Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 18

Update: The uncommondescent.com POV campaign continues
Removing all doubt that a POV campaign against this article is being coordinated off site, the nogoodniks have done us the favor of confirming their scheme. I'm asking all fellow long-term contributors here to be extra vigilant and not respond to troll bait. FeloniousMonk 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and enjoy a laugh at uncommondissent. FeloniousMonk 02:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, I see no scandal. On that blog space, DaveScot reported his activity here, and he got ripped for being uncivil -- as he should have been.  The remaining posts were by some people who said they didn't know how to add comments or edit content here, and by some others who said they didn't know enough about ID to participate meaningfully.  Your labels of "nogoodniks" and "confirming their schemes" are unfounded and inflammatory, and do not belong in this discussion.--Gandalf2000 16:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree - it is evidence of an attempt at a concerted campaign to push a POV in this article. Definite no-no.  The call to disrupt this site is still up there, it hasn't (last I checked) been taken down - that shows bad faith in and of itself on the part of the site admin.  Guettarda 16:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Quoting from post #3 from DaveScot made Monday: "Tell them what you think. They want to hear from us." And in subsequent posts in the same thread others discuss how to edit wikipedia. And low and behold, within 24 hours an aggressive, bullying disruptive ID proponent appears here, bent on dictating who's qualified to edit what, who admits he participates at uncommondescent. Your vigorous denials of the obvious are what's unfounded here. The evidence speaks for itself. And Wikipedia is not a place for advocating a POV, read WP:NOT. POV-pushers are nogoodniks, they hold the projects goals in contempt, or at best secondary to their own. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a very important point. How seriously can you take someone who only edits one or a handful of articles?  If you want to contribute to the project but don't feel like you have anything to contribute in other areas, hit "random article" a few times and fix some spelling or wording in a topic you have never heard of before.  If you demonstrate an interest in the project, if you show that you want what's best for the project, people will take you a lot more seriously even if they disagree with you.  If, on the other hand, you have 53 edits to this page and your talk page, you tend to look like a POV-pusher.  Guettarda 16:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Gandalf's characterization of FM's remarks is itself inflammatrory. Is DaveScot advocating murder with this quote?


 * "If y’all want to try tact and diplomacy, the meek shall inherit the earth and all that happy stuff, to get done what needs to get done that’s your business and I’ll leave you to it. This jarhead believes in the USMC motto “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out”. Take no prisoners. Hoo-rah!"


 * --CSTAR 16:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the the "campaign" in question, quoted directly from UncommonDescent:

Dave Scot wrote: A wiki administrator has accused some of us here of conspiring to wage a POV (point of view) war against wiki. Called us sockpuppets of Dr. Dembski.

Tell them what you think. They want to hear from us.

And then higgity wrote: If you’d like to comment on the Wikipedia talk page, here’s how to do it.

Find the relevant section you want to edit and click the [edit] button on the right-hand side of the page across from the title of the section. If you are replying to someone, find the appropriate comment and place your comment directly below it. Preferably, type a colon for each comment in your discussion that came before you. So it would look a little bit like this.

Sup
 * Nothing
 * Wanna go out for some drinks.
 * Sure.
 * While we’re at the bar, we’ll discuss Intelligent Design.

And then sign your name at the end of your comment.

- higgity

Someone named gumpngreen enumerated a number of the standard POV criticisms that have been made here. Then several others criticised DaveScot for bad form, to which he replied: I did a poor job defending myself because I didn’t attempt to defend myself. Why should I? Baseless accusastions made by anonymous wiki editors aren’t worth the time to address. ID is a political issue already and I didn’t make it one. Science isn’t done by school boards or federal judges. ID will never get a fair scientific hearing until the political barriers raised by anti-religion whackos are neutralized.

If y’all want to try tact and diplomacy, the meek shall inherit the earth and all that happy stuff, to get done what needs to get done that’s your business and I’ll leave you to it. This jarhead believes in the USMC motto “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out”. Take no prisoners. Hoo-rah!

Then dodgingcars chastised DaveScot thusly:"I’m sorry, but I think you did a poor job of defending yourself on those pages. Just my opinion, of course. Name-calling and other tactics should be avoided (even if some of your opponents are using them). I think you did nothing to defend your actions or those other uncommondescent participants in your/their editing of the Wiki page."

Your accusation that there is some kind of POV "campaign" is unjustified. The main offender was DaveScot, and he was upbraided, by someone sympathetic to ID. Your use of "nogoodniks," and posting a link to a stridently anti-ID site goes a long way towards establishing an "us" vs. "them" atmosphere between UD and this WP article. I suggest this is not a good thing.

And if the "bully" in question is supposed to be me, let me just say I did not come over as a result of that particular discussion. Your repeated use of that insult is growing tiresome. SanchoPanza 16:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Woo hoo. I got mentioned! This is what I find when I Google my name. :)Does his mean I'm famous?

Dodgingcars 15:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sancho's contribution record speaks for itself. Sancho also leaves out one important detail: The entire past history of this group, both at at uncommon descent and at this article. If this is his idea of presenting an issue accurately and fairly then his suggestions for changes to the article under that banner are not likely to find much traction here.


 * The complete history of the this bunch is found here and here. How this relates to the anon pov barrage of this article dealt with by contributors over the last few months is detailedhere. That shows that the repeated insertion of highly pov content and deletion well-supported factual content is directly attributable to this group. They even admit it there.


 * The community takes a very dim view of POV campaigns, particularly those that are coordinated offsite and involve a group of editors misstating policies to justify their campaign. many editors have been prevented from contributing to Wikipedia for doing exactly what this evidence shows. Frankly we've been rather easy on this group, issuing mild warnings with no blocks and airing their scheme, because I feel that documenting shabby behavior in the light of day is far more effective at stopping pov pushers than the alternative: blocking. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd say we take a dim view of POV campaigns. DaveScot is a one-man POV campaign.--Gandalf2000 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Along with, , and, he certainly is. FeloniousMonk 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear -- for all Felonius' insinuations about my motives and the proximity of my arrival to the comments about WP at UD, I've yet to make a single edit to the article itself. I've done nothing but argue for NPOV since I got here, and been met with suspicion from the first minute. I'm sorry if my tone was a bit strident -- like anyone I'm adjusting to the general tone of things in a new community. But I resent being acused of bullying, and I myself am highly suspicious of FM's own motives in his highly active contributions here. He has stated openly that he thinks duplicity is characteristic of the ID movement in general. Is this not POV? SanchoPanza 20:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not POV if it's true. Your apology is accepted and I affirm your good faith. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's correct to say that it's not POV if it's true, but I think there is far from unanimous consent that this is the case, even from ID critics like Michael Ruse. But we're addressing some of this in the NPOV section. Also, I realize this article has been around awhile and from the many archives I can see the same debates have been going on for quite some time. But this is a live, fluid issue that concerns a lot of people of good faith on both sides, and I think it's worth it to keep hammering at the dialectic. I'll be happy to strive towards better mutual understanding with you, and I will work on keeping my more imperious rhetoric in check. SanchoPanza 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read all the posts regarding WP at UD now, and I think FM's talk of an organized "campaign" is stil unjustified. But his accusation that Bill Dembski has given his consent is simply silly. Dr. Dembski has no responsibility here, and this additional accusation speaks to a general pattern of motive-guessing and general paranoia, particularly coming from Felonius, who cites WP:FAITH so frequently. He's accused me of not being who I said I was, he's created a "campaign" (and an entire WP discussion section to legitimize it) out of what Gandalf has rightly pointed out is simply a matter of course, and he has demonstrated a clear bias against ID in general, by stating that duplicity (i.e., lying) is characteristic. If Felonius wants to cut down on the POVs and revert wars, I suggest he examine his own POV more carefully, and work towards making the article truly NPOV, rather than spending discussion space looking for "campaigns." SanchoPanza 21:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Others who were here during the anon pov barrage and who've also read the evidence do not agree. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To think a POV campaign did not just occur coincidentally around the time of UD posts asking for Wikipedia comments; is to be willfully oblivious. Not a goog thing to be around here; and is entirely inexcusable given you can double check all of this through the article's history and UD which also has timestamps. - RoyBoy 800 05:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Read my post again, Roy. I never said that the POVs were coincidental. I said they weren't organized, i.e., coordinated, as Felonius alleged. Neither he nor you have any evidence to support this. Gandalf has offered a much more plausible explanation, and barring further evidence to the contrary, more accusations in that direction should be seen as consipracy-mongering and paranoia. This ridiculous thread is now played out. Let's get back to the aricle and leave the sniping to the blogs. SanchoPanza 16:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL, goog... I find my typo funny. While this thread might be in its death throes, ridiculousness will continue unabated. Oh and I noted above I disagree with the notion it was organized, I called it haphazard. :"D - RoyBoy 800 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * DaveScot is not UD. There are a few posters at UD who get a little out of control, and if you'll look through the archives, Dr. Dembski doesn't hesitate to warn and/or ban those who post personal attacks or get out of line. DaveScot himself was chastised by other commenters for his remarks. But I suggest to you that this article will continue to attract POVs and trolls like a beacon until the editors here stop justifying the leading and argumentative language in this article with assertions about the "fact" or "reality" of ID's duplicity. (see Felonius' comment above.) SanchoPanza 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Trolls and POVs will be attracted by the articles existance. It relating rigorously verified POVs of ID proponents, and the timing of modern ID's creation in relation to creationist court losses just gets them in a tissy... and they try to assert what should and should not be included. If its not the reality, and not factual then you would have a point. Since it is, you don't. that puts you in a difficult position to argue from. - RoyBoy 800 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I further suggest that if long-term editors here want to at least maintain a veneer of NPOV, posting links to stridently anti-ID sites, with the quip "have a laugh" is not the way to do that. SanchoPanza 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You obviously consider yourself informed on the subject, how does posting that on a discussion page go against WP:NPOV? Keep in mind NPOV is applied to the article itself; not users or even discussion pages; as "neutrality" or objectivity for a person is an unrealistic premise, is it not? It is NPOV to point that out with references (the religious connections) and criticism (its pseudoscience). Please continue to tell us your opinions on policy, I think its really not helping your cause. - RoyBoy 800 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I love reading about me. Please don't stop! LOL Say, how do y'all feel about Bush's nomination of Judge "Scalito" Alito to the supreme court? He'll eventually be deciding whether ID is religion or not. I look forward to the day when schools stop getting sued by anti-religion whackjobs (you know who you are). DaveScot 66.69.216.76 18:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope they (he) judges the case on its merits; rather than on rhetoric. - RoyBoy 800 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally something we agree on. --DaveScot 66.68.73.149 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)
The article had the following:

“Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
 * Consistent (internally and externally)
 * Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
 * Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
 * Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
 * Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
 * Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
 * Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)”

This list is fraught with pitfalls.

