Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 28

Menke
Archived the first part of this discussion. /Archive27. The summary below should suffice.


 * KC, I agree that this discussion has become a little unclear. What I believe has happened is this: Peter Menke thinks that the ID as science section of the main article is a bit weak, and that it needs to make clear that ID has no authenticity as a scientific theory. He posted an addition to the main article which he thought might help: "Though it has to be pointed out that due to the fact that question of the origin of species is of historical nature, the requirment "empirically testable & falsifiable" is not applicable in its strict sense, neither to the theory of intelligent design nor to the theory of evolution. This criterium can only be applied to a something that can be repeatedly tested like a natural law and of course not to an historical event that lies in the past. An historical hypothesis can only be checked for plausibilty with all available evidence." User Tznkai removed it (on or about 2 January) and posted an explanation here in the discussion page, kicking off this whole thread. Unfortunately, Tznkai's section heading made it seem that he/she was the author of the deleted material, rather than the deletor. Duncharis made a post supporting deletion, and then Peter posted asking what could be done to make his post useable/acceptable. Again unfortunately, he didn't sign it, and so the confusions began. I was the next to post, and because Peter hadn't signed and my post ran straight on from his, it seemed as if I was the one asking for advice on a deleted posting. Not so, I swear - I've just gone back and added an indent to make that clear. Anyway, I think that this is Peter's current proposal: Though it has to be pointed out that due to the fact that question of the origin of species is of historical nature, the requirement "empirically testable & falsifiable" is not applicable in its strict sense. This criterion can only be applied within the scope of the empirical sciences e.g. to something that can be repeatedly tested in experiments like a natural law and of course not to an historical event that lies in the past. An historical hypothesis has instead to be checked for plausibilty with all available evidence. (Peter, if I'm wrong, please post whhatever your current proposal is). PiCo 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate seeing a summary of current published slants as a genuine term of art that are adequately influential to consider, especially given the national repercussions of the most dominant use, or misuse of the term.Kenosis 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC):


 * Obviously the macroevolution article needs cleanup if you could have read it that way; what you are quoting is the creationist misdefinition of macroevolution. Guettarda 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, you are quite likely correct that it needs to be cleaned up, I though the same when I read it (of course, we could both be nuts).


 * Anyway, enough with the pyramids, it reminds me of Schrödinger's Cat, and we all know how I feel about that hypothesis. (If not, see a few sections down...near the bottom). Jim62sch

PiCo, thank you very much for the summary. I am new to Wikipedia and I made a couple of editing mistakes at the beginning. You correctly quoted my original proposal. But as you pointed out at the beginning of the discussion the preditions of the therory of evolution are of course falsifiable and testable. Therefore I am not happy with my original proposal anymore. So here is a new proposal for the text of the ID as science chapter:

"...For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
 * 1. Consistent (internally and externally)
 * 2. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
 * 3. Empirically testable & falsifiable predictions (see Falsifiability and footnote)
 * 4. Based upon multiple observations,
 * 5. Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
 * 6. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * 7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

In order to fulfill criteria 2. to 5. it is necessary that the theory makes observable predictions; in this case e.g. on the fossil records. ID does not do that. Furthermore in order to fulfill 6. and 7. ID would have to present a consistent explanation of all findings of paleantology, biology and geology, which is better than the one the theory of evolution gives.

In light of its apparent failure...

Footnote: Emprical testability and falsifiablity is required for the predictions of a theory not for its a priori assumptions (like the existence or non existence of a designer)."

I left away this "history" issue. I think the footnote is evident without it. Jim62sch, the pyramid analogy is nevertheless very good to understand, why the proposed footnote is correct. --Peter Menke 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ich habe meine Gewehr von seinem Halfter entfernt. :) Jim62sch 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"mein Gewehr", Jim ;) What's your problem? --Peter Menke 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a bad habit of screwing up the "ein" words. Oops.  :)  Pyramid analogies remind me of Schrödinger's Cat, and that's a thought experiment I cannot stand -- by the way, the quote is Hawking (quoting Görring) in reference to Schrödinger's Cat.  Even Schrödinger himself hated that experiment and stated that he wished he'd never developed it because people totally missed his point: that the damned cat cannot, under any circumstance be dead and alive simultaneously, and that our observation of the cat means nothing regarding the viability of the stupid animal. Jim62sch 01:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on your view of Schrödinger's cat (I am a physicist and interpretation of QM is one of my hobbies). Anyhow, what about the new proposal for the text of the article? Might not be perfect, but I think it's better reasoning than before. Unclear or unjustified condemnation is avoided. Nevertheless the result is clear. How shall we proceed? Continue discussion? Change the article text or start a new discussion thread with my proposal? --Peter Menke 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whew, I'm not alone on Schrödinger's cat. :)  Anyway, a new discussion section would probably be good, because we're nearing a point of needing to archive, and this section is pretty long already.
 * So, you're a physicist -- pretty interesting field. Now I'm wondering if I should mention my analysis of what I feel is an error in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  Hmmm...  :)  Jim62sch 22:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, I think you should start a new section, paste into it both the existing text that you suggest replacing, and what you propose to replace it with. PiCo 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Jim, I am always happy to discuss QM. Not here of course. My e-mail adress is peter.menke#sie.sie.sie.ments.mens.mens.com. --Peter Menke 21:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have completely butchers above email address. For clarity, it's his name first.last, at siemens.com. -- Ec5618 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vatican again
"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper FeloniousMonk 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."


 * The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.


 * A good reminder for those who make personal attacks featuring cries of "athiesm!" that it is in fact possible for people to both be Christians and recognize the soundness of evolutionary theory.  &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The above paragraph is more accurate if the words "Roman Catholic" are substituted for "Christians". rossnixon 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Plenty non-Catholic Christians have not the slightest trouble accepting both evolution and Christianity. And there are plenty of Catholic Christians who hold dogmatically onto the absolute literal truth of a work abridged / expanded / organised / shuffled / translated / mistranslated over centuries.  So beware "accuracy".  --Plumbago 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that the Pope and his minions don't speak for all Christians. However, the point that it is possible to be a Christian and accept evolution is still valid.  I am not a Christian, but I know that many of the "anti-ID" editors on this page are, so I felt like helping them out by quoting a bit from the statement to remind people that evolution ≠ atheism.   &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 09:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A point that we've been trying to get across for months (no, I'm not a Christian either, but I do know of a few anti-ID editors who are). While evolution does displace us from the foyer of the pantheon, it does not deny the possibility of a god or gods.  I get so tired of the stupid dichotomy that so many alleged Christians try to establish: if you don’t believe in the Creation myth, you’re an atheist, as if Christianity were the only bloody religion on the planet.  Jim62sch 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Article NPOV
I applaud all editors who have worked on this article on its very unbiased point of view. There was no POV pushing as I read the article, which is always welcome. Good work! Kareeser|Talk! 15:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV? This?  Surely you jest.  It's better than most, but is still very establishment in its wording, and the points it brings up (ie, specifically referring to the religious leanings of the pro-ID people, but not seeming to take notice of the sometimes rabid militant atheism of some of the anti-ID people).  Sorry, but calling this NOPV is like calling Limbaugh fair and balanced. Izuko 15:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This needn't be discussed, but I'll just copy this post from the above discussion. Jim62sch said: "A point that we've been trying to get across for months (no, I'm not a Christian either, but I do know of a few anti-ID editors who are). While evolution does displace us from the foyer of the pantheon, it does not deny the possibility of a god or gods. I get so tired of the stupid dichotomy that so many alleged Christians try to establish: if you don’t believe in the Creation myth, you’re an atheist, as if Christianity were the only bloody religion on the planet." -- Ec5618 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Two problems with that. First, when you decide that something doesn't need to be discussed, it says that you've decided to close your mind, and don't care about facts, points, or reason.  Second, the paragraph you pasted has no relation to what I wrote.  Izuko 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite. Mind WP:NPA. "rabid militant atheism" indeed.
 * My point was that hardly all opponents of ID are atheist. And believe it not, this has been discussed before. -- Ec5618 16:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Once agian, not applicable. Your link to NPA says "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."
 * Noted. I have said nothing regarding the contributers, but rather the public critics of ID.  Though I probably could have left off the word rabid.
 * Also, I never said that all the opponents are atheist. However, such views among prominent critics were not deemed to be of much interest, while the views of Jonathan Wells were included.  The article suggests less than honest motivations for the pro-ID side, but doesn't bother with conflicting official views, such as when Congressman Mark Sounder said “One senses here not a defense of science, but rather and effort to protect, by political means, a privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serous challenge.... As [members of] the Congress, it might be wise for us to question whether the legitimate authority of science over scientific matters is being misused by persons who wish to identify science with a philosophy they prefer." (Congressional Record)  Izuko 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, the musings of some Congressperson really don't impress me, especially when his time could be much better spent on more worthwhile pursuits. Besides, anyone who could make the following erroneous statement is a fool unworthy of being taken seriously: "Darwinism quickly became a near-religious conviction for modern agnostics, and since its early days it has been used against people of faith."
 * BTW, his name is Souder. Jim62sch 18:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The religious views of ID proponents is relevant because ID is part of an agenda driven by religosity, and has been admitted by many key proponents. The religious views of the critic of ID are not relevant because opposition to pseudoscience parading as science is not driven by a religious agenda.  Pennock, for example, is a Quaker, and his positions on many things (among them, opposition to ID) are informed by his faith, and he is by no means unique.  And calling this atheistic is a personal attack, because you seem to be saying that the content of the article reflects the "rabid atheism" of the editors who wrote it, something that I find deeply offensive.  Guettarda 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite so. The religion of the ID proponents is notable because of their claims for public education purposes that ID is science and not religion, while vaunting their religion and ID's religious compatibility when seeking Creationist support. I do of course appreciate that vocal opponents of ID such as Father Coyne of the Vatican Observatory are seen as rabid militant atheists by some proponents of Creationism or ID.. ...dave souza, talk 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, when the anti-ID people say that it's a conspiracy to teach religion, that's legitmate, and needs to be reported. When the pro-ID crowd says that the refusal to give ID a fair shake is part of the march of militant atheism, that doesn't deserve mention.  That isn't NPOV, that's bias, plain and simple.


