural history? After all, that's what we are talking about here. If ID is as beneign as you wish to make it, i.e. that evolution is simply the designer's method of creation, then design researchers should have no problem with Human-Chimpanzee common ancestry. It seems like Behe is the only one to make this claim. The fact is, ID is a big tent with advocates holding a range of beliefs. I agree that the core is what you say, "a way of determining design in nature." Great! When we find a structure, a species, a nucleotide sequence or whatever that is too complex to have evolved naturally? --JPotter 19:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

So I stand by my argument in 1, unless you can show what are those many different definitions of ID, advocated by various groups that simpathize with it while differing in other respects.

Finally, I have cited exactly that, a senior Discovery Institute fellow in a debate with evolutionist Eugenie Scott where, in his characterization of what types of problems evolution has, indicates that ID scientists have problems with the mechanisms of evolution and common descent itself! Given that our friend and prominent IDist Michael Behe would disagree, particularly in this assessment of common ancestry, its difficult to define ID without being nebulous.

I followed the reference and was not able to identify which part you were refering to. So it would be useful if you could provide the actual quotation, or section in the debate. Thanks

erasmocbc 05:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the part where Meyer says that there are not only problems with evolution via natural selection, but common ancestry as well. --JPotter 19:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

--JPotter 04:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not putting more explanation behind my "False claims" revert tag. I'll certainly elaborate. Check this site for how YECs take the ID movement. Here are two quotes: "They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?" and "Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."

And as for theistic evolutionists, read Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. It is very intentionally anti-ID. (Miller debates Behe quite a bit.)

A real definition of ID is not hard to come by: "Identifying and isolating physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Some think that components of life have one or more of these properties." It's not word-for-word, but that is something like the definition you would find in any of Dembski's books. David Bergan 04:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable assertions

Ok, What is ID? a questionable assertion? Yes, of course. Anything can be a questionable assertion. An assertion is no more than that. And all assertions are questionable in principle.

One of the characteristic of a good definition is that it should define. Therefore, this article should do better than that.

What kind of assertion is ID? ID is a theoretical proposal for scientific enquiry. I know that this suggestions will make many defensive just by the sound of it. But we must recognize it for what it claims to be, even if we disagree with it. Or at least we should take account of what its proponents claim that it is.

For example: according to Dembski "Intelligent design is the field of study that investigates signs of intelligence." [17] p. 2 Like it or not that is how they define themselve, should not the definition of ID take this into account?

Therefore I will suggest the first sentence to read:

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a controversial field of study claiming to investigate signs of intelligence. It is proposed by a minority of scientist and a movement denominated by the same name, which believe that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent.

erasmocbc 03:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618: "ID is not a field of study".

Ec5618 wrote "Its a general viewpoint"

If you think that it is a general view point, define it as such "Id is the general viewpoint that" but

by reverting to the previous definition as "assertion" you are defining less, and not more clearly.

The ID we are discussing is of course an assertion and a point of view,

But how can you sustain that it is not a field of study researching signs of intelligence, and searching for evidence of design? If there is someone studying it, If there is someone writing research on the subject, it must be a field of study.

You do not have to agree with their project in order to acknowledge that they are working at it. besides my definition echos a statement by an authority in that 'field' do you have an authority asserting that ID is not a field of study?

Even if this were so, retaining 'controversial' and 'claiming' is enough to atenuate any further pretension. The aim of wikipedia is fairness in the treatment of subjects.

erasmocbc 06:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My reasons for not believing ID should be called a field of study.

• The article mentions its supporters, not its practitioners.

The article is about the concept of ID, reference to supporters and practitioners is equally relevant so far as needed to clarify the concept.(Erasmocbc)

• No-one is specialised in Intelligent design. Instead, it has 'advocates'.

Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et.al. are scientists active in research to explore and develop the hypothesis of design, with various approaches. for example trying to make rigourous the difference between design and not design objects. Or exploring implications of information theory. Even if one disagrees with their aim. their methodology is clearly scientific. (Erasmocbc)

• Intelligent design has followers, suggesting it is more of an ideology than a field of study.

An ideology can be a field of study. ie. Marxism. Darwinism, etc.(Erasmocbc)

• Intelligent design doesn't publish peer reviewed articles, though it does seem to produce books, seminars and websites. I might be wrong on this point.