Matters of testability are not often as simple as lists above tend to assume. Theories are not always "falsifiable" in the strict sense of the word because of something called the Duhem-Quine problem. Predictions are not generated out of a vacuum, but more typically out of a background system of theories and assumptions that are not rigorously proven. To “disprove” the idea that the earth was moving, some people noted that birds did not get thrown off into the sky whenever they let go of a tree branch. That data is no longer accepted as empirical evidence that the earth is not moving because we have adopted a different background system of physics that allows us to make different predictions. Additionally, there are some beliefs that can rationally be accepted as true though they are not falsifiable, e.g. "there exists or will exist a black hole in the universe" could possibly be "proven" true, even be empirically confirmed and accepted among scientists--but cannot be falsified even in principle.

Tentativity (as well as making changes, i.e. the "correctable and dynamic" criterion) is associated with adherents, not the theory. Some adherents of evolution and abiogenesis are quite tenacious and hold onto theories far more firmly than they ought to (just as some creationists do) but that says something about the adherent--not the theory. One can hold any theory and do inappropriate things.

Virtually any theory is “useful” in the sense that it explains at least some data, so this criterion is not very “useful.” Progressive is not a shared feature, since virtually any theory has some anomalies that might not have existed with previous (albeit obsolete) theories (early heliocentric theory is an example).

Parsimonious might not be as sound as some people think. The idea that nature prefers the simple over the complex (e.g. among empirically identical theories) is a philosophical position, and one that not everyone thinks is true. Plus, it can get a little fuzzy whether or not an entity is "unnecessary" (more later). Now let's take this issue one at a time:


 * “Intelligent design lacks consistency.[21] “

Intelligent design is perfectly self-consistent. The endnote refers to "consistency" of a very different sort:


 * “Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: That complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer is not identified or quantified, nor need they be.”

Even if this were a foundational assumption of ID (and it isn't, it oversimplifies the actual ID position) this would not be an attack on its actual consistency.


 * “Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[22]”

This is not true with at least some versions. Suppose we use the theory "artificial intervention is necessary" (again, confer Dembski's Explanatory filter) against abiogenesis. To disprove ID here, simply conduct an experiment showing a means how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is pretty much destroyed then.

Let's contrast this with abiogenesis. It's pretty tough to conceive an experiment that would falsify it. Any chemical problems that show up (and there have been a few) and one could say “Well, there's a way to overcome the problem and we just haven't discovered it yet.” Abiogenesis is essentially non-falsifiable, and yet it is a legitimate scientific theory.


 * “Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[23]”

If the entity (the designer) is unnecessary, then yes (at least, it prevents the theory from being a “good” scientific theory). But this is tad question begging. “Artificial intervention is not necessary because it is not necessary.” If we had an experiment showing this (see above) then we'd have some basis for claiming this. But we do not, and known naturalistic means are often lacking (particularly in abiogenesis).


 * “Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[24]”

Untrue. It does make empirically testable predictions. If artificial intervention is necessary, we should never find a way (within reason) for undirected chemical reactions could have done the job. So far, that prediction has come true. And if it is falsified, so is ID.

That is not the only prediction ID makes. If ID is necessary, we would expect serious and significant obstacles for naturalistic formation (because ID is allegedly necessary, and e.g. abiogenesis supposedly is unable to do the job). One could say that perhaps these empirical predictions are not good enough evidence, or that they have not been adequately confirmed etc. but ID--for whatever its problems--is empirically testable and might even be rationally accepted if the obstacles were “serious” enough.


 * “Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[25]”

Most of these are characteristics of the adherents, not about the theory. ID is progressive in the sense that makes testable and confirmed empirical predictions that other theories don't (e.g. it predicts the problems of abiogenesis).

It is interesting to note that the criterion of changeability has also been applied to creationists, and yet creationists have often changed their views to meet the evidence e.g. virtually all creationists no longer adhere to the fixity of species (believing that the biological limits are elsewhere). And it is similarly not true that ID has never changed or has never come up with anything new in the past few centuries (e.g. the explanatory filter, though it has been implicitly followed among other fields earlier; and Behe’s analysis of blood clotting).

This is not to say that there isn't anything wrong with ID, but these particular philosophical principles used to exclude ID do not seem to work. A better line of attack would be to address evidential arguments.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)


 * The criteria for dealing with demarcation is well established. As far the following article content (found in the footnotes) detailing objections to ID being defined as scientific, I think you're missing the point. The article is not saying these are true, it's saying these are the common objections as to why ID is not considered scientific. That the objections are raised in the scientific community to ID's response to each particular criteria is indicative that the scientific community does not find these sort of explanations compelling. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the demarcation criteria well established, at least not with this list. Falsifiability, tentativeness and the changeability criteria run into some rather serious problems here.  And on what grounds are you saying that the article doesn't claim that these criteria aren't “true”?  Note especially the part of, “In light of its failure to adhere to these standards...” after describing how intelligent design “fails” the criteria.  And even if the article does simply represent the objections without claiming they’re valid, a rebuttal section should be given if only because the objections badly mischaracterize both science and the theory it’s criticizing.


 * --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)

Wade: Could one not claim that the 'theory' "God Did It!" fulfils all the criteria you have listed to exactly the same extent to which ID does? It seems to me that you have taken each test, redefined it (or redefined ID) so that ID passes, and then used this to prove that ID passes. As a whole ID is not empirically testable or Falsifiable; you cannot test for the existence of a creator. Nor is it correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. ID simply proclaims to offer "the" answer, no element of it is subject to improvement as new data comes to light. Ask yourself why there are no secular proponents of ID. If it is a scientific theory with as much weight as evolution, surely there would be a large number of secular scientist proponents. Surely you can't be claiming that ALL secular scientists have an axe to grind? Alex Bartho 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I assumed this section lied fallow, but apparently I was wrong. To answer your questions: I do not see how "God Did It!" fulfills all the criteria to the same extent ID does.  "God Did It!" is not nearly as falsifiable as the claim "artificial intervention is necessary."  BTW, to show that I'm not did not redefine ID, let's quote a prominent ID website:


 * Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."


 * That intelligent causes are necessary makes the theory more falsifiable and empirically testable than "God Did It!" How would you falsify ID?  For a specific example, let's apply the theory to the origin of life.  ID says that intelligent causes are "necessary."  To disprove this theory, simply conduct an experiment showing how life could have come about via undirected chemical reactions.  This would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary, and the theory is falsified.  In contrast, what observation could falsify abiogenesis?  Abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and yet it is a legitimate scientific theory of life on Earth.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the other issues, did you read what I wrote? Many of the other issues (i.e. tentativeness, being correctable and dynamic) attack the adherent, not the theory.  One can hold any theory and do inappropriate things, and ad hominem attacks are something of a fallacy nowadays.  The aspect of being progressive is not a shared feature, since virtually any theory has some anomalies that might not have existed with previous (albeit obsolete) theories (early heliocentric theory is an example).


 * What about secular scientists? Why don't more secular scientists accept ID?  It depends what you mean by "secular."  If by that you mean "atheistic," I think the answer is clear.  At this point ID is held by a small minority of scientists.  While an atheist could accept ID, it would admittedly be psychologically difficult to do so, and an atheist would seem to have little reason to accept ID when the vast majority of scientists disagree with it (so far).  It is noteworthy however than a number of people accept ID even when they have no religious motive to do so (Behe for instance is a Roman Catholic, of a religion that accepts evolution via the Pope).

Breaking up the Article
I've been pondering ways to bring clarity to the ID topic. One consideration, given the article's length, would be to break it up into multiple topics:

Intelligent Design - main article summary and history of the concept
 * Intelligent Design and Philosophy of Science (or Intelligent Design and the Scientific Method) - methodological naturalism, scientific method, falsifiability, etc.
 * Intelligent Design and Cosmology - anthropic principle, finely-tuned universe, etc.
 * Intelligent Design and Biology - all the classic irreducible complexity, specified complexity examples and issues
 * Intelligent Design Movement - already its own article

Each topic could be its own article, given the amount of material to cover.--Gandalf2000 20:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is the result of an article split earlier this year. Additional subarticles are likely not warranted and will cover the same content, both pro and con, that ID proponents object to here. Also, none of the proposed subarticles, with the exception of the movement, constitute common fields of separate inquiry. I see little benefit in creating additional subarticles. FeloniousMonk 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, my suggested breakdown is based on "common fields of separate inquiry". Philosophy of Science, Cosmology, and Biology are three distinctly separate fields of study.  In each field, the issues and arguments related to ID are distinct, though the philosophy of science area interacts with the others more closely.  In each of these topics, the issues don't overlap.  Granted, ID in cosmology is built on certain assumptions enumerated (and disputed) under philosophy of science, likewise with biology, but the relevant empirical evidence and issues discussed are distinct, and worthy of separating for clarity.--Gandalf2000 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with FeloniousMonk. I find especially disturbing that there would be a proposal on "Intelligent Design and cosmology" as the ID arguments are rarely umbrella-ed in such a way. The last thing we need is to create new ideologically driven pages. This reminds me of the creation of such pages as creation anthropology last year which were totally made up by a pov-pushing editor. Joshuaschroeder 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Joshua, (with sincere respect) "POV-pushing" is not relevant to this discussion. The topic is clarity and organization/structure of content in describing ID and its criticism.