 * And, as for whether or not this is a personal attack... I have said nothing about the editors of this article, except for the fact that they are not NPOV (and now, that they are biased). You may choose to be offended by whatever you wish, but don't pin it on me and keep your words out of my mouth.  Izuko 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many scietists who reject ID are also religeous, so the statement of militant atheism is incorrect. That is why it is not in here. --KimvdLinde 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes about as much sense as if I pointed out an atheist or agnostic person who believed ID to be science, and said that your mentioning of religion is, thereby, invalid. There are two sets of standards in play here.  Izuko 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ID is not religous, but many proponents have a religous agenda in pushing ID. --KimvdLinde 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain the scientific part of ID! There is none, all that is left is religion, conviction, assertion, or whatever term you want.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Geeze, these indents are getting out of control) The scientific part of ID relates to the use of math, specifically probability and statistics, to evaluate data as provided by biologists, microbiologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists.  Your assumption that "there is none" is just that, an assumption.  Izuko 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ID is just a hypothesis, without any underpinning. There is some mathematics, however, hey are disputed. It would be nice when ID proponents would start doing the research to proof thier stuff in steadof whining about not being listened to. If you want to make this science, bring the evidence. And evidence is not just showing gaps in the evolutionary knowledge. --KimvdLinde 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The underpinnings are being researched. As far as the disputes regarding the math being used for ID, I fully understand that there are questions, concerns, and doubts, as I would well expect there to be for any new and strange line of inquiry.  I'm also fully aware that Dembski may well fail to find that his hypothesis is mathematically supported (thus falsifying the whole hypothesis).  It would be far more accurate to refer to ID as a protoscience that may or may not bear fruit, rather than taking the rigid stance that it's junk science.  None the less, this paragraph is strictly my own view, though I think it's the most accurate one to take. Izuko 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I come back to the underpinnings as soon as I see a peer-reviewed article on this in a mainstream journal. --KimvdLinde 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The conclusion of Kitzmiller v Dover was that there is no research, though there's a lot of assertion. ...dave souza, talk 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I have checked the Discovery instituut list of pree-reviewed articles, which are mainly NOT peer-reviewed (as shown during Kitzmiller v Dover), and there is nothing of substance to it.--KimvdLinde 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, none of us have commented on your clear bias and obvious POV. And, I don't think Guettarda put words in your mouth.  This constant evolution=atheism crap is getting very old, and merely points to a lack of knowledge on the part of the person making the accusation.  Jim62sch 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't commented on my "clear bias and obvious POV" because I haven't shown any such bias. Or is merely questioning your claim to be NPOV considered biased?  As for the "constant evolution=atheism" argument, I have not made it.  Nor, in fact, have most of the ID proponents, since evolution is pretty much absorbed into ID.  So your bringing up the evolution=atheism debate has absolutely no bearing to this conversation.  However, there are many in the ID camp who have made the claim that a kneejerk opposition to ID (which is how many percieve the refusal to even consider it to be scientific inquiry) is associated with militant atheism.  The suggestion that ID is driven by religious zealots is the judgement of the editors, and not fact.  Their religions of significant proponents of ID are only of interest by way of accusations made by their opponents, and with respect to the debate.  However, if you are going to cover one side's accusations, then it would not be NPOV unless you covered the other side's.  But the editors have decided that one side is right, and the other side does not deserve a voice.  I didn't know it was Wikipedia's mission to solve the debates of our time.  Izuko 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is an embarassment to Wikipedia and a flagrant flouting of the NPOV principle. C'mon people, we can do better. (an unsigned comment from User:Gaohoyt)


 * Care to elaborate? Have you read the above?  --Plumbago 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's factual and concise. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am new here, so perhaps you would appreciated an "outsider's" point of view. I have read quite a few articles, and this one stands out like a sore thumb in its lack of objectivity toward its subject. It is obvious that the contributors are hostile to the idea. Actually, the article is not nearly as bad as its intro. Would it be asking too much to request support for the contention that ALL its "leading proponents" are with the Discovery Institute? Or that 120,000 scientists oppose ID, when it fact all that is documented is that the board of the organization they belong to voted to oppose it? If there is a poll of scientists showing that 90% of them consider ID to be junk science, then the "overwhelming" claim is defensible. Right now, it is just cant.Gaohoyt 17:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd bother to read the archives, those objections have already been previously addressed. BTW, name three leading ID leading proponents who are not with the Discovery Institute. FeloniousMonk 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to argue, but I really feel that saying that "all its leading proponents" are with the Discovery Institute has a rather paranoid ring to it. "Leading" is arguably a weasel word, and "with the Discovery Insitute" isn't very clear either. Employed by? A 'fellow' of? Hang out with other members of? I suspect I share your views on ID, but attributing all the 'leading' proponents of it to one easy-to-pin-down group doesn't do either side any service. --MattShepherd 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad article; from the first paragraph, it reeks of a highly subjective tirade against one group of people who believe one thing by another group of people who believe something different. I tried to fix a few things that were flagrantly in conflict with the notion of NPOV, but the article is so long (ten times longer than it should be) that I finally gave up in boredom after getting part of the way through it.

As far as I can tell, the article is a collection of citations selectively chosen to support a single point of view, namely, one that discredits intelligent design. I get the impression that an angry young male sat down and spent hours hellbent on proving that intelligent design is a Bad Thing, and believed that if he put a few thousand footnotes in to source the citations that seem to make up half the text, that would somehow validate his own point of view and deceive others into believe that he were a neutral party.

It surprises me that so much text is devoted to something that does not merit a very long description. The article doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that intelligent design is a philosophy, not a theory, and so comparing it to evolution makes no sense. Evolution, being a scientific theory (at least in the minds of those untroubled by strong emotional attachments to it), does not address any metaphysical aspect of reality; and so the question of whether things unexplained by evolution are explainable within physical reality or within metaphysical reality is entirely moot. I tried to allude to this in my changes, even though I knew that within hours one or more hotheaded individuals with a sacred mission would revert anything I said (I didn't expect to be accused of vandalism immediately, but that happened, too, and I guess it doesn't really surprise me).

