Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 19

Introduction contains too much criticism
As someone who contributed to this article from December 2004 to January 2005, I was curious to see how the article has evolved since. It's great to see a lot more references, and a more structured layout, but I have to say that it appears somewhere along the line (possibly following the recent public attention on teaching ID in schools) an influx of anti-ID editors may have swayed the balance of this article somewhat. I don't see anything wrong with putting criticisms directly after arguments, in fact I think that's the way to go, but I do believe that the introduction offers too much criticism, stated in different ways. I think that one or two negative (i.e. opposing ID) sentences should suffice, and then let the interested reader decide by looking at the arguments that follow. Instead, we currently have around 9-10 of the 12 (only a rough count!) sentences in the introduction arguing for the negative. When I was working on the article, it was more like 3 or 4 of 10. I think some of the comments on the Featured Article page from people who are maybe less familiar with the topic tend to convey this same impression. Well I thought I'd raise it here, before doing anything too drastic with the introduction. --Brendanfox 11:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed the point- the content in question is not "criticism" that "opposes ID," but rather descriptions of the responses of those who ID confronts or challenges, namely the scientific community.


 * According to the guidelines, a proper intro should define the topic and mention the most important points. The format this article uses for doing this is to state the claims made by ID proponents, followed by a summary of fact or the response of the scientific community, media, etc. As for why we include the responses of the scientific community at the level we do, the NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience has been our guide: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." That's what this article does now.


 * As for how much article real estate, number of sentences, etc., are dedicated to the responses of the scientific community, keep in mind that ID challenges the very way science is conducted in a very simple criticism of naturalism. Any response of the scientific communtity justifying it's use of naturalism is going to have to be explanatory, hence long, by necessity.


 * Please keep in mind WP:FAITH before implying that biased editors have stilted the article again. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is important that this article use the harshest possible terms when criticizing the ID movement and the concepts they promote -- especially in the introduction, because you never get a second chance at a first impression. Further, describing ID concepts with clarity is simply not important because ID proponents are disingenuous ideologues who claim to be doing science, and they need to be exposed, not understood.  And if you keep implying that the editors are biased, you could be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia.  I'm sorry, Brendanfox, you're just going to have to accept it.--Gandalf2000 19:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ;-) Welcome back. (Take a look at the discussions above to get up to speed.)  You raise very good points, and I hope we can find some consensus on those improvements, which definitely should not be discarded out-of-hand.  Do you care to propose alternative introductory paragraphs?
 * I recently proposed another approach, simply to cut-and-paste the "Intelligent design debate" and "Intelligent Design concepts" sections right after the first sentence, and then proceed with further edits.--Gandalf2000 19:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha, thanks for your response guys. One thing I've got to pick you up on Monk, is in the reason you offered for the relatively high proportion of "descriptions of the responses of those who ID confronts or challenges" (should we abbreviate this to DOTROTWIDCOC or can I just say 'negative') which was essentially that naturalism takes longer to explain than ID.  Whilst this may explain what happens throughout the article, I believe the problem with the intro is in it's inability to concisely summarise the negative arguments.  Unfortunately, it's not really practical for us to go much further on this point, so I think the best way would be for me to re-write some of the introduction, and then respond to any criticisms that anyone would offer. --Brendanfox 11:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I will restate one of my criticisms of the opening paragraph here again, as my last statement of it was archived. The second line of the article is tendentious and provokes suspicion in the reader towards ID without warrant. The structure of this sentence: "Though publicly Intelligent Design advocates state....in statements to their constituents and supporters, nearly all state..." is misleading. First, there is no distinction between "public" ID and ID "for constituents and supporters." Felonius has repsonded to an earlier statement of my criticism with copius documentation of very public statements by members of The Discovery Institute regarding their Christian agenda, which I think goes a long way towards making my point -- it's all public.

But in addition, the structure of this sentence creates a false logical tension, between the Discovery Institute's public cultural agenda, which is blatantly and specifically Christian, and Dembski's claim that Design Inferences are philosophically agnostic, i.e., incapable of making predications of the designer. While many may object to the cultural agenda, there is really no controversy over what conclusions one can reach from a hypothetical successful design inference -- that is to say, you can't get Christianity from ID proper, you can only make predications of the natural object in question. This claim to agnosticism is based on the philosophical efficacy of The Design Inference, as articlated in the Cambridge Press book of the same name. The paragraph -- not to mention the second sentence of the article should be re-written to accurately describe the scope and nature of ID's claim to agnosticism. SanchoPanza 21:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope your return here indicates that you intend to respect the spirit and rules of Wikipedia more so than your last visit.


 * Before anyone here wastes any time responding to criticisms or challenges, answer this question: What evidence would it take to prove you're wrong? I simply will no longer take seriously or reply to challenges that do not address this question. I have found this to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in seriously contributing to a factual and complete article or just advancing a particular POV. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for substantiating your claim. It's easy to criticize long-term contributors here for being "closed-minded" and unwilling to compromise. Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong? FeloniousMonk 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your response is a non sequitur. I've made criticisms about the specific language of the second sentence of the article. The "criterion" for rejecting the argument should be apparent from what I wrote: simply address the questions posed. But redirecting the discussion into questions of method or trying to establish ad hoc "criterion" for accepting or rejecting an argument isn't helpful. If your complaint is that I haven't been clear enough for you to engage my criticism directly, the best response is to ask for a clarification, if you're genuinely interested in discussing the point and not merely dealing in pointless pedantry. I believe I've been as specific and direct as anyone needs to be, so please address the substance of my remarks. SanchoPanza 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I will restate one more time for clarification: the fact that the Discovery Institute and its fellows have a Christian cultural agenda does not contradict William Dembski's claim that Design Inferences cannot make predications of the designer. The second sentence of the article should not be structured so as to infer that there is a contradiction, thereby creating the suspicion in the reader that ID proponents are disengenuous on this point. SanchoPanza 21:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great question. In fact, that is the reason I am here.  I have been open to being proven wrong for over 20 years, when I made an explicit and permanent decision that if my world view was demonstrated to be wrong, I would abandon it, specifically considering the cost would be alienation from family, friends, and heritage.  Since then, I have been fearless in exploring truth claims.  This has led me to abandon some of my beliefs and embrace others more firmly, as evidence warrants.


 * I have learned to respect rational sources, and understand that there is power in completing ideas. I respect evolution as a theory and understand its power in explaining biological phenomenae.  I respect intelligent design concepts, from which potentially powerful concepts and lines of research are emerging.  FeloniousMonk, if you wish to really produce a good article, demonstrate that you understand what is compelling about intelligent design -- from a scientific perspective -- and not just the philosophical, cultural, and religious issues.  If you do not demonstrate this understanding, I cannot respect your criticism, because it comes across as either straw-man debate tactics or mean-spiritedness.  I'm certain you don't want to come across this way.


 * The truth is, as a theist, my philosophical presuppositions align with intelligent design. Nevertheless, I have studied the best philosophical arguments I can find that challenge these presuppositions, with an open-mindedness and the best logical clarity I can muster.  I am specifically focusing on the topic of intelligent design, because the issues are where science and philosophy intersect, and my beliefs are directly and meaningfully challenged.  In this process, I can decide to let the evidence speak for itself and lead where it will.  With that focus, I want to move past the debate and understand the evidence for -- and against -- intelligent design.  (Note: I said evidence, not argument.)  Part of that process is engaging with people who demonstrate that they truly understand the topic -- that is, well enough to make the strongest possible case on behalf of intelligent design, yet still disagree.  And I want to help produce an article that helps others do the same.--Gandalf2000 03:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's quite an essay. I actually intended the question for SanchoPanza, but thanks for responding.


 * As far claiming "I need to demonstrate that I understand what's compelling about intelligent design before I can produce a good article", whatever that means, I think you're way off the mark as to Wikipedia's goals. There is no litmus test here. No one requires that you demonstrate a knowledge of science in mounting your defense of ID, which is in essence an attack on science. In the free marketplace of knowledge and ideas that is Wikipedia, there is no substitute for valid reasoning and sound arguments. But to make it clear to you, I'm not here to argue for or against ID. Nor am I here to write an article sympathetic to ID or an article critical of ID. I'm here to write a factual and complete ID article. And I'll put it plainly that anyone who is here for any other reason is mistaken as to what Wikipedia is about and will need to get realign their goals with those of the project's if they ever intend to do anything more than criticize others on talk pages. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating topic. Suggest redirect to Ghost Dance.


 * Hi all. I'd like to point out a problem with the introduction.  "In contrast, the scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural."  It is accurate to say that "the majority of the scientific community holds that the scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural."  Using "in contrast" leads the reader astray in that ID theorists, many of which are Ph.D's in various scientific fields, hold that the scientific method should not be based on an assumption that rules out a possible explanation because that possible explanation may gain evidence.  Now, I am certainly not suggesting that you have to support that viewpoint.  However, we must do our best to give the reader both sides of the issue, so we must include ID theorists' view of the scientific method!  Defining the scientifc method in this article is an obvious show of bias.  If you want the general public to trust this article for information on ID, you had better not show a bias.  So let's define the scientifc method as used in the majority and the minority of the scientific community in terms of Darwinism and ID respectively. [topic switch] On another note, I'd like to point out that the reason ID theorists cannot make assumptions about the nature of the designer is because design is detected indirectly using methods such as the Explanatory Filter.  We must merely state that, not support the validity of the Filter, because that's what design theorists say.  So, to make assumptions about the nature of the designer is incoherent with ID theory (or the ID assertion - whatever you want to call it).  At least let ID theorists' views be expressed in the article.  While design is detected indirectly, so is evolution - ID theorists can't go back into space, analyze light waves and make assertions about the nature of the designer, but neither can Darwinists to fill those (rather lage) gaps in the fossil record with transitions done by natural selection and random mutation.  - Skyraider7, 11/13/05


 * Hi Skyraider7-- Every leading ID proponent, Behe, Dembksi, Johnson, Wells, Denton, Meyers, and so on, has stated that they are opposed to methodological naturalism as part of the scientific method. Methodological naturalism (in the form of philosophical naturalism) has been at the foundation of the scientific method for 200+ years, and is widely accepted within the scientific community as being effective and necessary, so the passage is correct. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi FN. "Methodological naturalism (in the form of philosophical naturalism) has been at the foundation of the scientific method for 200+ years, and is widely accepted within the scientific community as being effective and necessary" - that is one-hundred percent correct.  Intelligent Design says that the current base of the scientific method is faulty.  Since the article is about Intelligent Design, let's say that ID theorists consider the base of the currently-accepted scientific method to be faulty because they say it rules out an explanation that they have evidence for.  It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion or anyone's opinion on the validity of the evidence is.  However, it's important to inform the reader about what ID theorists claim.  I can tell you do not wish to support ID in the article, but rather criticize it (which is perfectly okay and necessary to being a good editor, as scientific inquiry is about being critical, and we don't want to have a pro-ID bias in the article - or too much of an anti-ID bias).  Well, if ID's fundamental principles merit criticism, a great way let people decide for themselves is to state ID's fundamental principles! - skyraider7


 * Do you have a source for the assertions that you have about the ID position on scientific method? thanks - KillerChihuahua 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi KC. Yes - sorry for not including it in my last post.  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834 by Stephen Meyer.  Read the article, and pay close attention to each mention of the phrase "scientific method".  One example of a passage that supports my assertion: "It not does follow, however, that references to agency are necessarily inappropriate when reconstructing a causal history—when attempting to answer questions about how a particular feature in the natural world (or the universe itself) arose. First, classical examples of inappropriate postulations of divine activity (that is, God-of-the-gaps arguments) occur almost exclusively in the inductive or nomological sciences, as Newton's ill-fated use of agency to provide a more accurate description of planetary motion suggests.103 Secondly, the action of agents is routinely invoked to account for the origin of features or events within the natural world. Forensic science, history and archaeology, for example, all sometimes postulate the past activity of human agents to account for the emergence of particular objects or events. Several such fields suggest a clear precedent for inferring the past causal activity of intelligent agents within the historical sciences. (Imagine the absurdity of someone claiming that scientific method had been violated by the archaeologist who first inferred that French cave paintings had been produced by human beings rather than by natural forces such as wind and erosion)." Also see this page (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Sept%2012%20IDnet%20ltr%20to%20KSB.htm) by John Calvert: "Applying methodological naturalism to censor the evidence of design is also a perversion of the scientific method. The hallmark of the scientific method is the testing of the evidence for one hypothesis against the evidence that supports the competing hypothesis. Exempting Darwinism from testing by the evidence for the competing theory (design) is wholly inconsistent with the scientific method. Therefore the application of MN to exempt Darwinism from testing makes absolutely no sense, either scientifically or logically."  Also, see this article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSCStories&id=532) about the views of ID theorists on this issue, especially passages like this one: "Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson stated the issue succinctly at the congressional briefing: Americans, he said, must choose between two definitions of science in our culture: 1. science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads, or 2. science is applied materialist philosophy which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority." Finally, see this article by Bill Dembski: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=122 - Skyraider7 13 November 2005


 * As far as I can see, all of the relevent points are already covered in the article. I would appreciate it if you would make a concise statement of something which you feel should be covered, and is not covered, and provide a reference? As your post is written, there is the equivalent of 3 essays, and much of it is nonsense (apparently your sources, not you - I mean things like "exempting Darwinism from testing" which is a false statement in at least two ways) and it is unclear to me what, precisely, you are getting at. We already have the link to the Discovery Institute. I am certain you realize that with an article that is already over-sized, any addition must be brief, and central to or crucial to understanding the ID position. KillerChihuahua 20:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * [suggestion] Alright, here's a brief, objective and fair change to make. Currently, the article says: "whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer "Change that central issue to to "whether or not the scientific community is limiting scientific inquiry into origins by restricting the definition of science to allow for only natural explanations of origins" OR "whether or not it is fair and reasonable to restrict the defintion of science to allow solely for theories of origins which incorporate only natural causes".  The reason for this change: as you can recognize from reading the above articles, ID theorists hold that science should not be to limited to explanations resulting from inquiry favoring philosophical naturalism because when you have philosophical naturalism as the base of the definition of science, that automatically rules out ID, even before the evidence is presented: "Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson stated the issue succinctly at the congressional briefing: Americans, he said, must choose between two definitions of science in our culture: 1. science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads, or 2. science is applied materialist philosophy which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority" Since it is clear that ID theorists claim that the definition of science is faulty (not whether the defintion of science is broad enough to allow for ID), we must note this as good editors.  That doesn't mean we have to support it. - skyraider7, 11/13/2005


 * [suggestion] In addition.. "In contrast, the scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural." "In contrast" implies a bias on the editors' part because ID theorists believe that science should not be limited to explanations based on philosophical naturalism.  HOWEVER, it is absolutely fair to say that "The most widely-accepted version of the base of the scientific method within the scientific community is this: the scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.  ID theorists favor a different base for the scientific method: 'science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads' [ - Phil Johnson] even if the evidence leads to supernatural causes.  ID theorists favor the latter base for the scientific method because it allows for ID, whereas the most widely-accepted defintion of the scientific method does not allow for ID theory." - skyraider7, 11/13/2005


 * Your first suggestion is, boiled down, that scientists restrict themselves to reality, phrased as though that were putting in unfair limits with a narrow definition. In your second suggestion you elaborate, adding "is it fair and reasonable" to do that?
 * Why change something which makes sense and is accurate into somehting which doesn't make sense and is misleading?
 * Your third suggestion is that "In contrast" is biased. Your fourth suggestion is, boiled down again, saying that not all scientists restrict themselves to science, and some scientists are open to other methods. Science is indeed (in part) unbiased, empirical testing that follows evidence wherever it leads, altho that's not the best way I've heard it phrased. That's not different from the scientific method; that's part of the scientific method. We already say ID proponents claim they're being scientific.
 * In short, I don't see that any of your suggestions will work, although someone else reading this page might see something I don't. I've been known to misunderstand or be dense. KillerChihuahua 21:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are biased in saying that "scientists restrict themselves to reality [natural causes]" because there is debate over whether or not "reality" means 'reality according to philosophical naturalism' or 'reality according to ID theory'. My second suggestion was merely an alternative, not an addition to my first.  My "in contrast" suggestion is not biased.  "In contrast" says that ID is not a concept arising from the scientific method.  That's exactly what the other side says, whereas ID says that it is a concept arising from the scientific method.  The bias is currently in the article, which is why we have a problem.  As far as the quote about science being empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads, ID theorists (i.e. Phil Johnson & the others that I linked to) say that we should follow the evidence even if it leads to explanations outside of natural causes, whereas the article says that "the scientific method is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural."  Note the "is".  We should be saying that the "most widely-accepted defintion of the scientific method is", and then we should include the most common view of the scientific method by ID theorists - the article is supposed to be about ID, not a means of promoting the views of those against ID. - skyraider7, 11/13/2005


 * It is about ID, and as such it explains how the "common view of the scientific method by ID theorists" is not only marginal, but not scientific according to those who do science. This article does not "promote" a view, it places notable views within the context of reality, as accurately as we can represent it. The scientific community rejects redefining the philosophy of scientific inquiry by ID proponents; our article makes note of that; as it is notable and it relates to ID. - RoyBoy 800 23:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quote from your earlier post: ""In contrast" implies a bias on the editors' part"
 * Quote from my response: "Your third suggestion is that "In contrast" is biased."
 * Quote from your last post: "My "in contrast" suggestion is not biased."
 * I can make no sense of this exchange except that there may have been some misundertanding.
 * Re the rest of your post: I will merely state that if you are seeking support or consensus for a proposed editorial change, you have not yet made it clear to me that you have such a change which is warranted. KillerChihuahua 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Quote from my response: "Your third suggestion is that "In contrast" is biased." " Apparently, I misread that as something to the effect of 'Your third suggestion, the 'in contrast' one, is biased'. The third quote was a response to what I misread.  Anyways, back to the point.  I tagged my above suggestions with [suggestion]. - skyraider7


 * It looks like RoyBoy already covered it. KillerChihuahua 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Disputed" template
Wade A. Tisthammer, (, is again misusing the Disputed template. His objections were discussed here previously ad nauseum He discussed his objections here previously ad nauseum, and he failed to understand that the article is reporting facts, not stating facts. It is not saying that the objections to defining ID as science are fact. It is saying that these are commonly made objections to defining ID as science. Wade can find the justification for presenting responses to ID's claim that it's science is here: NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wade,, changing to a sectDisputed template does not change the fact that the template is not warranted. Either prove that the criticisms listed in the section are not commonly made or abide by the policies and knock it off. FeloniousMonk 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note the three revert rule - "an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion."--A Y  Arktos   (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The three revert rule applies to Sock puppets and duplicate identities of the same editor. At User_talk:128.101.39.45, User:Tisthammerw is the new login of 128.101.39.45 who has already reverted three times.--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not misusing the disputed template; the facts reported really are disputed! I even provided a specific non-creationist example: Del Ratzsch, author of The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. Ratzsch's specialty is the philosophy of science and is thus reasonably authoritative. I explained why the facts reported are flawed in archive 18. Contrary to FeloniousMonk's claims, my objections were not discussed ad nauseum; I only had one reply! FelenoniusMonk, please get your facts straight before you criticize me again. The article wasn't just "reporting facts" it was stating the flawed claims as facts. 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. This is not to say it is wrong to criticize ID in the wikipedia entry, only that one should get the basic facts straight before doing so. Wade A. Tisthammer 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction, Wade A. Tisthammer's point was not "discussed here previously ad nauseum" as I previously stated. What I meant was that "He discussed his objections here previously ad nauseum." When point raised is not responded to by the community, that generally indicates that there it is not found to be compelling enough to either rebuff or affirm. That was the case with Wade A. Tisthammer previously raising this issue. Accepting that is called abiding by consensus.


 * Wade, you need to stop the mindless reverting and abide by consensus if you want to participate here. If there's not much interest or support for a point you raise several times, that should be an indication to you that perhaps it's something you need to rethink. FeloniousMonk 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You yourself did not stop the mindless reverting, failing to give any reason why my corrections I put forth regarding the philosophy of science were wrong. I did stop the reverts as soon as I was made aware of the three-revert rule. "He discussed his objections here previously ad nauseum" is still a little unclear. I was thorough about my objection (and hence my analysis was somewhat long), is that what you're saying? And on what grounds did you (or anyone else, if there is anyone else) not find my criticisms in archive 18 compelling? You yourself have failed to give any reason why. Note: the reason why I did the reverts is that I believe misrepresenting science (and ID) should not be done in a wikipedia article.


 * Well, that's what's called clean-up around here. When a responsible wikipedian finds an unjustified template slapped on an article, it's their responsibility to take it down.


 * On your earlier specific points:


 * That the criteria for demarcation is disputed by Ratzsch and Ruse, as I've replied on your talk page, is not sufficient justification for claiming the scientific method is disputed wholesale here. Neither speak for the scientific community at large. That there are dissenting voices over demarcation from either side is not the point. The point is that science as it is practiced employs these criteria; they are widely accepted within the community. Some moreso than others, but all are. The scientific community's objections to defining ID as science span the range of the list in the article. In fact, there are other objections often made that were not included as they were fringe in one way or another.


 * Wade's point that article in stating "In light of its failure to adhere to these standards..." makes a declarative statement may hold more water, but that's easily fixed with a few keystrokes, not a disputed template. So why choose the template over a gramatical fix Wade? FeloniousMonk 00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the sentence to read: "Critics content that in light of its failure to adhere to these standards, Intelligent Design can not be said to follow the scientific method." Wasn't that much easier than the last 2 hours you spent on the template? FeloniousMonk 00:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wade and F. Monk, please stop this bickering. I don't want to have to start deleting personal remarks. Uncle Ed 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

“That the criteria for demarcation is disputed by Ratzsch and Ruse”

Okay, it seems you didn’t quite catch what I said about Ruse. Let’s recap what I said:


 * "Michael Ruse made some similar criteria in one creationism court case (e.g. falsifiability and tentativeness) and that has been criticized by even anti-creationists."

Ruse put forth similar criteria, and even non-creationists have criticized such criteria. Ratzsch is not a creationist, neither are the many other people who criticize such claims. Hence my claim that "the section adequately represents the scientific community" is questionable in light of the criticisms from various non-creationist sources who convincingly refute these mistaken beliefs regarding the philosophy of science (and sometimes creationism). For another reference besides Ratzsch, confer book But is it Science? which includes a couple of anticreationist sources criticizing some of the criteria such as the mistake of attacking the adherent rather than the doctrine (ad hominem attacks) including matters of changeability, tentativeness and falsifiability. (See chapters 22 and 24[see especially the part about “beliefs and believers”] by Larry Laudan, a prominent philosopher of science; see also chapter 25 pp. 374-382). My claim is that "science as it is practiced employs these criteria" is false and I gave reasons why (reasons you have largely ignored). That is the reason I chose the template, because those criteria do not accurately portray science (also, I assumed that including rebuttals in the article would be quickly deleted, so pointing out that this section was factually disputed seemed to be the best I could hope for).