 * To the point, it seems they are umbrella-ed that way, even in the "authoritative definition" of ID.  Features of the universe = cosmology.  Living things = biology.  And philosophy of science is the root issue in the central topics of methodological naturalism and the scientific method.  (This organization appears useful whether or not it produces separate articles.)--Gandalf2000 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds interesting. But wouldn't the Intelligent Design and Philosophy of Science simply be the base, onto which all other articles are stacked? Without reading ID and Philosophy of Science, the ID and Biology article would hardly make sense. Couldn't the other articles simply be subsection in the main article?
 * I also fear it would invite alot of warring, as (pov) editors would scramble to add their pet argumentation to the articles. Tree ring controversy, C-14 dating controversy, liberal media controversy, c decay, .. the list goes on. We would be giving a home to a lot of controversial points, which are currently excluded from the article as they are considered unencyclopedic. Suddenly, we would need to adress those issues. It's hard enough trying to maintain NPOV, without having to discuss such details. It would be a lot of work, and a lot could slip through.
 * I won't suggest creating these articles in the Talk namespace just yet.-- Ec5618 23:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (Note: Those are young earth creation issues, not ID issues, so they should still be excluded.)


 * The problem is that mixed together, it's creating too much "is too...is not" edits. By breaking it down, we can address each topic in turn.


 * Intelligent Design and Philosophy of Science
 * Methodological naturalism
 * Exclusion of supernatural causes
 * Scientific method
 * Falsifiability


 * Intelligent Design and Cosmology
 * Anthropic principle
 * Finely-tuned universe
 * Usefulness of ID in Cosmology


 * Intelligent Design and Biology
 * Irreducible complexity
 * Bacterial Flagellum
 * Blood Clotting
 * etc.
 * Specified complexity
 * DNA
 * Origin of life
 * Usefulness of ID in Biology

The way I see it, this would really highlight the strengths and weaknesses of ID. For example, in cosmology, ID has more usefulness because of the Big Bang problem. (Why is there a finite universe instead of nothing?)


 * According to what authority? Just because you don't understand cosmology, don't push your lack of understanding onto cosmology as being appropriate to an ID conceit. It's insulting to those of us who actually are cosmologists. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the prominent multiverse idea would be raised, and the applicability of Occam's razor to each.


 * This isn't really an issue in cosmology at all, really one that is more of cosmogony. This is the problem with splitting the article up. It is clear that the person proposing it hasn't researched the ideas well enough to be clear that the umbrellas he's proposing actually exist. Joshuaschroeder 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The challenge would be keeping the description focused on the "design" aspects of the problem, rather than straying into the philosophical issues. However, the anthropic principle does a fair job of answering the question "why", from a cosmology scientific perspective.

In biology, ID research is still almost useless apart from reconciling science and theistic philosophy. (Which is no small thing outside the biology labs.) Evolution has volumes of data behind it, demonstrating the usefulness of the theory and its analytical and predictive ability. ID has nothing close to that, something recognized by both ID supporters and critics. There are a few initial efforts within ID research to determine its usefulness, and those should be mentioned, but they're not much, and so far, ID does a lousy job of answering the question "why", from a biology scientific perspective.

In any case, these are some of the things that I've learned while researching the issue, and it seems they would be useful in the article.--Gandalf2000 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the terms, and no Joshua I'm not insulting you. While typing, I toyed with labeling the proposed section "Intelligent Design and Cosmogony", which fits too.--Gandalf2000 05:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not Intelligent Design and Evangelical Christianity? Or Intelligent Design and the Culture Wars? These topics would seem to have as much legitimate staying power as any you propose. Joshuaschroeder 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, those are fine topics for the Intelligent Design Movement article. In this discussion, I'm trying to generate some clarity about the Intelligent Design theory/hypothesis/assertion/conjecture itself, the concepts and criticisms, as distinct from the culture wars and conspiracy theories.--Gandalf2000 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear that someone can generate clarity about the arguments that the ID proponents make without considering their agenda. Why should we entertain their blather about any given subject without considering the source? In other words, ID does not stand alone when it tries to comment on mainstream science -- it is done from a combative, explicitly anti-science (in that science doesn't admit supernatural explanations and ID proponents beleive that ID does) position that has no legitimacy independent of the Intelligent Design conceit itself. Obviously you are more familiar with biology than with cosmology, but to claim that ID makes good points for cosmology but not biology is like claiming that homeopathy makes good claims for psychology but not for physiology. A non-sequitor, to be sure. Joshuaschroeder 17:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Why should we entertain their blather about any given subject...." Because that is a very good way to generate goodwill, to confirm understanding, and to make sure that the criticism is to-the-point and not driven by automatic rejection.  For example, you capture an essential point, that mainstream science doesn't admit supernatural explanations and ID proponents do.  That point can be made with a neutral voice and non-combative tone in the article simply by omitting phrases such as "explicitly anti-science".


 * As to cosmology, you make assumptions about my understanding (and you flatter me on my knowledge of biology). Please take a look at the literature regarding ID and cosmology.  You fixated on my failure to use the term cosmogony, when I considered that term but chose the vocabulary at work in the public discussion.  As you will see, the articles that focus on cosmology are topically distinct from the ones that focus on biology.--Gandalf2000 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Generate goodwill"? Where is this requirement for Wikipedia articles to do such a thing? Criticizing what I'm writing in talk is also off the subject. Nowhere in the present article does it state that "ID is explicitly anti-science", that is my point I made here, not there. Breaking up the ID article does not serve to change my mind on that subject, nor is this relevent to the discussion.


 * Please don't belabor me with the idiocy of such pundits as William Lane Craig and the like who, while pronouncing "Einstein" with a German accent, flatter themselves with their own ignorance of basic mathematical concepts (he belittled Hawking's use of imaginary time in a way that reminded me of some of those mathematicians who made Euler prove stuff without taking the square root of a negative number because such thing couldn't occur in "real life"). The man gave one of the worst lectures I've ever witnessed about how the Big Bang "proves" God exists when one could simply read the Big Bang article here on Wikipedia and see how he's wrong. Are we to simply take your word that this is a good argument and base a new article on arguments like that? Or are we to take WL Craig's word? Or any one of the other non-cosmologists who love to spout their ideas about the origin of the universe without the benefit of peer review or normal scientific checks-and-balances. I guess this goes back to the "bias" thing again, but I'm telling you that this nonsense is as well covered in this article as it possibly can be, seeing as how it comes out of the mouths of religious POV-pushers. I'm focusing on the fact that these articles that you are mentioning are full of holes, bad science, and the cheapest sort of philosophizing around. Why that deserves your praise or anyone else's could only be due to the fact that you aren't familiar with cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 19:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Joshua, I'm waiting to see if you can write a reply without insulting someone or bringing up an irrelevant example that has nothing to do with the discussion but illustrates just how idiotic you think someone is. I mention this because, yes, the tone here in the Talk section affects how easy it is to get the article improved.--Gandalf2000 20:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * None of what I'm pointing out is irrelevent. IDist make a large number of claims as to what constitutes a research subject and this seems to be interpretted by you as enough justification for what constitutes an entirely separate Wikipedia article when, by the very act of creating such an article tacitly endorses the ID POV (which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy). I am using cosmology as an illustrative example, but the same could be said for the rest of your subjects. Anyway, I see below that you have abandoned your idea to split the article up for the time being, so we'll just archive this discussion for future reference. Joshuaschroeder 12:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In-depth coverage of specific details of the arguments for ID are best covered at their own articles. The existing articles for Irreducible Complexity and Specified complexity are the place where bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, etc. are described in detail, and the article already directs readers there. FeloniousMonk 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point; more stuff like that, but at a slightly higher level.--Gandalf2000 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is how I would break it up:


 * Intelligent design disambiguates (with descriptions) to:
 * Theism
 * Same as current page
 * Intelligent Design (religion) (a.k.a. "Intelligent design movement")
 * Same as current page but with advocacy parts from ID article moved there.
 * Particularily point out advocacy and Christian creationism
 * History of ID movement
 * Note how it tries to pass itself off as science
 * Debate etc.
 * Intelligent Design (theology) (a.k.a "Complexity theory and IDT" a.k.a. "Teleological argument")
 * Trying to prove existence of God
 * Key concepts
 * Complexity theories, criticisms of, etc. How are they different from other complexity theories
 * Mention how many of these theories are necessarily anti-evolution, particularily the ID movement.
 * Mention how complexity theory is portrayed as science, What parts are and what parts are not science.
 * Anthropic principles etc.

This is just a very rough breakdown.--Ben 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem I see with that organization is that it looks more like a commentary or editorialization of ID, and has little resemblance to how ID proponents organize their arguments. I would think the purpose of the article is primarily to understand ID, and also to understand the objections.--Gandalf2000 05:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I realized that your proposal was based on some of your unanswered questions you raised earlier. I'll address those in the previous section.--Gandalf2000 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why does it look like editorialization? Is it because I am saying it is a religion? The other thing is that how ID proponents organize their arguments goes in the article, not is the article. You have to take an objective point of view with respect to ID followers' beliefs, not argue their beliefs for them. The way I understand it, is that Dembski believes complexity can be measured, and that a certain measurement indicates intelligent design. If he then finds this measurement in something which is natural, therefore that thing is intelligently designed. (after some logical wrangling) Therefore, God exists. I think treating it as a religion is fine. But if you want "philosophy" and "theory" instead of "religion" and "theology" it doesn't matter that much. It's still going to be said in the article that people both view and act like it is a religion. Many many many people have tried to prove the existence of God. All have either failed, or their views turned into a religion. If I was Dembski I would take ID being called a religion in stride and not worry about it. I'd understand it in fact. I'd say "you think this is a religion eh? Well, just you wait and see!" Unless he has some sort of agenda it shouldn't matter to him, or to people who agree with him, what it's called or characterized as.... *cough*--Ben 07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "You have to take an objective point of view with respect to ID followers' beliefs, not argue their beliefs for them." This is where we differ. My precise point is that it's impossible to demonstrate an objective point of view without arguing their beliefs for them. Otherwise, you're not representing their beliefs, you're representing something else, perhaps a straw man. The tone of the article should be to present the arguments for ID in the clearest possible terms, as articulated by the notable proponents, and the criticism and response in the clearest possible terms, as articulated by the notable critics. If the reader cannot sympathetically understand each side, then the article is not doing its job.--Gandalf2000 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you are writing about. I am saying it does not matter what ID proponents characterize their theories and movements as. It matters what they can be objectively observed to be. One should mention what proponents characterize ID as, but if it is possible to objectively characterize them accurately, one should do so. If not possible, one should say that it is not. Like I said, if you would rather it say something like "philosophy" and "theory" that's fine, but the first thing in those articles will describe the religious nature of ID to make it clear that their are very strong religious overtones to the whole thing, and mention that for many ID advocates, ID is said to be, or at least they act as if, it is proven on faith. --Ben 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unintelligent design
This article should include some mention of "unintelligent design"