If you kids want to continue fighting on this playground, that's your decision. The only thing I regret is that this article makes a very poor impression on anyone looking for a truly NPOV with respect to intelligent design. Worse yet, it contains very little in the way of critical examination of intelligent design (and even less with respect to evolution), and seems to be mostly a series of attacks on anyone who doesn't toe the standard scientific party line. I'll leave you all to play now; I can find lots of other articles to edit that are not guarded by a gang of teenagers who pounce on anyone who enters their turf. Agateller 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of intelligent design as a phylosophy only is in sharp contrast to how the proponents of the idea try to push it into the science classrooms of the USA. --KimvdLinde 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to serve as a battleground for proponents and opponents of an idea; it is simply to state the facts and inform, leaving the reader to adopt a position (if any) at his own discretion. It is not the place for one side to rail against the other.  This article is a poorly disguised and extremely biased attempt to attack people holding an opinion different from that of that authors, and its presence in its current form in Wikipedia is most unfortunate. I especially worry that it might discourage users of the encyclopedia should they happen to come across it, as it makes Wikipedia look like just another discussion forum or USENET, overrun by flame wars. Agateller 17:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article appears unbiased and NPOV to me. It states the facts, including the scientific consensus and discusses the claims in a fair manner. Jefffire 19:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agateller, an awful lot of work has gone into this article, by editors on both sides of the argument, and a few in the middle. To dismiss it so cluelessly is is merely an indication of not understanding the full scope of the issue.  Id ID philosophy?  Yes.  Is it theology?  Yes.  Is it science?  No.  However, so long as ID's proponents continue to misrepresent it as science it shall receive the same treatment other pseudosciences receive. Jim62sch 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However much work has gone into the article, it's still one of the poorest I've seen on Wikipedia. That doesn't surprise me, since it's almost impossible to find someone with a truly neutral position on controversial subjects, but that doesn't make it okay.  Someone looking for an entry on ID is going to want to know about ID--they may not be interested in a long anthology of famous quotations about evolution, especially one the only purpose of which seems to be to discredit ID.  As for ID's alleged proponents, an encyclopedia is intended for and written by everyone, not just one "camp" of believers, be they worshippers of science or worshippers of deity.


 * An ideal article will present the entire concept of Intelligent Design as it is most frequently embodied, and will include only a small section mentioning any controversy to which it has given rise. It's philosophy, not evolution, so a direct comparison between the two is unwarranted and misleading (all the more so when it is so painfully biased).  And your tone indicates that you (and presumably many others) see this article as an "us versus them" battleground rather than the simple information it should be. Agateller 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. Intelligent design has been presented as science and as an alternative to "materialistic" science.  Have a look at the sources, read what Behe and Dembski have written.  If you believe that ID is presented as philosophy not science, please provide sources to support your position.  If you have evidence, provide it.  If you can't be bothered to support your assertions, why bother making them?  Guettarda 04:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some parties may have presented ID as science, but that doesn't mean that this encyclopedia should also present it as such. It's philosophy, not science, and contrasting it with science (evolution theory) in an article gives the false impression that ID and evolution are two opposing scientific theories, when in fact one is a metaphysical belief and the other is a scientific theory.  The current article gives the overwhelming impression that ID is some sort of alternative to evolution theory, which ironically has just the opposite effect from that which the authors presumably intended. Agateller 07:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) Sorry, but you are wrong. NO ONE (especially within the ID movement) presents ID as a philosophy, it is presented universally as a science.  Thus we will deal with it in the same manner.  Period.
 * Also, as Guettarda noted above, rather than provide us with unsupported assertions, try to provide evidence for these rather wild claims. Jim62sch 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, your assertion that no one presents ID as a philosophy is demonstrably false, since I just did that in the comment immediately preceding yours. I'm not sure what the generic "you are wrong" statement refers to, and so I cannot comment on that.  If ID is not a science, why will you "deal with it in the same manner" (as those who present it as science)?  Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the heavily biased article attempts to do?  I'm also curious as to whom "we" includes, apart from yourself. I presume you hope to make all disagreement go away with a statement like "Period," but I rather doubt that it will do so.  I'm not aware of any wild claims that require evidence; what do you find wild about the assertion that ID is a philosophy?  Do you consider it science? Agateller 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can represent ID as a recipe for pizza, but that would mean little as you are not a leading proponent. As for the rest, read the archives. Jim62sch 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just read this article, and it appears to be strongly arguing against intelligent design. Yes, the majority of scientists do not agree with the theory, but it's highly, highly biased. There are ways of making clear that ID is unscientific without resorting to pejoritives. The entire thing is heavily in favor of evolution. It doesn't even address the central arguments of intelligent design proponents (in a non-mocking tone of speech), nor does it give quotes by proponents of intelligent design. There are many extremely harsh adjectives (in the first paragraph alone, "overwhelming," and "junk science" are of note), and it does not adequately showcase the viewpoints of ID.

And no, I'm not a Christian. ;) Aristotle1990 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's really just that ID is clearly a pseudoscience. Jim62sch 15:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article starts with 'Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."', so the Discovery Institute has been given the exact wording of the definition of ID that they want. Their failure to produce any peer-reviewed scientific evidence for their case does not create a burden on the article to present it as though it has. Pasado 19:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for the "ID as Science" chapter
The following proposal is the result of a longer discussion under "14 Removed section by User:Tznkai". Thanks to everybody who participated. I started the discussion, because when I read the "ID as science" chapter, I had the feeling that this was rather a proclamation than a clear line of reasoning. But it took a while till I was able to make a proposal, of which I think it is better.

Original text:

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
 * Consistent (internally and externally)
 * Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
 * Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
 * Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
 * Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
 * Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
 * Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

In light of its apparent failure...

"
 * 1) Intelligent design is generally only internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: That complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer is not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of Intelligent Design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.
 * 2) Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding  entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
 * 3) The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making Intelligent Design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
 * 4) That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
 * 5)  Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that need not be accounted for, the designer, no further explanation is necessary to sustain it, and objections raised to those who accept it make little headway. Thus Intelligent Design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.

Proposed new text:

"...For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
 * 1. Consistent (internally and externally)
 * 2. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
 * 3. Empirically testable & falsifiable predictions (see Falsifiability)
 * 4. Based upon multiple observations, in this case e.g. fossil records, gene trees, palaeontological data
 * 5. Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
 * 6. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * 7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

In order to fulfill criteria 2. to 5. it is necessary that the theory makes observable predictions; in this case e.g. on the fossil records. ID does not do that. Furthermore in order to fulfill 6. and 7. ID would have to present a consistent explanation of all findings of palaeontology, biology and geology, which is better than the one the theory of evolution gives. This is not the case.

In light of its apparent failure...

"
 * 1) Empirical testability and falsifiablity is required for the predictions of a theory not for its a priori assumptions (like the existence or non existence of a designer).
 * 2) By Occam's razor adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is only allowed, if the explanation of events and observations is improved.

Explanation of changes:

1. Criteria have been reordered to group similar ones like 6. and 7. together.

2. "Provisional" has been deleted, because to my opinion it just leads to mutual accusations and imputations and brings no real progress.

3. Footnote 1 has been deleted, because I don't understand how it shows that ID is inconsistent.

4. Footnote 3 makes a major logical mistake. Many scientific theories make a priori assumptions on the existence of abstract entities which are not observable, falsifiable or testable. One example is the quantum mechanical wave function. In fact, particle physics is full of it. Naturalism itself is also such an a priori assumption. But scientific theories deduce observable predictions from their a priori assumptions. These predictions can be verified e.g. in an experiment and from this it can be concluded that the assumptions make sense. The problem with ID is that it seems they just don't make any predictions on anything observable at all. And if they did, it would be of course questionable whether they were as well in agreement with the available evidence as the theory of evolution.