To reiterate, the idea that the criteria adequately represent the community seems unlikely given the misrepresentation of science I have seen here, particularly regarding ad hominem attacks. Think about it. It may be true that many adherents of intelligent design theory do all sorts of inappropriate things such as hold on to their theories too firmly, and perhaps they are too stubborn and to change their views etc. But even if true these are ad hominem attacks. Do you really think ad hominem attacks would be accepted as valid criteria in the scientific community? If you want to attack intelligent design, go ahead. But surely it can be done without misrepresenting science in a wikipedia article. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive 18
I apologize for the inconvience as a result of the premature archiving, it was carried out by another editor who is overly concerned about the 32k limitation. I was going to revert everything back but decided against it given things are relatively quiet here; and referencing /Archive 18 seems to be going smoothly. - RoyBoy 800 00:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vatican says "pay attention to science"
This article is interesting and relevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science Synaptidude 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what's so fascinating to me about the ID proponents. From one of Dembski's latest published statements, clarifying the difference between ID and creationism:

''Design theorists argue that the evidence of biology confirms a design inference. But even if that confirmation were eventually overturned by new evidence, such a failure would constitute a failure of intelligent design as a scientific theory....''

They are engaging science on scientific terms, and explicitly accepting the possibility of being proven wrong on those terms. It's refreshing to see numerous perspectives trying hard not to set up religion and science as adversarial.--Gandalf2000 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of evidence could overturn ID? --JPotter 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, good question. Of course my guess is complete opinion, but here it is:  "usefulness".  The reason evolution is so popular is that it's useful in describing biological phenomenae, even when tangible evidence is lacking.  (But evolution only goes so far, just like Newtonian physics.  At some point, quantum physics and relativity kick in, being more useful.)  If ID adds value and proves to be truly useful to science, then it will survive and thrive.  Ultimately, if evidence shows it's not useful in describing what it claims to describe, then it fades.  (Of course, things that are true are most useful.  That's why geocentrism is not useful except in a banal phenomenological sense.)--Gandalf2000 08:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. But I think one of the problems is that a lot of ID proponents are trying to do an end run around the peer review system. Instead they are appealing directly to the non-scientific community and convince them to teach it in science class. The general public is not likely to find either explanation more "useful" - other than perhaps in reinforcing their own world views. --Varith 17:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

if you wish to really produce a good article, demonstrate that you understand what is compelling about intelligent design -- from a scientific perspective -- saith Gandalf2000.

Gandalf2000, I have gone toe-to-toe with you before on your understanding of cosmology when you made claims about intelligent design informing it. What I was able to understand was that you weren't a scientist in the sense that you don't consider that your line of work. Why do you think it possible, then, that you understand the scientific perspective well enough to demand that there is something "compelling about intelligent design -- from a scientific perspective"? Is this a statement that you believe teleology isn't removed from science? Or is it representative of a lack of scientific perspective on your part? Let us know. Joshuaschroeder 08:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Most scientific topics, even complex ones, have aspects that can be understood by anyone with a decent education and interest. (Like my example of the limitations of Newtonian physics -- it just makes sense, when you study it.)  So as I study the ID issues, I'm finding that the most prominent ID proponents really make the case from a scientific perspective, and have laid out some very interesting, innovative paths for research.  It's not so one-dimensional as this article portrays; there's some real depth there.


 * I'm sure you agree that the most fascinating research is what captures the imagination and provides fresh understanding; of course, that's a road fraught with peril. Part of me really wonders whether these guys will pull it off and produce something widely recognized as insightful, with predictive and categorical usefulness that truly expands knowledge, not just filling in a few "gaps".  From a scientific perspective, I'm not convinced yet, but I believe the several ID propositions to be well-thought, supported by non-trivial evidence, and at least worth serious consideration.--Gandalf2000 09:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware of any gaps ID has actually filled, specifically. Certainly, a higher power can be used to explain anything, but what specific gaps does ID supposedly address?
 * Apart from the general concept that ID is not limited by naturalism, and thus not limited to natural explanations for a possibly supernatural event, I'm not aware of any specific gaps that ID has filled. Obviously, the concept of irreducible complexity does not address specific issues. So what gaps does ID actually fill?
 * If ID wants to be taken seriously, it should probably provide some specific claims, and should be ready to defend them, or denounce them should they be proven false. In my view, just as a lot of myths are perpetuated through word of mouth and though ignorance, many people who support ID are unaware of the scientific rebutals to their claims. Shouldn't ID try to prevent people from using the wrong arguments in its defense? -- Ec5618 13:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You point out one significant issue, but that's just part of the picture. Take a look at the source I just cited, specifically Appendix 4: Fifteen Intelligent Design Research Themes, which demonstrates lines of inquiry that are not just polemic.  I think those topics are fascinating.--Gandalf2000 16:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dembski points out general methods of pattern detection being employed in other fields. He does not show how his methods (the "explanatory filter"/specific complexity) or any ID "method" being used in scientific endeavors. That's because they aren't.


 * Also, I think EC's point was that there is still nothing from ID proponents, like a hypothesis, that offers anything that can be meaningfully tested. So Dembski's argument for his side may be "fascinating" for some, they do not address the point EC raised. Also, Dembski has an established history of relying on hyperbole and other forms of exaggeration to make his points. Knowledgeable, objective readers take his claims with a grain of salt. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That was indeed my point. Although the text suggests that ID might have practical applications, for example, in proving that we have free will (which is obviously an emotional appeal), I see nothing that might actually practically applied. Yes, a tricorder that could detect dangerous pathogens would be nice, but how should be begin building one? If ID could do that, I'd agree it has valididy. Until then, its just a misunderstood myth. -- Ec5618 17:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I love this one:
 * 10. Design of the Environment and Ecological Fine-Tuning. The idea that ecosystems are fine-tuned to support a harmonious balance of plant and animal life is old. How does this balance come about?

"Old" is one way of phrasing this, outdated is another. The Clementsian view of the ecosystem was pretty much abandoned in the 1950s. Guettarda 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ken Wilber
Those ID proponents who are widely seen as the leaders of the movement is well established: Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Meyers, Wells are all seen as the leaders of the movement. Wilber? No. In no measurable way does Wilber influence the policies and strategies of the movement, regardless of how many books he's published. Nor is he a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Center for Science and Culture, or International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID).

Since the Discovery Institute acts a clearinghouse for all things ID, if Wilber is a leading proponent of ID, he and his should feature prominently there. But searches of the Discovery Institute's databases yield zero hits for Wilber:
 * 
 * 

Hence, it cannot be said Wilber is a leading ID proponent. In light of this fact, his mention in the paragraph as an exception to the rule is spurious, it needs to be removed. FeloniousMonk 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The most important factor here is your agenda that ID be falsely painted as an exclusively evangelical Christian phenomenon. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk is quite correct in his statement: Wilber is not regarded as a leader within the Intelligent Design movement. Nevertheless, perhaps someone should reword that line. 'is not recognised' perhaps? 'Not part of the ID movement'? 'Is not mentioned on the websites of .. ' I'm stumped.
 * goethean, since when is ID not exclusively religious? A single example of a man who does not support evolution proves nothing. In fact, according to the article of Ken Wilber, he does no more than disagree with evolution, but does not agree with ID either. Instead. he seems to favour an alternative, spiritual worldview. In fact, this should probably be changed in the article. -- Ec5618 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, because one doesn't accept evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the biodiversity of life on Earth, doesn't make him an IDist. --JPotter 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll temporarily post his statement on evolution on a user subpage. In addition to this he has criticized Carwinism in several of his books.


 * since when is ID not exclusively religious?
 * I didn't say that it wasn't exclusively religious. I'm saying that it's not exclusively Christian. The paragraph currently strongly implies the opposite. But Wilber is not a theist of the traditional Western variety. He's a mystic who accepts the validity of science.


 * Wilber is not regarded as a leader within the Intelligent Design movement.
 * The paragraph is entitled "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents", and gives the impression that all of the ID proponents are evangelical Protestants. Wilber is an obvious counter-example. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, Monk is right: the 5 men he named are leaders; Wilber is not.

And ID is primarily associated with religious folks, to be sure. I'm not "outing" Wells to say so. I've met him, and he's very pro-religion. (He's also very hard to talk to - he wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise in an after-lecture discussion period at MIT, even though I was one of only TWO people who stayed after the lecture!) Uncle Ed 20:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro as critique
Did you realize that 85% of introduction to I.D. is actually a critique of it? You guys aren't even letting the proponents make their case, before you tell the readers that ID is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Shouldn't the article give some of the arguments which ID advocates advance, before rebutting the arguments? Is there some danger that if we don't give the reader 310 words of warnings and cautions that they might buy into this nonsense and get brainwashed by the introduction?

I don't care what percent of the article is rebuttal. In fact, the higher the proportion of anti-ID to pro-ID the stronger ID's case looks to me: no one wastes time addressing weak arguments.

But at least let the other side go first, eh? I don't mind shooting fish in a barrel, don't don't machine gun the poor things before they get a chance to swim one lap around the barrel. Uncle Ed 20:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on. No-one wastes time addressing weak arguments? Please, I've spend half a minute on this post already. And it seems to be very easy to find good criticism of ID, and very hard impossible to find any practical application of ID, let alone  any proof of  any actual claims. Is there even an ID article out there that doesn't try to appeal to incredulity?
 * So excuse the intro, if any claim put forward by IDists can be shot down. Find an ID claim that cannot so easily be shot down, and put it in the intro (after discussion, obviously).-- Ec5618 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL, touche! Thanks for spending time on the weak arguments. Uncle Ed 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've said before above about how much of the article's real estate, number of sentences, location etc., dedicated to the responses of the scientific community:
 * ID challenges the very way science is conducted in a very simple criticism of naturalism. Any response of the scientific communtity justifying it's use of naturalism is going to have to be explanatory, hence long, by necessity.
 * ID is considered pseudoscience, so the NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience guides us: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
 * ID offers no actual science to be tested or disputed, hence, in the abscence of actual science, what is left in ID for those it challenges to address are the statements and claims of it's proponents.
 * The encyclopedic topic of ID is not just what ID proponents claim, but also the response of those it challenges and those who are its targets. The article covers this in depth.
 * I've reverted your hack job for two reasons, 1) You didn't bother to seek consensus, 2) you didn't even both to update and synch the footnotes (and anyone who thinks that I'll keep doing this for them is mistaken). Make your case first, Ed. FeloniousMonk 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point the first paragraph contains 71 words of description, 173 of criticism. Of the 71 words of criticism, 31 of those are setting up the criticism in the second paragraph, by way of stating the redundant: "Adherents of Intelligent Design have claimed that it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe." It is to be assumed that IDer's believe ID to be a better explanation than the predominant view. This is implicit in the first sentence.

In my opinion the whole first paragraph needs a rewrite with more substantive description of ID, and the 171 words of criticism need to be moved to the "criticism" section, or labelled as such in the intro. In any case a more thorough intro to ID as such is needed. SanchoPanza 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As you've proved, it's much easier to criticize something than it is to defend. What you propose is a one-sided POV, incomplete, description of ID. Again, as an encyclopedic topic, ID is not just what proponents say. FeloniousMonk 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the criticisms are essential to understanding ID. But let's respect the reader enough to stay focussed for more than one sentence at a time. It's ok to give two or three paragraphs of description without insinuating the criticism after every point. It's distracting to the reader, and makes them distrust the ethos of the article. I'm not arguing for a one-sided article. Just a patient, even-handed one. SanchoPanza 23:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Felonius, a "one-sided POV, incomplete, description of ID" is precisely what this wikipedia entry is. It misrepresents both science and the theory it criticizes.  I have nothing against pointing out both majority and minority views on what is perceived to be pseudoscience, but surely that can be done without such distortions?  Wade A. Tisthammer 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, after Felonius' reverts, by my count it's now 230 words of criticism and 121 moderately descriptive, although even that's questionable, since much of that word count occurs in the context of responding to criticism. Here's the descriptive content on the first paragraph, with the criticism stripped out: "Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.Adherents of Intelligent Design have claimed that it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of Intelligent Design make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the naturalistic assumption that science can only make reference to natural causes."

That's pretty flimsy. In 350 words, we learn this about ID:  ID thinks there are objects in nature that cannot be explained by purely natural processes. ID thinks ID is a better explanation than the predominant view. (redundant -- see the first point) ID thinks there is a bias against it in the scientific community. (interesting, but is this more essential than, say, a description of the Explanatory Filter, or reference to the controversies on the school boards?) 

All true, but hardly the salient essential points for a good intro to the subject. More substance is needed. SanchoPanza 23:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * From the guidelines on how to write a great_article:
 * "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph." We already do this.
 * "If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view. The article follows the NPOV policy for writing about pseudoscience found at Neutral point of_view: Pseudoscience.
 * If we were to follow the How to... guidelines with those of Neutral point of_view: Pseudoscience. to the letter, the intro paragraph is actually deficient in that it does not cover the POV of the scientific community.


 * Explanatory Filter, references to the controversies are details to ID, not essential to understanding it. The guidelines state that a definition and the important points belong in intros, not details. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to get a head count. How many regular editors here have adopted WP:NPOV as the operating principle for editing this article? SanchoPanza 23:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to know when you plan on adopting [[WP:NPOV? Or any policy here for that matter. Stop raising red herrings and wasting our time. Everyone who edits Wikipedia tacitly accepts the WP:NPOV policy or has no expectation of their contributions surviving long. Those contributing to articles on pseudoscience are no exception. If there is a NPOV policy on covering pseudoscientific topics, and the is, then those who ignore it do so at their own risk. FeloniousMonk 00:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever happened to WP:FAITH, Felonius? This is not a red herring. Clearly, there are thousands of reasonable folks of good faith, scientists included, who would say that adopting WP:NPOV as a matter of principle commits WP to one side of controversy that is far from settled. SanchoPanza 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bunk. Read the policy. The only issue as to when the policy applies is whether a topic is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, which it is. That is all. This particularly specious objection, taken with your history of pushing a pro-ID agenda, means your intent is transparent. As a fig leaf, WP:FAITH can only be stretched to cover so much before... well, you know. FeloniousMonk 00:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I almost missed this, apologies - Yes on WP:NPOV and ID is pseudoscience. See this page (long section titled Double Criticism.) See also archives of this page. See also Show Me the Science NYT August 28, 2005 (archived now but still available at the International Herald Tribune. See also Slashdot, the National Review, the National Teacher's Assn,the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, New England Journal of Medicine, the Science Week article titled "ON THE TEACHING OF PSEUDOSCIENCE" and approximately 223,000 more, including a remarkable quote by George Gilder, of the Discovery Institute, where he states "Intelligent Design itself has no content" which is reported in the Where is the Science? article as well as multiple other places, including National Center for Science Education I can cite more if needed.  KillerChihuahua 12:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this article about?
I still can't tell what this article is about. This is an encyclopedia, so we don't want to have personal essays on "Intelligent design," which is what it looks like to me when defined the way it is in the article. The introduction says "Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." Therefore, according to the article, intelligent design is arguably no different from a Teleological argument. Clearly there is more to it than that. You cannot, (as I learned) say it is simply Dembski's assertion, because he is not the only one who developed it. What about "Intelligent design is term used to describe a particular system of beliefs and theory based on a teleological argument?"--Ben 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe "Intelligent design is term used to describe a particular system of beliefs and theory based on teleological argument and information theory."

(note that just saying "Intelligent design is about Intelligent design" is obviously a circular definition.)--Ben 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to say the above if there aren't any objections. --Ben 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You know there are. -- Ec5618 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed he does. He's been trying to justify a POV fork for a while now FeloniousMonk 01:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Refusal to discuss. Misintrepretation. Bad faith. WP:FAITH. --Ben 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a lack of discussion that is the problem here. You took nearly a 25% of this page the other day with your claims and personal attacks and your claims and arguments didn't generate much interest then or now. The real problem here is your refusal to accept consensus. Please do not start with the personal attacks and disruptions again. FeloniousMonk 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's great. --Ben 06:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

the creationism argument is all like
I'm wet. I must've been shot by a water gun. sorta. Likwid Swzzl 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Shortening intro
The introduction is unnessesarily long. I've moved a few bit to deeper in the article. The paragraph with the US NAS for example, contained:
 * "This criticism is regarded by advocates of Intelligent Design as a natural consequence of philosophical naturalism which precludes by definition the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of Intelligent Design make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the naturalistic assumption that science can only make reference to natural causes."

I've removed "As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy" as the creation-evolution controversy is not really the issue, not in the intro. I've also removed the first sentence of this quote, as it makes basically the same point as the last sentence.

I moved:
 * "Though Intelligent Design advocates collectively state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature without regard to who or what the designer might be, the leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions, and thus there exists a well established link to Genesis and Creationism."

to Intelligent design, where it seems to fit quite well. The point about religeous ID proponents should be made in the article more fully.

I still feel the intro could, and should, be more pithy. As it stands, it explains too much, without refering to the article itself, which is what it should do. The table of contents, just below, should be beckoning the reading to read specific sections he or she is interested in or has questions about. -- Ec5618 23:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's one issue that kills your intro: You only provide one side of ID, that of its proponents. Read the guidelines on how to write a great_article:
 * "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph." We already do this.
 * "If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view. The article follows the NPOV policy for writing about pseudoscience found at Neutral point of_view: Pseudoscience.
 * If we were to follow the How to... guidelines with those of Neutral point of_view: Pseudoscience to the letter, your intro paragraph is actually deficient in that it only covers the POV of ID proponents and not the scientific community's response to ID. Either fix it, or I'll revert it.


 * Also, you've messed up the ordering of the footnotes again. I've fixed this once today already. Either fix it, or I'll revert it. FeloniousMonk 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate to disagree, but as the second paragraph mentions the very reasonable viewpoint of critics (God of the gaps), and as the last paragraph still contains plenty of criticism (National Academy of Sciences, polemic), I feel the intro is still rather balanced. All I did to the last paragraph was make it more consise, while keeping its main points intact.
 * And do you really feel that the fact that most ID proponents are religious is a major criticism of ID? It certainly doesn't speak for the ID movement, but it is a minor criticism of ID as a concept.
 * I made some minor changes as well. Removed simply from "simply creationist pseudoscience". All in all, I feel my version is more NPOV, on all fronts.
 * I've not had a great deal of experience with footnotes, and I wasn't aware of doing anything to them. Nonetheless, I'll try to see what I can do. -- Ec5618 00:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, EC, I'll go for that. But fix those damn footnotes! ;-) FeloniousMonk 00:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you EC for reording the footnotes. FeloniousMonk 00:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Critics have accused Intelligent Design proponents of trying to find gaps within current evolutionary theory only to fill with speculative beliefs, and that Intelligent Design in this context may ultimately amount to the "God of the gaps" [3]."

This is more a criticism of Creation science than Intelligent Design and it does not belong on this page. --Ben 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the same criticism could be, and is, leveled at ID, I think it does belong on this page. While officially ID does not speculate on the designer, it does assert that it can fill gaps in current scientific understanding with its designer. -- Ec5618 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since ID is not the same as "Creation science" (Creation science not in the cosmonological sense, but in the religious and biblical sense), then this similar critique should contrast with the differences on what exactly is being criticized. I don't see any difference in the critiques, but by all means tell what it is. Which of the "gaps within current evolutionary theory" are different when it comes to ID and Creation science? I realize this is a difficult question, I do know that critics say this of ID proponents which should be included, but they say the same thing about Creation science proponents. Exactly what part of ID are they criticizing? If they are only criticizing the creation science part then it should be said that they are doing that. Or, if this critique is based on the fact that part of ID is creation science then the ID article needs to mention this. For example, "Like Creation science, a criticism directed at ID is that..." Or, the criticisms should be quotes and speak for themselves.--Ben 02:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Being a reformulated God of the gaps argument is one of the more common criticisms of ID. To claim it is not would you'd have to overcome literally hundreds of references. An easy way to check is to just Google "intelligent design" + "god of the gaps". It returns ~30,000 hits, of which this article is the first. That leaves 29,000.


 * Anyone wishing to remove the observation would have to begin by disproving those first. How they'd disprove a statement made by someone that is readily verifiable by anyone using Google is beyond me. FeloniousMonk 02:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Refusal to discuss, misinterpretation, and bad faith. That's par for the course with you. Get a grip. --Ben 02:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Comment removed for personal attack against FeloniousMonk.


 * It is my opinion that that happens to be off-topic. I do believe that I never claimed it is not a common criticism. Please avail yourself to my opinion provided and do not assume I am making this assertion. I would hope you would respect my opinion and discuss my opinion in a rational and civil way. I thank you for your time and would like to provide my services to you and your family for this simple request. Sincerely yours, --Ben 06:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I'd like a headcount: how many regular editors here have adopted WP:NPOV as the operating principle for editing this article? That is to say, how many think that writing about ID constitutes "describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false."?

This has been hashed out here before, but it deserves constant re-examination, because adopting WP:NPOV for any topic is a dramatic and controversial step, espescially for a topic like ID, which is not just contemporary, but a fluid issue that's being hashed out right now. SanchoPanza 00:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is not controversial. It is well-established policy.


 * Everyone who edits Wikipedia tacitly accepts the WP:NPOV policy or has no expectation of their contributions surviving long. Those contributing to articles on pseudoscience are no exception. If there is a NPOV policy on covering pseudoscientific topics, and the is, then those who ignore it do so at their own risk.


 * WP:RTA, this is a settled issue. Stop being disruptive and wasting our time with tendentious objections. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "There is no controversy"?? If it's a settled issue, why does every single archive of this talk page have reams of objections to this articles POV? It's perfectly valid to clarify the policy that the majority of the editors here have adopted. SanchoPanza 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Teach the Controversy strategy... misstate an issue (WP:NPOV is controversial) which prompts an angry rebuttal. Then allege the rebuttal is evidence that there is a "controversy".


 * Furthermore, it takes no effort to understand why nearly every newbie ID proponent who shows up here bent on rewriting the article to be more sympathetic to ID wants to remove any reference to ID as pseudoscience.


 * You're no different and your intent and method are transparent: You're merely try to remove an obstacle to a POV redefinition of ID by appealing to the masses for support. Problem is, the policies are not elective here.