 * Indeed, it warrants its own article; after all there is a book by that name. - RoyBoy 800 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I created a stub for Unintelligent Design the book; Unintelligent design could be a seperate article focusing on general evidence why biology is not intelligently designed. Although maybe that's not the best idea since it would be pretty speculative both ways. (what a designer would and would not do) - RoyBoy 800 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, no. Very bad. Don't call it "unintelligent design." That sounds very much like assuming atheism is true and will just make religious advocates angrier. Maybe call it something like evolutionary theory (hmmm seems to be an article for that already.) If you mean the arguments like the whole "How an eye evolves" and stuff like that, I could see an article for that, just please don't call it unintelligent design, call it something neutral and scientific ... and after a quick search, it seems it already exists: Evidence of evolution. These would be good links in the article about the book actually.--Ben 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The links you point out do not detail the information I'd like to see in the article in question; such as vestigial/inefficient organs (Evidence of evolution merely skims the surface), and to use one of your examples, the blind spots in human eyes, unused muscles and nerves in only a certain percentage of the population. The title may be confrontational, but it does get the tone right... and it does not take an "atheism is true" view, but rather evidence for a "lack of intelligent designer for life" view. - RoyBoy 800 06:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading this made me realize that there are to many ignorant people holding the keys to what people hear and understand about Intelligent Design. There is no solid evidence for Evolution yet (evolution is not adaption). Be humble enough to realize that Evolution has major problems. This why Intelligent Design persists. 71.141.150.133 19:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The converse is actually more true: Be humble enough to realize that Intelligent Design has major problems. This why this article's content persists. Or evolution, or... you get the idea.


 * Am I the only one who finds it ironic that someone arguing against the pratice of the scientific method would throw down the "ignorance" card? FeloniousMonk 22:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And those problems would be... ? It still tickles me after all these years of discussing these issues people who are scientific neophytes at best, manage to convince themselves They understand the evidence better than everyone else; including scientists who spend their lives and make their careers collecting cross-checking that evidence. I take it my answers regarding *almost humans*, no complete fossil record being handed to us on a silver plater were ignored?


 * This is awfully confusing, I thought ID allowed for evolution to be correct for the most part; ID was more concerned with origins. Why would someone as attuned to ID such as yourself be asking ridiculously simple questions about evolution and professing it has "problems"? Unless...


 * I always love asking creationists if these aren't transitional fossils in your opinion, then what would be? Belief that Elvis is alive persists, and of course that's based on solid evidence. At least for Elvis that's been around for decades and was based on a real person, unlike modern ID which appeared recently out of creationism's legal ashes... reborn with new words and vague arguments posing as evidence. Certainly better than maintaining Neanderthal bones are just humans with a disease. - RoyBoy 800 02:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumb is 99% of the people who claim any scientific theory doesn't make sense don't know 1% of what it actually says. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a chatroom --Ben 05:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And tacos aren't burritos. - RoyBoy 800 06:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

article bias
There are a number of very bias statements in the Intelligent Design article. Here are a few examples:

"The concept of life having been designed or manipulated is a staple of science fiction."

--->According to many qualified scientists, it isn't science fiction.

"their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

--->Because Intelligent Design conclusions were drawn from scientific theories, it can be tested. For example, Irreducible Complexity can be tested and observed.

The information given in the article is very one sided. Information to dispute anything said against it is sensored and not allowed into the article. Although it is said to be discussed, it will never be allowed to be put in unless an evolutionists does not see it as threatening to their own theory. This article is "junk science." I suggest a new start with real information rather then countless bias opinions. Just because Christians may support the view does not mean it's a Christian movement. The fact that ID begins with science rather then religious text proves, in itself, that ID is not religious. The thought that science might actually prove God, is threatening to many.User:Bloodwater 19:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This first point is moot, as the line does not suggest ID is either fact or fiction, just that the concept has been explored in fiction. (Love has been explored in fiction too.)
 * The second point is false. ID conclusions were not drawn from scientific theories. Read theory. (What does ID conclude? Are there official 'ID conclusions?' We do know that ID proponents (the people concluding ID is truth) are creationists, and did not reach their conclusions through scientific means.) ID is not falsifiable, though many of its arguments obviously have been. (No-one could ever prove that no intelligence had a part in our conception.)
 * Finally, 'beginning anew'? Why don't you try your hand at improving the article we have now, before you suggest we expend a lot of energy trying to fix what might not be broken. -- Ec5618 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering your role and participation in the recent pov barrage originating at uncommondescent.com, it's difficult to give your objections and suggestions much credibility.


 * The article's content as it stands is well-supported by evidence and policy. There's no pressing need to refactor it or start anew. Furthermore, your reasoning that it is not a Christian movement is supported neither by evidence nor reason. FeloniousMonk 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever his involvement in that, an editor's points should be addressed. We shouldn't dismiss editors because of their pov. -- Ec5618 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, we shouldn't dismiss editors because of their pov... and we don't. I'm very skeptical of anything he claims or suggests because of his history of bad faith activities at Wikipedia., aka , has a lot of history here to overcome before many will feel comfortable assuming his good faith again.


 * A good start for him would be to admit his role at uncommondescent.com and apologize to regular contributors here for wasting their time with his multiple re-insertions of content removed for POV reasons. He's earned a place on my Crank List, and it will take some major demonstrations of good faith before he comes off it. First would be to start treating ID objectively and dispassionately in his posts instead of dearly-held personal pet project here. FeloniousMonk 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In my own defense, i've never heard of "uncommondescent.com." Where did you come up with that? Did you just make that up? Please redeem your credibility and give us some evidence. If we can just make things up on this site about people, I'd like to announce FeloniousMonk's high involvement with snopes.com. He does alot of writing for urban legend web sites.User:Bloodwater 04:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Snopes is a site looking to explore, verify, or debunk many rumours and urban legends (commonly the ones you find on random web pages, or forwarded to you by colleagues, etc, etc) via fact checking and cross-referencing. How would this reflect on FM in a bad way? I'm guessing you're employing some kind of hypothetical sarcasm here, but I think your example conveys the opposite of your intent, unless you're suggesting that ID is some kind of urban legend making the rounds ;-) Tez 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was definately a joke. FeloniousMonk has made a very misinformed statement about myself. I would appreciate an apology. 69.110.228.44 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would your calling contributors "numbskulls" qualify as a joke as well? Please. Your contributions to Wikipedia speaks for itself: , regardless of whether or not you are part of the uncommondeceit pov campaign. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I employ loud tactics sometimes to get people to read what i say. It brings out the bias people quick. I mean no harm. Are you going to use this to justify your stance that i have no good points? I apologize for using that as a topic heading, but it sounds like you are using this as a distraction from your false accusations about me. In the nature of good discussion, I would appreciate an apology for accusing me of being invovled in something that i've never heard of. 71.141.150.133 00:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, FeloniousMonkey, are you going to apologize for your amateur stalking efforts or stand proudly by your mistakes? ROFL --DaveScot 66.68.73.149 18:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What is policy on deleting posts made by trolls? To reduce clutter, you understand. -- Ec5618 19:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Restructure for additional clarity
Okay, we've got some good feedback. Here is an updated structure suggestion (abandoning the idea of separate articles for now):


 * Intelligent Design (intro)
 * Summary
 * Origins of the concept


 * Key terms
 * Methodological naturalism
 * Irreducible complexity
 * Specified complexity


 * Intelligent Design and Philosophy of Science
 * Exclusion of supernatural causes
 * Scientific method
 * Falsifiability


 * Intelligent Design and Cosmology
 * Examples
 * Anthropic principle
 * Finely-tuned universe
 * Cosmogony
 * Criticism of ID in Cosmology


 * Intelligent Design and Biology
 * Examples
 * Bacterial Flagellum
 * Blood Clotting
 * DNA
 * Origin of life
 * Criticism of ID in Biology


 * Defining information and intelligence
 * Intelligent Design Debate
 * ID as a movement -- shorten considerably and refer to the separate article
 * Religion and leading ID proponents


 * Additional criticisms

The examples sections could be quite short, particularly if they have references to other articles which discuss them in depth. The information and intelligence section just came to mind. As always, more feedback is appreciated. What's useful or not useful about this structure? What's missing in the categories? Thanks.--Gandalf2000 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this outline to be deplorable. The current one is much better. Joshuaschroeder 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I see no pressing need to refactor the current article. I do see though a number of pro-ID editors who want to mitigate content they feel casts ID in an unfavorable light. FeloniousMonk 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of favorable v. unfavorable. It's a matter of clearly understanding the propositions and rebuttals.--Gandalf2000 02:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What "positions"? There does not seem to be a monolithic ID position on any one of these subjects. This is because ID does not represent a research program in the natural sciences. In other words, rather than being representative of how ID is applied in these sciences, these "positions" are simply endorsements of the idea that ID has legitimacy that supercedes the commentary it makes on the individual subjects we present in the article (e.g. cosmology is somehow informed by ID through its disparate accusations involving fine-tuning, goldilocks unierse, the anthropic principle, etc). The article as it now stands is much better because it states things in NPOV fashion. What the article currently does is describe the positions as "there exists arguments made by ID proponents involving the following points from these disparate parts of science". Since ID doesn't represent a research program, a paradigm, or a theory, all we have is a collection of unrelated arguments that function as many different attempts to throw ID at science in the hopes that somewhere, somehow, some point will stick. So far they've been unsuccessful. If they had been successful, I'd be inclined to agree that ID represents positions within the disciplines as your arrangement implies, but as it stands this arrangement violates the policy of NPOV, in my book. Joshuaschroeder 13:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While the subjects are good, I do not think it is arranged within the traditional classifications of philosophy, religion, and science. Like I said before, I think ID as presented in both the current article and your suggestion is misrepresentative. It is more like a discussion of Dembski's book or the ID movement rather than a more encyclopedic arrangement. A lot of them are separate topics but, having been introduced together and argued in sequence, seem like they should go together. For example, all the topics in "Intelligent design and biology" should probably be in Evidence of evolution.--Ben 23:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you claiming that ID helps in providing evidence for evolution? Joshuaschroeder 13:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you being sarcastic? I am not claiming "ID helps in providing evidence for evolution." That would be completely absurd. I am saying criticisms against evidence for evolution should go on the evidence for evolution page. --Ben 10:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition to previously cited sources, here is another example of the significance of distinguishing ID issues in cosmology and biology, from Dembski, of course:

'':When it comes to integrating intelligent design with current science curricula, it's important to understand that intelligent design departs from these curricula principally over the origin of biological complexity. True, intelligent design also takes up design in cosmology. But arguing for design at the level of cosmology does not contradict any of the theories currently held by cosmologists (for instance, Big Bang and inflationary cosmologies can be interpreted as consistent with intelligent design). Arguing for design in biology, on the other hand, does squarely challenge Darwinian theory and more generally all purely naturalistic accounts of biological complexity. But that's about all intelligent design challenges. Thus one can be quite conservative in adapting intelligent design to a science curriculum. There's no need, for instance, to alter our understanding of cosmology or geology regarding the formation of the universe, galaxies, our solar system, or the earth. Nor for that matter is there any need to challenge the standard chronologies scientists have assigned to these events (e.g., 12 or so billion years for the age of the universe and 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth).''