5. Footnote 4 makes the same logical mistake as footnote 3.

6. Footnote 5 has partially be included in the body of the text, partially been deleted because of 2.

PS: Can somebody explain to me why the numbering of the footnotes in the new proposal did not work correctly? --Peter Menke 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The numbering isn't going to work here because it's dynamically generated and it is counting all links within the page, not just those you've added as footnotes, see Template_talk:Ref. I'm not sure your proposed changes are indeed necessary. The section in question aligns well with reality and other articles. I'll have to look at this more... FeloniousMonk 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Try using . See Windows 2000 for an example of it in use. Much easier to use. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading this over, it seems to me you're writing an actual arguement as to why ID may be invalid science, as opposed to simply reporting how others have argued why ID is invalid science, which is our only mandate per policy. Let's just stick to summarizing what ID proponents and opponents say. FeloniousMonk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter's note on footnotes 3,4 and 5 in his "Explanation of changes" make serious points about alleged weaknesses in the current text. These points need to be adressed. (I'm not saying Peter is right or wrong, just that FM's dismissal is a bit premature). PiCo 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (made corrections to my original post - sorry for misleading you about what I was referring to) (PiCo 08:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC))


 * That's only true if you agree with Menke's opinion and don't follow correct implementation of the NPOV policy. PiCo and Menke both are making the mistake of judging the correctness and validity of what the content says, which is not what we do at Wikipedia. We merely report what participants in the ID debate say. The current footnotes and content are summaries of the common criticisms leveled at ID as science, not our personal take on it. Adding any one of our personal reasonings as Menke is suggesting here violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. FeloniousMonk 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposed changes seem to do a much better job of summarizing ID's weaknesses. As someone sympathetic to ID, I can say that these are precisely the issues that have given me the most pause in considering the relative (de)merits of ID. I recognize these points from the literature, so yes, this is from a summary perspective, not original research as FM seems to imply. Good work Peter.--Gandalf2000 07:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We'd need more than just your word on it, I hope you'll understand. The current content more accurately reflects actual arguments by Pennock and others, whereas I've read nearly all relevant literature on the topic from both sides, and Menke's proposed content conflates a number of distinct objections. FeloniousMonk 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The material that Peter proposes to modify isn't identified in the text of the article as coming from any particular source - to all appearances it's neither more nor less a piece of personal reasoning than Peter's proposed replacement text. Ditto the footnotes. I can't see that any breach of NPOV or NOR is involved. Please bear in mind that I'm neither supporting nor opposing Peter's edit, just suggested that it merits serious consideration, not least because of the weaknesses he points out in his comments on the footnotes. PiCo 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The current content is correct and accurate. Cites can always be provided. FeloniousMonk 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * FM is right. It doesn't matter if it's a direct quote - we still need to stick to what others have written, not come up with our own ideas.  Guettarda 13:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - isn't that the point of a wiki? To edit as part of a community? If the majority have agreed on the wording of the article, it is unfair and inappropriate for a few to make such major changes. Also importantly, the current article already includes enough info to make it accurate. Ck lostsword 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In this context, the issue is whether Peter's proposed summary is a better one of that section. To me, it's a great summary of the secondary source material.  It reads much more clearly, gets to the point, and doesn't re-hash material covered extensively throughout the article.--Gandalf2000 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * About time I weighed in. I understand Peter's intentions, however, I feel that in addition to NPOV and NOR, I think that they simplify the objections down to a reader's digest version, which is certainly not what I expect from an encyclopedia.  Additionally, there is a flaw in Peter's logic regarding a priori assumptions: yes, science (especially physics) makes a priori assumptions of abstract entities, but there is a huge gulf between the abstract and the supernatural. That is where the a priori assumptions of ID fail.  If it were a mere abstract that could be proven by inference based on experiments, that would be fine, but a supernatural entity can neither be proven nor disproven as by definition it falls outside the realm of the knowable.  Thus, while I applaud Peter's hard work and hope that he continues to contribute to this article and the rest of Wiki, I am afraid I cannot support his rewrite. Jim62sch 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FM, I did not recognize that the quotes are specific opinions of certain persons. I thought the author wanted to express a (more or less) common understanding among ID critics. And I think this is the way it should be. My objections against ID are not very special or spectacular, but rather obvious. People like Guettarda brought up similar arguments during the discussion and in fact I can hardly imagine any ID opponent who does not share them. So it shouldn’t be a problem to find someone to quote on it ;). On this planet there are a lot of people saying a lot of things about or against or in favor of ID. We have to select. So when we are quoting objections against ID, we should rather quote those which are strong and evident not those which are questionable and unclear.

Jim, you are mixing up epistemology and science. Of cause it cannot be proven whether God exists or not, in the same way that it cannot be proven that the world is older than 5 minutes (see Omphalos hypothesis), because this is beyond the knowable as philosophy has found out. But this is not the questions that science is asking and that we are talking about. Science is not targeting at the absolute truth, science is searching for the most plausible explanation for experience. And this explanation very much depends on the a priori assumptions you make. Depending on them, you can surely find some evidence for the supernatural, too. E.g. if you make the ancient a priori assumption that the Gods are within nature (see animism or other ancient religions), you can find some "evidence" for it, like e.g. thunder and lightning. Today this evidence is of course poor but a couple of thousand years ago it was striking. The question now is what evidence (i.e. falsifiable predictions on something observable) do the ID proponents bring for their a priori assumption of a designer? Is it more convincing than the theory of evolution or rather as poor as the thunder and the lightning? The latter seems to be true, since they are hardly making any predictions at all.

Albert Einstein – a major critic of quantum mechanics – accused quantum mechanics to introduce supernatural concepts as well. He called it “spooky actions at a distance” (see EPR paradox). Richard Feynman once said that nobody really understands quantumn mechanics. But despite being strange and "spooky" quantumn mechanics does make predictions that are correct! With the help of these predictions you can build computers like the one you are sitting in front of. This and only this is reason why QM became an accepted scientific theory and animism or astrology or whatsoever not.

Summary: The a priori assumption of the natural sciences is Naturalism. The beginning of the “ID as science” chapter explains this well. Naturalism cannot be concluded from the falsifiable/testable requirement or anything else. It is a separate item. Therefore footnotes 3 and 4 are simply wrong.

Another psychological/”tactical” argument: A theist reader who is sympathizing with ID will probably feel offended by footnotes 3 and 4, because he probably will see in it an unjustified and unfair attack of his theist belief and just not a criticism of the poor scientific standards of ID. This just puts oil into the fire and I think there is enough in it. If - on the other hand – this reader follows my objections, he may end up with a theist evolution point of view, which is not in conflict with natural science.

To my opinion footnotes 3 and 4 are not only wrong; they are also driving the discussion into an unwanted polemic direction. I think the archives offer examples for that. I hope you can support my more moderate but I think also more convincing point of view. --Peter Menke 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, The Omphalos hypothesis is as ridiculous to me as Schrödinger's Cat -- a Gedanken experiment that goes nowhere. Based on the type of logic used in that hypothesis, we may not even be writing to each other -- you may be a figment of my imagination, or I of yours, or even both.  Look, thinking about all sorts of possibilities is fun, but in the end, we are reduced to what is real (or as you might argue, what we "perceive" to be real).  Obviously, from a philosophical standpoint, nothing and yet everything is knowable; but, while science did grow out of philosophy, it is far more disciplined: it actually expects results that behave according to certain principles.  (Of course, we could dissect that last phrase philosophically, but we don't have that many kilobytes).
 * Anyway, (and based on the above) your concern with items 3 and 4 seem to be philosophical, rather than scientific. Of course, I could be misunderstanding you.  It certainly warrants further discussion.  Jim62sch 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, in Germany we have the phrase "aneinander vorbei reden". This is probably what we just did. I exactly agree with your last statement. I don't want to talk on the philosphocal level, I want to talk about empirical sciences. You have brought up this issue, by writing the "supernatural ... falls outside the realm of the knowable". This is a philosphical topic and this is not our question here. I tried to make that clear with my last statement. Obviously I failed. I'll try again to bring my objections against the footnotes 3 and 4 to the point: The falsifiability and testability requirements have to be applied to the predictions a scientific theory makes and must not be applied to its a priori assumptions. That's why they are called a priori assumptions. A priori assumptions will per definition fail these requirements, naturalism as well as the designer hypothesis. For me this is so obvious. I don't know what to write any more to make it clearer. --Peter Menke 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, I do understand your point, and in a way we did talk past, or around, each other. But, the difference I see is that in science a priori assumptions can be proven or disproven by observations of the effects these assumptions might have on measurable objects.  Take Einstein's assumption of the warping of space -- we cannot see this warping, but by measuring the path of light from distant stars we know that space is warped by gravitational effects.  In philosophy, which is really where ID belongs, proofs aren't really necessary -- we can posit all sorts of hypotheses without ever measuring them, thus philosophical ideas are neither provable nor disprovable. Jim62sch 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, now we are coming closer. "In science a priori assumptions can be proven or disproven by observations of the effects these assumptions have". This is exactly what I am saying, I just used the word "prediction" not "effect". "Can be proven" means in practice that the "effects of the assumptions" are "falsifiable", "observable" and "testable". This is perfectly ok. My point is that these items are only applicable to these "effects" and not to the a priori assumptions themselves! For you this might be splitting hairs, but this is because you believe the ID assumption is wrong and therefor there cannot be any observable effects. I think, that you have used your POV to make a short-cut in the line of reasoning. This is not ok. --Peter Menke 08:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, in all honesty, I would feel that way about anything presenting itself as science and introducing the supernatural into the equation. If, however, the same subject is presented  as philosophy, I would not care.  Additionally, you noted "wave function" earlier: true, we cannot observe it directly now, but in the future, who knows, we may be able to (along with strings, other dimensions and all other related items).  Obviously this raises the question, can we ever observe the supernatural? Jim62sch 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, whether the supernatural has ever been observed or ever will be is not our question here. Fact is that a scientific theory has to predict observable effects. The cause of these effects is absolutely irrelevant for the requirements 2. to 5. in the list (not for 6.). This is all, I am saying. --Peter Menke 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been some support for my proposal and some objections, which I tried to answer. How do we continue? Can we accept the proposal, shall it be modified or shall my concerns with the current version be adressed in a different way? Who decides what to do? --Peter Menke 19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've pointed this out earlier, but the current Wikipedia section badly misrepresents science. (See here for more)  Other philosophers of science (such as Del Ratzsch) have commented on such flawed criteria.  Note that some of them (e.g. adherents holding on to the theory tentatively, willing to make changes to the theory) are simply ad hominem.  This is not to say there isn't anything wrong with intelligent design, only that we shouldn't put forth a flawed view of science to do so.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So, what would be these flaws of which you speak and how would you resolve them? This will be of great interest to the science community as science as explained in the article faithfully replicates the textbooks used throughout the educational system.
 * On last point: how can these, "adherents holding on to the theory tentatively, willing to make changes to the theory" be ad hominem? That seems to me to be the incorrect fallacy to describe the concept of reactive mutability.  Jim62sch 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the flaws of which I speak of, I have already explained them before.