 * You're also intentionally misstating the case: It's not that the "majority of the editors here have adopted" the WP:NPOV. It's that all editors are enjoined to follow the policies, including that one. Wikipedia is not a buffet, where you pick and choose what polices to follow. The sooner you adopt that the less disruption you'll cause others. FeloniousMonk 00:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of the article
It looks like FeloniousMonk has taken "ownership" of this article. Those who believe he has done this may find this prospect annoying, and even try to "vent" their outrage against him. Such venting, however, will only be counterproductive.

It is a fundamental principle of a wiki that the only way there can be stability on a page, is when all contributors are satisfied that it is describing the situation accurately. And NPOV (a policy I'm especially well-versed in) mandates that all major points of view be fairly and accurately described, when there is a controversy.

ID is controversial. The first sentence of the intro paragraph says so.

It will be interesting for our readers if they are permitted to learn as much as we can easily explain to them about: Having done so, we owe it to them to spend as much time and energy necessary to show how and why opponents of ID reject it. Such as:
 * 1) what ID claims
 * 2) who supports ID (Dembski, Behe, Wills, P.E. Johnson, etc.)
 * 3) what minor variations there are, among the various "flavors" of ID
 * 1) ID is pseudoscience
 * 2) ID is not falsifiable (i.e., not a "hypothesis")
 * 3) ID is merely a teleological argument (i.e., not even a "theory")
 * 4) ID is merely creationism dressed up in scientific clothing (just like creation science)

Let's just avoid endorsing the view that ID *is* pseudoscience. Rather, say that ___% of scientists assert that it is pseudoscience. There are some polls about this (see Category:evolution polls). What is it? 85% to 95% of scientists call ID pseudoscientific? Or is it 98% or 99.82%?


 * [] You can make an approximate guess that at least 63,700 scientists support evolution.  The specific statement that they have agreed to is: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate scientific debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools." Unknown

A better intro might be:
 * ID is an argument that that evolution could not have taken place without "intelligent" guidance. Proponents argue that certain biological structures are too complex to have evolved by the action of natural forces alone (see specified complexity, irreducible complexity).
 * Opponents dismiss ID on the following grounds (300 to 700 words follow!!)

This is a 40-word intro to what ID is. It could be a bit longer. I forgot to mention the names of its chief proponents; the relation of ID to the "education issue" or the (possibly over-arching) creation-evolution controversy. Uncle Ed 12:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to give a sense of historical perspective I'd prefer something along the following lines

The commonsense notion that the intervention of a higher power is necessary to organize matter into complex structures is one of the foundational ideas of Western thought and throughout the Christian Era it has been axiomatic that the marvels of the natural world exist because of the direct intervention of a supremely powerful mind.

From the publication of the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858 this traditional theistic and teleological perspective in which order and design are ascribed to the volition of a purposive and benign higher being has been challenged progressively by the view that organic complexity is produced by unconscious natural forces.

Although most religious believers from Darwin’s time onward have been content to accept that evolution by natural selection is one the tools used by God to create design in the natural world, a minority, perturbed by the progressive reversal of the traditional order of explanation, have held Darwin’s ideas to be a threat to Christian belief. In this view, to ascribe the origin of “higher” forms endowed with volition to the action of “lower” mechanistic and mindless forces holds the possibility that the need for divine intervention as an explanation might be dispensed with entirely, with dire consequences for human morality and social organization.

In the United States, the traditional mind-first explanation of the natural world is promoted by those who believe in Intelligent Design.
 * The article could then go on to describe the new elements in the contemporary formulation of the traditional design argument and criticism of those elements. --Ian Pitchford 14:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, I take exception to the first sentence of your proposed introduction. ID is an argument that that evolution could not have taken place without "intelligent" guidance. ID doesn't propose that evolution could have taken place with intelligent guidance. It asserts that evolution could not have taken place. And a better explanation is intelligence. ID makes no positive explanations and any attempt to reconcile ID with evolution dismisses what the ID proponents actually say. --JPotter 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean "what some ID proponents actually say. Let's keep the facts straight. There is nothing inherent in ID that denies the possibility of evolution. Pollinator 19:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I no more own the article than anyone else. Look at the article's history; lots of others contributing. Your claim that I think I own the article is merely a transparent and oblique form of personal attack meant to silence or deflect my criticism of your long history of pro-creationism advocacy in articles at Wikipedia. If NPOV is a policy you're "especially versed in" explain way it is more often than not your contributions to creatioism articles are rejected for violating it? You'll find little traction from long-term, responsible contributors for that here as well. That I care enough about the project's goals to help create and maintain a factual, neutral and complete article on a topic that is a POV magnet and needs constant POV patrol because of the near constant pro-ID POV barrage does not mean I think I own it.


 * Your (Ed) intro wrongly abandons the canonical definition of intelligent design, which is the one offered by the Discovery Institute ("that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection"). Since ID is wholly a product of the Discovery Institute, with every leading ID proponent is one of its Fellows and every campaign and strategy arising from its offices, defining ID as they do is necessary in the intro for any of the claims made in the article by Dembski, Behe or Johnson to make any sense. Any intro that ignores the canonical definition is deficient. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Ed_Poor needs to become much more familiar with the subjects at hand before (re)writing articles. This was true over at creation-evolution controversy and it is true here as well. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If what FM says is true about the source of ID, then our (mutual) task becomes much easier. Simply say that ID is the Discovery Institute's argument "that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection". The second sentence can mention irreducible complexity.


 * Then ID's opponents can have the rest of the intro - unless you want t omention 2 or 3 of the heavy hitters on the ID side as advocates. But I'm personally not so interested in names as in ideas. Uncle Ed 19:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed: re your suggestion, above - "Let's just avoid endorsing the view that ID *is* pseudoscience. Rather, say that ___% of scientists assert that it is pseudoscience." Respectfully I disagree. Pseudoscience is not an opinion thing, it is a definition thing. That there are some scientists who ignore this is true; that there are some scientists who adhere to the hollow earth theory is also true. (see links at end of page if you follow this Skepdic link - not germane but fun reading) KillerChihuahua 15:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been out of the loop for a while, so I won't comment on the specifics, but
 * FeloniousMonk does not own this article, nor am I aware of him believing he does so.
 * This is an old slander and it occurs because quite frankly, he's a bit abrasive at times. This is not rare in wikipedians nor wikipedian admins. He has also been proven right on many an occasion. Furthermore, before being burried in real life concerns, NaNoWriMo, and abortion article writing, I was a frequent contributing editor, and I've gotten in edits that have disagreed with FM, agreed with him, and proposed things that were disagreed by everyone.
 * So, to anyone who has a complaint, get over it and get to work.--Tznkai 17:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome back TZ! For those who weren't around this last summer, Tznkai was one of the parties most responsible for the shape of the current article. We seldom saw eye-to-eye on anything, but we always found ways to compromise. This is because Tznkai has sound understanding of the project's policies and conventions and never lost perspective of project's goals. Doesn't mean he's always right, though. For instance it's not so much that I'm abrasive; it's that I have no personality to speak of ;-) Please consider sticking around TZ. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As with any article which has reached some level of quality, either someone has to take a stand to ensure quality, or the article will rapidly go downhill. Unlike a stub, simple addition of content is not a good thing. This is what can annoy and upset newcomers and make them feel like one indivudual or a group are asserting ownership. This is one of the better-referenced articles in Wikipedia - easily top 5%, probably better than that. Granted, it's the controvertial articles that end up the well-referenced ones (Yeah? Really?  Well provide a citation for that!) My point is, if we are to have high-quality articles we need to make it harder for people to change articles - if you want to insert something, it has to be verifiable, if you want to insert some text it has to be decently written. I have often seen coherent short articles destroyed by someone dumping 5 long paragraphs of free-associative writing. In cases like that I find it hard to revert, because there is more content in there than in the original article, but I also find it hard to leave something unreadable and often OT. FeloniusMonk has done a great job maintaining quality, while at the same time "allowing" new ideas in. On the other hand, sometimes you need to tell people "take it to Talk" - not just over content issues, but also because of writing style and logical flow of the article. The better an article gets, the harder it is to add to. Style does not trump substance, but we need well-written articles if we want them to be understandable. Guettarda 17:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two FeloniousMonk's!
One must be a sockpuppet. I edited the intro to say:


 * The canonical definition of the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design is that Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection. Intelligent Design is wholly a product of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank. The idea has been around since 1990.

Just like FeloniousMonk said above:


 * The canonical definition of intelligent design, which is the one offered by the Discovery Institute ("that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection") Since ID is wholly a product of the Discovery Institute, with every leading ID proponent is one of its Fellows and every campaign and strategy arising from its offices, defining ID as they do is necessary in the intro for any of the claims made in the article by Dembski, Behe or Johnson to make any sense. Any intro that ignores the canonical definition is deficient.

...and then some other FeloniousMonk came by and reverted! Then he said he might block me for doing this! Watch out!--Ben 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Watch out, Ben, this looks like malicious editting to me. Joshuaschroeder 20:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It took you long enough to figure that out. Now, take a deep breath and roll over, as you're obviously having a dream. -- Ec5618 20:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You know that your edit was not supported by any of the other editors. You went through with it, anyway. You are in the wrong.
 * I'm trying to understand your point. You feel that this article doesn't deal with ID somuch as that it deals with a specific incarnation of ID. And you're trying to clarify the intro to make this point clear. Am I right? Y/N? If this is your intent, lets discuss the validity of your claim. But first, please just answer the question. -- Ec5618 20:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whichever FM it was, he used rollback, which is bad practice. Rollback is for fighting vandals, not for editorial disputes. Noisy | Talk 20:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Rollback was the proper response because this is not an editorial issue; it is simply a case of repairing Benapgar having once again ignored consensus and added nonsense. He's been doing this for the last 2 weeks. He refuses to accept that there's no support or connection to reality for his original research and highly pov edits. And taken with his multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:3RR here, he's proved himself to be a continuing source of disruption and trouble here. Recently it was to attack every admin participating here and waste 25% of the talk page. Last night it was to make personal attacks. Lastly, he's ignored many, many warnings from a number of editors and admins over the weeks. For all of the above he's earned himself a 24 hr block for his 2 week campaign of disruptiveness and personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As soon as Benapgar is out of the pokey and a free man, I have a feeling we'll know soon enough whether I was right to block him for being chronically disruptive. FeloniousMonk 21:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I've filed a user conduct RFC: Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 22:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design in Europe?
I can't see whats wrong with:

Intelligent Design in Europe
The Intelligent Design movement is relatively unknown in Europe except through media reports on the situation in the US. However, a few researchers are working on theories that may be seen to be complementary to ID. These include, in France, in the field of palaeontology, the fr:Inside Story theory of the origin of man.

and Duncs edit comment (rv) provides no clue. It appears to be neutral, accurate and not covered elsewhere. William M. Connolley 14:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC).
 * For one, it claims that researchers are working on theories comlimentary to ID. Also, obviously, the link to fr.wiki is poorly formatted. Then, Inside Story's theory is alluded to. Theory? And the text was poorly placed within the article.
 * Still, if properly rewritten, it should probably be included. -- Ec5618 14:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, yeah see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schama&diff=prev&oldid=27535018 where I've explained this to the guy. I copy what I said below Dunc|&#9786; 14:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is scope for a paragraph or two on the ID movement in Europe, though it is mostly associated with the United States. However, let's have a look at the content;


 * ''The Intelligent Design movement is relatively unknown in Europe except through media reports on the situation in the US.
 * Fine.


 * ''However, a few researchers are working on theories that may be seen to be complementary to ID. These include, in France, in the field of palaeontology, the fr:Inside Story theory of the origin of man.


 * Not so good.


 * From what I can make out from the brainfart on Inside Story, it's more Neo-Lamarckism than ID. It's still bullshit, just bullshit of a different flavour.  The French have a thing about Lamarck because he was French, and France was the last place Lamarckism died out in the 1960s -- or so I thought.  It would not surprise me if a few researchers ignored the basic principles of anthropology (especially if they contravened their political and/or moral views) and came up with this, but I know no more about it on it than what I have seen at Inside Story.


 * Besides which it seems irrelevent to ID. Dunc|&#9786; 14:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design in France at any rate
I'm glad someone picked up on the deletion of my modest contribution. I'm new to the Wikipedia and wasn't sure if the subject of ID in France would be of any interest. Duncharris obviously knew better and deleted the paragraph within hours. The link I inserted was to an article on the French pages of the Wikipedia on the controversial 'fr:Inside Story' theory of the descent of man and, more specifically, the transition to bipedalism. It caused something of a storm in French intellectual circles a couple of weeks ago after a big-budget 'Spielberg-type' documentary was shown on national TV presenting the theory as a credible alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (see the links to all the articles in the press on the French page). In fact this theory, the brainchild of paleontologist and chair of the 'Teilhard de Chardin Society' Anne Dambricourt appears to have little basis in science. Evolution is described as being directed - by what is not made clear - but what's certain is that it has nothing to do with adaptation by natural selection to the external enironment. It obviously flies in the face of conventional wisdom about evolution and has either been politely ignored or received outright rejection from the mainstream scientific community. The documentary was followed by a critical debate, scheduled at the last minute by the TV channel when they got wind the controversial nature of the subject, during which two scientists and a journalist from Le Monde made the explicit connection between this so-called theory and the Intelligent Design movement in the US (again, see the links on the French page). In the article by Le Monde entitled 'A film suspected of neo-creationism causes a debate' the journalist picked up on the fact that Ms Dambricourt's work is openly endorsed by William Dembsky and the Discovery Institute.

At the rate at which this article evolves this subject may already be passé, but I'd be interested to know if there's anyone else out there who thinks it could be brought back onto the table. The subject of ID in Europe, in whatever disguise, is something we need to keep our eye on too!

62.39.42.24 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Schama


 * I would like to see it brought back to the table if there is anything to cite on this. Do you have a link to the Le Monde article? KillerChihuahua 13:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to the article in Le Monde "Un film soupçonné de néocréationnisme fait débat" 62.39.42.24Schama


 * Oh, this is outstanding! No issue with relevance or citing source here. How's your French? (mine is horrible) This is exactly the kind of thing we need to offset the standard En-Bias WP has, and cover the ID issue in Europe. From the article: "They take as a starting point the theory known as "intelligent intention" (Intelligent Design, in English), which postulates a Universe designed for man according to a divine intention. The name of Mme Dambricourt appears besides on a petition by Discovery Institute, ­spearhead of the American neocreationnists in their fight against Darwinism." Schama, can you write this bit? Comments from anyone else? KillerChihuahua 17:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok so how about this as a slight improvement on my original submission:


 * The Intelligent Design movement is relatively unknown in Europe except through media reports on the situation in the US. However, a few researchers are working on theories that bear a strong likeness to the ID movement. These include, in France, in the field of palaeontology, the 'Inside Story theory' [insert link to the Inside Story page] of the descent of man. Though the proponents of this theory avoid making direct reference to ID in their literature, critics from the mainstream of science and the media refer to numeous parallels. These include an outright rejection of the processes of natural selection and adaptation to the natural environment in favour of the notion that the driving force of evolution is innate and would appear to have an ineffable, even divine quality.

It could no doubt do with further improvement but 'fraid I haven't got any time now. I'll think about it a bit more and I'll be back online in a couple of days' time.. Schama


 * That would be wonderful - would you add the bit that Mme Dambricourt-Malassé, the paleontologist, signed that petition by the Discovery Institute? That might help show clear connection (why its in an ID article to begin with.) Are you sure they're avoiding making direct references? I didn't see that (my French is shaky as I mentioned before, so I probably just missed it.) The last sentence you wrote, above... can that be trimmed at all and remain accurate? Its a bit long. Also see Arguments of Anne Dambricourt-Malassé from LeMonde and tell me, does this read like she is back-peddling? Modifying her position? If so, we should certainly be accurate in that. KillerChihuahua 15:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The "who the designed the designer" section
Okay, I try to make one section NPOV and it's immediately its reverted. Ack! Let's contrast the sections. Here's the unedited version:


 * By raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" By Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex. Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this creates a logical paradox in Intelligent Design, as the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. The sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy.


 * One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused causer&mdash;in other words, a deity&mdash;to resolve this problem, in which case Intelligent Design reduces to religious creationism. At the same time, the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitrarily improbable event to occur, such as an object with "irreducible" complexity assembling itself by chance. Again, this contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every complex object, producing a logical contradiction.


 * Thus, according to opponents, either attempt to patch the Intelligent Design hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Intelligent Design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.


 * Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, argues that Intelligent Design simply takes the complexity required for life to have evolved and moves it to the "designer" instead. According to Dawkins, Intelligent Design doesn't explain how the complexity happened in the first place, it just moves it.

Problems? A few. One is that it's not NPOV; it doesn't even attempt to show the minority (ID) position regarding this matter here. Whoever created this section should read NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience, which points out that the task is to "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." What's perhaps worse, this section actually distorts the minority position it criticizes. Take for instance this sentence, "By Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." What is the basis for this claim? One might look at Behe, the biochemist who introduced the term "irreducible complexity" in his book Darwin's Black Box. But we see on page 249 that he points to the possibility of the designers being unlike our kind of biological life, not requiring irreducibly complex structures to sustain it. Similarly, the claim that ID demands "a designer is needed for every complex object" also appears false. I have seen both creationists and evolutionists build straw men of their opponents; let's try to stop that here. I propose a more NPOV section:


 * By raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, critics claim this creates a logical paradox in Intelligent Design, as the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. Critics charge that the sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy.


 * One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused deity to resolve this problem, in which case Intelligent Design reduces to religious creationism. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitrarily improbable event to occur, such as an object with "irreducible" complexity assembling itself by chance.


 * Thus, according to opponents, either attempt to patch the Intelligent Design hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Critics say that intelligent Design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.


 * Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, argues that Intelligent Design simply takes the complexity required for life to have evolved and moves it to the "designer" instead. According to Dawkins, Intelligent Design doesn't explain how the complexity happened in the first place, it just moves it.


 * ID adherents nonetheless claim that we can still rationally infer design without knowing who or what the designer is. One example cited is the hypothetical case of finding an obelisk in space as in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the mere fact that we do not or cannot know the identity of the designer through scientific means does not make a design inference circular, logically fallacious, or anything of the sort. The majority of the scientific community, however, believes there is insufficient reason to make a rational design inference in the first place when it comes to life on Earth.

Both the minority and the majority positions are represented, and I added the majority position at the end just to be safe. Other things were modified. For instance, it is simply not true that an uncaused causer must necessarily be a deity (unless one redefines a deity to be just that). Immortal aliens are one counterexample; so the claim that an uncaused causer must be a deity was removed. Additionally, I included statements like "critics say" to make it more NPOV. Anybody's thoughts on this matter? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tisthammerw (talk &bull; contribs) November 8, 2005.

Well, to begin with ''Thus, according to opponents, either attempt to patch the Intelligent Design hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Intelligent Design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.'' to ''Thus, according to opponents, either attempt to patch the Intelligent Design hypothesis appears to either result in logical contradiction, or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Critics say that intelligent Design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.'' doesn't make sense. It already says "according to opponents" - to then add another "critics say" is simply poor writing. ''D adherents nonetheless claim that we can still rationally infer design without knowing who or what the designer is. One example cited is the hypothetical case of finding an obelisk in space as in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the mere fact that we do not or cannot know the identity of the designer through scientific means does not make a design inference circular, logically fallacious, or anything of the sort. The majority of the scientific community, however, believes there is insufficient reason to make a rational design inference in the first place when it comes to life on Earth.''
 * " Similarly, the claim that ID demands "a designer is needed for every complex object" also appears false"
 * How so? Can you explain how this is the case (and more importantly, reference the explanation)
 * Why does the inclusion of a minority POV necessitate the removal of information?
 * You deleted text apparently at random, changing One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused causer&mdash;in other words, a deity&mdash;to resolve this problem to One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused deity to resolve this problem. Can you explain what you mean by an "uncaused deity"?
 * Changing
 * The following is original research, and it is written in the first person, which is definitely not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article.
 * You repeated changed straight forward, declarative sentances into "critics claim"; you should avoid weasel words. These are basic logical deducations which don't really require sourcing.  If you want to attribute the sources for these arguments, feel free, but don't blame them on unknown "critics".  Citing sources improves the article, but citing unnamed "critics" does not.  Guettarda 06:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Wade A. Tisthammer) That the "a designer is needed for every complex object" is false as an alleged ID claim is not only from my personal experience in ID literature, but again please see page 249 of Darwin's Black Box. May I ask what your source is? Otherwise, the alleged ID claim smells suspiciously of a straw man. Because some of the information is inaccurate and distorted, as I pointed out earlier. The text was not deleted randomly; I explained before why I did this (see above regarding the uncaused causer not necessarily being a deity). To answer you question, an uncaused deity is simply a deity that is not caused. Perhaps, but I disagree that the NPOV emphasis in the subsequent sentence is poor writing. Define "original research." It is true I have seen (via my own research) ID opponents make this claim, but why ignore the minority position here? And why revert to a version that not only omits the minority position but also distorts it? How is that appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Is blaming unnamed "opponents" better for NPOV? I really don't see your argument here. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Why does the inclusion of a minority POV necessitate the removal of information?"
 * "*You deleted text apparently at random, changing One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused causer&mdash;in other words, a deity&mdash;to resolve this problem to One Intelligent Design counter-argument to this problem invokes an uncaused deity to resolve this problem. Can you explain what you mean by an "uncaused deity"?
 * "It already says 'according to opponents' "
 * "The following is original research..."
 * If you want to attribute the sources for these arguments, feel free, but don't blame them on unknown "critics".


 * That the "a designer is needed for every complex object" is false as an alleged ID claim is not only from my personal experience in ID literature, but again please see page 249 of Darwin's Black Box.  May I ask what your source is?  Otherwise, the alleged ID claim smells suspiciously of a straw man. 

I have never seen an explanation for how a non-irreducibly complex designer can create irreducibly complex organisms. Please do elaborate.
 * ''*"Why does the inclusion of a minority POV necessitate the removal of information?"

Because some of the information is inaccurate and distorted, as I pointed out earlier.'' No, you did not point that out. Please do.
 * To answer you question, an uncaused deity is simply a deity that is not caused.

Please provide a reference for "uncaused deity" - it appears to be a neologism to me.
 * Define "original research."

See WP:NOR and the associated talk page. This is critically important.
 * Is blaming unnamed "opponents" better for NPOV? I really don't see your argument here. 

I never said that unsourced "opponents" is good - but bad is better than worse. The simple fact that an article has flaws does not mean that one should make those flaws worse. Guettarda 06:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Wade A. Tisthammer replies)


 * I have never seen an explanation for how a non-irreducibly complex designer can create irreducibly complex organisms. 