This is how the ID debate is being framed, and the criticisms of ID are likewise organized along these lines.--Gandalf2000 17:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is actually very useful in understanding what ID claims to be and how the article should be structured, leaving out the stuff regarding cosmology and the like. I would also say that the emphasis on biology is what makes ID a religious idea. Why does the designer have any more desire to influence atoms that lead to life, particulary human life, than rocks? This seems to indicate Christian theological bias, or at least Abhrahamic theology. But thanks again, there is an FAQ at the Discovery Institute website and also explains that IDists claims ID is really well. I'll dig that up. --JPotter 18:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your reading. Dembski's key point (in that quote) seems to be that ID is compatible with key tenets and observations of mainstream cosmology, where the controversies and propositions are much more philosophical; but it directly challenges the key tenets of mainstream biology.  Therefore, the challenge to evolutionary biology is where ID is so controversial.--Gandalf2000 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand these points. Mine are that the ID focus on biology highlights its identity with Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. --JPotter 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ID and Deism
I think it is worth examining the relationship of Deism and Intelligent Design.

Similarities:


 * Believe in God
 * Reason, not faith, should be the basis of that belief
 * Often use cosmological and teleological argument

Differences:

IDers:


 * Believe they have, or actively pursue, reasoned proof of the existence of God
 * Believe evolutionary theory is incorrect
 * Strong ties to evangelicalism and Christianity
 * Proselytize

Deists:


 * Do not believe they have reasoned proof, nor do they actively pursue it.
 * Believe evolutionary theory is scientifically sound.
 * Reject Christianity as absurd
 * Do not proselytize

In the most important aspects it seems they are very similar. However, they do not exactly work together. In fact, as I noted somewhere on this page, on the Deism.org page it says "Intelligent Design Theory" is so-called "Creation Science" masquerading as Deism. Which at least shows that people often get the two mixed up.

Feel free to add to these if you can think of anything else. If you think one is incorrect use &lt;strike&gt; &lt;/strike&gt; to strike out the incorrect one and add your correction. --Ben 23:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are many prominent ID proponents deists? Not really. One, maybe two. Deism is not central to ID or crucial to understanding it. A footnote at best. FeloniousMonk 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Call themselves or are? Which one are you talking about? I'm talking about examining where ID fits into the taxonomy of religion. Not "are they Deist", but "are their beliefs Deist?" Look up comparative religion. I think it's a good idea to examine if ID can be classified as something else. Such as a type of Deism. It has nothing to do with "ID proponents." I'm hoping the actual religious parts can be teased out of the science, philosophy, and pseudoscience and it will make the article more coherent and less controversial. Lay it all out for people and let them decide. If you do it as accurately as you can, you will hardly get any criticism. For example, if instead of saying "Advocates are trying to teach intelligent design in schools" you say "Advocates are trying to teach teleology in schools" look how much it defuses it. No one in their right mind will think "Teleology there's a good thing to teach in schools" They'll think "Teleowhatlogy? What kind of subject is that for a 3rd grader?" Maybe they'll look it up and say "This isn't a subject, it's just an argument." At least, that's what I think. No matter how advocates try, because teleology is so old, and so densely philosophical, they won't be able to trick people into thinking that what they wish to teach is a subject for biology class. Heck, maybe they'll advocate "at least teach one class about the argument" but who will teach it? It's not really appropriate for a biology class. Even if they do teach it, I'd rather a biology teacher explain it fully to kids than have a minister explain it and use it as propaganda. --Ben 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion on the matter, but this formulation you are proposing strikes me as a lot of original reserach. If you can find a citation to someone who claims what you do, this can be included in the article, but I don't think we can recast the reporting of a controversial subject like this entirely as such a perspective. Joshuaschroeder 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Where do you get the idea I am proposing something? I was hoping to have a discussion about ID and how it compares to other religions and religious ideas. What exactly do you mean? --Ben 07:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I take it that noone cares. Great. --Ben 10:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Abbreviation "ID" Considered Harmful

The use of ID for Intelligent Design seems unnecessary. It give the otherwise excellent article a jargony tone. How many encyclopedia articles use an abreviation for their topic.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A good point that totally slipped past us. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?
What is the scoop on David Berlinski? He may be an atheist, in which case it wouldn't be true that all ID advocates are advocates of the Christian God or even the theist conceit. What information do people have? Joshuaschroeder 13:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Berlinksi wrote this in Commentary magazine:


 * But if things fall apart, they also come together. Life appears to offer at least a temporary rebuke to the second law of thermodynamics. Although biologists are unanimous in arguing that evolution has no goal, fixed from the first, it remains true nonetheless that living creatures have organized themselves into ever more elaborate and flexible structures. If their complexity is increasing, the entropy that surrounds them is decreasing. Whatever the universe-as-a-whole may be doing -- time fusing incomprehensibly with space, the great stars exploding indignantly -- biologically things have gone from bad to better, the show organized, or so it would seem, as a counterexample to the prevailing winds of fate.


 * How so? The question has historically been the pivot on which the assumption of religious belief has turned. How so? "God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."' That is how so. And who on the basis of experience would be inclined to disagree? The structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different?


 * Darwin's theory of evolution rejects this counsel of experience and intuition. Instead, the theory forges, at least in spirit, a perverse connection with the second law itself, arguing that precisely the same force that explains one turn of the cosmic wheel explains another: sheer dumb luck.

He does appear to support all the usual creationist arguments, but I imagine he could be an agnostic. --Ian Pitchford 15:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I read Academic Extinction, and I learned all I needed to know on Berlinski's views. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

But what are his religious affiliations, if any? Joshuaschroeder 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Judging from his writings I'd say that he's a secular/agnostic Jew with philosophical reservations about evolution by natural selection who sides with the DI-ID people for political reasons. BTW he claims not to be a supporter of ID. --Ian Pitchford 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. That clears things up. Interesting that the Discovery Institute uses him to distance themselves from the argument that they are a front organization for Fundamentalist Christians. Indeed, if he is a fellow then they are not such a front. However since he has distanced himself from ID, ID remains a front. Does that sound about right? Joshuaschroeder 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute has always argued that the materialistic/naturalistic philosophical basis of science must first be unseated before any form of theistic reasoning as to origins can gain traction. The institute has positioned ID as a "big tent" under which all who oppose materialism and naturalism can unite in a common goal . The overwhelming majority of ID proponents and institute fellows are evangelical protestants. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's on first? On yeah, a disingenuous creationist. - RoyBoy 800 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a chatroom --Ben 10:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nor is it Stalinist regime. Although the hammer and sickle vandal may disagree. :'D - RoyBoy 800 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's "uncommondescent" conspiracy theory
The giant discussion about some blog and their users should be archived as it has nothing to do with improving the article. --Ben 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. - RoyBoy 800 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion. --Ben 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you noticed my declarative statement was an opinion; because I noticed the same thing about yours. It's problematic when someone does that, isn't it? - RoyBoy 800 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia admin
In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia administrator (though he fails to mention so on his user page). See List_of_administrators. --Ben 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In the interest of curiosity, why is that important? - RoyBoy 800 11:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy is a Wikipedia admin
In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:RoyBoy is also a Wikipedia administrator. See List_of_administrators. --Ben 22:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a good one. You're just a lowly troll. Dunc|&#9786; 23:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Duncharris is a Wikipedia admin
In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:Duncharris is also a Wikipedia administrator (though he fails to mention so on his user page). See List_of_administrators. --Ben 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda is a Wikipedia admin
In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that User:Guettarda is also a Wikipedia administrator. See List_of_administrators. --Ben 23:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about admins

 * Being an admin is not really a big deal. They are editors just like the rest of us. They are endowed with some extra tools to help make dealing with vandals more effective, etc. Do you feel they are abusing their adminship? I haven't seen any evidence of that. --JPotter 23:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe FeloniousMonk is abusing his adminship and violating Wikiquette. FeloniousMonk is abusing his adminship in that he is not explaining his edits and reversions of my contributions, nor does he take my points which I have spelled out over numerous paragraphs seriously, often responding with dismissive and unrelated commentary. He is policing the article (contrary to Ownership of articles). Being an admin, FM can call upon other friendly admins to act as proxies for his views and not have to explain himself. He can simply revert instead of discussing. If I call him on it, he responds with nonsense or not at all. If I try to re-introduce my contributions, he reverts until I am at the WP:3RR and can no longer contribute without fear of being banned, which, as I was informed by an admin FM had called upon, would surely happen. The result is that while I have written probably at least 1500 words on why I want to include a single sentence to the disambiguation part of the article I have yet to receive any understanding of my concerns from FM, and cannot contribute what I think is needed helpful. Even when other users show they understand and I say "see, this is what I mean" I get nothing. If you read FM's Request for adminship] you'll see that I'm not the only one concerned with his conduct, and in fact my concerns are nearly identical to others who opposed his nomination.


 * I believe both RoyBoy and Duncharris are violating Wikiquette. RoyBoy's "jokes" are offensive to Wikipedia contributors. Duncharris, wherever he came from, insulted me, calling me a "lowly troll." He did nothing to mitigate my concerns. Duncharris' contribution is likely a result of friendly admins acting as proxies for another's issue (likely RoyBoy's in this case, but possibly FM's, you never know.)