 * Incidentally, theories do not change in and of themselves; they are inanimate abstract concepts. People modify theories.  Claiming a theory is not science because its adherents are unwilling to modify the theory, the adherents hold on to the theory too firmly, the adherents are unwilling to admit they might be wrong, the adherents have unsavory motives etc. are ad hominem because they attack not the theory, but rather the people who hold on to it.  One can hold any theory and be guilty of these things.  This is not to say there is nothing wrong with intelligent design, only that certain philosophical criticisms do not seem to work.  I doubt that mainstream scientists believe that ad hominem attacks count as legitimate justification for rejecting intelligent design.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you're now changing what you said? You noted that the criteria are ad hominem.  Now you are saying that it has somerthing to do with the adherants inability or unwillingness handle the theory properly.  (BTW, thanks for sharing the epiphany that theories don't change on their own.)  Additionally, I want a cite for your belief regarding mainstream scientists -- said cite to include that they share your belief that the criteria are ad hominems.  Jim62sch 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I've changed what I've said? Some (though not all) of the criteria are ad hominem.  If one rejects a theory based on what its adherents do (e.g. they fail to handle the theory "properly") such a reason is ad hominem.  I am not the first person to note that such criteria attack the adherent rather than the theory.  The philosopher of science Del Ratzsch does so in his book Battle of Beginnings (in the "Nature of science: popular anticreationist mistakes" chapter).  Confer also the 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).


 * By the way Jim, the WP:CITE guideline works in reverse. If you want to introduce ad hominem criteria for rejecting a theory in the Wikipedia article (and calling/insinuating such criteria are valid philosophies in science), the onus is on you to provide the citations.  If the material were challenged and no source was provided, WP:CITE empowers any editor to remove those claims.--Wade A. Tisthammer 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you meant, '...philosopher of science, and fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, Del Ratzsch...' Stop presenting him as some neutral, univolved party. He's an active member of Dembski's ISCID. Also, Ratzsch's writings are strictlypolemical, and mirror that of the polemics from ID's leading lights at the Discovery Institute. 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned by FeloniousMonk )


 * Felonious, I think you should at least read the book Battle of Beginnings before you write off his works as "polemics." Have you done that?


 * Ratzsch has spoken and written in ID literature, but is he an ID adherent himself? When I actually read what he wrote in ID literature, I'm not so sure.  Given his specialty (the philosophy of science) perhaps the reason for joining was to provide guidance in that direction.  From ISCID, "I was troubled by what seemed to me to be an unfortunate absence of philosophical analysis of both the concepts involved and the underpinnings of design inclinations."  He does claim that many philosophical criticisms of ID do not work, but that position (as he put it) is "not equivalent to the view that current design proposals have demonstrated scientific fruitfulness, that opponents of design theories are of necessity confused, irrational, blinded by naturalistic upbringings, or anything of the sort."  Ratzsch also has criticisms of ID itself.  In the same web page he criticizes Dembski's explanatory filter.  Elsewhere he criticizes ID, saying there is "very little positive empirical substance to design theories" as he did in one book review.  Thus, I don’t think we can really say he is an ID adherent yet.  He’s been critical of both sides.


 * FeloniousMonk, I know how easy it is to assume Del Ratzsch is an ID adherent if you play the “guilt by association” game, but in the future I would advise you to dig a little deeper (e.g. read his book). For instance, do you have any actual citation in which Ratzsch claims to be an ID adherent?  I suspect you will not find it even if you look for it.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum the html version of the book review in which Del Ratzsch said there is "very little positive empirical substance to design theories" can be found (ironically) here, a web page on the Discovery Institute website. Perhaps that will convince some that the "guilt by association" logic is not quite conclusive, and that further digging is needed to judge whether someone is an ID adherent.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Del Ratzch hardly merits a footnote here, his criticisms of science are strictly polemical, considering he is an established ID proponent. FeloniousMonk 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, being a propoent of something means your criticisms don't merit consideration. But being an opponent is ok.  The fact that this is considered NPOV is laughable.  The fact that supporters of ID don't get a voice, strictly because they're supporters of ID is pretty sad.  How about dealing with his arguments based on their merits?  Or, better yet, don't pass judgement at all.  You report, we decide.  Izuko 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Del Ratzsch doesn't criticize science, he is very much in favor of it—though he does have beef with certain philosophy of science objections (from both sides of the debate). And on what grounds are you claiming that Ratzsch is an ID proponent?  He's criticized the ID movement as well as some anticreationists.  Have you read his book Battle of Beginnings?  I suggest reading some of his material (particularly this book) before passing judgment.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Second, Ratzch's criticisms are rejected by me not because he is an ID proponent, but because he appears to be as party of one in his view.  Wiki does NOT need to give every minority viewpoint (and a viewpoint of one is minority at its ultimate) space in an article, only those that are significant . Jim62sch 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to this article, the only resemblence it has to a newspaper is the editorial page. A newspaper is supposed to be unbiased, as I would hope we can agree that Wikipedia is supposed to be.  Hence my reference to "we report, you decide."  It is convenient, however, that you can always pick and choose which viewpoints you see as signficant. Izuko 03:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do explain. Jim62sch 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to explain. You select the criteria that fit your viewpoint and somehow call it NPOV.  Izuko 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But Ratzsch has not been alone here. In one trial, Michael Ruse put forth similar criteria (regarding falsifiability and tentativeness) and these have come under attack even by anticreationists.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When you get up to 3% or so of the scientists in the United States who agree with Ratzsch, let us know. Also, do you have a cite for the Ruse assertion? Jim62sch 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is wikipedia here to decide the big issues of the day, or to give information? In order to cover the debate, you've got to give time to both sides, and not just discard one side's arguments as insignificant.  That decision requires a judgement call on your part.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.  Izuko 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have a cite for the Ruse assertion. Confer the 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).  By the way, what makes you think that less than 3% of scientists agree with Ratzsch regarding philosophy of science?  Do you have any basis for that belief or is just something you naturally assumed without even reading his material?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wade, maybe there are some good points in your criticism, but in the end I agree with Jim that the list itself is perfectly ok (except for the "provisional" criterion maybe). The problem lies in the footnotes, which are partly nonsense as I explained above.