And I have never seen an explanation for exactly how life on Earth could have been created by undirected chemical reactions, but the theory is still technically possible. Behe specifically mentions the possibility of life totally unlike ourselves, e.g. fluctuating electrical fields or gasses; one could always say the designer has a different biochemical makeup, one that could have been produced naturally. Do we know of any such alternate physical basis of life? No. But then again, neither do we have a known means to evolve life from non-life via undirected chemical reactions; and yet abiogenesis is the currently accepted theory.

In any case, can we do away with the alleged ID claims like "a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"? Claims like these are straw men and should not be included in an encyclopedia entry.


 * Please provide a reference for "uncaused deity"

Well, it was simply a derivation from the original wikipedia entry (confer the part about an uncaused causer--and note that not all deities are uncaused).


 * See WP:NOR and the associated talk page. 

The term "original research" is still a little unclear due to some circular definitions in this page (though I think I have the gist of it), but let me ask you something. Do not the alleged ID positions as "By Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" constitute original research? The author provides no references and I have seen no ID adherent make such claims; though I have seen the opposite.

Additionally, it seemed you simply assumed that the rebuttal I proposed was a new concept (methinks that should not be enough basis to give a guilty verdict). It is not. Did you honestly think that the claim "we can rationally infer design without knowing the identity of the designer" was an original idea by yours truly? Heck, that claim has been the cornerstone of ID (some would say they did it to avoid looking religious) for some time now. Yes, you could fault me for not giving citations and thus for that reason the claim should have been removed, but the same could be said for a multitude of claims presented in this wikipedia article (a number of which distort the ID position); and thus by that logic all those claims would have to be removed too. If this is to be a fair game, we should all play by the same rules.


 * I never said that unsourced "opponents" is good - but bad is better than worse.

You never answered my question, how is unnamed "opponents" better for NPOV? Regardless if you use "critics" or "opponents" something like that must be done for NPOV. Otherwise, it just looks like you're taking sides when you say things like, "The claims of intelligent design theory are not falsifiable." Wade A. Tisthammer 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you want to see a source for the ID claim, you can visit this web page as an example. I don't suppose you could do the same thing regarding claims like "By Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex"? Wade A. Tisthammer 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tisthammer, you stated in your very large, non-consensus edits that "only Guettarda" had discussed - I refer you to many entries on this page, by myself as well as others, as well as archives. also, please note that so far as I can tell, there is no source for "uncaused deity" and it is not a phrase which lends itself to... well, to making sense, at least to me. KillerChihuahua 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, Tisthammer's arguments ignore the policies, specifically, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Furthermore, his reverts ignore WP:CON.
 * I'll point out for his benefit one more time that the only issue relevent here as to article content per Wikipedia's policies is whether position described in the article is significant and relevent. That's it. No other point is relevent. Tisthammer's ridiculously long and tortured reasonings for objecting to significant and relevent attributed positions in the article are non sequiturs. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Felonious, you yourself have ignored WP:NPOV when you revert it back to versions that distort the minority position. Regarding the distortion of ID, note that I explicitly gave a reference from Behe himself regarding the irreducible complexity issue, and note that no references were given regarding the alleged ID claims that section refers to.  If you think the ID position was not distorted, please give me even one verifiable reference where an ID adherent makes these claims I removed in my version (note that I provided a reference when I was accused of original research; I am now asking the same of you).  Note again how I explained the section of the wikipedia entry appears to violate NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience.  Perhaps you should at least address the issues before claiming they are false.  Regarding the consensus policy, please give me evidence that the consensus is to distort the ID position and violate the NPOV policy on covering pseudoscience. Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you have a unique idea of what creationists/ID proponents believe. My opinion is supported by what you've published on the topic at your personal website:, , . Reading through your articles to their various conclusions, I have to say much of your conclusions are original research. Again, please read WP:NOR. Opinions derived from personal research is precisely what WP:NPOV attempts to avoid. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If my idea of what ID creationists/ID proponents is so unique, why am I the one who is able to find references from creationists/ID adherents regarding their beliefs? Why is it, for instance, I've been able to find (the originator of the term himself no less) a powerful piece of rebuttal evidence to the claim "Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" whereas you have not produced a single reference to support this alleged ID claim nor the "a designer is needed for every complex object" alleged claim?  If these alleged claims do not distort the actual ID position, why have you failed to provide references to justify your claims?  Why am I the only one who has done so?  And where, pray tell, have you found these claims supported by my own personal website?


 * And how is what I've said original research? I suppose it depends on how you define "original research."  It is true that much on my website I have researched some issues myself, so in that sense it is original research.  But in that case, this entire wikipedia article on intelligent design is also original research.  Does this mean the entire article violates that wikipedia policy?  Not necessarily.  In the context of Wikipedia policy  "original research" in the refers to "theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas" that are not published elsewhere in "reputable" sources.  In this case, claims like "Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" are original research if no prominent ID adherent actually adheres to this (and despite my counterexamples and requests for references, you have not even addressed this issue; you have merely censored it from the entry and ignored it in the discussions).  Additionally, my attempts to correct ID distortions and represent the minority view do not constitute original research because I am not the originator of these concepts; they are popularly held by ID adherents (e.g. the claim that one can rationally infer design without knowing who or what the designer is; and giving examples to illustrate this).  Perhaps you yourself should reread Wikipedia policy on original research.


 * Also, your efforts have resulted in distorting the minority view or else omitting it, which is precisely the sort of thing NPOV (even regarding pseudoscience) attempts to avoid. Remember that the task is to "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view."  Distorting or omitting the minority view conflicts with this task.  Is it really too much to ask to insert two sentences in a multi-paragraph section to point out what the ID position actually is?  I really don't think so.Wade A. Tisthammer 01:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that article already presents ID's position pretty clearly, and reading your personal essay on how you define pseudoscience, I for one am not convinced your grasp of the issue aligns with the mainstream (scientific community's) view.


 * Again, I think that what you characterize as "distortions" in the article are actually you crossing the line into original research. Your criticisms of the definition of pseudoscience (made tacitly in defense of ID) are wholly based on your personal understanding and definition of the term and concept, and do not reflect the common understanding and usage. In other words, personal research. FeloniousMonk 04:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First, you are aware that what you referred to as my "personal essay" regarding pseudoscience is a spoof, right? (See the disclaimer at the top of the web article.)  In any case, while the spoof page may have been the result of my personal research, that is not relevant here.  Remember, in the context of Wikipedia policy "original research" in the refers to "theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas" that are not published elsewhere in "reputable" sources.  Now, in the wikipedia article (though not necessarily my website) my attempts to correct ID distortions and represent the minority view do not constitute original research because I am not the originator of these concepts (as I have already proven and explained earlier).  You said, that the "article already presents ID's position pretty clearly."  Saying so does not make it true, nor does ignoring the evidence I provided.  Would you please at least address the specific points I made here?  Take for instance the claim "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex."  Care to provide a reference, even one example of an ID adherent claiming this?  I provided a clear and convincing piece of evidence against it: Michael Behe himself flatly contradicted this in Darwin's Black Box--the person who coined the term and advanced the idea in the modern ID movement.  With all due respect, what more do you want?  And why have you ignored this crucial piece of evidence?


 * Additionally, can you give me even one reference of a prominent ID adherent saying or implying that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design" is "that every complex object requires a designer"? You have failed to provide a reference for this as well.  And for a fundamental assumption, it strikes me suspicious that it doesn't seem to exist anywhere.  This "fundamental assumption" is not found in Darwin's Black Box, nor is it found in Mere Creation, nor is it found at Discovery's website, even when they define intelligent design.  I have found a creationist source that comes at least close to contradicting claim.  Gary Parker's section in What is Creation Science? describes creation science applied to biology--which is apparently just intelligent design theory (as he describes it).  In it he notes that creation does not argue from design per se, but the kind of design we observe.  He notes that some things (e.g. a snowflake) can be brought about naturally (page 46), but other things (as airplanes) cannot.  Snowflakes have some complexity, so this seems to be a counterexample to your claims.  Another one might be this web page which also cites snowflakes for an example.  So it seems, according to ID, that some kinds of complexity can be made naturally but others cannot.  If so, the claim that the fundamental assumption of ID is that “every complex object requires a designer” is false.


 * Bottom line: I gave specific evidence justifying my claim that the ID positions have been distorted regarding the claims:


 * "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." (disproven and flatly contradicted by the leading proponent of irreducible complexity himself; see p. 249 of Darwin's Black Box)
 * "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that every complex object requires a designer" (seems curiously nonexistent in ID literature; counterexample of snowflakes)


 * You can end this revert war right now if you want to. If you think the ID positions are not distorted, please provide a credible reference where an ID adherent makes these claims I removed in my version.  Otherwise these alleged ID claims seem like original research (an idea that does not exist in any reputable source) given the evidence I provided.  I provided references when I was accused of original research, and I think it is fair for you to do the same.  If you do not at least address these issues, I may continue these edits because these distortions violate both Wikipedia policy on original research and  Wikipedia NPOV policy on pseudoscience. Wade A. Tisthammer 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. You've compelled me to add two more footnotes to support descriptions of ID proponent's statements that are already largely common knowledge to an article that is already bloated with supporting citations. But that's OK, because that just removes another opportunity for someone else to contrive an argument to remove well-supported content I guess. This issue is now closed by your own terms. FeloniousMonk 06:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Closed by my own terms? Huh?  When I asked you for references it was in the context of "please justify your position that ID has not been distorted."  The issue isn't quite closed because the distortions still remain in the wikipedia entry.  Additionally, I also wanted the minority view represented here.  No undue weight needs to be given here; just two sentences in the multi-paragraph section:


 * ID adherents nonetheless claim that one can still rationally infer design without knowing who or what the designer is. For instance, suppose the SETI project successfully finds an alien message; the ID position claims that the mere fact that we do not or cannot know the identity of the designer of the message does not make a design inference circular, logically fallacious, or anything of the sort. The majority of the scientific community, however, believes there is insufficient reason to make a rational design inference in the first place when it comes to life on Earth.


 * Two sentences stating the ID position, plus the rebuttal and all the previous stuff attacking the ID position (minus the distortions of ID of course). The anti-ID statements still took up the bulk of the section.  The majority view was represented as the majority, the minority view was represented as the minority; no undue weight and no original research.  That was essentially my NPOV edit.  Exactly why did you find my edit inappropriate?  That was never really explained clearly (at least, no explanation that really addressed my points regarding the edit). Wade A. Tisthammer 07:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. You're moving the target. The only assertion attributed to ID proponents you removed and objected to is that of ID proponents invoking an uncaused causer.
 * Above you say "You can end this revert war right now if you want to. If you think the ID positions are not distorted, please provide a credible reference where an ID adherent makes these claims I removed in my version." And this I have done.
 * Now you're reneging on that and tossing up additional objections.
 * OK, the WP:NPOV policy is explicit and not elective: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
 * Your additional objections are covered by this policy, and it is why I found your earlier edits inappropriate; they presented the ID viewpoint as equivalent to the majority viewpoint, which it is not. Per the policy it is perfectly acceptable that the majority viewpoint makes up the bulk of the subsection.
 * Furthermore, that subsection is part of a section titled "Criticisms," not Support. The ID position has the entire rest of the article body in which to make its points.
 * As for counterpoints to criticisms of ID logic, several here have already discussed why we don't get into counterpoints, counter-counterpoints, etc. at the article.
 * That leaves your objection to the lack of a supporting cite to a credible reference where ID proponents invoking an uncaused causer, which I've resolved . Now please stop raising tendentious arguments intended to mitigate content you view as unsympathetic to your views. FeloniousMonk 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The indents are getting a bit much, so I'm starting fresh.


 * This is ridiculous. You're moving the target. The only assertion attributed to ID proponents you removed and objected to is that of ID proponents invoking an uncaused causer.
 * Above you say "You can end this revert war right now if you want to. If you think the ID positions are not distorted, please provide a credible reference where an ID adherent makes these claims I removed in my version." And this I have done.
 * Now you're reneging on that and tossing up additional objections.

No I'm not. Think about this Felonius. What alleged ID claims did I remove in my version? It wasn't the ID position about this issue (the idea that we can rationally infer design without knowing the origins of the designer), I added that; nor was it the part about the uncaused causer; I still left that in (though I reworded it to "uncaused deity"). No, the alleged claims I removed were "by Intelligent Design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex" and "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer". Both of these (as I explained earlier) are evidently distortions of the ID position (and I gave references to back up my claims). Such distortions violate the Wikipedia policies as I also explained earlier. Note especially where you took my quote; it was right after I was talking about the ID distortions I removed in my edit. And if you don't think I've been talking about this right from the beginning, if you think this was "added" please see my previous posts.


 * Your additional objections are covered by this policy, and it is why I found your earlier edits inappropriate; they presented the ID viewpoint as equivalent to the majority viewpoint

I did no such thing. Note that I explicitly added this section sentence:


 * The majority of the scientific community, however, believes there is insufficient reason to make a rational design inference in the first place when it comes to life on Earth.

I made it quite clear who the majority was, and I only had two sentences in a multi-paragraph section representing (accurately) the minority view. On the contrary, it was your reverts that resulted in violation of wikipedia policies (as I explained earlier in this thread). So I ask again, please give a credible ID reference where an ID adherent makes these claims I removed in my version. If you do not at least address these issues, I may continue these edits to enforce Wikipedia policy, because these distortions violate both Wikipedia policy on original research and Wikipedia NPOV policy on pseudoscience. Wade A. Tisthammer 05:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well KillerChihuahua, this is the section to discuss my edit. Where, pray tell, have you or anyone else addressed this issue in this page? (It's a long page.) Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how to reply to this. I'm assuming good faith, but surely you can read and see this yourself? KillerChihuahua 14:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely you can point to a specific place where you or anyone else allegedly talked about my edit? Wade A. Tisthammer 05:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Who Designed the Designer Section should be removed from the article. And while it might be interesting question to some, it has nothing directly to do with ID. If we were arguing over whether a pocket watch was designed or not, the question of a putative designer's origin would be irrelevant to whether the watch was designed or not. ID is about the origin of biological objects, not about the nature of a designer. Take the section out. Kornbelt


 * The failure of ID to address the question Who designed the designer? is a common and significant criticism leveled against ID. As long as that continues to be the case it is relevant to the article. FeloniousMonk 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is true that the "who designed the designer" question is often cited as a criticism (though it is unclear why it would be; would making a design inference regarding robots on Pluto be irrational because we wouldn't know where the designers came from?). However, I do not believe I have seen it being labeled as "circular reasoning" merely because ID doesn't address the origins of the designer.  Perhaps that part should be removed unless one can give a citation of a prominent ID critic claiming this.  After all, Wikipedia is no place for original research.  Additionally, there may be some parts, particularly regarding the “fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design [is] that every complex object requires a designer” claim that seem to distort the real ID position, thus being original research of the straw man kind.  This part I think should be corrected.  Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I return and I return with scissors.
I'm gonna stay out of the contraversy of the moment for now and start talking about saving space. I propse moving the extended reading sections into list of works on intelligent design. Lets get this article tidy. NPOV or POV, we need to keep it readable!--Tznkai 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * concur, and would suggest also the fiction be deleted or moved, except to be accurate the title would have to be something like List of fiction which inlcudes something which resembles Intelligent design slightly My $.02, I think the fiction section is silly. KillerChihuahua 14:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Moratorium on personal attacks, excplicit or implied
Pretty much how it sounds. No accusations of people failing to do their due dilligence. No personal attacks. No negative statements. No attacks. None.

WP:AGF will be extended into assume reasonable compitence. Assume everyone here who has been a wikipedia more than a month has read WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, etc. If you think there is a violation say it in as short sentances as possible. No rhetoric.

"This is a problem because there is no source revealed." NOT "You didn't reveal your source. Obviously this is original research, a poor attempt at adding in your POV"

It doesn't matter if the last part is true. Don't say it. Don't write it. Mumble it in IM to your bitching buddies.

In otherwords. Be nice. Be very very very nice. Be so disgustingly nice unless you are sure that everyone here thinks that person is being a jerk. Then we will all swarm as one.

Feel free to chime in with agreement --Tznkai 21:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the part about swarming. How do you suggest we co-ordinate it?
 * I'm willing to give it a try, if most other editors are too. Though, would we be allowed to explain to a new user why his edits are faulty? Are we allowed to refer him/her to specific guidelines and policy pages, or would that be, or appear to be, condecending?
 * Something like:
 * "I removed your edit because it lacked sources. Please present your source. Without a source this would constitute original research, which goes against Wikipedia's basic tenets." -- Ec5618 22:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. My observation is the major problems in civility is often inbetween experianced editors of diffrent opinions. I figure if we all agree, we can define what is in bounds and out of bounds, allowing more focus. To much of this talk page is attacks.--Tznkai 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I might add to Ec's suggested note a shortcut to Verifiability WP:V. Also, reminding someone to cite sources is usually not enough, cites for contentious content needs to come from authoritative references that are appropriate for the content. For example, relying on the Discovery Institute's definiton of Intelligent Design is ideal. But defining "science" using the Discovery Institute's definition is inappropriate, except for describing how the institute characterizes science. FeloniousMonk 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just an example, but still:
 * "I removed your edit because it lacked sources, making your additions unverifiable. Please present your source. Without an authoritative source this would constitute original research, which goes against Wikipedia's basic tenets." -- Ec5618 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is not an absence of policy, but a failure to enforce existing policies. We've been very tolerant of incivil, pov-challenged contributors. WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT apply to the entire project. They are sufficient here as well. Were both newbies and long timers here to apply themselves to following these policies, this wouldn't be an issue. Part of the problem is that this article has been a magnet for newbies to the project who have been completely unfamiliar with its policies and goals. This article is often their first edits at the project, and their first exposure to WP:RULES, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Hence the learning curve is painful and steep. That said, there is a limit to which regular contributors can be expected to tolerate disruptive behavior. FeloniousMonk 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean you're in? Willing to give it a shot? No biting of newbies, no personal remarks, nothing that anyone could complain about later? -- Ec5618 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, let's have a reality check: Expecting anyone to "say nothing that anyone could complain about later" is just flat unrealistic, if only for the simple reason that none of have any idea what new arrivals are likely to specifically complain about or take offense to. The two or three new arrivals prior to TZ's return are proof of that. Also, it needs to made clear that if someone is ignoring consensus, making POV edits, or has a history of otherwise flouting policy, pointing this out in a factual way when it is necessary and relevant is by definition not a personal attack. Precluding us from doing so arbitrarily as part of some ad hoc NPA zero-tolerance policy is not supported by WP policy and would seriously hamstring responsible editors in dealing with chronically disruptive editors.


 * That said, I'm 100% behind a strict adherence and application of all official policies and guidelines here without exception. I will not be violating the letter or spirit of WP:NPA, and indeed I have done my best to do so in the past. To sum it up, I fully support this effort and will participate in it up to, and as long as it does not extend beyond what is already found in WP:RULES and does not allow editors who secretly hold the project's goals and policies in contempt to take advantage of our good will. FeloniousMonk 02:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On a related note, anyone from Kansas now either has my pity, or should be shot, preferably slowly. This topic just got a little harder. -- Ec5618 01:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My girlfriend lives in Kansas. What happened now? (I assume its related to ID?)--Tznkai 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kansas school board redefines science in a 6-4 vote.
 * Give my best to your girlfriend. -- Ec5618 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Co-evolution and Ecosystems
This subsection has been retitled and re-written to clear up some ambiguities about the topic. RickReinckens 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This needs to be cleaned up "proponents say" and "evolutionists say" is far too vague.  Who says what?
 * 2) Why "and ecosystems"?  What does this have to do with ecosystems?
 * 3) Proponents argue further that organisms exist as part of an interdependent ecosystem, not as isolated entities that merely happen to live in close proximity - no one argues otherwise.
 * 4) Is this really ID?  Even though ID appears to be creationist, these book titles don't sound very ID.  Guettarda 04:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The talk points were written before I added the Criticism section for NPOV.

Co-evolution: cleanup necessary
'''1. This needs to be cleaned up "proponents say" and "evolutionists say" is far too vague. Who says what?'''

The two books I cite each consist of about 50 chapters, one chapter per contributor. Each contributor has at least one earned doctorate in science, medicine or engineering from an accredited university. Basically, each book raises about 6-10 different arguments, with various people repeating various arguments. As you might expect, that is not a total of 12-20 arguments, it is roughly the same set of arguments in each book. Ashton's main reason for writing each book is to dispel the myth that almost all proponents of ID have no advanced training in science or medicine. The main reason I added this topic is that I had never heard of this argument until I read the two cited books. As I said, a number of chapter contributors make those arguments. This is like the "violates the Law of Entropy" argument. They are credentialed scientists (etc.) repeating with approval an argument they heard "here and there" in the scientific community--they are not making an argument that is original to them.

Co-evolution: why "ecosystem"?
'''2. Why "and ecosystems"? What does this have to do with ecosystems?'''

The co-evolutionists (for instance, in the two books) also point out that ecosystems are essentially self-contained with a number of functions. So, if one animal or plant becomes extinct, there are usually (only) 2-3 more that serve a similar function and can take its place functionally, either as preditor, source of food, pollinator, etc. But if there was no type of organism serving that function, the other organisms that need that function could not exist. If there was no organism of that type, why would the other organisms evolve dependent on a group that didn't exist yet? As I understand it, the "ecosystem" argument is essentially just a ratcheted-up version of the two interdependent organisms coevolution argument. It basically says that two groups of organisms are interdependent and the members of each group would not have evolved to be dependent on the attributes of the other group before the other group evolved those assets. The argument is that God doesn't create individual (types of) organisms, he creates entire systems. For example, many ID proponents (including me) believe that the various organisms were created over a long period of time. The ecosystem argument tends to say, "If God created animals on Monday and created grass a million years later, the animals would all starve. If God created grass on Wednesday, they would live." As I point out in the Criticism section, the ecosystem argument tends to be a "144 hour creation" argument.

Co-evolution: interdependence
3. Proponents argue further that organisms exist as part of an interdependent ecosystem, not as isolated entities that merely happen to live in close proximity - no one argues otherwise.

I like to use short sentences, rather than sentences that contain multiple premises and an extended explanation. The paragraphs basically says, 1) Proponents point out interdependent species, 2) Proponents further argue that there are ecosystems, and 3) The two of those cannot be explained by random mutation.

It probably would be a good idea to clean that up a bit to make it clear that it is not three totally separate arguments. I'll do that in the next day or two.

Co-evolution Are Ashton's books ID, not creationist?
'4. Is this really'' ID? Even though ID appears to be creationist, these book titles don't sound very ID.'''