You are fairly right, but the situation is more complex. Since the mainstream academia does not consider the hypothesis of design as a valid scientific one, theoretical contributions in that direction are consistently turned down as unworthy of publication in a scientific journal. This situation creates a dead lock that ID attributes to an unfair unwillingness by the mainstream to consider the contrary evidence to their materialistic presupposition. The argument is a little bit as arguing that Luthers writtings on the protestant reformation were not theological because the Church's Inquisition never approved his publishing.(Erasmocbc)

• Most 'fields of study' end in -ology: 'antropology', 'biology', 'etymology', 'topology'

There are various possible names for fields of study not ending in ology; i.e. paleomagnetism, stem cell research, etc. I think its use is justified in the general sense of the word, as an area of study in which there are attempts of serious work. The primary reason we are discussing this today is that there are indeed a few serious scientist working on the area.(Erasmocbc)

• Intelligent design is an assertion. Undoubtedly. "This world, and the life in/one it shows signs of intelligent design." Unlike, for example, biology or speleology, which assert "The study of life" or "The study of caves".

Yes, it is an assertion, but it is also 'the study of signs of intelligence' studying intelligent causes and effects. The rol of intelligence in nature and its implications is surely an interesting field of study. ID is being proposed as a theory to understand observable evidence and its implications following all the procedures of regular science except the pressuposition that non-material causes must be ruled out a-priori.

The opposition is so strong that people committed to the materialistic method of science would not be willing to even acknowledge that there are people theorizing on such a field, when there are actually people doing just that.(Erasmocbc)

• Intelligent design is controversial, as many people see it as an attempt to legitimise creationism. The article shouldn't legitimise the scientific status in the intro, when it is disputed. -- Ec5618 09:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. It is the reason this article does not uses the best word to discribe what ID really is: "theory". But I think that keeping 'controversial' or adding others like 'disputed' 'propose' 'emergent' 'recent' 'attempt' or any other combination of attenuating calificatives could take care of that problem.

I think 'field of study' is a fair description in regard to ID, because there are scientist studying it who define their work accordingly. And their work is what ID is, if they had not done that work this article would not be here. (Erasmocbc)

ID is seen by many to be a creationist ploy, a pseudoscience, bad science, a generally bad idea, a potential risk to the education system, a field of study, an existential question, a philosophy. Stating that it is specifically one of these things is POV, surely. Luckily, no-one is disputing that it is an assertion. -- Ec5618 10:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

An umbrella is many things, to many people in different circumstances, but that should not be an obstacle for one to find a fair definition. That something is not disputed is not enough to make it a good definition, for there are many trivial things that no one diputes, yet do not define. A 'controvertial assertion' can be anything that can be asserted. We are dealing with something much more specific than that.

The article should deal with the definition fairly. It could do so by stating; "ID as defined by its foremost proponents is . . ., and then, 'on the other hand its critics argue . . .' or something to that effect.

What I am trying to say is that as it stands the article is less informative than it should be in not presenting what ID is in its own terms, and presenting what ID is for its critics much more emphatically.

for example basic claims of ID like:

"ID begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot."[18]

and "Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes."

Defining, describing and informative statements like the ones above are not hard to find in ID literature. those should form the basis for the presentation of ID side of the equation not vague or straw man characterizations.

If someone invented a religion, and I was called to define it, the first thing I would need to do is to ask the inventor to define what he means, not go to his critics, minor followers or symphatizers, and let them define it for him. erasmocbc 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Common Ancestry

I'm sorry JP, but the link of the debate with Meyer and Scott doesn't count as defining ID as being "anti-common ancestry". He's giving his views, and no one else is endorsing them. We already said that Behe goes with common ancestry, and Dembski suggests it in his chapter on Interventionalism in The Design Revolution. But more importantly... none of them define ID with anything about common ancestry. Find a definition from a book, or a site that's more than one guy opining about his personal views on evolution (we all know Meyer is anti-common-ancestry) and I'll eat my words. David Bergan 05:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I'm not attempting to define ID as anti common ancestry, rather that some ID supporters are, therefore it is difficult to define ID as a single idea. Behe clearly is a supporter of common ancestors, Meyer clearly is not. Where do the others fall? What's telling to me is that in a nationally televised debate, we have Meyer who supposedly speaks for the DI, positing that ID is anti-common descent. That's my take on it. I think it's important to show views other than Dembski. --JPotter 18:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I can see your point, but how do we decide what information is or isn't relevant to the article? I'm sure the design theorists have differing opinions on pizza toppings, and just because one of them say that ID is all about having mushrooms on your pizza, doesn't mean that it is. Since the two biggest names in ID theory (Behe and Dembski) don't define ID as being anti-common-descent, I think Meyer's opinion on common descent should only be found in Meyer's article. I'm actually a big advocate of moving lots of the "[Person X] believes this" kind of comments to [Person X] articles. David Bergan 16:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The moment any design researcher indicates that homology is due to common design rather than common descent or ancestry, they become anti-common-ancestry (to use Dave's words). --JPotter 18:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Big tent