 * Guettarda is ok, but I figured I might as well name everyone who contributes here that is an admin.--Ben 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is this information relevant? In addition, I'm a wikipedia admin, I don't state this fact in my user page and to the best of my knowledge, this isn't a requirement.--CSTAR 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See above. Regardless of those points, however, full disclosure of ties to authority is important, this is extremely common in power structures, especially when one has an argument which one expects to be resolved by those authorities. Considering that this happens very often on this page, where FM is having an argument with someone who wishes to modify or add to the article, this is important. (and, though it is not a requirement, why don't you state it on your user page?) --Ben 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should I disclose something which is not a secret? As you obviously know, admins are on an easily available public list. Moreover, arguments in wikipedia are not decided by these "authorities". This claim is nonsense. As anecdotal evidence, I have been involved in endless discussions with crackpots in physics and my admin status confers no advantage. I would assume contributions to physics and math (easily obtainable by perusal of the contributions page) would be of more interest to you than some perceived abuse of power.


 * Your raising this issue is a red herring.--CSTAR 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean the fact that FM is an admin? I don't think so. I explained why above.--Ben 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor can I tell exactly what you believe the issue is that I'm trying to distract from.--Ben 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: "You mean the fact that FM is an admin?". You were talking about an alleged admin conspiracy which required you to post, vigilante style, a list of admins. How could then you possibly misinterpret my response to mean that I referred only to your claim that FM is an admin? Or are you now withdrawing from your wider conspiratorial accusation about proxies? In any case your restricted claim about FM is bogus, and as to your explanation, well that's your opinion. I have reverted edits to this page, because the issues have been discussed endlessly in talk pages, which are now archived. BTW FM had many supporters in his adminship request, I being one of them.


 * Uh, I posted the list because I thought other people might want to know this information, specifically people who have been having trouble with users on this discussion board. Disclosing connections with authority is common in power structures like politics, companies, etc. Also look up recusal. The concept is similar. It is common. If you are unfamiliar with it, you should look at the links I provided.
 * Misinterpreted what you meant when you said "this issue is a red herring?" You didn't give me much to work with. Tell me exactly what issue I am raising that is a red herring, and what issue it is intended to distract from. You don't even need to explain why you think so, though I hope you will.
 * I am not "withdrawing from any conspiracy theory". It is simple: FM tells Admin A: "Revert this troll" Admin A trusts FM, because FM is also an admin, because FM is Admin A's friend, and because Admin A is sympathetic to FM's views. Admin A reverts without reading discussion or article. Thus, Admin A is doing what FM wants to do without knowledge of the issue. This is what I was referring to when I said "calling upon friendly admins to act as proxies." This is what friends do, not administrators. --Ben 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Has the thought that your edits may be being reverted because they're just wrong ever entered your mind? As I've 'splained to you before that's why I've reverted your templates: They're inaccurate and there's no consensus for them. FeloniousMonk 07:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. However, I do not know why. I believe I am correct. You have not told me why I am not correct, you simply say "you are factually inaccurate and POV." It is very difficult to consider why I am wrong when I do not have any reason to. I have done a lot of thinking about this, about how I might be wrong, or how I might be being POV. You can read, as evidence, the number of ways I try to make my point to you and to other people. I have looked up a lot of things about intelligent design, comparative religion, philosophy and lots of things. I do not see what the problem is. See also my next response to you. --Ben 08:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of policing articles is erroneous.  It is common in the sciences to have numerous articles on one's watchlist to screen for crackpots. Do you need my list? Please don't invent policy to suit your needs.--CSTAR 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it is accurate. See Ownership of articles. There is a difference between keeping trolls out and arguing about the article to the point of reverting the article for a clean up tag 20 minutes after it has been added. --Ben 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When there is no support, no consensus for the the "tag" (template) in question on the article's discussion page yet is continually reinserted against consensus into the article, as you have done with yours, then removing it one more time constitutes a simple matter of article clean-up. Your behavior on this page has indeed been trollish, and cleaning up after trolls is one of the things admins are expected to do. You've been cautioned against being disruptive a number of times, and have ignored each warning. The contributors here in good standing have been reasonably tolerant of your missteps, but there is a limit to much disruptive behavior we have to tolerate. This thread of yours crosses the line. Time for you to start adhering to WP:FAITH. FeloniousMonk 07:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How can there be no support when you remove it 30 minutes after I add it? Do all contributors have to run everything by you? I know I have been cautioned about being disruptive. I submit you are the one being disruptive to contributors by not allowing changes and acting as owner of the article. Trolls generally do not have a point. I have a very specific point that I will not re-iterate for the hundredth time. I argued my points in a myriad of ways and your responses consist of nothing more than "that is factually inaccurate and POV" with NO explanation. Any discussion you have that goes along with it is completely besides the point, and I explain to you why. Once I finally think you understand where I coming from, you stop responding. Do you want to talk about WP:FAITH? How about not assuming my arguments and the points I am trying to make are in bad faith. It is hard for me to think of you as someone of good faith when you consistently misinterpret and ignore my arguments, even after other people have shown they understand them (to which you stopped posting again). This is when Guettarda understood what I was getting at and I responded to him, but noone replied. Have any of my posts been overtly hostile, at least until now? No. Yours, I believe, have. The only somewhat hostile comments were my very first comment in the NPOV section. I also said later in that section that the article violates Wikipolicy w.r.t. personal essay or research. I then apologized for it. I don't recall being hostile at all. I interpret your responses as hostile, because you simply ignore my arguments and block any of my attempts to contribute.--Ben 08:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There was no support when it was previously discussed prior to my removing it last. And it is a discussion you've taken to absurd lenghts for such a minor edit, I'll point out. One two people understanding what you meant is neither support nor consensus; don't treat it as such. And don't assume those who disagreed with what you wanted to do didn't understand your argument; we simply just don't find it compelling or correct. You've rather selfishly wasted many people's time and half a page over your minor issue here. FeloniousMonk 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, many admins have participated in the creation and maintenance of this article, largely because of the fact that the article and the topic it covers is a magnet for trolls and pov-pushers demanding the attention of those wielding the clean-up mop. Please do not become either. FeloniousMonk 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your accusation that I'm abusing my position, you'll find that I edited the article in exactly the same way before I was an admin. Your accusations are baseless and without merit and disruptive. Continue to make them here and you'll find yourself defending your actions here in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Continue to disrupt this page and the article with your ill-founded template and you may be temporarily blocked for being disruptive. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you are acting as owner of the article and acting in bad faith. You at least deserve censure and in my opinion, your adminship should be revoked. Defending my actions in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process would probably be more appropriate than defending it here. I explained why I believe your position as an admin puts me and other contributors at a disadvantage (which, as usual, you completely ignored). If you want to start an RFC or RFA, go ahead. I can defend everything I've said on this page. Whether that defence is appropriate will have to be decided. Your response neither defended my accusations nor addressed any of my concerns. --Ben 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lord forbid admins show up to problematic articles. I have a question or two, why don't you state anything on your user page? And what jokes were/are deemed offensive and by whom? - RoyBoy 800 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really have anything to put on my user page. I'm a private person. If you need to know more about me, just ask, or read my talk page to get an idea--but let's not play the ad hominem game. What jokes do I think are offensive? "Who's on first? A disingenuous creationist" I believe would be offensive to creationists&dagger; . Your suggestion of creating an "Unintelligent design" article is borne of sarcasm. Not to mention your needless engagement with troll 71.141.150.133. --Ben 01:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL, yeah that's my favorite. Ad hominem game, wasn't playing it; just so we're clear on that. As to "Unintelligent design" I actually considered it for a moment and so was thinking out loud. I suggest you don't try to read my mind or motivations; because you'll invariably be inaccurate, not to mention engaging with 71.141.150.133 is hardly needless in a general sense. I'd concur its needless to improving the article, but that's not the end all be all of a discussion page. Of course if you had enough experience to be an admin; you'd stand a good chance of understanding that. - RoyBoy 800 01:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I know you weren't playing an ad hominem game, I was saying that I was hoping you weren't planning on playing ad hominem games. As for the rest of it, I beg to differ. I think your motivations for creating "unintelligent design" were borne of sarcasm. I think engaging 71.141.150.133's 19:19, 27 October 2005 post was engaging trolling and needless. I also like how you ignored your little "Who's on first?" quip. That's the most obvious one.


 * The ad hominem supporting your argument at the end of your post was interesting; pretty ironic (yeah right you were joking).--Ben 01:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I forgot an offhand comment I made in jest, I didn't "ignore" it. Again stop trying to read my mind; that is needless. Do you want another go so I can repeat myself in triplicate? I'd really love that, really worth our time. (yeah, that's sarcasm) Ad hominem, uhhh... what are you referring to exactly? If its the "enough experience" comment, that's called constructive criticism, but take it as you will. You can live and learn, or not. Whatever. - RoyBoy 800 04:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you "forgot" the 4th sentence in my post. Are you not even bothering to read what I'm saying? And the "enough experience" comment is not "constructive criticism" when you are using it to support your argument especially when it is obviously meant to be insulting and you do not even explain anything. Constructive criticism tells someone how to improve. Your "constructive criticism" was insulting. --Ben 05:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &dagger; Here, now I've highlighted it. Are you telling me you simply "forgot" this?! --Ben 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I forgot (the joke) in relation to you having to bring it up there; and I did address it immediately by saying it was my favorite one (after you reminded me of it). Alright I will tell you, quipping Wikipolicy to us is insulting. My interactions with you... I'd characterize as condescending. I was curious as to how you would respond to a similar tone from me, you responded honestly. That and your RfC make me optimistic, as they are appropriate for moving forward. - RoyBoy 800 06:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'd like further comment on my joke I'd be happy to provide it. The short version is we were in fact dealing with disingenuous creationist(s), something FeloniousMonk clarified to my satisfaction and something I experienced directly by responding to non-specific criticism of the article. - RoyBoy 800 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You fed the troll, you insulted the troll. I don't see how this isn't a violation of Wikipolicy. I'm sorry that it seems to you that it is condescending and insulting to have me point this out. To me, it is rather insulting of you to do it in the first place and it degrades the rest of the administrators on Wikipedia. I'd like to see you resign your adminship.--Ben 07:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Come off it. When has any of the admins misused their power? Any editor can befriend an administrator, ask him or her for help and be just as powerful. Why have so few of the trolls that come here ever been immediately banned? Is it perhaps because administrators are just editors in their own right, and cannot be denied that right simply because they have a little power? It is bad form for an admin to ban a user they have a personal problem with.