I want to be clear that the two books are a mixture. Some of the chapters are straight out of biblical creationism and Christian theology and have virtually nothing to do with science. But many of the chapters present arguments based strictly on ID science and/or statistical analysis. Keep in mind that the books are not written for peer review, so they are not full of equations, etc. They state the substance of the various arguments, including the co-evolution argument. Taking that into consideration, yes, co-evolution and parts of the books really are ID, despite the book titles. ID is not just the argument, "The universe is too complicated to be the result of random chance." It includes arguments like these:


 * There is a general consensus among scientists, theologians, etc., that either life arose through abiogenesis or it arose through specific creation. No one has ever proposed a third fundamental way. Therefore, if one of the two is conclusively disproved some version of the other must be correct.


 * Fruit flies have been studied extensively. Since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution there have been over eighty thousand generations of fruit flies. No evidence of macro-evolution has ever been observed.

Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D., was a paleontologist and Professor of Zoology, Professor of Geology, Biology, and the History of Science at Harvard University. He was not just an evolutionary biologist--he was one of the leading theorists in the field. In fact, he invented the theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. When Darwin originally proposed his Theory of Evolution he proposed various tests, including the fossil record--if his theory is true there should be a continuous line in the fossil record from very simple to very complex organisms. So, if lizards evolved from snakes, we should see ancestors of lizards with appendages that are not quite legs. However, the fossil record reveals jumps rather than continuous development. All of a sudden new, fully formed species are found, with no predecessors. To explain this, Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. Essentially, this says that slight mutations continually accumulate with no obvious effect. Then, suddenly, a "master gene" is activated and a mutation manifests. Master genes are well-documented in living organisms. In an interview on PBS around 1991 in a program titled A Glorious Accident, by Dutch producer Wim Kayzer, Dr. Gould "guesstimated" that human beings are the end result of approximately sixty trillion beneficial mutations stating, "Through no fault of our own, and by dint of no cosmic plan or conscious purpose, we have become by a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the stewards of life’s continuity on earth. An accident is the 60 trillion contingent events that eventually led to the emergence of Homo Sapiens. . . . There was never anything in the history of life that has had such an impact upon the earth, as the evolution of human mind. But that doesn’t mean that it was meant to be. It could still be accidental as I think that it was.” For the purpose of examining macro-evolution, we won't quibble about whether the number should be fifteen or sixty or a hundred trillion. We'll accept Gould's sixty trillion as a reasonable approximation. Since Gould's death, astronomers have proved that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The fossil record establishes that fully-formed simple organisms existed 3.7 billion years ago. So what? Sixty trillion beneficial mutations divided by 13.7 billion years divided by 365.25 days per year comes out to forty-three beneficial mutations per day for 13.7 billion years!
 * One of mine: (As you might guess, I have a strong interest in cosmology.)
 * (Irrelevant side note for other geeks: 13.7 billions years is 5 trillion days, 120 trillion hours, 7.2 quadrillion minutes and 432 quadrillion seconds. But I digress . . .)

Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. But, we'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume one mutation in 10 is beneficial. 43 beneficial mutations per day would mean 430 total mutations--each day. And. . . those mutations would have to be passed on to offspring! That is almost 20 mutations per hour for 13.7 billion years! Let's assume Gould overestimated by a factor of four, i.e., human beings are the result of "only" fifteen trillion beneficial mutations. That still would be more than ten beneficial mutations per day, continuously for 13.7 billion years, passed on to offspring. Remember--if our solar system is only 4.55 billion years old, that means two-thirds of those mutations had to occur and be passed on before our solar system even existed! There simply hasn't been enough time for advanced life to evolve by chance.
 * Few planets are in the "Goldilocks" zone where they are not subject to too much radiation from their own sun and other stars, where they are not subject to severe gravity fluctuations from multiple suns, and multiple other things that would make life impossible. Accumulated mutations would have to occur on such rare worlds and then somehow be transferred to Earth from another solar system over dozens if not tens of thousands of light years. (The closest star system is Alpha Centauri, which is a trinary system--too strong fluctuations in gravity and radiation.)

RickReinckens 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Reply to Guettarda's points

Not original research

 * I agree. These aren't significant or commonly-made viewpoints within ID. Without evidence showing that it is, the section falls under WP:NOR and should be removed. Perhaps RickReinckens can connect the dots sufficiently for us. FeloniousMonk 06:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

RickReinckens 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) This co-evolution/ecosystem material is not original research--the two published books edited by Ashton which I cited contain the arguments. I never heard of the co-evolution/ecosytem argument before I read them. Just because it is not a well-known argument does not make it my original research. As mentioned above, the various chapter authors are all credentialed scientists, physicians or engineers with doctorates and a number of them make this argument. Each chapter states their credentials (not just their degrees). (I'm still not quite sure how to set up end-notes.)


 * I find this a very strange argument. Strange because co-evolution is exactly what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. Thus, to put it forth as evidence against evolution is strange indeed. For it to be evidence against evolution, it would have to be the case that evolution predicts that organisms would not coevolve! And it predicts that they should.


 * RickReinckens 07:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC) I re-wrote and retitled the section to make the point clear. They don't argue that co-evolution proves ID, they argue that "distant-future" co-evolution is not supported. I also added additional criticisms that make sense in light of the rewritten section.


 * Thus I also find that the counter-arguments that Rick proposes are quite off the mark, in general. The first counter-argument is that evolution predicts what we observe, so observing this cannot be evidence against evolution. Now, it is true that some people have published articles/books where they imagine that co-evolution and ecology somehow tell against evolution. As usual, this is because these individuals don't understand the science. No surprise. Bill Jefferys 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * RickReinckens 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Again, this is getting into value judgments as to the validity of the arguments. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report and describe. I am not proposing the counter-arguments, I am reporting their existence and describing them. There are many scientific theories that have been discredited, such as the Phlogiston theory and Ether/Luminiferous aether, and yet they are still reported and described in Wiki.

Bill Jefferys 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC) continues:
 * There's no reason to think that engineers, physicians, (none of which are scientists) or even scientists who don't work in these particular fields (including astronomers :0) would have any expertise to offer with regard to these fields. So, their credentials are probably meaningless. This is reinforced by the ignorance of their arguments. Bill Jefferys 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * RickReinckens 03:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Just because someone has a doctorate in medicine or engineering doesn't mean the person is not a scientist and has no experience in a field.


 * It is completely invalid to summarily say, "Unless a person specializes in a field that happens to be extremely narrow, that person cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to contribute that is of any value." Consider, for example, Heinrich Schliemann, the amateur archaeologist who discovered Troy. Every professional archaeologist of his time accepted without doubt that Troy was a myth. Even after Schliemann found Troy they still insisted it was not Troy because Troy was a myth.
 * Also, it is not the function of Wikipedia to make value judgments as to which arguments are most accurate, but only to report and describe the arguments.


 * Regarding, "their obvious lack of knowledge', in the Supportive section I added a link to one of Ashton's books that can be read on-line. Each chapter begins with a description of the chapter author's credentials. Obviously you didn't read their arguments because you say they have no background although several of them have extensive experience specifically in genetic research and several of them go into a good bit of detail about specific problems.


 * Another thing is that the main topic is "Intelligent Design", not "Co-evolution and Ecosystems". My purpose in adding this subsection was just to present the fact that this line of argument exists (and is not raised only by people who are scientifically illiterate) and to give a very basic overview.

Bill Jefferys 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC) continues:

The following was not written by me. Please be careful in your attributions. Bill Jefferys 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This doesn't address my point. You really need to say who says what, and what their arguments are.
 * 1) . Why "and ecosystems"? What does this have to do with ecosystems?
 * The co-evolutionists (for instance, in the two books) also point out that ecosystems are essentially self-contained with a number of functions. So, if one animal or plant becomes extinct, there are usually (only) 2-3 more that serve a similar function and can take its place functionally, either as preditor, source of food, pollinator, etc. But if there was no type of organism serving that function, the other organisms that need that function could not exist. If there was no organism of that type, why would the other organisms evolve dependent on a group that didn't exist yet?
 * This doesn't answer my question. Ecosystems don't evolve, or co-evolve.  Populations evolve, long ago people thought communities might evolve...but ecosystems?  I really need to hear these arguments.
 * 1) Proponents argue further that organisms exist as part of an interdependent ecosystem, not as isolated entities that merely happen to live in close proximity - no one argues otherwise.
 * I like to use short sentences, rather than sentences that contain multiple premises and an extended explanation. The paragraphs basically says, 1) Proponents point out interdependent species, 2) Proponents further argue that there are ecosystems, and 3) The two of those cannot be explained by random mutation. It probably would be a good idea to clean that up a bit to make it clear that it is not three totally separate arguments. I'll do that in the next day or two.
 * Hmmm...no, that's not what you are saying in the article, though I'll accept that's what you meant. However, I am more confused.  Ecosystems cannot be explained by random mutation?  Who is arguing otherwise, and do they understand what an ecosystem is?
 * 1) Is this really ID? Even though ID appears to be creationist, these book titles don't sound very ID.
 * I want to be clear that the two books are a mixture. Some of the chapters are straight out of biblical creationism and Christian theology and have virtually nothing to do with science. But many of the chapters present arguments based strictly on ID science and/or statistical analysis. Keep in mind that the books are not written for peer review, so they are not full of equations, etc. They state the substance of the various arguments, including the co-evolution argument.
 * This gets back to my first point. All the more if this is a mixture of creationists and ID proponents, we need to know who is saying what.  While ID is creationist (and some say YEC), many YECs are at odds with ID.  You need to make sure that you are not reporting true YEC positions as being ID.
 * RickReinckens 04:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Response re YEC-ID distinction: I am in the process of going through the individual chapters of Ashton's book that are on-line to document this more in detail. However, YEC is the extreme version of ID--it would be impossible to have YEC but not ID!
 * (Totally off-topic geek humor: Awhile back I was asked to join the IT ministry at my church. They were planning on getting tee shirts. I said how about using the slogan God's Tech Support Team?)


 * 1) The point of this article is to report, not to try to convince.  There are no arguments to be won here as to what the broader metaphysical truth is - only what is accurate, verifiable, and presented in a manner which is consistent with NPOV.  Guettarda 18:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see this being a significant and necessary part to understanding ID. FeloniousMonk 20:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * RickReinckens 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Response to FeloniousMonk: The subsection is Intelligent Design Debate and the subsections under that are Intelligent Design Concepts. Each Concepts subsection under that can be viewed from two perspectives: (1) As an argument for ID or (2) an argument against evolution. For example, Irreducible Complexity is an argument in favor of ID and against evolution.


 * Looking over the list, I think the Co-evolution section needs to be renamed. The point of ID proponents about co-evolution is that they claim co-evolution could not happen. Impossibility of Co-Evolution would better describe their argument. However, ecosystems is another aspect of the same argument and Impossibility of Ecosystems makes no sense. As I mentioned elsewhere, as I understand it the ecosystems argument is a "ratcheted-up" version of the "Impossibility of Co-Evolution" argument.


 * I'm thinking that the subsection probably should be retitled "Impossibility of Co-Evolution", with a subsection under that discussing the ecosystem issue. I am in the process of reading through the various chapters of Ashton that are on-line to find the ones that deal specifically with co-evolution and/or ecosystems. Once I find those I'll put more specific references. I'm pretty sure I have figured out how to add endnotes.


 * Once I have documented the (Impossibility of) Co-evolution section a bit more I'll start a discussion topic about re-naming the subsection and either having ecosystems as a separate argument at the same level or as a subsection under Co-evolution.


 * Response to Rick Reincken:


 * Your unfortunate habit of interspersing your comments with mine has led you to incorrectly attribute the numbered points above to me.


 * I would appreciate it in the future if you would not intersperse your comments with others'; it leads to confusion about who wrote what, and destroys the integrity of what other people wrote. I don't know if it violates Wikiquette, but it should. Instead, please place your comment at the end.


 * Your comment:


 * Just because someone has a doctorate in medicine or engineering doesn't mean the person is not a scientist and has no experience in a field.


 * It is completely invalid to summarily say, "Unless a person specializes in a field that happens to be extremely narrow, that person cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to contribute that is of any value."


 * Does not accurately reflect my comment:


 * There's no reason to think that engineers, physicians, (none of which are scientists) or even scientists who don't work in these particular fields (including astronomers :0) would have any expertise to offer with regard to these fields. So, their credentials are probably meaningless. This is reinforced by the ignorance of their arguments.


 * I am saying here that credentials don't matter if they do not reflect actual work in the field. I am an astronomer: I have an advanced degree in this field, and I have published over a hundred papers in that field. Although I have participated actively in a seminar on evolutionary biology for a number of years, I do not consider myself an expert on evolutionary biology, and I would not present my degree or my scientific experience as evidence that anyone should pay attention to my ruminations about biology. My comments should stand on their own.


 * An unfortunate characteristic of creationists and ID proponents is that they trumpet degrees and qualifications as if they do confer validity on the arguments being made. In the special case that someone has extensive experience in a particular area, they might give credibility to an argument. But advanced degrees and extensive experience in areas unrelated to the topic of discussion are entirely irrelevant and should not even be mentioned. Indeed, given the context, it is my opinion that mentioning such credentials detracts from the veracity of the arguments.


 * I do not claim and never did claim, as you say, that having a degree in engineering or medicine means that someone is not a scientist, or that they have no experience in a field, or that they have nothing of value to contribute. I say only that their degrees in unrelated fields do not add weight to what they say. For example, I know a number of people whose degrees are in engineering, and even some who have no advanced degree of any kind, but whom I regard as excellent scientists. Their contributions are valuable because they have actually done the hard work of research in fields that are not their fields of original training and original expertise.


 * Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would not attribute to me arguments that I have not made. Thank you. Bill Jefferys 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this limited to Ashton?
Quick question: is there anywhere other than 2 books by Ashton that could be cited? This article is awfully long already, and I think you yourself said you'd never heard of this before reading the books. Of course, that might well be an argument in favor of including it, in the interests of being thorough - I am wondering if it is a Ashton thing or an ID thing, if you follow. KillerChihuahua 04:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * RickReinckens 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Ashton is the editor. Each chapter is by a different author. Several authors raise it.


 * thanks, but do any of these authors say anything on the same subject anywhere else? That would clarify who is being cited. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
i removed the following recent addition by Mulp from the article, because it fails to cite sources, making the additions unverifiable. Mulp, please present your source. Without an authoritative source this would constitute original research, which goes against Wikipedia's basic tenets.

The text also refers to Intelligent Design as a theory, which is considered by consensus to be ambiguous and debatable. The term concept would be better suited here.

Intelligent Design in fiction has its own subsection. This addition might have been better placed there.

Finally, is there any reason to believe that Arthur C. Clarke was exploring Intelligent Design as described in this article (meaning that he believed life on Earth, and specific life forms, were created and designed), or was he merely interested in the notion that an intelligent entity might manipulate life?"''


 * ''Arthur C. Clarke began exploring Intelligent Design in 1951 with "The Sentinel", and, with Stanley Kubrick, advanced the theory with 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). To overcome scientific resistance to his work, Clarke sold his theory as science fiction, writing in 1972, "Quite early in the game I went around saying, not very loudly, 'MGM doesn't know this yet, but they're paying for the first $10,000,000 religious movie.'" His contemporary, Isaac Asimov, the renown science author, suggested another theory in "The Last Question" (1959).


 * ''In 1968 by Erich von Däniken published his research documenting evidence of visits by space travelers who were welcomed as gods in Chariots of the Gods. Däniken also faced ridcule from the scientific community, particularly for his theories that biblical characters were inspired by the extraterrestrials, and humans acquired their superior intelligence by mating with them.

-- Ec5618 15:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * the source for all are wikipedia as hotlinked. I would note that Asimov was a humanist (former president of the society until his death). Asimov and Clarke were peers in the early pulp scifi era, dealing with the same editor suggesting ideas to explore.  Can you suggest a reason that Asimov and Clarke weren't exploring intelligent design as the "theory" is presented any more than the references back a couple thousand years?  Both authors proposed intelligence creating life in the referenced and other stories. "advanced technology will seem supernature" is a paraphrase of Clarke's similar statement. And that is the thing that makes ID distinct from Creationism; it might seem like magic, but there is a natural explanation, we just don't know what it is. -- Mulp 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Mulp's entry is factually correct (I've certainly read the Arthur C. Clarke story many times; and Daniken is a well-known nut-job), but I agree about the deletion. Certainly in both The Sentinel and 2001 Clarke's designers are fairly clearly aliens, but not deities.  However, in the (dreadful) sequels to his (excellent) Rendezvous With Rama novel, Clarke does pretty much explicitly posit a deity instead of aliens.  However, there's no intelligence in the design going on.  This deity knocks out universes left, right and centre, retrospectively intervening and testing them for usefulness after they've evolved to the point of intelligent life.


 * The Asimov story may merit a mention in the article's fiction section though. Again, however, ID purists would struggle to take anything helpful from it.  More generally, most of the entries in the fiction section of the article deal with alien intervention rather than that of deity.  While ostensibly ID leaves it open as to whether aliens or deities are involved, it's pretty clear the latter are favoured.  So the fiction section might be worth shrinking/trashing to reduce the article size (I say this as someone who's contributed to it).  --Plumbago 16:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you suggesting the section should be deleted, simply because it does not help 'ID purists'? I hope I misread that comment.
 * Personally, I did not like the section when it was first introduced, but I've changed my mind. I feel that the section is not unhelpful as it might help some readers relate to the topic at hand, nor is it POV, so it might as well stay. The concept of an intelligent designer is a staple of science fiction, as the article states. -- Ec5618 18:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies for confusing. I suppose I don't like the fiction section because, on the whole, it hasn't really got much to do with ID.  At least, not ID in its current political/cultural sense.  Of the examples I'm familiar with, none reference ID in the way it's referred to in the rest of the article.  There's certainly no irreducible complexity in 2001 for instance.  :)  Anyway, I don't have very strong feelings on it, it just feels a bit out of place in an otherwise fairly academic article.


 * Incidentally, one example that's missing is the novel Dragons Egg by someone-or-other. In that novel, humans visiting a neutron star discover moderately advanced creatures at an early level of cultural development living on its surface.  By accident at first, then by design later, they affect some evolutionary change in the aliens, ultimately raising the civilisation of the aliens until they overtake the humans technologically.  Anyway, it sort-of provides an example of humans-as-gods (in lower case).