Correcting your recent edit summary, ID is indeed widely used by its proponents as a "big tent":

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

Google search results for "big tent" + intelligent design [27]

Also, the correct term for what is being discussed here is "common decent" as opposed to "common ancestry." FeloniousMonk 06:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess this depends somewhat on which angle you are looking at it. ID proponents may want a big tent (your references), but the YECs and theistic evolutionists aren't buying it (my references). David Bergan 16:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Big Tent is aimed more at other denominations and religions, and not so much at other flavors of creationists. In that sense it has been more successful, though ID proponents still remain largely evangelical Protestant.

I see at Talk:Antony Flew you're claiming you are not pro-ID. Your history says otherwise. Do you care to explain that claim in relation to your previous statements? FeloniousMonk 17:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On the lighter side

[28] FeloniousMonk 06:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition that defines

This is largely the consensus version of the intro, arrived at after long & bitter debate. If you want to make such substantive changes to it, seek consensus on the Talk page first.)FeloniousMonk

My arguments for the proposed change in the first sentence have been presented above. "questionable Assertions" and "it is not a field of study".

I would gladly appreciate your views concerning it. erasmocbc 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The current consensus intro is accurate, reasonably concise, NPOV, free of factual, grammatical and logical errors and the result of many long months of back-and-forth debate. It represents a fair compromise, bitterly won. Your edits were not an improvement over the existing intro and likely to rekindle the flames that have only recently settled. As such, I reverted them. If you want to rewrite the intro, do it here and seek buy-in by the long-term contributors to this article before adding the content. I'm not yet finding your reasoning or justification for your rewrite compelling, but I encourage you to continue refining your points here. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess that it is the nature of wiki that no fire can easily be forever extinguished. I appreciate the work for this article, and hope there is still room for improvement. I think that the primary characterization of ID as "controvertial assertion" is vague for a definition. And see no reason to avoid Dembski's richer definition of ID as a field of study looking for signs of intelligence.

It is concise, NPOV, and factually correct. Because many people disagree, it is controversial, because ID advocates affirm it, it is a claim, Because there are people working on the subject, it is a field of study. Because they are focussed on finding rigorous evidence for signs of intelligence, it is fair to say that they are doing that.

therefore, "is a controversial field of study claiming to investigate signs of intelligence" is a better predicate for a definition than "is the controversial assertion"

SETI has been active for years searching for evidence of extra terrestrial life. I do not have to believe in aliens in order to acknowledge their work as a field of study and research even if they never find a thing. erasmocbc 08:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of Specified Complexity Section

I suspect that Wikipedia will never have good articles on controversial subjects like intelligent design. There are too many partisans who will endlessly rewrite the page to slant it one way or the other other. Talk.origins and other forums get hundreds of messages a day on this topic. Nevertheless, probably foolishly, I rewrote the section on "Specified complexity" to focus it more narrowly on Dembski's use of the terms specification and complexity.

I had problems with the version that I am replacing: a) It is hard reading the old version to get a feel for whether Dembski's arguments make any sense. I suspect hardly anyone will understand, for example, why chance can produce information but not CSI. b) It is not a criticism of a definition to say that it is a tautology; definitions are always tautologies. c) Not all lotteries have winners. Dembski's point is (rightly or wrongly) that a winner is very unlikely in the lottery of life. Ivar Y 19:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Someone has inserted a link to Flying Spaghetti Monster. It seems that the link does have some relevancy, but IMHO it should be moved down the list, and some explanations like "A parody religion from opponents of ID" added. What do you think? R6144 13:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Done it. The list should have been in alphabetical order, anyway. -- [[User:Ec5618|Ec5618]] 13:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

RMing it, the FSM page is blanked and seems to be on its way to deletion on because of its questionable encyclopedic nature.--Tznkai 15:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was nominated for deletion. So far, I think about 200 people have voted to keep. The blanking by a vandal is hardly reason to suspect unencyclopedic content. -- Ec5618 15:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was basing that conclusion on the discussion on the talk page, but I seem to have been wrong. Although the VfD is a train wreck, as we have 200 Live journal users and 10 wikipedians involved.--Tznkai 16:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Train wreck"? Ignoring all anon users, (whether or not they come via Live journal as you seem to infer) it seems clear that article will stay, as it should, in my opinion.--CSTAR 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The anon users is the reason I refer to it as a train wreck.--Tznkai 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

big tent

Does any actual outside source use this term? If so, it can be reported as their view of ID. If not, it should be dropped from the article. FuelWagon 19:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term is widely used. See this edit --JPotter 19:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that the following quotes could be used within the article regarding the term "big tent".