 * Coming back to my proposal: Who decides whether it is accepted or not? What is the Wikipedia procedure for such a problem?
 * If you're not happy with my proposal, I would appreciate if you could make another one, which addresses my concerns.
 * If you’re not willing to delete the wrong parts, I would be happy if we could at least add my objections.
 * If you don't agree with this also, I think it should at least be made clear, that these footnotes do not represent a common opinion among ID opponents.--Peter Menke 21:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I've seen each of those positions presented by critics of ID at one time or another. Finding cites would be a simple matter I'd think. FeloniousMonk 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you think the list is perfectly okay, I recommend you read Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither-Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate by Del Ratzsch. It is one of the best books I have ever read on the subject (from either side) and I highly recommend it to anyone with any interest in the controversy.  Del Ratzsch specializes in the philosophy of science (a discipline that studies the system of science itself; examining science’s structure, components, techniques, assumptions, limitations, and so forth).  He has some excellent information regarding the philosophy of science, and some rather eye-opening info at that.  Particularly read the "Nature of Science: Popular anticreationist mistakes" as it seems to be useful here (in another chapter he criticizes creationists for misusing science--no surprise there).


 * Regarding your proposal, I would suggest having something like "the following are popular criticisms among ID opponents" with a list of objections and citations to connect these objections to prominent ID opponents. If the objection cannot be cited in such a way, it should not be mentioned.  (There are many prominent ID opponents who claim ID is not science, so if an objection is not original research it shouldn't be too hard to find.)  Regarding the "wrong" parts, perhaps cited rebuttals from prominent figures (from any side of the debate) explaining why they believe them to be wrong.  This way we can conform to both WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.


 * Alas, I doubt most of the editors who "police" the article would find such a compromise acceptable. How to resolve this?  Well, you can put up an RfC (request for comment) and hope to get consensus that way.  There are other measures, and you can learn more about it from WP:DR.  But first I would try working with the editors just in case that works.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FM, can you find these quotes? You already mentioned on January 25th, that you have the cites. Remember, I have no objections against the list itself, but only against parts of the footnotes, because they make the fundamental mistake to apply requirements on the predictions of a scientific theory to its a priori assumptions. This is nonsense. Futhermore I would definetely recommend to add arguments, which are not nonsense, as I tried above. --Peter Menke 09:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now a month has passed and nothing has happened. No cites from FM, nothing. I think I adressed a serious weakness in the article and I made several proposals how to handle it. From modifying the text to only adding the names of authors of the questionabele footnotes, to make clear that only some ID opponents have this opinion. Is there no interest to make the article more sound? How shall we proceed? --Peter Menke 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Court decision edit
I reviewed the actual language of the court decision. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. There was no mention of ID as defined in this trial. I think adding that language is needlessly splitting hairs as there have been no other "ID"s. As such I will remove that part. As for ruled vs concluded, technically his ruling was that it could not be taught as an alternative to evolution. The rest is commentary. -- John DO | Speak your mind  10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I fixed it. There's a True Scotsman around here who has been advancing the pov that ID as seen in public fora and the courts is not the true ID. FeloniousMonk 10:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically the ruled vs concluded may not be wrong. The actual "ruling" was 1)that ID violated the establishment clause, 2) injunction against ID policy, 3) damages. All semantics, though. It may be more accurate to say "ruled that ID violates the establishment clause, being religion and not science." or something along those lines. -- John DO | Speak your mind  10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's semantics, that the key to language as used in law. Jim62sch 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oi, less Scotism please FM. .....dave souza 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is NO other notable form of Intelligent Design. -- John DO | Speak your mind  23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Just like there's NO other "notable form" of Scotsman. Think about it please.--Ben 00:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to prove me wrong. Find another form of ID that is notable as per WP rules.-- John DO | Speak your mind  01:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed the reference: see no true scotsman. Much like "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" is fallacious, "No true IDist believes in evolution" is also fallacious. Just because the notable form of "Scotsman" may only include "Scotsmen that do not put sugar on their porridge," doesn't mean a "Scotsman" article should read something like "A Scotsman is someone who lives in Scotland. Scotsmen have various traits, such as not putting sugar on their porridge." To clarify, it seems like you are asking me to find another notable form of Scotland.--Ben 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction. ID is a concept created to discredit evolution. It is mutually exclusive. But thank you, I haven't heard of the scotsman reference before.-- John DO | Speak your mind  02:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite obvious I disagree with that statement. I do not think the concept of intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive.


 * And neither do a not insignificant amount of people . The phrase by itself, even within the context of origin beliefs, is not mutually exclusive to evolution and provides a grasp of the subject for the layman. "Teleological argument" is not something that is common knowledge and might not be at the ready in a conversation. People often use the phrase not as the Discovery Institute defines it, but simply as a handy way to describe their musings on theistic beliefs of design.


 * If you want to use a definition that is mutually exclusive to evolution (the one being used now as opposed to a general version) you should not present this anti-evolution ID as the only form or you are likely to upset and confuse these people by branding them anti-evolutionists, and attacking their beliefs and thoughts on design in what turn out to be extremely equivocating ways based on their (likely unknown to them) rejection of some of the tenets of the Discovery Institute. These people will not be confused and upset by this if you clearly show what form of ID is being discussed in the article. This article is extremely overbearing, aggressive, and combative. Maybe the Discovery Institute can take it, but your average reader who simply wants to know more about their idea cannot and should not. This ID is the Discovery Institute's form. Make it known. You should have no reason to hide it. --Ben 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how proponents may try to spin it at any given time, intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive.
 * As for extremely overbearing, aggressive, and combative, that best describes someone here, not something. You've been campaigning to get this same pov line into the article now since October, and all you've accomplished is create a lot disruption, insult responsible contributors, fritter away most of the regular contributors good will with tendentious arguements, and prompt a user conduct RFC on your behavior. I think it's time for you to drop this pov campaign and move along to another subject. FeloniousMonk 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And I said I disagree with that. If you're looking for spin, read the first clause in your sentence. Who said anything about "proponents?" By the way, I erased your unwarranted attacks on my character. Put it on my talk page if it makes you feel better.--Ben 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your long-running disruptive pov campaign here has made observations on your behavior relevant here. Despite many warnings and administrative actions you've repeatedly chosen to conduct this pov campaign to redefine ID to duck critcisms and unfavorable court rulings for over three months now. You have a history here of wrongly removing or altering the comments of others on this page and elsewhere. You're violating policy yet again. You need to find a more constructive way to contribute to the project than disrupting this page once again. FeloniousMonk 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So your argument is that because a friend of a blogger uses this term to describe his own particular rebranding of the neologism "intelligent design", we should put that in the article, or weaken the entire article? So let's pick another neologism, say "Bright (noun)". Let me redefine Bright as "someone who is blonde and pretty smart" and get it mentioned in a blog. Perhaps we should weaken the Bright article by putting disclaimers all over it? The only notable use of the term Intelligent design is from DI. Disclaimers are unnecessary. ID proponents are anti-evolutionists. If non-anti-evolutionists wish to identify themselves with ID, they have no more right to be offended than people who self-identify as skinheads would for being thought racist.-- John  DO | Speak your mind  04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Great example. Please go and read the skinheads article. I think you'll be surprised that the definition is not "Skinheads, named after their shaven heads, are members of the Neo-Nazi subculture." --Ben