 * Anyway, getting off topic, so I'll stop. Cheers, --Plumbago 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, irredicible complexity is what I thought of when I saw 2001. Kubrick/Clarke uses the alien monoliths to explain the leap to human self-consciousness that many find unlikely to occur through blind forces. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Clarke's famous statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law) English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - ) could be paraphrased, "the natural world is indistiguishable from the scientifically primative's supernatural." Let's assume that those advocating Intelligent Design are looking at that which seems supernatural and trying to find a natural explanation. Otherwise, what is the difference between ID and Creationism? -- Mulp 06:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO the fiction section is not necessary, adds confusion, and bloats an already bloated article. If there were a section on 'bats in fiction' in the article about bats, I'd want it deleted as unecessary and silly. And I agree with Plumbago that it seems not quite on-topic, as none of the books actually mention ID by name, they only have similar plotlines. Seems consensus is against me on this one. KillerChihuahua 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Debate
This is something I've noticed on Wikipedia (probbaly due to its very nature), not just on this article: There is so much debate within the article that makes it unnecessarily long. I'm of the mind set that an article should tell what something is, not what it is, what it isn't, what people think about it, criticisms, et al. Certainly, some articles should fully feature criticisms, like event articles, but articles about an idea (escatology, theory, et al) should (in my most humble opinion) simply state what that opinion is. As most of these ideas are really just an opinion, or a point of view, to begin with. When there is an article about one's point of view, shouldn't that article simply show that point of view? The countering points of view should have their own articles (and most do anyway), and they can certainly be linked to each other. Just a thought. glocks out 19:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reductivist impulse is laudable, but cannot be accomodated for very apparent reasons. When reporting on beliefs that are inaccurate, an encyclopedia that is exhausitive must be able to report that they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, the only NPOV way to do this is to report criticisms. If we didn't do this, we would have articles that would devolve into POV platforms which would be exactly the opposite of the NPOV rules. Joshuaschroeder 19:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for even bringing this up here. I'm moving it to the NPoV talk page. You do make a great point, however. When dealing with a "minority view" you do have to make it clear it is one. On the other hand, when there exists "point-counterpoint" articles, it's not much of an article, and more of a message board with either side continuing to add more points and more coutnerpoints. It's just my feeling that when I go to read an article about (for example) monarchy, I want to learn about what a monarchy is, not all about how so many people oppose monarchies, and the socialist position, the democratic position, et al. In this article about ID, for instance, there is a "creation-evolution controversy" article that can (and does) cover the debate contained within. A shorter paragraph mentioning how the idea is thought to be outside of rational thinking by the majority of scientists linking to the articles for evolution and the controversy would suffice, in my humble opinion. As I stated when I opened this discussion, I'm sure this all happens because of the nature of a wiki. glocks out 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The relevant sections of the NPOV policy that apply directly to this article are WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV. They dictate this layout. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Undue weight, this article needs a lot of reworking. The portions supporting this minority view are intermingled with the main-stream view, and then there is about half of the article on criticism. Like, each point made for ID has a counterpoint, and then there is a large section (currently section "4") criticising it. This is basically my point. There is more telling what it isn't, and criticism to it, than there is information about it. glocks out 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, do whatever. I don't even care about this article except in the Wikipedia macro view. I can't even think of a way to do an article of a minority view while not having to give the minority view as much space as the majority view. It's weird to me I guess. I will go work on articles I care about instead. glocks out 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, ID is the minority viewpoint. Read WP:NPOV with WP:NPOV. The scientific community is the majority, their response is presented in an appropriate level per WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Double Criticism
Why is it that there is designated 'criticism' sections under each argument for ID and not matching designated defenses of ID under each criticism in the criticism section? Doing so gives the balance of opinion against ID, essentially creating a 2/3 swing of oponions voiced. I strongly suggest either removing criticisms from the ID arguments section or setting up designated defenses under each of the criticisms. Trilemma 22:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Our task here is only to present both sides of the debate in a manner that ascribes viewpoints to those who hold them. If balance were our only concern, presenting a separate response to each criticism section, followed by a response to each response to criticism, and so on would keep us busy indeed but not make for a good article. Again, Wikipedia's policies dictate how much is article space is dedicated to criticism, see WP:NPOV.If you have any concerns about which is the minority/majority viewpoint here, see WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You describe it as pseudoscience, but yet a dictionary.com definition says, ": a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific."
 * The problem is, this is not true. I believe roughly 7,000 scientists support intelligent design, including several noted figures in the field of bioscience. It can only be said of it that "a majority of scientists consider it to be pseudoscience." Stepping beyond that is NPOV, plain and simple. It is no wikipedians place to pass subjective judgement against the theories of Dr. Michael Behe and company, and doing so shifts wikipedia away from neutrality.
 * Regarding the point/counterpoint argument, I can understand your position, but at the same time, I think it can stop at a simple, fixed structure. That structure, preferred by me, would be to have the arguments for section with criticisms to each point, followed by a criticisms section, followed by defenses to each point. It can easily stop there and be a better article. Now, if I or another user would add such sections to the criticisms section, would that be tolerated? Trilemma 03:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't that FM describes it as pseudoscience, but that it is pseudoscience per your own criteria. It is indeed true. It does not matter if seven thousand or seven million or just seven supprt ID, it is still pseudoscience. Stepping away from that is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua 04:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is fully within the bounds of the WP:NPOV policy in stating that the scientific community views ID as pseudoscience. By representing the scientific view (the majority viewpoint) and the ID view (a minority viewpoint) while explaining how scientists have received ID and characterized ID's theories (as pseudoscience) is exactly as it is called for at WP:NPOV. Nearly every significant and reputable scientific professional organization have issued statements that ID is pseudoscience. There is no judgment of ID made in the article itself.
 * How does your idea about structure align with the policies WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV? It seems to ignore the former while violating the latter. Any change along the lines you propose would need to take these policies into account and be in line with them to be robust. FeloniousMonk 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and that individual scientists (of any number) choose to support ID does not make it valid science. Their support can as easily be for personal or social reasons as for scientific. FeloniousMonk 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then by that same token, the number of scientists supporting Darwinism is irrelevant, as the same could be said about the theory. I hope you see that there is a double standard held in regards to ID that is not present with other minority scientific opinions, and there seems to be an overt bias and campaign to discredit ID amongst users editing this page.
 * It's clear that this article is getting disproportionate attention paid to it by those opposing the view due to it being a current topic in America (and beyond). This distorts it compared to other minority scientific theories and affects the quality and viewpoint of the article
 * Felonious, would you object to myself or another wikipedian adding in 'defenses' to the criticisms section? Trilemma 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Trilemma, with all due respect, would you mind sticking to one issue before moving on to a subsequent conclusion? You state that "by that same token... there seems to be an overt bias and campaign" then move to a suggestion as though the point, and the bias, were resolved and accepted as consensus. Begging your pardon, that is a bit hasty. Let's continue with the first issue until resolved, then if a suggestion seems appropriate in light of achieved consensus that would be the time to make it. KillerChihuahua 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My point was that if you are willing to impune the work of a group of scientists by questioning their personal bias, then it would be perfectly reasonable to question the work of all scientists on the grounds of personal bias. What I'm hoping to show you is that the methods of criticizing scientists who are ID proponents is a double standard and unfair. I wouldn't attempt to criticize a scientist upholding a Darwinist model on personal grounds (though it is fair to reason that a great deal of them are athiests or agnostics). That isn't the place for it, with either Darwinists or ID'ers.
 * As for my suggestion, to which I believe you are referring to the defenses under the criticisms section, it's not a fresh suggestion. I proposed it several edits back. I'm just hoping to gauge community opinion in regards to it.Trilemma 17:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to impugn anyone or their viewpoints irresponsibly, nor, I think, is anyone else here. Stating that there is bias, as your opinion, is one thing: showing that there is in fact bias is another. For your consideration: If person Y states "I hate avocados" then reporting that "Y hates avocodos" is not ipugning them in any way.
 * If you are hoping to show that the methods of criticism used in this article are biased, based on personal opinion, and unfair, I refer you to my post, above - stay on this until consensus is reached. Saying it is so is your opinion. Now if you wish to show me, or the other editors here, that there is bias, it will take some examples (small and clear, preferably) and some discussion.
 * Your suggestion is indeed not new. So far, I have not seen anyone do anything except cry "foul" and make the suggestion. Please offer some substance to your charge that there is a bias until it is resolved, then if consensus is that this is the case, that is the time to make the suggestion. Merely that a suggestion is not new does not grant validity. KillerChihuahua 18:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua is right. Also, we follow consensus WP:CON here so I don't have the final say as to what goes into the article or not. That said, I'm opposed to any content that ignores WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV, and so far Trilemma hasn't demonstrated that he's taken these into account in his objections. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I think Trilemma is missing the point: We (the article) is not endorsing any one view, but merely reporting the viewpoints of the significant parties in the debate, exactly as is called for in the WP:NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure you are in fact addressing my points. We're not talking about the flat earth society, we are talking about a proposal by established scientists and academics. I can not think of another minority scientific opinion that recieves such scrutiny.
 * Now, I understand that I am repeating myself, but I don't think you're understanding my point. There are editors here that treat ID the same as such non scientific beliefs as the flat earth society. This is wrong. The people proposing ID are scientists and professors.
 * My accusation of bias lays in the disproportionate emphasis on criticism within the article. For comparison, I'll reference the following:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture
 * Neither of these articles contain the disproportionate amount of criticism that the ID article has, when both are minority scientific opinions. And, I would assume that a person adding, say for example, criticism to each of the points of Naturopathy, would find their edits removed.
 * Why do we need criticisms under each argument for ID when there is already a section designated for criticism? Why do anti ID'ers insist on having the last word? Why can't we just have a section for pro ID arguments and a section of ID criticisms? That is my ideal setup for the article, but I don't think that would be accepted. So, having rebuttals in the criticisms section to match the criticisms under the ID arguments section seems immensely reasonable to me.
 * Make no mistake about it, I'm not accusing anyone of immature, blanant NPOV violations, IE, "ID sucks. big guy in sky making everything." But, I still think the article would be of a higher quality if there wasn't an intent of giving a louder voice to the anti ID opinion.Trilemma 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

We certainly could include criticisms, rebuttals of criticisms, and them rebuttals of rebuttals...at what point would you stop? As "science" ID is a fringe position - are you trying to say that there are 7000 Ph.D. scientists working on ID? I'd be amazed if there were 70. If you want a balanced perspective on the "science", you've already got far too much "pro". Of course, when we talk about balance, we are not striving for absolute balance. The ID position deserves to be made without being swamped by the mainstream position. But at the same time, it is a fringe position in the scientific community and it would not be true to NPOV to present it as otherwise. Guettarda 23:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand Trilemma's frustration, but his complaint is more appropriately made at the NPOV policy talk page than here, because it's that policy that enjoins us:
 * NPOV:Pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
 * NPOV:Undue Weight: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
 * Following the policies, there were only two questions we had to determine here: 'Is the scientific community the majority viewpoint, or is ID?' and 'Does the scientific community, as a group, largely view ID as pseudoscience?' And the answers are difficult to refute; clearly the scientific community represents the majority viewpoint, and there is broad consensus within the scientific community that ID is pseudoscience. Once that was established, the NPOV policy then told us how and how much of the scientific viewpoint the article should present, which was, "present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject." FeloniousMonk 23:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears (from posts here as well as on my talk page) that currently the hurdle is that Trilemma is treating ID as though it were not pseudoscience - as though it had equal standing with scientific theory, such as atomic theory. Trilemma, do you understand that ID is pseudoscience, not meeting any of the criteria for scientific theory, and is not science? If you do not agree with that, please let us know so we can speak to the same issue - right now I think that may be causing confusion. KillerChihuahua 00:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortinately, the definition you hold ID to would also qualify evolution as pseudoscience. There is no viewable model for evolution, no tangible experiment to prove it. Which furthers my point that you hold ID to a double standard because the majority of scientists don't agree with it. Look at the string theory article. It is a minority scientific opinion, currently unable to be scientifically proven in the sense of the definition that you apply. Yet you do not insist on using the label 'pseudoscience' and countering every point made in support of it. Why all the attention paid to ID? Trilemma 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your examples don't actually prove your point. One, evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community as being one of the better supported and validated theories, in distinct contrast to how you characterize it here. Two, string theory makes full use of the scientific method, and remains within the bounds of such in making its arguments. ID not only steps outside of the bounds of established scientific method on a number of counts (parsimony, falsifiability) it calls for a complete abandonment of a central tenet of the scientific method, naturalism. Claiming to be science while abandoning the scientific method is the definition of pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * FM is correct - evolution is a scientific theory with many proofs. String theory is a scientific theory with many proofs (of which I understand exactly none.) Both are based on observation. Both are predictive. Both are falsifiable, all of which is required for scientific theory. Neither has been falsified, which is required for a theory to still be extant rather than extinct (ok, small pun, forgive the puppy for bad humor.) KillerChihuahua 01:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what Trilemma is getting at is the on-going debate is whether ID is science or pseudoscience. It appears the Wikipedians have concluded it is pseudoscience. Competeing theoretical physics (such as quantum physics, string theory, dark matter, et al) aren't considered pseudoscience. These sciences do have varying support from within the scientific community - some with a clear majority. Perhaps this article should be formed like the string theory article. That is: lay out what the proponents of ID claim, and then have the problems with the assertation. That article seems to be congruent without looking like a debate forum. It isn't validated as fact, but presented for what it is - an idea. glocks out 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedians have concluded ID is pseudoscience"? No, the scientific community has largely concluded ID is pseudoscience. And that is what the article states. Any "on-going debate is whether ID is science or pseudoscience" is largely taking place in the public and political spheres, not scientific. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

FM is correct. AFAIK, no reputable scientist in any field remotely associated with the science of how the universe came to be, and more specifically, how life came to be, "support" ID. However, for clarity's sake, here is why (not, as FM points out, my opinion):

Theory: ID is, for lack of a better phrase, in direct competition with Evolution/Darwinian selection. This being the case, "theory" as used in concurrance with "Intelligent design" is generally understood to mean "Scientific theory." Unless a question is raised, hopefully we can take that as agreed upon (this discussion of "theory" relates to "scientific theory" and not any other use of that word.)

Scientific theory: The best explanation/definition/clarification of theory I have found to date is here: |Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories. I find this definition more concise than the WP entry, which is admittedly more exhaustive. From that site: "In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

In specific, the confusion surrounding the ID issue is the basic misunderstanding of "theory" as meaning something like "I think I have a good explanation for this." "Theory" actually has quite specific criteria, and ID does not meet that criteria. One of the, if not the main, point of divergence is this: a theory originates from observable facts or is supported by them.

A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified (but is falsifiable - otherwise how can you test it?). (pasted almost verbatim from the WP entry, italics mine, for emphasis as I will use the words below)

ID is intelligent design, hence an intelligence, aka the designer - unobservable by the scientific method. A supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, which would be accurate for ID.

A brief trip down the "break" in ID as compared to evolution:
 * Inheritance - not argued by anyone, thank goodness.
 * Passed on by DNA - again, only very fringe people deny the existance of DNA or that DNA is the replicating factor.
 * Variations occur - these could be minor, like better resistence to one minor disease, or better "wind" for running, or major, which are often in the form of birth defects. Not in dispute.
 * ID states that at some point in the past, someone set all this up in virtually the form we have today. And this is the breakdown: There is no evidence for this whatsoever. This is not observable in action or in results. ID is not predictive. ID is untestable (how would one design a test to see if there is a designer??? testing for the existance of God is questionable at best, surely?). It is not systematic, because it ignores the points above, which do not logically lead to the designer idea, but instead point without variation or exception to evolution. It is unfalsefiable (sp?) because in its very nature, it is both unproveable and unproveable as false.

To put it a different way: Darwin was able to posit some sort of inheritence factor which was replicated, with variations, because of observation. That was in the 1800s. In the 1950s, Watson and Crick identified DNA, which was predicted by evolutionary theory. This is an example of a theory being predictive. What can ID predict? Nothing. What can be observed which leads to ID as a hypothesis? Nothing of which I am aware.

KillerChihuahua 01:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We're not debating ID right now, but the lay of the article. Some people (like myself) just want a better article, not a continued debate. If you notice the Flat Earth article doesn't need, nor warrant, massive amounts of criticisms - why does this article? That article basically says what the idea was/is. glocks out 01:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, we want a better article. This is, however, germane (if verbose.) The concern voiced is that there is bias which would be true were ID not psuedoscience. We are attempting to address Trilemma's issues, because in the past, when issues were raised here and not addressed in this exhaustive manner, some editors felt they were being dismissed summarily. KillerChihuahua 01:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In The News: Kansas Education Board
I just saw this news this morning ,, about the Kansas Education Board actually approving of Intelligent Design, requiring it to be taught in schools. Is a section going to be added concerning ID being taught in certain states? Spencer 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Spencer. We're covering this at the Intelligent design movement article. This article covers topics central to understanding the concept. FeloniousMonk 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Manipulative genetics ?
I just reverted a new section: "Manipulative genetics" placed under "Intelligent Design concepts: Key component of ID" - no sources, no discussion here, by the ip 24.99.160.185 (no other contribs.) I hate, hate hate Rv'ing unless it is clear vandalism... I may have acted in haste, but it made no sense to me and had no sources, and this is a topic I follow fairly closely and I have never heard of this being used as a component of ID. Will whoever put that section in please discuss here, and cite sources? thanks! KillerChihuahua 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's address the article size
Hopefully we all agree that this article would be better in a shorter form. I'm not proposing anything too radical, but I think as a starting point we could cut back on the Intelligent Design Movement section which is well-covered in it's own article. For anyone wondering, the policies and explanations can be found at Article size and Summary style (for the record this article is currently 85K). Any other ideas for getting the article size down, or any issues with this? --Brendanfox 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever gets trimmed, we'll need to be careful about creating POV forks. The ID fiction section is a no-brainer for its own article: List of Intelligent Design in fiction. And the Problem of Distant-Future Co-evolution subsection has still not been shown to be a significant viewpoint within ID, or necessary to the article, and so best given its own article. FeloniousMonk 06:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely concur on both points. Trim overview of movement drastically, as there is seperate article, and make fiction elsewhere. (I've mentioned the fiction bit before, so you know I agree on that.) Does anyone have any (more specific) ideas? Little redundancies that could be trimmed? KillerChihuahua 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Sternberg/Smithsonian peer review controversy is worthy of it's own article, and can readers here can be directed to it. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've moved the Sternberg peer review controversy content to its' own article and updated the footnotes. FeloniousMonk 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"What (or who) designed the designer?" - logical flaw
I believe the reasoning in this section contains a logical flaw and a misleading conclusion.

After presenting a logical paradox in ID, in the concept of irreducible complexity necessitating an infinite regression of designers, it goes on to point out that a deity is one answer, but concludes:

1. that in such a case ID is reduced to religious creationism

2. a deity nevertheless does not escape the paradox

Addressing these conclusions:

1. that in such a case ID is reduced to religious creationism

I believe this is a logically incorrect deduction for the following reasons:

a) PRIMARILY and simply, a theory's implications should not be confused with the theory itself!

b) Intelligent Design does not state that there is a deity, but states that according to naturalistic observation and logical deduction, the concept of irreducible complexity indicates an intelligent designer

c) as pointed out by Wikipedia in this section, it is a LOGICAL IMPLICATION of b), via the inifinite regression paradox - IF ID is correct - and not ID itself, that necessitates a deity

d) the correct conclusion then, is that the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONs of ID if correct provide evidence for religious creationism. This does not make the statements of ID itself non-naturalistic or religious, or even correct.

2. a deity nevertheless does not escape the paradox

While it is true that a deity does not escape the paradox of infinite regression described in this section, nothing else does either. We live in an infinite universe (what lies outside it) in an infinite age (what came before it). It is misleading to imply that infinite existence (what gave rise to it, deity or otherwise) is paradoxical for ID only.

ant 13:44, 11 November 2005


 * Bill, I moved your comment up here as it addresses the start of the discussion, and I feel my next answer beow addresses it. ant 00:04, 13 November 2005 (GMT)

You had no right to do this. I have moved the comment to the end, where I originally put it. Please do not do this in the future. It is offensive.

Nor does your answer address what I wrote. If you think it did not, then comment after what I wrote. Bill Jefferys 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Primarily and simply: A theory's implications are of prime, not to say crucial, importance to the validity of the theory. See falsifiability. The rest of your "logical implications" fall by the wayside. KillerChihuahua 15:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The point to understand is that the implications are not the theory itself. Implications for religious beliefs do not of logical necessity make the theory itself religious. Simply put, a theory can be purely observational and rational from foundation to conclusion and still coincidentally imply the existence or non-existence of God - that one religious implication, perhaps amongst other scientific implications, does not logically subvert the rationale of the theory into an unfounded religious statement, but must simply be left as unaddressable as far as science is concerned. ID is not reduced to religious creationism simply by the implications arising from ID for that movement. ant 18:31, 11 November 2005 ]


 * This objection and subsequent debate is all beside the point when comes to the article's content. The only relevent issue for the article is whether 'Who designed the designer' objection is a commonly made objection to ID. And the answer is yes, it is. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. It is not attributed and is therefore the Wikipedia POV.
 * 2. Even if it becomes attributed, should Wikipedia be adding such debatable argument to such a charged topic as this, when the article is already overloaded? I'd like to suggest that this section be dropped. ant 19:34, 11 November 2005 ]


 * 1. It is attributed, broadly, to ID's "critics," which is completely accurate. Also keep in mind that there is no requirement in the NPOV policy that every common-knowlege viewpoints must be attributed specifically.
 * 2. It's only a " debatable argument" to those ID proponents who take issue with it. Within scientific community, the majority viewpoint, the view is not a controversial one. The section has already been shown to a significant and necessary viewpoint to understanding the topic, it's not likely to be removed from the article over these objections. FeloniousMonk 03:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, FM... sorry.
 * ant, I'm not sure I understand your categorizing this as "such debatable argument" - are you debating whether this argument has been made? This is an objection made repeatedly, by Dawkins, Dennett, and virtually every criticism I've read from the scientific community regarding ID. Google for "who designed the designer" and you will get 10,300 hits. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not suggesting that this argument has not been made.
 * I'm suggesting that we either:
 * a) Cite source for the argument, if not quote it (perhaps it'd be better put) and
 * b) Mention the ID proponents' view (or at least that they have a counter-view) if we present this debatable argument at all,
 * or, and much more preferably,
 * Remove all of the debating detail in the section, since the debate is exacerbating the length of the article, and replace it with a comment on the existence of the debate and listing arguments by title so that the reader can investigate them further, if interested, in places where there is room to present the debate reasonably well.
 * My main concern is that it does not make Wikipedia look good to present such a debatable argument as though it was Wikipedia's POV. ant 23:45, 11 November 2005 (GMT) ]
 * This should be held in consideration according to WP:CITE. glocks out 00:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems enough sources are cited to me, but it sounds as though you feel there should be a specific footnote, say around "...must also be irreducibly complex."? Because Dawkin's book is in the sources, and the section is footnoted to a Time magazine article with all that in it. KillerChihuahua 03:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be fine if we prefaced points with a reference rather than having a trailing one for the whole section, and use quotes where possible. As it is now I think the logical errors are embarrassing to Wikipedia since it reads as a Wikipedia-accepted statement followed by a further reference. FM does not want to debate the logicality because it is a commonly-held view, which I agree with, so I think a few direct references and quotes would help to establish this. ant 16:02, 12 November 2005 (GMT)


 * I'm sorry, surely that is a joke? You want every single statement to have its own footnote, in one of the (if not *the*) best referenced articles on Wikipedia? I fail to see where "it reads as a Wikipedia-accepted statement" is even remotely true. If you think "a few direct references and quotes" would be enough, what on earth do you think we should do? Reduce the 58 footnotes and go down to "a few"?
 * Your suggestion is either poorly phrased, in which case please rephrase so it makes sense, or you are saying we should reduce the citations, which I assure you will cause a great deal of complaint, or you want to add a footnote to every statement in the article, which is absurd, or you are making a joke, which is probable. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking of the 'Who Designed the designer' points, not the entire article, which is indeed well-referenced in contrast. I was suggesting that we preface the main points (not each statement!) because it makes a couple of incorrect statements which I feel as a result should either be disclaimed, quoted, or removed. For instance, who designed the designer is not describing a circular argument at all, but showing asurdio reductem by infinite regression. So I feel that at the least we should start off with a disclaimer such as 'Another commonly-held view is ...'. ant 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are already 3 footnotes in that section. "infinite regression" is already in the section. "circular argument" is not. And your proposed lead-in has no content and would add more bloat to no purpose, except possibly to state the already implicit. KillerChihuahua 00:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the original statement. Ant wrote


 * a) PRIMARILY and simply, a theory's implications should not be confused with the theory itself!

This is nonsense. A theory exists only because of its implications. "Theories" that have no implications cannot correctly be called theories. In particular, any theory has implications for what will be observed in the real world. If a theory's implications include the existence of some sort of designer, then one can ignore, but cannot avoid the question, what do different sorts of designers imply as to what will be seen in the real world, i.e., what data do we expect to observe given the various kinds of designers that might exist?

The ID community doesn't want to address this question because they know that to do so will undercut the carefully-nurtured fiction that ID has nothing to do with religion. They hope that by ignoring the question, or by saying over and over again that it isn't part of ID, they will be able to finesse the issue. But anyone with a grain of sense will realize that this is just a debating position, and that ID clearly implies that if a designer is required, ultimately there must be a designer that is outside the universe, i.e., a deity. Bill Jefferys 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And indeed Dembski admits as much: "The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." FeloniousMonk 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A theory can be purely observational and rational from foundation to conclusion and still coincidentally imply the existence or non-existence of God - that religious implication, perhaps amongst other scientific implications, does not simply by association transform the preceding logic of the theory into an unfounded religious statement, but must simply be left as unaddressable as far as science is concerned. ID is not reduced to religious creationism simply by the implications arising from ID for religion.
 * To put it another way, religious creationism observes God, and this results in implications about nature, whereas ID observes nature, and this results in implications concerning deity. The logic flow in religion moves from a premise of the existence of God, to conclusions about nature, whereas the logic flow in ID moves from observation of the natural world and its laws, to conclusions about a designer and logically therefore the supernatural.
 * The two are moving in opposite directions logically, even though they arrive at the same destination/origin as the other.
 * They are clearly not the same even though they are corroborative. ant 17:11, 13 November 2005 ]


 * And indeed some claim ID's conection to religion is purely coincidental or merely an implication, though they have a tough time explaining away things like Dembski's book "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology", the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture's former overtly theistic mission statement which is also mirrored in their wedge document and the subtexts of their current statements, etc. That's not to mention the literally hundreds of statements from Dembski, Johnson, etc. stating explicitly that the foundation and goal of ID is ultimately religious. There's no disconnect between religion, creationism, and ID. ID is an example of the latest form of creationism, neo-creationism. Creationism has evolved. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "evolved" :-) - cute!
 * I'm not contesting the overlap between ID and religious creationism, it's obvious.
 * I'm saying that an arising implication of the existence of God does not logically convert the reasoning in ID from being based upon observation and possibly logical interpretation of nature into the related religious statements of creationism. The reasoning itself may still be areligious. And it doesn't matter who says it and why they say it. The speakers may be religious. Their motivation may be religious. All of this is only to be expected if their conclusion implies something favourable to religion. But implication of deity per se doesn't make their assertion, their reasoning itself illogical, unscientific or synonomous with their religous assertions, which are not based upon natural observation. There's a big difference.
 * You cannot state that ID is reduced to [the statements of] religous creationism simply on the basis that the implication of a deity is involved, instead of by comparing the statements. ant 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually have something else in mind. Consider an analogy: When it was discovered that charge came in discrete units, the obvious question poses itself: Why? Are there subatomic particles with discrete units, or is some other phenomenon at work? What is the nature of matter that charge should come in discrete units? And so atomic physics was born. Today the questions are different but the process is the same. When one has credible evidence of something, a scientist will ask why, what is the nature of the phenomenon, what else can we find out? Failure to do this means you aren't doing science.