 * And why are you suggesting someone should step down, because of a single act, when you clearly violated policy on several occasions (remember numbsculls). Should you not step down? Please, leave a final remark, and leave. -- Ec5618 07:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. You say fed, I say effectively rebutted. You say insulted, I say you double check to whom that comment was actually directed and about. It was FeloniousMonk and the creationist(s) he was describing! Hence your chatroom notice. If you would like to extrapolate to who I was talking about (or who it was applicable to), go right ahead, but your frustration over your edit(s) should not translate into making inaccurate allegations. This kind of focus in itself demonstrates you aren't interested in editing in a good faith/corroborative manner. - RoyBoy 800 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As ususal EC5618 is right. Suggesting RoyBoy step down as admin is completely unhinged. RoyBoy's record speaks for itself, as does Ben's. FeloniousMonk 08:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you wonder why I am "unhinged?" At all? Do you, just maybe, have something to do with the fact that I am extremely frustrated? That you dismiss every comment I make with your personal opinion? And administrators should be held to higher standards. In other words, admins shouldn't feed the trolls.--Ben 08:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Other editors on this page have had to deal with trolls and similar for a long time. If anyone, they should be frustrated. If you are, please take a break from editing. The article will wait, and you will be able to better articulate your point when you are not on edge.
 * Also, when you add a cleanup tag it is your responsibility to explain what you object to and why on the Talk page. Because you did not do so promptly, the template was removed. Anyone should have done the same. There was no problem, no strong arming, no misuse of admin powers, and certainly nothing that requires repercussions.
 * Also, ownership of articles tries to explain that no individual author should write an article, and that no individual editor should try to protect a page from all other editors. This is not what is happening here.
 * The way I see it, this article about a very controversial topic has caused editors to be mindful of it, because a lot of vandals and POV pushers are gravitated toward it. Many edits to it are in bad faith, or are simply ill-advised or born out of ignorance. Many 'editors' have not even bothered to read the article. Naturally, editors who are familiar with these edits will be watchful, will check every edit made, and will revert, reword or move any edit made in the wrong place. Proponents and detractors alike. -- Ec5618 08:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * a) Admins should not feed the trolls. It was obvious that that user's intial comment was no better than a troll. No exceptions for frustrations. Admins are to be held to that standard and refrain from making sarcastic comments towards people whom they know will be angry. Don't troll the troll, better yet, don't respond. b) Yes I know, but I thought it was obvious, considering the comments on this talk page and on the nomination for featured article status taht the article needed cleaning up. Hopefully by an expert, which is why I put that tag on too. c) On this we differ. I believe FM is trying to protect the page from any edits other than small grammar or spelling edits. d) If only it were so. There is a difference, like I said before, between keeping a page free of trolls and POV-pushers and preventing people from editing it. I think FM has crossed that line.--Ben 11:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben has taken his argument for a minor edit for which there was little interest and even less support to absurd levels. He's made numerous personal attacks. But he's right about one thing, admins should not feed the trolls. I'll be taking his advice. FeloniousMonk 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC
User:Benapgar has filed an RFC concerning this article. It's phrased in a distinctly unneutral way:


 * Talk:Intelligent design Dispute over addition over disambiguation link to Theism and characterizing article as it is now as idiomatic. Editors acting as owner of page ignoring reasons for addition. Editors brushing off discussion of article with respect to its organization. Article borders on Personal Essay.--Ben 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

so perhaps someone who's aware of the issues involved can go clean it up. I'd do it myself, but I don't know enough to do so. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made it more neutral. Now would you like to comment or no? --Ben 04:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And please don't insult me personally with sarcastic comments. I know it wasn't completely neutral, however, that is the dispute as I see it. It really gets my back up when people are sarcastic. I don't have time for sarcasm. Say what you mean.--Ben 05:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's still not a neutral description of your issues at this article or its state. Please fix it by describing your complaint accurately and leave the pov out or someone else will. FeloniousMonk 06:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what it says now:
 * Talk:Intelligent design Dispute over addition over disambiguation link to Theism and characterizing article as it is now as idiomatic. Also numerous other disputes over article organization. Many users complaining. Dispute boiling over.--Ben 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Dispute over addition over disambiguation link to Theism and characterizing article as it is now as idiomatic." Look up the section "What is wrong with my disambiguation intro?" I think I can characterize MY OWN DISPUTE accurately.
 * "Numerous other disputes over article organization" Look up the section "Restructure for addionatl clarity" Look up "Breaking up the article" and Look up "Rewrite section."
 * "Many users complaining." Look at the entire page. For example look at sections "NPOV."
 * "Dispute boiling over." Look up exactly what we are talking about write now.


 * Your suggestion that it is not neutral is ridiculous. If you think it isn't neutral, how about explaining why?--Ben 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've edited the RFC summaries for pov, accuracy, and specificity. Also, Ben's filed two RFCs on the same issue, one in Requests for comment/Philosophy, the other in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion. While this is amusing since it is ID we're talking about, what is the convention about multiple filings for the same issue? I've never seen it done before, and it doesn't make much sense. FeloniousMonk 06:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It says almost exactly the same thing as it did before. Now it says:


 * Talk:Intelligent design Dispute over addition over disambiguation link to Theism and characterizing article as it is alleged to be idiomatic. Also numerous other disputes over article organization, content. 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have of course, now left out the point that the issues are highly contentious. Should I call that POV? I'm not going to because it really doesn't matter. By the way, I'm sorry if my grammar confused you so much that you thought I was pushing POV. Next time I will put in some more commas or something, hmmm? Perhaps the "as" before the last word should have clued you in to what I meant. The subject was "article as it is now."


 * As for your last comment, if the reason it is in both philosophy and religion "doesn't make much sense" to you, perhaps you should not be editing this article. --Ben 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've already made it abundantly clear you'd like that. It's your ignoring of convention in filing multiple RFCs for the same issue that don't make sense here. FeloniousMonk 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous.--Ben 08:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you consider it troll feeding if I respond to this post? Rediculous indeed. Filing different RFCs is simply bad form. Choosing religion as one of the RFCs is controversial, but irrelevant. Please observe Civility. -- Ec5618 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You guys keep attacking me for no good reason. This has nothing to do with anything except to try to make me look like I'm doing something wrong. Why does this matter so much? And anyway, if you read the Requests for comment page, as I just did, it explicitly states "If you're not sure which place an issue belongs, you can put it in two places if you want, but please don't crosspost further than that." It really does say that. Look at it yourself and tell me who is playing games here. >:( --Ben 10:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben's point
This point has come up before. Is it possible for a new editor to contribute to this article, or is a select group of editors claiming ownership? (The fabled wikipedia liberal slant.) The same would probably apply to other non-technical controversial articles.

I know the answer, but I'd like to form an answer we could give new editors who become frustrated. Perhaps we could compile a list of edit diffs to prove this point. -- Ec5618 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My point has nothing to do with politics (if you read my contributions you'll see I am a liberal if anything, being almost the sole person to work on the Thomas Noe article for one example, so it is hard for me to talk about a liberal slant. An atheist slant maybe, I'm a weak agnostic so maybe that may work).


 * I believe the reason my single sentence is so contentious is because the article, like "Intelligent Design" is, when it comes to an encyclopedic topic, a house of cards. It reads more like a rebuttal to Dembski's book. It is an interesting read. But it is not encyclopedic, I think it is more like a personal essay. This is why people keep talking about ID proponents and such, as they are focused on Dembski's way of talking about "Intelligent Design." As a result, it is just an essay about his book. It is not about philosophy, religion, science, or anything. It is a book report with a rebuttal to his ideas. That's why people who like Dembski get so angry.


 * Breaking the article up into its component parts instead of leaving it as what I see as a mish-mash of religion, science, and philosophy, will pull out the rug from underneath the cards. This, I believe will defuse much of the controversy and in fact I believe please everyone involved and make everyone understand the ideas which form Dembski's "intelligent design" better and at the same time, understand the separate philosophical, religious, and scientific concepts better as well. People will discuss evidence of evolution on the evidence of evolution page instead of here. People will discuss the existence of god on the existence of god page instead of here. People will discuss Dembski's specified complexity theory on the specified complexity page. People will discuss creationism on the creationism page, etc. etc. The problem I think is at the same time, it frankly makes the original contributors time and ideas look wasted. It makes them look a little foolish, especially having had the article nominated for a feature article, but there is nothing I can do to mitigate that. Much of the information can be moved, but simply adding my one sentence does indeed make the article look, if not foolish, ill-informed. That's basically as far as I could go with trying to make changes though, because removing sections wholesale and rewriting everything was not going to earn me any friends here. Furthermore, to those who really DO have an agenda, creationists or atheists who might try to insert their POV, it removes a platform from which to rail against everything within the mish-mash, be it controversy over evolution, God, philosophy, etc. This is a good thing. It directs their opinions to where they are tolerated, if not needed. They may even find that their POV is already included in a neutral way and not be angry anymore.