 * I'm not sure what that last post means (although I do know that the point in the previous post was missed). Anyway, both DocJohnny and FM are correct: there is only one viable definition of ID, period.  And this campaign to find an alternative definition is getting rather tiresome.  It should be obvious to Ben by now that the definition in the article is not going to change absent the sudden demise of everyone who participated in reaching the consensus that it was the correct definition.  Jim62sch 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Spread the controversy
Bit of a horror story in the Grauniad today, though no sign of it on the BBC website. My newly acquired PVR has already got Dawkin's witty programmes from Channel 4, and is set up to record tonite's Horizon programme. .....dave souza 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PVR? I'll have to look up what the heck that is...I'm guessing a digital recording device like a DVR, but, with the Brits you just never know.  :)
 * Anyway, I agree with Dawkins about the scientists, but not about people welcoming enlightenment. There seems to be a growing trend toward endarkenment.  Kind of a regression to the mean (and to make matters worse, I think the mean is declining).  Ave fides, custos inscientiae!  Jim62sch 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Had to look at the instructions, just to confuse everyone it's called PVR, or in full Digital Personal Video Recorder. It's what we Brits wittily call a Freeview set-top box, with a hard drive allowing time shifting and recording, Freeview gives a lot of digital channels with no subscription, though I mostly stick to the Beeb to avoid adverts. More to the point, Dawkins in these three programmes is less optimistic about enlightenment being welcomed these days. In tonight's programme he said: "Design needs to postulate an entity at least as complicated, at least as high in information content, at least as irreducibly complex, as that which it is supposed to explain. It therefore is a total lack of explanation. It doesn't explain anything, because it can't explain itself." which sounds rather like the quote FM could have done with a while ago. Otherwise the programme covered the points we all know, though not to the standard of journalism expected on Wikipedia (and to be fair, often not achieved here). Most of the 50 minutes was given to the IDists to explain their points, Schönborn's NY Times article was mentioned (and criticised by Father George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory), and Meyer said that a DI "fellow knew him and encouraged him to write about it". Then just at the end the Kitzmiller result was briefly outlined, and Kenneth Miller, Dawkins and David Attenborough hammered the point home. Attenborough here is a very respected TV naturalist/reporter who produces a huge number of nature programmes. Hope this if of some interest. ....dave souza 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone found a copy of the questions asked? I keep seeing things about 'x chose evolution' and 'x chose creationism' but in prior studies I've found the particular phrasings can be significant. Does anyone know exactly what the questions were, how they were phrased, and who was asked? --Davril2020 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave, thanks for the many explanations...I wish I had seen the program (sorry, I simply cannot geminate the "m" and add an extraneous e ) :) ... anyway, maybe FM can use the quote after all.
 * Davril, you raise an excellent point. I, too, would at least like to see the questions, and possibly the demographics and margin of error.  Jim62sch 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Davril, presumably you refer to the poll mentioned in the Grauniad: it wasn't mentioned in tonight's programme, and I've missed any mention of it on the news. A minor footnote on shared religious cults: Miller, Dawkins and me are all Mac users! ...dave souza 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Silly me had not noticed the link at the side to BBC news of the poll - not much detail, ....dave souza 07:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Junk science" and "overwhelming"
Both words have strong connotations. First off, as I mentioned in my edit summary, "junk science" is a pejorative term (it's in the article itself). I acknowledge that ID is certainly seen by many as having questionable motives as its conclusions are primarily based on an assumption beforehand. That said, I feel the negative connotations of the term really don't belong in an encyclopedia entry, especially in the first paragraph. Perhaps a compromise could be achieved by spelling out the concern that makes it considered "junk science" without using a loaded word? (See below.) Note: "Pseudoscience" itself is a loaded word in that it carries a negative connotation of deception beyond its strict definition, but it IS rather likely that those who discredit ID would call it "pseudoscience."

Secondly, overwhelming has an obvious connotation of domination. While that connotation is probably, in fact, applicable, it still feels POV. I have no intention of revert warring so how do others feel about the following change?

From:
 * An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory, but as pseudoscience or junk science.

to:
 * A vast majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory, but as pseudoscience based on preconceived notions.

-- Hinotori(talk) 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. According to wikipedia; Junk or bunk science is a pejorative term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by perceived political, financial or other questionable motives. Compare with pseudoscience and controversial science. I think the word is quite appropriate for ID, and I don't know why we shouldn't use pejorative term to describe Intelligent Design. After all, it is recognized to be unscientific and religious in nature. Also, "overwhelming" is not such a strong word, in fact it's already quite gentle for IDist, as I don't know any biologist specialized in (evolutionary) biology having published Intelligent Design material in a serious paper. For me, it's even close from being a nuance too far, "a vast majority" implies that there's a minority of scientists in the area that do not consider Intelligent Design to be junk, I don't think it's the case. "Neomutationism", that's a minority view, it's quite rare among scientists, but still it's defended by serious researchers and does produce results, predictions, articles. Intelligent Design does not produces any results, articles, predictions, it is totally inexistent as a theory within the scientific literatures. --PhDP 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that there's nothing wrong with using a pejorative term to describe a topic in an article is inherently contrary to WP:NPOV. Especially relevant is the section on pseudoscience. In short, it says that our job is primarily to present the majority view as the majority view, the minority view as the minority view, and how scientists perceive the minority view. Using loaded terminology goes far beyond that.


 * Overwhelming is a very strong word. I think you'd be hard pressed to think of many words, if any, that indicate a stronger majority without implying consensus. But, as I said, it isn't the the actual number that's the problem; it's the connotation associated with it of domination. As for whether or not there are scientists and doctors who subscribe to ID, there are. A quick Google search found me three within five minutes: William A. Dembski, Hugh Ross, and Ray Bohlin.


 * Again, the changes I advocated above have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific legitimacy (or lack there of) surrounding ID. They are merely offered to make the article sound more balanced and professional. -- Hinotori(talk) 12:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We've already had these arguments. Pejorative or not, junk science fits, and we had a very, very lllooonnnggg discussion on vast vs. overwhelming and, by consensus, settled upon overwhelming.  Sorry, but NPOV does not equal PC.
 * As for the three "scientists" you mentioned, please, they aren't exactly top-tier, now are they? Jim62sch 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)  (comment likely inserted in the wrong place, but it fits).


 * Gee, you know a lot about the ID movement don't you? Start by reading our intelligent design movement article. But how many are called Steve? Anyway overwhelming is fine, because it is demonstrably true. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the footnotes for the terms and at least try to make your arguement account for the information they contain. FeloniousMonk 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, Dunc is referring to Project Steve. In response to a petition by ID proponents, which managed to list a number of scientists willing to criticise evolution, Project Steve managed to find, in much less time, a much greater number of scientists named Steve to back evolution. The implication being that there is in fact an overwhelming majority of scientists who disagree with ID. -- Ec5618 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think both of you are ignoring the point of my argument. I already agreed that the majority probably is overwhelming. The term, however, has connotations that go beyond numerical superiority. I don't see any reason why "vast" is any less descriptive a term as "overwhelming," but it does lack a lot of those same connotations. Also, Dunc, maybe I'm offbase here, but if not, I'd appreciate if you'd keep the condescension down to a minimum. -- Hinotori(talk) 13:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The term isn't used by wikipedia to decribe the topic; it is noted that the scientific community uses the term, and doesn't look fondly upon ID. The article doesn't call ID junk science, the reference does.
 * As for the people you mention, while they may personally agree with ID, they have all failed to explain why they do in scientifici terms. Basically, though this is understandably a difficult point, published research data is relevant, personal opinion is not. An incredibly large supermajority of scientists agree that ID is bunk, and the scientific community (which communicates through peer-reviewed articles) agrees in its totality.
 * The personal opinions of a few rogue agents cannot outweigh the tens of millions of people who disagree, especially when it is clear that the personal opinions of these rogues are largely based on religion and beliefs. -- Ec5618 13:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute at all that the scientific community does not look fondly upon ID. Pseudoscience itself is a loaded word in that it implies deception besides erroneous classification, and I'm fine with that. I do think, however, that many scientists, at least in their professional literature, would not go so far as to outright call it junk science (feel free to challenge me here if I'm wrong, but what little I've read seems to indicate this). Please note, there is a big difference between saying that there is no scientific basis for a theory and calling it "junk science." While there certainly is an enormous majority who believe the former, and who would probably even go so far as to call it pseudoscience, I think you lose a lot of the "overwhelmingness" when you get to outright hostile terminology (which isn't even to say that a majority of scientists don't call it a "junk science;" many probably do, but probably not the same overwhelming majority that considers it merely not a valid scientific theory). -- Hinotori(talk) 13:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right in saying that not every scientist has yet spoken out about ID, but I imagine that if one actually asked scientists about ID (perhaps giving each a few minutes to read ID 'literature'), few would have a problem with calling 'a concept based on ideology, not science' (as in 'junk science'). -- Ec5618 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hinotori, I've tried to introduce very similar changes before (and I agree with your argument entirely), but the regular maintainers of this article will not go for it. See archive 26, above.--ragesoss 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because both terms are accurate and widely reported. FeloniousMonk 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The definitions of junk science and pseudoscience are fairly clear, and both accurately describe ID. If anything, experience suggests that ID often tends more towards junk science than pseudoscience, since it is the active distortion of science by people who are well aware of the science community's rebuttals to their arguments.  The origins of ID, and statements by some of its leading lights also point strongly in this direction.  To be fair, many of the proponents of ID are not dishonest in the way implied by junk science, but it is not inaccurate to label ID, as a whole, this way.  YMMV, --Plumbago 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no better expression for ID than Junk science, it is a "research" driven by religious motives, exactly the definition of "Junk Science". --PhDP 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The motives driving research are definitely not what makes something junk science; if that were the case, basically all the work of, say, Kepler and Newton (and much of what Maxwell did) would be junk science, since it was driven by religious motives. ID may be junk science, but not for that reason. But the point is, it is not the responsibility of the WP article to decide what is and is not junk science, it is to accurately describe the views of others. And as I argued in the comments in archive 26, the sources we have do not establish "junk science" as the verdict of the "overwhelming" part of the scientific community. Bad science, yes, junk science, no.--ragesoss 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you would rather have bad science linked rather than junk science? Note that they both link to the same article. You may really have a problem with the way Wikipedia discusses subjects outside the scientific mainstream rather than having an issue with this particular article. This is an outstanding problem here at Wikipedia, but we're working on it. --ScienceApologist 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Radesoss; on wikipedia, "Junk or bunk science is a pejorative term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by perceived political, financial or other questionable motives. Compare with pseudoscience and controversial science." Also, about Kepler or Newton, I'd say they were doing science. Intelligent Design is not science, it's something that wants to look like "science" to promote a religious world view. So, do you dispute the definition of Junk science given in the article, or do you dispute the fact that Intelligent Design is an unscientific project driven by questionable motives ? Anyway, the term "Junk science" is from an article written by H.A. Orr where he said; "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." --PhDP 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PhDP, I was taking objection to your oversimplication in seemingly implying that "religious motives" automatically equals "questionable motives". SA, I would rather have "bad science" with no link, or just "wrong" or the equivalent, and yes, I am also concerned about the larger issue.  But in this article in particular, it often seems like the border between presenting views and asserting them is fuzzy, because of the way the views are presented as those of science or the scientific community (as a whole) instead of individuals or well-defined groups.  The scientific community is so broad and so large, that there is pretty much nothing you could attribute to them as a whole.  It may be the case that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community would take a given position if asked and given time to research it, but for almost anything, most scientists have not been asked.  If representative sampling and polling was done, one could make the kind of broad statement we are discussing, but the current sources on scientific responses to ID are inherently biased (in statistical terms) towards those who are close to the issue already.  The AAAS statement, for example, is as much a statement to the scientific community (i.e., it conveys that the scientists who have looked at ID carefully recognize "significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts", etc., so the rest of you AAAS members can also reasonably reject it) as from the scientific community.  But I've accepted that this is not my article, and I understand the perspective you guys are coming from, so I won't waste any more time arguing over a single sentence (especially when I would just get pulled into some other sentence right afterwards).  May the Wiki be with you--ragesoss 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