 * But the stated posture of the ID movement is, well, we have proved that there is a designer, that's it, let's just go home. There's no curiosity about the nature of the designer, whether there is one or many designers, no followup. This in itself proves that ID has nothing to do with science. If ID-ers were doing science, the first thing they would do upon (so they say) showing that there is a designer would be to ask what the nature of the designer(s) is.


 * But they can't do this, because if they did, the religious agenda would be clearly exposed. So they pretend that ID has nothing to do with religion, that all they care about is establishing the existence of a designer, but not the nature of that entity. Unfortunately for them, this carefully constructed fiction doesn't wash.


 * If you don't even try to follow the implications of the theory to the end, you aren't doing science, period. Bill Jefferys 21:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion and I'm not arguing with it. After understanding your point I would have suggested the sentence should be changed from stating that [the implication of a deity reduces ID to religious creationism] to say instead that [the implication of a deity is not followed up by ID scientifically, which implies ID proponents have an agenda of religious creationism... or something like that] but an implication for religion simply cannot be investigated scientifically!
 * Furthermore ID proponents may have or may not an agenda which favours/is favoured by this particular implication, but you cannot impute an agenda purely on the basis of ID having that implication, let alone malign the reasoning of ID itself.
 * BTW I forgot to apologise for moving your original comment - sorry, I'm new here and was only trying to preserve the flow. No offense intended. ant 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "reduces... to... creationism" is a simple NPOV statement. "agenda" opens up a whole new kettle of fish, and "implies" is edging on POV, so by your very argument its a bad idea to change the wording as you suggest. KillerChihuahua 15:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also this would confuse logical implications with "implies". KillerChihuahua 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KC, you've misunderstood. I was replying to Bill who did not refute what I said above, ending with:
 * "... You cannot state that ID is reduced to [the statements of] religous creationism simply on the basis that the implication of a deity is involved, instead of by comparing the statements."
 * Instead he expressed an opinion involving ID having a religous agenda.
 * I am pointing out that that isn't going to correct the error I've highlighted ant 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ID fails as science if it does not address the issue of the nature of the designer, just as physics fails as science if it does not address the nature of the entities it proposes. Since ID is alleged by its supporters to be science, it is essential that the article deal with the issue of the nature of the designer, either inferentially (that is, what does what we see in the world imply about the nature of the designer), or else as evidence that ID is not science, contrary to what its proponents claim. It is quite appropriate for the ID article to contain at least one of these (and possibly both).Bill Jefferys 22:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bill, the issue here is whether ID = Religious Creationism because ID "implies deity".
 * Can anyone show source for the claim that the implication of deity changes the reasoning and statements of ID from a deduction on irreducible complexity into an unfounded religious proclamation that God created the world.
 * ant 22:48, 15 November (UTC)

This may be your issue; but it is not the issue. The issue is whether a discussion about the nature of the designer belongs in the article. It does, for the reasons adduced above. Bill Jefferys 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Bill, but the authoritative definition of Intelligent Design states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Only a supernatural entity can satisfy the requirements of a designer for that definition of Intelligent Design; anything requiring the prior existence of the universe, such as aliens, can not logically be its "intelligent cause". And Dembski concedes the point by admitting the designer must be transcendent. FeloniousMonk 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (FM, your comment is welcome. I may have been misunderstood earlier in the day)
 * (Bill, I raised two suggestions about the current text. One is about the statement that the implication of deity "reduces ID to religious creationism". I feel that this assertion is logically false, so it needs at least to be quoted.)
 * Let's put ID and RC side by side and compare them (where IC=Irreducible Complexity and deity=God:)
 * ID: "Nature shows IC. IC => Design." and by implication, Design => deity
 * RC: "God is. God created => Nature."
 * Now are these two the same because IC implies deity?
 * Can you see the flow of logic in ID moves from Nature to Design [deity]? But there is no logic in RC and its flow is from deity to Nature? They are on the same path but travel in opposite directions. One from natural observation and interpretation to the supernatural, the other starst and stays in the supernatural and from there dictates an explanation of the natural.
 * The two arguments (their rationale) are clearly radically different.
 * ID is most certainly and clearly not the same as RC with (or without) the implication that a deity exists. ant 02:05, 16 November (UTC)

Orthogonality
Here's an argument I haven't seen stated anywhere:

Let's assumen there's an Intelligent Designer, and that it/she/he indeed has powers like the Christian God. Then the Designer could have perfectly well designed and created a universe in which evolution would happen.

As I see it, that simple argument makes the case for Intelligent Design completely orthogonal to scientific theories about life. Juancarlo Añez


 * That's been stated a lot, actually. A good place to begin reading about that idea is Deism. KillerChihuahua 15:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

term 'scientific community' expressing own definition misleading
Quote "This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community, who argue that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory but creationist pseudoscience or junk science.[2]"

The above is misleading. By stating that the entire 'scientific community' believe ID to be 'pseudo-science' it implies that no scientists accept ID.

The definition of 'scientific community' excludes the minority of scientists who believe in theories which the majority ('scientific community') term as 'pseudoscience'.

In other words, the scientific community defines what is pseudo-science, which in turn defines the scientific community. Obviously therefore we have many different scientific communities, each defined by and related to a theory which a majority term pseudo-science.

By using the term 'scientific community' as it relates to ID, to express its own definition here, the result is misleading, as the implication of the subject is the entire scientist population.

There is no fair and simple way to bring in the concept of a 'scientific community' at this juncture in the article.

For example 'has not been accepted by the majority of scientists, (ie, by definition, the scientific community as related to ID)' is not misleading, but is now unwieldy.

It would be far clearer to simply state 'has not been accepted by the majority of scientists'.

ant 14:29, 11 November 2005


 * No, not really. "Most scientists", for one, would vastly overstate the importance of ID.  Almost no scientists use ID as a working premise for their research.  Most of Behe's serious scientific work assumes Darwinian/naturalistic premises (or at least is published using naturalistic assumptions).  If you tried to publish something in which you failed to rule out supernatural causes in interpreting your data you would be laughed at. If there was a non-trivial body of scientists working in ID, then it would be harder to say this.
 * The "scientific community" can be subdivided into disciplines and subdisciplines, but it is unified by a broad definition of the scientific method. Scientific disciplines self-regulate, they set their own rules and standards, largely through convention.  The statement Obviously therefore we have many different scientific communities, each defined by and related to a theory which a majority term pseudo-science is definitely not obvious.  Physicists may call psychology a soft science, but they wouldn't call it a pseudoscience.  But both groups will recognise astrology as a pseudoscience.  Guettarda 15:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To your 1st para: Over 400 respectable scientists accept the theory of ID. Shall we change it to 'has not been accepted by nearly all scientists'
 * To your 2nd para: See the definition of 'scientific community' pointed at by the link on the term. Part of the definition refers to that majority of scientists who call a view 'pseudo-science'. This definition is therefore dependent upon the view under consideration. I agree that in most cases the consensus is probably identical for many views, but not always. For example, the scientific community in relation to the flat earth view is not the same group of scientists as the scientific community defined in relation to the ID theory.
 * Another way of putting this is that the scientific community, normally able to achieve a 100% consensus on what is pseudo-science, is not able to do so on some theories, and in the case where such a theory is the topic, it is misleading to use the term scientific community, since it refers to 100% of the scientists in regard to the common pseudo-sciences and thus will be assumed to do the same in this rarer case of exception. ant 19:14, 11 November 2005 ]


 * Per Wikipedia's policies, the only issue relevent to the article is what the respective sides say. And so the article only describes what the parties central to the debate are saying, which is what the article does. FeloniousMonk 19:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting clarity on who the parties central to the debate are ant 19:14, 11 November 2005 ]


 * As for the "400 respectable scientists" - for one, many of them were not practising scientists, they were peole with science and engineering degrees, but far more importantly - where is their research? A biologist's opinion of string theory is just an opinion - the biologist is not a participant in the scientific community insofar as string theory goes.  Which of these 400 scientists are participants in a scientific community in which work is being done using the assumption of ID?  If I had to guess, that number would be vanishingly small.  If you discard methodological naturalism, you can't do science - you are left with the question of how can I tell that the past is not just a fiction to explain the difference between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind (as the man who rules the universe said in, was it Restaurant at the end of the Universe or Life, the Universe and Everything).
 * What research are these 400 scientists producing based on ID? Please do tell.  There is no scientific community working in an ID framework, just (perhaps) a handful of individuals.  Guettarda 20:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover that 400 number should be scrutinized a little further:


 * "I got Davidson's name off a list of 400 people with scientific degrees, provided by the Discovery Institute, who are said to doubt the "central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution." Davidson, at 78 a UW professor emeritus, says he shouldn't be on the list because he believes "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."


 * He's only one scientist, one opinion in our ongoing debate about evolution and faith.


 * But I bring you Davidson's views because I suspect he is a bellwether for the Discovery Institute and intelligent design, as more scientists learn about them. He was attracted to an institute that embraced both science and religion, yet he found its critique of existing science wrong and its new theory empty." - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html


 * - RoyBoy 800 20:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute has a history of doing that.
 * Another, more relevent petition showing that ID is not science is the consensus of informed scientific opinion is the "The Four Day Petition." In 4 days, 7733 scientists signed: "We, as scientists trained in fields that utilize evolutionary theory, do not consider Intelligent Design to be a fact-based science appropriate for teaching in public schools because it is theistic in nature, not empirical, and therefore does not pass the rigors of scientific hypothesis testing and theory development. As such, we petition that Intelligent Design not be presented in public schools as a viable science within the scientific curriculum."


 * Points accepted. Shall we change it to 'all but a handful of scientists' then?ant 23:26, 11 November 2005 ]


 *  No, scientific community does just fine. FeloniousMonk 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done some basic checking and found one survey (http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/2002/10-02/inteldesign.htm) which found that 91% of the scientific community in Ohio reject Intelligent Design. Does anyone have any reasonable objection to the change 'not accepted by the scientific community' to 'rejected by a large majority of scientists'? ant 23:26, 11 November 2005 ]


 * Yes, for the reasons cited above. Membership of the "scientific community" is not something you get as a badge for completing your PhD.  The scientific community consists of those people who are somehow active in some discipline.  So the opinion of scientists is not the same as that of the scientific community.  When I speak about biology I am speaking as part of the scientific community, when I speak about string theory I am just another ordinary (and largely ignorant) person.  Guettarda 15:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But the survey is of the scientific community - 460 science professors in secular and religious colleges and universities. How about 'not accepted by the scientific community' to 'rejected by a large majority of the scientific community'? ant 16:33, 11 November 2005 GMT ]


 * No, it's a survey of scientists, not of the scientific community. That's not one and the same.  And, no, the change would be misleading too.  Science ignores ID.  Almost no one publishes or works in/on ID, whether they "accept", "reject" or are indifferent to ID.  Guettarda 19:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The general member of the public will not normally be aware of this distinction between scientists and scientific community. (See definition, and particularly the last sentence "Sometimes the term scientific community is also used to describe the community of all scientists." in http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Scientific-community.html). So the term as used above is definitively misleading. However there is not sufficient space to dwell on the finer aspects in the intro. Therefore it would be fairer to ID in this first sentence not to hide the truth that a number of well-educated scientists find ID credible.
 * Regardless, it is an indisputable fact that there is a number, albeit very small, of proponents and researchers of ID within the scientific community itself in its narrower sense. (Unless you define the term scientific community as used here most narrowly to mean precisely that group which do not accept ID specifically, in which case we would actually be saying 'not accepted by those scientists who do not accept it', which is patently deceptive.)
 * So I suggest 'not accepted by the scientific community' -> 'rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community' in order to avoid the inaccuracy. ant 22:06, 11 November 2005 GMT ]


 * I'm not even going to ask your source for the knowledge level of the general member of the public, I'm just going to note that regardless of whether anyone in "the public" is ignorant of the distinction does not somehow make it sensible for Wikipedia to use the incorrect terminology or useage of any word or phrase. Most people I know say "I'm nauseous" when they mean they feel ill, but I'm not about to echo their ignorance and say I think I make people want to throw up, and if I were to make such an error I would count it a good deed if someone were to correct my ignorance. Your definition makes it clear which is the more accepted meaning, which is the one FM et al have been stressing all along. KillerChihuahua 22:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (I think you meant 'nauseating' :-))
 * The existing sentence is misleading. The term 'scientific community' (see source referenced in previous entry) has a sometimes broad meaning (1) of all scientists, a common narrower meaning (2) of scientists who are active in research, and a still narrower aspect of meaning (3) defined by Wikipedia as those scientists who reject a category of assertions as 'pseudo-science'; with perhaps an ultra-narrow definition (4) being the group which rejects a specific assertion as pseudo-science.
 * All but the 4th of these meanings make the opening statement inaccurate, because it is an indisputable fact that there is a number, albeit very small, of researchers in ID within the scientific community itself; and the 4th meaning makes the sentence a deceptive tautology ('not accepted by those scientists who do not accept it').
 * Whichever meaning the reader assumes, the sentence is at best inaccurate or at worst deceptive. ant 01:09, 12 November 2005 GMT ]


 * I meant [nauseous. "Scientific community" means the same thing every source, including yours, gives, which is the same one FM has given you, and is consensus. You have no support and no sources for your "special case" argument. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] 01:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify which definition that is, and why you believe that my argument is invalid (eg. what support is it missing, what needs sourcing, why is it a "special case"?)
 * (BTW Don't believe everything you read on the web: [nauseous) [[User:ant|ant]] 16:01, 13 November 2005 GMT ]

Ant, do you even bother to read what I write? To say I suggest 'not accepted by the scientific community' -> 'rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community' in order to avoid the inaccuracy is inaccurate. Most have no rejected ID, they have simply ignored it as irrelevant. As for your link, why are you linking to an out of date Wikipedia mirror? Guettarda 04:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I completely missed the reference to 'reject'. Going on the Smithsonian reaction recently I would go with emotionally reject, but fine, it's not a big issue. ant 15:41, 13 November 2005 (GMT)


 * It isn't that some people reject ID - it's the assertion that "most scientists" reject ID. Most scientists don't care enough about ID to reject it.  I have taken (wasted?) the time to figure out what ID is all about, and thus I reject it as science.  Most of my colleagues have better things to worry about than figuring out what they think about the latest flavour of creationism.  Guettarda 16:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be starting a new topic later as this one's final refutation of its respondents' criticisms has not been refuted but overlooked. ant 22:36, 15 November (UTC)

Opening sentence
Apologies if I'm blind, but I've looked and cannot find when the opening sentence changed from "Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial... " to "Intelligent Design (ID) as opposed to current scientific belief - evolutionary theory is the controversial... " and if there is discussion in the verbose mess which is this talk page I missed that too. IMHO this is POV and adds length, strongly move for a revert back to the simpler version which does not have opposition before it even states the definition. Please make objections known here (promptly - I'm tempted to revert wording and then ask for commentary.) KillerChihuahua 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've returned it to the original wording. It was somewhat redundant as well. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, did you happen to see who made that edit? The edit was both grammatically incorrect and POV. (trying to get out of digging thru history again KillerChihuahua 16:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was User:advanet FeloniousMonk 16:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to coevolution
"Some proponents of this 'problem of distant-future co-evolution' argument, including some chapter authors in Ashton's two books, extend the argument to ecosystems. In an ecosystem, there are various groups of organisms, and each group generally has 2-3 members with similar functions, e.g., pollinating a particular plant, predation against a particular animal, etc. If one member becomes extinct, another member assumes the function. This extended/related argument essentially states that Group A would not evolve to need the functions performed by Group B before Group B evolved such functions and Group B would not evolve those functions until Group A evolved the need for them."
 * 1) Based on what I can find about Ashton's books, they are YEC, not ID.
 * 2) The following is simply nonsense
 * To begin with, this is not about ecosystems, this is about communities. More importantly, this totally conflates generalists and specialists.  The idea that "each group generally has 2-3 members with similar functions" shows that whomever the unnamed "scientist" who said is, s/he is totally clueless about species interactions.  Some species are visited by dozens or hundreds of efficient pollinators, some by only one.  These are some of the most basic evolutionary trade-offs - one is a low-risk, high-cost endeavour, the other is a low cost, high risk endeavour.  The idea that "If one member becomes extinct, another member assumes the function" does not reflect reality.  A species that is adapted to "2-3" pollinators would be unusual, and yes, would be among the more difficult to explain evolutionarily.  However, a species with 2-3 efficient pollinators is likely to be unusual.  I really can't believe that any scientist who knows anything about ecological communities would say such a thing.
 * Without proper attribution this material cannot remain in the article. It's very suspect to me.  Let me know who said what, make sure that the quote is accurate.  Until then, I don't see how the material can stay in the article.  You've had several days to clarify this.  Guettarda 04:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. FeloniousMonk 05:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

German interwikilink
In the German wikipedia, ID is treated as a subset of creationism. Should we interlink to this page from here? de:kreationismus or even de:kreationismus ? -- Ec5618 13:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because it is debatable whether ID is creationism. A small but significant percentage of the scientific community accept the theory as scientific. ant 15:46, 12 November 2005 (GMT)


 * Ant's comment is irrelevant here - it's not our call where de: puts its ID article, it's out role to provide a link so people can find it. I just tried out de:Kreationismus and it seems to work fine, so I'm going to insert that.  Guettarda 16:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would reject that out of hand. Both on the grounds the majority of those scientists are not part of the scientific community (retired and/or not conducting research), and that the percentage is not significant as my standard of significance is over 10% 1%. Furthermore whether ID is (a form of) creationism isn't debatable, what is debatable is how one chooses to narrowly define creationism in order to exclude ID. - RoyBoy 800 16:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC) (changed 10% to 1%) - RoyBoy 800 16:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

External link
This might have been better under article size, since I'm going to ask about adding a link... Has the question of adding Creation & Intelligent Design Watch at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal site been suggested, either as External link or Source? It seems to me it would help ease the concerns of those who are raising questions about the non-specifically sourced "critics say" type statements and similar questions about sourcing. thoughts??? KillerChihuahua 14:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, if we can point to the detailed debate elsewhere rather than having portions of it here we can both lessen the burden on this article length as well as activity, hopefully. We could replace the Criticisms section detail with links to debates. ant 15:41, 12 November 2005 (GMT)


 * Apparently I was unclear. I in no way meant to remove any part whatsoever of the article with my suggestion, which is why I stressed it would add to article size. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and it would be irresponsible to consider replacing key sections of any article with a webdir to outside. In addition, it would be a violation of NPOV. Please re-read the suggestion, which is merely to add one link to the External links, and not in any way to modify any other part of the article. KillerChihuahua 17:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Woops, sorry. ant 23:00, 12 November 2005 (GMT)

Organization for space saving.
I've gone ahead and collappsed the further reading and fiction sections into List of works on intelligent design. Feel free to move that article to a smarter title. This will both save space, and is better organization. We do not have a need to address everybook written on a contraversial topic. We may well be here until shortly before Ragnarok! Gonna be looking over the article some more and proposing a few organizational changes--Tznkai 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"What (or who) designed the designer?"
I seem to recall this being and old issue between myself and another user that ended up on a couple WP:RFAs. Anyway this section seems to be better served as part of the IR section of the article.--Tznkai 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What's IR section? Who designed the designer is a separate issue than any of the other subtopics. It's also a very significant and quite common issue raised in ID debates, as is cited in the article It's fully worthy of it's own section. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant IC, but its moot now. I'm creating a new structure that should wrap things up quite nicley anyway. Will have a test out soon.--Tznkai 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can see it in progress at User:Tznkai/workshop/Intelligent design/criticism--Tznkai 17:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's some issues with your proposed format. Moving discussion on the the motivations of ID proponents to the intelligent design movement article creates a POV fork, which isn't going to work. Also, it appears you're attempting to lump all viewpoints of the scientific community into one criticism section, which makes for difficult reading and is not supported by the WP:NPOV policy. Further, your sections gloss over the majority viewpoint and do no real explaining of why these criticisms are made, which again isn't going to fly per the policy. To be frank, as it stands, I don't see your proposed change as an improvement or working here. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for layout of article
Because my double criticism section seemed to digress, and I could make my proposal clearer anyway, I'll state it simply: I propose that the ID article format be redesigned in part, to a structure like this:

Intelligent Design
 * 1) Intelligent Design in summary
 * 2) Origins of the concept
 * 3) Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents
 * 4) Portraying Intelligent Design as science
 * 5) Intelligent Design as a movement
 * 6) Intelligent Design debate
 * 7) Intelligent Design concepts
 * 8) Irreducible complexity
 * 9) Specified complexity
 * 10) Fine-tuned universe
 * 11) Criticism of intelligent design
 * 12) Scientific peer review
 * 13) Hypotheses about the designer or designers
 * 14) "What (or who) designed the designer?"
 * 15) Argument from ignorance
 * 16) Intelligence, as an observable quality, is poorly defined
 * 17) Flaws of concepts

The reason is because there is simply no need for two different sections of criticisms. There is already a section designated for criticism, and ALL criticism of intelligent design in the framework of the debate about it belongs there, not under the section designated for intelligent design concepts.

To my knowledge, there is no other scientific opinion article that is straddled with such repetitive sections of criticism. As of right now, criticism of ID is given the final voice in virtually every possible paragraph. If you are concerned about making the body of criticism relative to the majority within the scientific community, simply make the criticism section longer. Under my setup, there's already at least twice as many sections for criticism than there are for points, and there's plenty of room within to give ample voice to the scientific majority.

A debate consists of one side giving its points, then the other side giving its points. Not side A giving its points, being countered by side B, then side B giving more points. It's repetitive and makes for less organized reading.