 * FeloniousMonk's opinion however, that he thinks believing in God is irrational (on his user page), shows that he is biased and may very well resent that I am trying to re-organize it as it will remove his platform, or at least move it to existence of God page, where he might end up a little out of his league. This is another reason why I think FeloniousMonk might not want to talk about divyying up the article. It removes his platform as well. It must be rather tempting for someone so passionate about their views to have the opportunity to rebut any existence of God.--Ben 09:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is rediculous. You make a good point, somewhere in there. Nevertheless, I don't think you should have turned this section into your personal rant. I never suggested anything about you, merely that you brought up a question that has been brought up before. Is it possible for a new editor to contribute to this article, or is a select group of editors claiming ownership?
 * You feel they are. That's nice. Now let someone else weigh in, and possibly provide diffs that prove otherwise. -- Ec5618 15:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * One more time: Ben needs to start abiding by WP:FAITH, cease his personal attacks and stop being disruptive here. As long as they are able to make an earnest attempt at contributing objectively, personal beliefs do not preclude anyone from contributing to this or any other article. Many contributors provide a declaration of bias as a courtesy to others, they should not suffer for having done so. For the record, mine does not say I belief in God is irrational. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben said his issue here was just changing the disambiguation template; now I see it's actually removing and heading off criticism of ID in the article. Thanks Ben for finally being explicit about your agenda and motivation here: Trying to remove the notion of God from the ID article to shift the debate; in much the way the article states. In no way would doing that contribute positively to an accurate and complete ID article. So we're supposed to accept that "Breaking the article up into its component parts instead of leaving it as what I see as a mish-mash of religion, science, and philosophy, will pull out the rug from underneath the cards." (your words above) is the basis for your good faith contributions? You've just given us another reason to oppose your edits: Bad faith. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you guys having fun misinterpreting what I was saying? I knew you would! Have fun guys! Meanwhile I'll be cleaning up User:Duncharris' useless reversions of my edits at Coingate and the random vandalism at Thomas Noe. --Ben 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To answer the question by Ec5618, yes, it does seem to be very difficult for a new editor to contribute anything of substance to this article. I have tried to facilitate "backing down" on the rhetoric and focusing on the concepts of Intelligent Design and its criticism.  The current set of editors prefer framing the debate in the harshest possible terms.  I will list two examples:
 * Attempts to tone down the rhetoric have been reverted. Consider my request to substantiate the quote, "The scientific community holds it to be creationist pseudoscience or junk science."  There is no source given for the term "pseudoscience" and the term "junk science" comes from an editorial criticism at the end of a good New Yorker article, but not from any authoritative body representing the scientific community.  Even a very modest edit that includes these fighting words but attributes them to "critics" rather than the "scientific community" was reverted.  These harsh terms establish a clear point of view.  I will repeat my earlier concern, to which no one has responded: Why now are we trying to attribute harsher criticism and more inflammatory words to the mainstream scientific community than the authoritative representatives of that community are using? Do we have a stake in amplifying the debate, and polarizing the issue, rather than dispassionately presenting the facts in ways that don't automatically trigger everyone's hot buttons?
 * Key concepts are left undefined and unclear, but used as props for criticizing ID. For example, I would expect "methodological naturalism" to be succinctly defined, along with its importance among Intelligent Design concepts.  I would expect to learn the opinions within the scientific community about the validity of the label of "methodological naturalism".  Instead, the concept is barely introduced except to kick off two paragraphs of unfocused criticism that don't address the substance of the term.
 * The best parts of the article are the "Intelligent design debate" section and the "Intelligent Design concepts" section. They get to the point, and most clearly summarize the issues. In my opinion, those two sections could be moved to just after the first sentence in the article, and the article would be improved considerably.
 * The Intelligent Design Movement section should simply be deleted, and the reference to the other article considered sufficient.--Gandalf2000 08:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What? New arrivals edit this article all the time. Look at its history. They are able to do so unchallenged because they do not make blatantly POV edits aimed at removing the content of the article that the ID proponents here deem critical of ID. Likely the reason your suggestions are not finding much traction here is because you make blanket suggestions like "The Intelligent Design Movement section should simply be deleted" without so much as a justification why doing so it necessary. And before you type a hasty justification for deleting the Intelligent Design Movement section, I'll say that I think you can no more separate the arguments of ID from those who make them than you can separate the doctrines of Catholicism from the Vatican and still have a complete article. Any factual and complete article on ID will address the full range of claims of those who make ID's arguments and claims. FeloniousMonk 09:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at the history. All it is is you reverting people. Seriously. Compare the current version with a week ago: . The only new text since then? A Dembski quote, two sentences removed from the ID as a Movement section, and a George James Allman quote with a short explanation in the History of the Phrase section. That's it. Number of edits in that week? 150.--Ben 07:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Darn, we just cleaned this place.
 * Look at the history more closely. Reverting vandalism is necessary, no you not agree? And I disagree that hardly anything was edited in this last week.
 * To argue the teaching of Intelligent Design, see Parkland's debate team--they are the best in all the land!!!
 * For the best way to debate the teaching Intelligent Design, see Parkland's debate team.
 * For the best way to effectively argue the teaching of Intelligent Design, see Parkland's debate team. Sincerely, Phineas Gage
 * Superduper Intelligent design is a belief that super intelligent design was created by an even higher intelligence. Superduper super intelligent design is... well you get the idea.
 * (Although not always publicly acknowledged, many supporters believe that this agent is the Christian God)
 * sometimes abbreviated ID or Creationism
 * The theory and science of Intelligent Design and a blanking of the entire page.
 * Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that Will is an asshole,
 * Then there was a brief bout to fix the wording of the ID in fiction section, spelling correction, several templates being placed and removed,
 * Yes, we fix a lot of vandalism. Often, each instance of vanalism results in two edits. What is the problem with fixing it? -- Ec5618 09:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with removing vandalism. I doubt all 150 were in bad faith, but even if they were it kinda takes the steam out of FM's "New arrivals edit this article all the time" argument.--Ben 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your response is no surprise. There is a term to describe the belief that "you can no more separate the arguments of ID from those who make them".  When colored with negativity, the term is ad hominem.  Yes, you can separate the two, just like I can separate Marxism as a concept from Karl Marx the man or the Soviet Union as a proponent.  And I do separate the doctrines of Catholicism from the Vatican -- all the time, because in the theological world those doctrines are described, clarified, affirmed or negated, independently of whether the Vatican affirms them.


 * But you refuse to honor this distinction, because you insist on coloring the whole article as a commentary and escalation of the ID debate -- particularly how disingenuous and intellectually dishonest ID propoents are -- rather than work toward a summary of ID, its concepts, and criticisms. And you still have not answered the substance of my two bulleted criticisms above (with specific examples).  A factual and complete article does not constantly elicit the most extreme positions in a controversy, and does not deliberately select the most inflammatory language available to make a point.


 * And I am not talking about drive-by editors having difficulty making edits. I'm talking about the weight of inertia created by the absolutely-enforced harsh tone in this article, and the overt rejection of anyone who prefers understanding ID above criticizing it.--Gandalf2000 18:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Those aren't really valid comparisons. Could you celebrate separate Marxism from Marx during his lifetime while he was still developing his ideas?  The point is that ID has been characterised by shifting goalposts, ongoing debates and, according to the Wedge document, a broader socio-political movement.  ID makes no sense as a scientific theory - it's a "if not A then B" argument when the reality is, "if not A then notA"; it's hard to make sense of without a religious agenda.  In addition, Dembskite ID is not identical to Behe-ite ID, while Johnson does not use science at all (iirc).  Removing the role of the Vatican from an article on Catholicism would produce an incomplete article, removing any histoci pope would probably not.  But Catholicism has a set of rules and rituals that any pope would be hard-pressed to redefine.  Dembski could make major changes to his area of ID tomorrow, he could change what ID is, in a sense, far more than pope Benedict could change the Catholic church.  Guettarda 18:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Presenting a full description is not an ad hominem if the evidence presented is 1) relevant, 2) necessary, 3) and accurate. And there is a term for presenting complete descriptions based on verifiable facts: "reporting the facts objectively." And there's a term to describe separating arguments from the motives and intent of those who make them when it is central to a full understanding those arguments: "obfuscation." Wikipedia's policies compel us to do the former while preventing the latter. The sooner you accept that the sooner your arguments will gain some traction here.


 * If the article's content was indeed the result of personal original research and POV, it would be easy enough to make that clear and remove or rewrite it. The problem for your argument is the evidence. You'll have a tough time trying to explain it away, and there's literally tons of it. And the evidence present in the article is not drawn from "extreme positions" as you'd have us believe, but the most notable. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We disagree on what is relevant, necessary, and accurate. We also disagree on "motive and intent."  But rather than accomodating differences of perspective, the harsh tone in the article is enforced at all costs.  As for "obfuscation", it's the emotionally-charged nature of the article and this talk page that is the greatest barrier to clarity.--Gandalf2000 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Guettarda meant separate, not "celebrate." FeloniousMonk 18:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC - comments

 * this is a good article. i see really only one problem: it is long. on that point, in what looks like an attempt to conserve space, the attribution of claims is often separated by long stretches of text. this doesn't seem to violate npov, but if a reader picked up in the middle of the text, they might miss the attributions. not much can be done about this problem. --Rikurzhen 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Verbosity is the reason I suggested removing the ID as a movement section, since it's covered elsewhere.  A couple of paragraphs introducing the key players, and wikilinks would be sufficient.--Gandalf2000 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a question. Is user:Benapgar the same user as user:bensaccount and "Ben"?  Their editing style and topic interest seem similar.  Just trying to keep the editors straight here. Synaptidude 19:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, no that is a different person. Somewhat similar interests though, I can see why you might think that (especially considering his interest in both religion and taxonomy). I wouldn't add the word ignorant in the creation science article though, that's obviously trolling. Come to think of it though, I haven't read it yet, but all things considered I might see it and want to break it all up and redirect a lot of it to evidence of evolution and teleology. Or rename it to "creationism science." But at least people are not all confused if you say "creation science." You try telling someone you "believe in intelligent design" and they'll have no idea if you are talking about God, Dembski's complexity theories, Christian creationism, evolution, teleological argument, or various combinations of the above. :P --Ben 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was just mentioned on NPR, so expect a few more hits!
Trollderella 20:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great... On which show? Was it mentioned favorably, or critically... plugged or panned? FeloniousMonk 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk of the Nation - Jimmy Wales is being interviewed, along with some college professor. Pretty positive. Trollderella 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. We'll have to watch more closely for vandalism, natch... KillerChihuahua 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ...We're doomed. I'm still shell-shocked from the last round. FeloniousMonk 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quick, write a fake article, put it up, and we can revert to the real version after the masses have moved on. :-) Guettarda 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to an audio file of the show. FeloniousMonk 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What's NPR? -- Ec5618 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * National Public Radio FeloniousMonk 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an aggressive archive of the talk page is in order. - RoyBoy 800 02:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. Lets make some room. -- Ec5618 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There we go, not as short as I'd like, but tried to leave November threads untouched. Its at least presentable; I somehow doubt we will get into POV-wars with NPR listeners. :"D - RoyBoy 800 06:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What was the purpose of the aggressive edit of the talk page? It made in more difficult for me to review the RfC that was filed against Benapgar.  Robert McClenon 17:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)