"The 'big tent' of ID provides a setting in which that struggle (against neo-Dawrinism) can occur". [29]

"Morris argues that pantheism and New Age ideas might also fit comfortably within the 'big tent' of design" [30]

"Other Christian critics have taken the opposite tack... The 'big tent' is an illusion, erected for public relations purposes, and under the fancy inclusive language one finds the same old-fashioned ... creationism." [31]

Also, I don't think that "big tent" can be used as undisputed fact. The above paper shows that Christians dispute the term. FuelWagon 19:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Oh Em gee this is getting ridiculous. We have enough external links to make a bloody subpage people. Can someone explain to me why?--Tznkai 19:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some very nice sites explaining the ID-misinformation. However long, it can't be said the page isn't thorough. The references to articles discussing the controverse might be relocated to a new section "Articles" or "See also." Or one might remove some of them. Question is: which can be considered superfluous? --Nomen Nescio 20:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism was entirely correct, but haven't we lost to many links? Most notably talkdesign, talkreason, explaining ecolution, etc, were excellent and not articles. Would like to restore them since they thoroughly discuus the subject at hand. So with permission I'll insert them soon and you can see if it works. Furthermore would a section showing articles explaining why ID is unscientific not be useful? --Nomen Nescio 00:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to edit. As for Talkdesign, talk reason, I seem to recall them being subprojects of Talk Origins. Perhaps subullting them would be fine though, as we did with the DI. As for the qualilty of the articles, I wasn't really looking at that. External links shouldn't just be rehashings of what we summarize in the article in more lurid detail and less attention to NPOV, but something that really is very useful. Perhaps if someone hosted a webdirectory, we could link to that, and I'd be happy, I just don't like a cluster of moderatly intresting relevant, but not all that MORE useful links.--Tznkai 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism must be sourced

This diff removes a valid sourced quote and replaces it with text written as a view from nowhere. Criticism must be sourced. FuelWagon 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This mess has got to stop

This article disgusts me. Every other paragraph there is a sentence explaining why other people don't like the theory. It's really out of hand here, more then any other article I've seen. Seriously, it's not that hard. Explain the subject in a non-POV manner and have a summery of the criticisms in a section near the end of the article. I understand this is a very touchy subject, but all the debate scattered though the text simply goes against a lot of what Wikipedia stands for.

Anon, this is pretty normal, I don't know what articles you've been hanging around.--Silverback 07:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comepare this article to the evolution artcle. I mean, there are a ton of people who don't believe evolution works, but you don't see criticisms every other thing. Same with most of the other articles I've seen. Maybe I've just been hanging around the well written articles or something. (the anon user above is me, sorry) --James 17:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Male nipples

One criticism of ID points to proximity of our sex organs to our execretory system. Jackie Gleason was the first to make that joke. The presence of the tail bone, the appendix and the existence of male nipples are also used as evidence against ID.

What does the above have to do with the criticism of Irreducible Complexity? David Bergan 14:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

These are criticisms of the design, and thus the designer and serve only to refute that subset of designer hypotheses where the designer is good and is not constrained to makes such design compromises. For example, a reasonably intelligent designer would be able to overcome the design problem of making spermatogenesis work at body temperature, so that the mammalian testicles are not held in such a vulnerable exterior location, and subject to torsional forces, etc. Between the legs provided some protection, but the "design" is obviously a compromise satisficing of constraints. Spermatogenesis is achieved in birds at even higher body temperatues than in mammals, although sex determination by chromosomes is different there.--Silverback 20:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

IC criticism.

Critics of ID point out that the IC argument only makes sense if one assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of co-optation or exaptation, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied. While Behe has considered co-optation, he rejects it as unlikely, which critics contend is an unwarranted dismissal.

The citations on this are missing. I can't really say whether this is considered a common undisputed criticism, because I can't understand it. I'm not stupid, so I think intrested readers not mired in the ID debate are probably in a similar boat as I. Can someone explain this so we can clean up?--Tznkai 15:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's rater jargony. --James 17:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the most common or salient of criticisms of IC, which are listed here [32], here [33] and here [34], and also detailed here [35], and here [36]. FeloniousMonk 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)