Hopefully this makes clear what my proposal is. Trilemma 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't a debate, its an encyclopedia article. Please see NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Undue weight KillerChihuahua 21:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that it was (though I could've been more clear about that); I was referencing the connotation of the current layout of the design, specifically the section of the 'intelligent design debate.' Ec, thanks for reformating that; it looks much better now. Trilemma 21:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (Formatted the layout, hope you don't mind)
 * This may not be a debate, but it's also not supposed to be a complete listing of ID argumentation (and rebuttals). As it stands it seems to focus more on individual claims and

arguments, made by individual ID proponents, than on the bigger picture.
 * And indeed, the article does seem to feature a lot of criticism, simply because every point made by either side seems to require rebuttals from the other side.
 * This article is far too long, and (simply) removing superfluous argumentation would fix that problem, while greatly reducing the possible points of contention.
 * I'm not quite sure how to go about it, and the above proposal seems interesting.
 * Concerning Pseudoscience and Undue weight, the introductory paragraph could, and should, make it abundantly clear that ID has little to no scientific support. As long as that point is made, I feel policy is met, as the credibility of ID will have been tarnished. There is no need to repeatedly bash people over the head with this point. -- Ec5618 21:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor point: 3.1 makes no sense from an outline perspective unless there is also a 3.2.
 * 3 could be titled "Intelligent Design debate" or "Intelligent Design concepts" in the proposed organization, but if the goal is to utilize clean layout then 3.1 will be "Irreducible complexity" etc. KillerChihuahua 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The proposed layout is close enough to the existing layout that I see little reason to endorse a change from what we already have. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is almost identical... including the incorrect (from an outline perspective) 3.1 with no 3.2. (Which I do not feel is all that important or I would have mentioned it before.) KillerChihuahua 22:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears the only change is to remove the "Criticism" from under each of the "Concepts" and put all the critcisms under a last section titled "Flaws", which not only would not reduce article size, but would be less, not more, clear. My $.02. KillerChihuahua 22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it'd make it clearer because the flip-flop between ID and its criticisms is confusing. It makes better sense to me to lay out the concepts in order before shooting them down. Easier reading. ant 22:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But doing so goes beyond presenting the minority view (ID) as on par with the majority view (the scientific community), which isn't the case and violates WP:NPOV, but relegates the majority viewpoint to a "criticism" section, making the majority viewpoint subordinate to the minority viewpoint. Again, this isn't supported by policy or logic. Viewpoint followed by opposing viewpoint and so on through the article allows the reader to see the entire picture from the beginning, as opposed to presenting the minority view uninterrupted, followed by the majority view at the end, and prejudicially titled "Criticism" on top of it. That's not going to fly. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then we should have counterpoints to the criticisms. Felonius, I don't see where my layout would make the criticisms subordinate, and for that matter, is there any other minority scientific viewpoint that has this layout? It seems to me that if you look at every other minority scientific viewpoint, it has a layout much more comparable to my proposed one. Trilemma 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ID isn't a scientific concept. --JPotter 02:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct. Approximately 60 scientific societies have issued formal statements saying ID isn't science, which stand in support that the scientific community as a whole views it as not science, but pseudoscience. That's not counting educational organizations, like the NSTA and the AAAS. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Counterpoints to the criticisms? Then I suppose counter-counter-points and on? No, this is not reasonable. If the Points have content, the Criticisms address those points, there is no need to restate the points. Again, not a debate. KillerChihuahua 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The criticisms in the second section go beyond the the scope of the ID points themselves, and therefor it is quite reasonable, if we allow any counterpoints, to allow rebuttals to those points.Trilemma 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And, if this is not a debate (which I agree with you on), then why in the world do we have a section called 'the ID debate', with points and counterpoints, to begin with?? Trilemma 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Reporting on a debate (elsewhere) is not the same as having a re-enactment ourselves, or choosing the same debate subject and doing original research. Debate is subject of part of the article, not what is happening in the article. KillerChihuahua 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And no doubt the criticisms listed of ID are being debated.Trilemma 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it, I've never seen it anywhere, and will be very surprised if I ever do. That's not germane, however. What is germane is that you made a suggestion, supposedly to make an article "clearer" and shorter, and when everyone shoots down the "clearer" rationale, you shift gears and propose to make the article 1/3 longer. This is suspiciously POV. KillerChihuahua 01:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are coming from a very NPOV background. To you, the only debate is criticizing ID. The only acceptable layout is giving ID critics the last word everywhere possible. This is clearly, blatantly NPOV and you should recuse yourself from involvement from editing the page. You are stepping in and qualifying what can be 'debate' and what can't be.
 * Once again, the format of ID is unlike any other minority scientific opinion. Why? because people of religious faith happen to be embracing it. I don't see this fuss over string theory, or holistic medicine. Or any other minority scientific opinion lacking formalized, documented substantiation.
 * And, hardly 'everyone' shot it down. In fact, only you and Felonious did. My count shows that more people tend to be supporting reorganizing the article, but you're placing your opinion above theirs. The article needs reorganized, desperately. Criticism should be concentrated into one place. It is not your job to ensure that ID critics get the last word. Listing the criticism of each point of ID, along with the broad criticisms of the idea could and should be done in one concentrated section. Once again, no other minority scientific opinion contains such a format as this one does.Trilemma 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The only approach should be NPOV.  How can you criticise KC for being NPOV?  If you think NPOV is bad you will have a problem trying to edit Wikipedia.
 * 2) ID isn't science, so it makes no sense to compare its structure to "other science" - it makes no a priori predictions, it has no technical literature.
 * 3) ID claims to be scientific.  It makes sense that the claims be be addressed.  Placing the criticisms in one place makes it harder to understand.
 * 4) ID is not a "minority scientific opinion" - it has no literature, no technical publications, no body of work or of workers in the field.  It's a politico-religious/philosophical subject which claims to be science without actually doing any science.  Guettarda 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I've edited many pages in a variety of fields, and several that have had NPOV problems (including controversial figures such as Michael Savage). NPOV isn't difficult so long as you can disassociate yourself from what you're covering. I think there's a failure to do this here. Editors have a clear agenda in their edits. Honestly, I don't know if I'm the person to edit this article, as I'd probably end up NPOV'ing it too. I think we need new, different editors to reshape the article, people who don't come in with an agenda either way and haven't been vocal on either side in the talk page.
 * 2) ID has no literature that you choose to recognize. There's plenty of theories in theoretical physics and other areas that also have ideas outside of the scientific mainstream, has not been covered in mainstream journals, and yet lacks the level of criticism ID has. Why is it that ID is unique among minority opinions?
 * 3) If I'm researching something, I want to be able to read the complete theory and its points, end to end, and then read the criticism, as ant covered. When I read a novel, I don't read a chapter, look at literary criticism pertaining to that chapter, then go onto the next one. I read the novel, then I read the criticism of it. You're attempting to give criticism of ID the last word at every possible point, which is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Once again, I can not think of another minority scientific opinion that is treated this way on wikipedia.
 * 4) If you'd take the time to research this at the discovery institute's website, you'd see a variety of references to published material about the scientific study of intelligent design. The mainstream scientific community rejects this; I don't expect the article to gloss over that point. But I do expect a dispassionate approach to editing, and I don't see it in this article.Trilemma 04:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. Please read WP:FAITH.
 * 2 & 3. It's been explained to you several times here before over the last few days that from the perspective of Wikipedia, its policies, and this article that the only relevant consideration as to whether ID is science or pseudoscience is how the majority viewpoint describes it, which is roundly as not science, but pseudoscience. You really need to read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV before you take up so much of other's time here. Please.
 * 4. It's been widely established and common knowledge that the Discovery Institute has an extensive history of misrepresenting their efforts and the research of others from mainstream science in their pursuit of their agenda. So knowledgeable editors are going to be very circumspect when it comes to accepting anything the institute claims at face value. That said, documents from the Discovery Institute are useful in determining the positions and claims of ID proponents, and are used here for that purpose in concordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV. Which I again encourage to understand before making these same arguments again. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ID isn't scientific and it isn't a theory. Any attempt to describe it as either scientific or a theory is dishonest, and exactly why there need to be a criticism section after each of the ID concepts. Some, but not all, ID proponents claim that it is a scientific theory, and that should be covered in the article, of course. Since ID isn't a field of research, one who is researching the concept of ID, from a NPOV perspective, should see both the claims and counter claims of the idea. --JPotter 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Trilemma's comments Guettarda 06:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) We seek too write NPOV articles.
 * 2) What areas of physics lack literature, and how are they covered in Wikipedia?  Anything that vague isn't useful.
 * 3) While you may see it appropriate to compare ID to fiction, separating the assertion and its flaws makes the article easier to understand.
 * 4) You say "If you'd take the time to research this at the discovery institute's website, you'd see a variety of references to published material about the scientific study of intelligent design" - please be specific.  Where are these references?  Please provide a link to these references of which you speak.


 * Remembering, of course, that in-house, vanity publications by organisations such as the Discovery Institution do not count as references. --Plumbago 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the assertions by Trilemma: "To you, the only debate is criticizing ID. The only acceptable layout is giving ID critics the last word everywhere possible. This is clearly, blatantly NPOV and you should recuse yourself from involvement from editing the page. You are stepping in and qualifying what can be 'debate' and what can't be. "
 * Trilemma: None of your opinions as to my personal motivations and positions are germane. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, and WP:CON. The only debate which is relevant here is the debate which is covered in the article. Please restrict your posts to the article and how it could be improved after reading those guidelines, and refrain from conjecture about me personally. KillerChihuahua 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to attack you but rather to point out how the article is not an accurate representation of the debate or in ideal format.Trilemma 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My initial edit must've been lost...
 * Here's an article keeping track of ID in peer reviewed journals and magazines:http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
 * How many peer reviewed writings are referenced in the string theory article? For that matter, how many are there? String theory can not be proven through empiracle experimentation. Yet, it doesn't recieve the same treatment. Nor does Naturopathic medicine. Nor does anything else on here. Only the one religious conservatives happen to be pushing it....Trilemma 14:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in regards to NPOV:Faith, the continuing disrespect and disregard of the credentials of those who support ID, the obsession with giving ID critics the last word at every possible juncture, the copious amounts of criticism interrupting the delivery of the points of ID, shows that this does not apply. We simply need new editors.Trilemma 14:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, your criticisms are very common here on the ID-talkpage. We have reas of archived talk at the top of the page you can read through where people have said almost the same thing as you. Every single one of your proposals has been tried in the past in some form and they all have devolved into a nightmare of editorializing, tit-for-tat editting, and wrangling over citations. This is typical of all the articles related to this particular controversy because so many of those who are so familiar with the subjects are internet savvy (on both sides). There are some very real points that need to be kept in mind:


 * 1) The "debate" is only alive in very particular venues, in particular the media, churches, and clubs. There is no scientific debate.
 * 2) The Discovery Institute is considered editorially to be a biased source for information by everybody except those who are deep into ID. The NAS and other groups quoted as "critics" here are respected beyond this particular conflict and if a "neutral" editor who had never heard of ID were to come to this page they'd be more likely to have heard of the critical organizations than the promoting ones. This is why "equal time" or "balance" doesn't make sense. The movement is set-up inherently unbalanced -- and the ID supporters themselves admit it. They claim to be on the outside looking in. There's nothing wrong then with protraying them in this fashion.
 * 3) Point-counterpoint is not an ideal way to present criticism but any more iterations of this is asking for trouble. If there are issues that are being addressed that are "unrelated" to ID there is definitely a way to include cited and referenced material in the main sympathetic reporting body of the work. This is how pseudoscience is covered on Wikipedia. For another example of this check Apollo moon landings hoax accusations. The same format is in use there as here to a similar effect. This has nothing to do with giving critics the "last word". It has to do with being able to maintain a sympathetic tone when describing the ideas (going out on a limb, as it were) and then keeping the criticisms until after the article is written. The alternative is to write the article and have a halting, Balkanized style where every claim, idea, and proposal of the IDists is countered by an argumentative disagreement which would probably lead to an article that contained nothing more than a debate when it is supposed to to report an idea.
 * 4) String theory has something like 200-300 papers a month coming out that find their way into peer reviewed journals. Many of the prepits can be found here.

In short, your criticisms are not very well thought-out or considered. Rather you seem to be barking up the same trees that have been barked up before. I suggest you read the archives, read the article, and try to edit a bit at a time (maybe you find a sentence that is erroneous or problematic that you try to change). Suggesting a total overhaul is not going to fly here because there are too many other editors who have tried to do just that to poor effect.

--Joshuaschroeder 15:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[To Trilemma]
 * How many articles are there on string theory? I don't know - please do tell.
 * These people listed as publishing on ID do not appear to be working on ID. The papers listed are all review articles - I see no research papers based on ID.
 * "We need new editors" - if you want to create a POV fork of Wikipedia which does not "disrespect and disregard of the credentials of those who support ID", there is nothing stopping you from doing so, once you abide by the GFDL. Guettarda 16:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comparing String theory and ID is nonsensical. String theory is a valid scientific theory and zero percent of theoretical physicists involved in that area "disagree" with it being a valid scientific theory. It has not been disproven last time I checked. When (if) it is, it will be presented as an out-of-date, disproven theory, not a "minority opinion." ID is pseudoscience, and cannot be disproven (one reason it is not a theory is unfalsifiability). Comparing them and saying they are both "minority scientific views" shows a gross misconception of the definition of theory and what constitutes a scientific "view". Neither ID nor String theory is a "minority scientific view." KillerChihuahua 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Re "My point wasn't to attack you.." Perhaps I would not have misunderstood your point so completely had not four out of five sentences in that paragraph had "you" as the subject: "You are... To you... you should...You are..." sounds a lot like you are talking about me not the article. The fifth sentence (second in your paragraph) was about the layout, but purportedly my "view" so it was still aimed at me. Perhaps if you had said "the article" "this citation" "this paragraph" I would have understood you were talking about the article.  KillerChihuahua 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just one more note on string theory, while there currently is no single experiment that can prove string theory... there are a number of experiments that would support it. One is the new Cern particle collider; if it verifiably produced mini-black holes, it would validate a prediction by string theorists. I have also heard of experiments on gravity waves and detecting gravitons leaking to/from other dimensions. Ultimately if the experiments mentioned above turn up nothing and/or unexpected results; that will have a significant impact on string theory. - RoyBoy 800 16:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, Wikipedia's own article on string theory actually states: "Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory: it is not yet a falsifiable theory in the sense of Popper", but this criticism has only been a minor part of the overall discussion, and so the article dedicates less space to it, as per undue weight --Brendanfox 04:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should be reformed. I find it difficult to actually understand what ID is. My thinking is that if I was going to write a paper on any given subject, when I turn to an encyclopedia I want to find out what the subject is all about. If I were going to look in communism (an abstract idea) I'd find out what communism was. There is room for criticism, obviously, but reading this article for a clear picture of what ID is is watching 1980s movies to find out what communism is. It almost reads like more effort is put into how ridiculous each concept is than actually introducing the concept. Is ID ridiculous? Yes. All I have argued for in this talk page is a reformat of the article to separate what the concept of ID is and what its criticism is. The entire "debate" section is pretty ridiculous because I've never seen this in another article before. Where I've seen it, it's been removed. It is often stated that this falls under WP:NPOV, but if you look at other pseudoscience articles, none of them are like this. Cold fusion, astrology, scientology, et al. Why are those articles separate and concise and the ID article full of debate? In addition, the Columbia Encyclopedia hardly cites critics. glocks out 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because there is no debate about Cold fusion, astrology, or scientology. We're not debating the issue, we're covering the "debate" (which exists elsewhere) in the article. If I'm not being clear, Google for "cold fusion debate" then "intelligent design debate". Or use Google News. There is no cold fusion debate, so there's no coverage on it in the cold fusion article. Also, as has been mentioned before, WP pseudoscience guidelines are clear. The majortity view, in this case that ID is not science and makes unproven claims, gets the majority position in the article. I think the only reason Astrology doesn't have this type coverage is because no one much cares. No one is suggesting that Astrology replace valid content in elementary school classrooms, though, so that may have something to do with it. On the other hand, I don't see anyone complaining about POV concerning this sentence from Astrology: "The generally established opinion of the scientific community is that astrology is superstition, with no actual predictive ability."  KillerChihuahua 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For some reason I thought this article was Intelligent Design, not Intelligent Design debate. Perhaps this should earn the same treatment as abortion and abortion debate. There is certainly enough content to justify this move. The main article should focus stay on one topic. For the record, there is a cold fusion debate that is on-going. There is also heated debate over many controversial articles, such as Euthanasia and Censorship, that don't have the on-going debate in the main article. Even in other articles that do include the debate, such as stem cell and Same-sex marriage, do separate it as I've described. It isn't this tit-for-tat argument style, but lays out the objections. The pseudoscience guideline isn't clear on how the article should be layed out. It does say the majority view should be held as such, giving it more space even. That's fine. I'm not arguing that. What the pseudoscience guideline does not suggest is that the article should be what the majority views the subject is. The article should be about what the Intelligent Design assertation is. The article could be split up into two sections even, one rsembling that of the Columbia Encyclopedia entry, and the second telling why the majortiy view doesn't view it as science. I don't see why there is a problem with formatting this article in the way all other entries are formatted. There simply isn't precident to keep it in this format. glocks out 18:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea! The article recently failed a 'featured article' nomination because of the instability. ant 19:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No offense, but this puppy's opinion that's not a good idea. Abortion is currently undergoing a complete rewrite, because its so badly organized and sourced (Huge amounts of work by a small band of very dedicated and hardworking NPOV editors) and Abortion debate is mostly a non-wikified massively overlength essay which is so bad it probably deserves a cleanup tag. A much smaller, slower working (not a judgement, they just don't have the time available I think) group of editors is doing what they can there, and I expect to see progress soon. Which did you want to emulate? KillerChihuahua 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Those are examples of what not to do. Read POV fork. The article as is currently stands, presenting both the mainstream and minority viewpoints, is exactly what is called for in the WP:NPOV policy. Splitting the article along the lines Steven Kippel above suggests is not.


 * Also Steven Kippel makes the claim that "the pseudoscience guideline does not suggest is that the article should be what the majority views the subject is." Yet Neutral_point_of_view states clearly that: " the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Hence, ID is represented accurately and in line with the Neutral_point_of_view policy. FeloniousMonk 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely right. The Wikipedia policy (and practice) is to disallow all POV forks. For example, there is no POV fork of Bell's theorem, one for local realists (minority view) and quantum theorists (mainstream view), although such forks have been tried (and eventually deleted).--CSTAR 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not say to add a POV-fork. The fork I suggested was not even a fork, but a new topic. One topic on Intelligent Design, and another on the current debate about Intelligent Design. These are, arguably, two full topics. In fact, we've already got an article dedicated to the debate. You're also wrong, Monk, that the pseudoscience guideline suggests the article be about that the majority views it as. This misrepresents what the actual article is. The guideline says to represent the majority view as such, and the minority view as such, but doesn't say to tell what the minority view is fromt he perspective of the majority view'. Here's what I mean, since you obviously missed it: The article isn't supposed to say, "[The majority] views [topic] as nothing more than [non-sense]." This doesn't tell the reader what the topic is. Instead, as I've said repeatedly, the article should explain what the idea is, and then give the majority view, and how the scientists receive it, like this: "[The topic] is [whatever]. The [majority] don't agree. [Specific person] said [this]." How is that unreasonable? Further, I didn't bring these other articles up for content, but for layout. (It's humorous to note that the ID article is longer than the abortion debate article which is given the "bad example" label because of its massive length). This is all I'm arguing for, as the format of the ID article is discombobulated. Nobody has yet given a reason why the article needs to stay the way it is. It's confusing to read, and is formatted terribly. Firther, the guidelines aren't scripture, so quit touting them around to justify the aweful format of the article. glocks out 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor correction: Abortion debate issue is length without valid content, bad layout. I am being brief: I will elaborate if you wish. KillerChihuahua 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not proposing a POV-fork? Sure about that? Because your comment here implies otherwise . "The ID article is particularly ridiculous. For the same reason I wouldn't want to read about democracy (a majority view) in an article about anarchy (a minority view), I don't want to read about opposing POVs from scientists, theologians, etc." indicates that bowdlerizing this article with a POV fork is exactly what you're arguing for.


 * Somebody has given a very good reason why the article is laid out the way it is and why it will stay that way: Policy. Not finding Wikipedia's goals and policies compelling or valid is a certain recipe for not making progress. As far as WP:NPOV not being "scripture", Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, says the NPOV policy is "absolute and non-negotiable". If you're going to contribute to the project, you'll need to get on board with it's goals. FeloniousMonk 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not argueing for a POV-fork, how you read that into what I wrote is baffling me. I'm saying I don't want to read abotu all different views in an article about a specific subject. The example I gave was politics. We cannot conceivably have a full explaination of every competing political theory in one article called "politics", and so they're broken down into the seperate articles. Apparently that's a POV-fork? we should take every article and compile it into one gigantic article then! Amazing! My point is that when I read one article about one topic I don't need to read about another topic inside that one. You saying I'm advocating a POV-fork is like me saying you're advocating bunching every article about biology, cosmology and physics all into one article. As far as Jimbo's "absolute and non-negotiable" statement, this is saying that all articles should be NPOV, but everyone knows that the guideline is constantly evolving and changing. I agree with the goals of Wikipedia, and NPOV. I simply want this article to be easier to understand. There is no policy on the format of this article. If there is apolicy stating the headings must be such, critiques must me thus, and it must be this length and cover [etc], then show me the policy. There isn't one. There isn't a template for Intelligent Design, and there isn't a policy for it. The policies you keep refering to will not be invalidated if the proposed changes take place. All that will happen is the article will become easier to understand. glocks out 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You specifically referred to this article in your comment . What you meant was unambiguous.


 * There are indeed specific sections of the NPOV policy that apply directly to this article, Neutral_point_of_view, Neutral_point_of_view, and Neutral_point_of_view. Read together, they spell out how much of the article's content is to devoted to the majority and minority viewpoints.


 * I'm not dogmatically opposed to refactoring the article's content to improve it's readability as long as it is done within policy, maintains the same level completeness and accuracy, and has some consensus. But I am opposed to attempts to bowdlerize the article through POV forks and blatant deletionism, of which there have been many attempts, none of which have been supported by policy. FeloniousMonk 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion: A plea
I have been trying to follow the discussion on the proposed layout; this is obviously an important topic. I have opinions, everybody has opinions and they should all be expressed. Unfortunately, I have a hard time figuring out who said what, which is a problem, since I don't want to repeat what somebody else said. Could I propose that responses not be placed in the middle of someone else's comment? Or if they are, that each and every insertion be signed and labelled as response to so and so? Thanks.--CSTAR 16:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's called "splitting comments" and it's bad form. Splitting comments can be misused to lessen the impact of an opponent's response, and so is to be avoided. Quote that which you are responding to instead. See Talk_pages and Talk_page_guidelines. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)