FM, you've just removed one of the few references opposing the "junk science" idea; Fuller is at least as legitimate an authority as Pennock. That "editorial" aside was a paraphrase of Fuller's views, not editorial comment.--ragesoss 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Footnotes are not the place to present rebuttals to viewpoints. They are meant to support specific passages. FeloniousMonk 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It served to clarify the extent of support in the text, to show who doesn't support that view as well as who does. But since the editors will not allow any change of the "junk science" part of the text, at least that was a way to include the other side.--ragesoss 19:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Better be careful. The "junk science" and "pseudoscience" bits are the third rail of the ID article.  Anyone who touches it is going to get burned.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (removing tongue from cheek now)


 * How about re-inserting the reference in another location? That would be good wikipedia style, I think.--Gandalf2000 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The scientific community is so broad and so large, that there is pretty much nothing you could attribute to them as a whole. -- "overwhelming majority" and "scientific community as a whole" are different concepts here in Wikipedia. Your conflation of the ideas is external to the sense in which reporting on this subject currently operates on Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not this again... You guys and gals have to be tired to have this brought up again and again and again...


 * To Rageross and Hinotori and others who want to put ID in a more sympathetic light or less harsh spotlight, I once could understand your position. However, ever since the Dover trial end result, I'm a lot more inclined to think that folks like you are either in denial or just being too nice about ID.  (Kind of similar to how I consider some ID editors to be too fair about the ID article).


 * This ID is badddd. I even attempted to salvage the general meaning of an intelligent design because the actions of the Discovery Institute in promoting their "scientific ID theory" is really so very shady.  In fact, it's so unintelligent and now so infamous that people nowadays have to think twice before using the term "intelligent design."


 * I suggest reading (really) reading Judge Jones' ruling. Jones is I think more than an expert on the ID matter because both sides of the controversy had to present their positions to him one-at-a-time over a month-long trial.  He was shown each side's best evidence.


 * After reading his ruling, there's really now no doubt in my mind that ID is just creation science and there's really a religious motive for DI's promoting of their ID theory in public school science classes.Lovecoconuts 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view the word pseudo-science describes ID much better than the phrase junk science. People that do junk science still do scientific experiments but there is a credibility problem. Pseudo-scientists rarely if ever do any experiments because they don't think that that would help their case. ID fits the pseudo-science description perfectly. So I would much prefer having just "pseudo-science" and not use the word "junk science". MvH Jan 28 2006.


 * Given that the definition is complex (and provides "or" rather than "and" conditions), let's recast it using elipses and it might be clearer why the appelation Junk Science is appropriate:
 * ''Junk or bunk science is a pejorative term used to derogate purportedly scientific ... claims which are driven by perceived political ... or other questionable motives.
 * Hope this helps. Jim62sch 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

''I apologize for bringing up this issue once more; I agree that it is rather unimportant, but I wish to voice my opinion anyway. The following is in reference to the earlier discussion concerning the word "overwhelming":'' I agree with Hinotori that the current wording is problematic. Although I personally feel that the number of scientists debunking ID is overwhelming, the word seem to include a subjective component, inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest solving the issue by referring to the studies directly, by saying something like "According to XYZ, an overwhelming number of scientists...". PJ 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We are NOT rechewing this cud again. Sorry, I understand your point, but no.  Jim62sch 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just follow the first link in footnote 3, to "we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution" Judges are careful about choosing words. ...dave souza, talk 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I know that you are all working hard on this article, so I won't discuss this rather trivial wording any further. Just for the record though, a judge is the interpreter of the law so his/her function is to pass judgement. Therefore it is ok for him/her to use subjective wording because what he/she is stating is in fact how the evidence appears to him/her (personally, I agree completely with judge's statement here). But again, we don't need to revive this issue. I'm fine with that. PJ 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that wikipedia calls dianetics a pseudoscience. The term junk science is not used. I have no objections doing the same here. To me, adding the word "junk science" gives no additional information and brings no real benefit for the article. It seems that this word just raises emotions and complaints that the articel violates the NPOV (as it can be seen above). --Peter Menke 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can live with that -- but let's reach consensus first. Jim62sch 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Peter Menke, for illustrating that. I felt the exact same way (and I already said I felt comfortable with it being labelled as "psuedoscience"), but I felt shouted down within seconds. I'm glad some other people are at least trying to see what I was trying to say. Maybe this change has a chance then? -- Hinotori(talk) 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peter Menke and Hinotori. The term "junk science" is perjorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science), hence subjective, hence inappropriate. Personally I think that "pseudoscience" is a loaded term too, and I would prefer the use of "unscientific", which I take to be a neutral. But Wikipedia's definition of "pseudoscience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) closely matches my definition of "unscientific", so I think that "pseudoscience" is acceptable. PJ 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pseudoscience" describes something that unscientific does not - something that claims to have the form of science but does not actually adhere to the scientific method. Replacing pseudoscience with unscientific would strongly alter the meaning.  Junk science is a sourced quote, and it does reflect the way that many scientists feel about ID.  Both terms are accurate and useful.  Guettarda 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Junk science" is a pejorative term, described as such in its own article. I still don't see any reason why there is any added benefit in saying that ID is "junk science" as opposed to saying it is "pseudoscience with religious motivations." The second phrasing is clearly more NPOV. What's the deal? As for the "sourced quote," one quote clearly does not indicate common usage among the scientific community. I'm sure many scientists do feel that ID is junk science, but I doubt many would actually call it that in academic circles. -- Hinotori(talk) 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." Orr is speaking as a biologist.  The quote alludes to a widespread opinion.  And yes, junk science is used in academic circles to describe ID.  The simple fact that it is pejorative is not reason to exclude it from the article - we are not meant to write neutrally, we are meant to neutrally describe significant opinions.  That's what the article is doing.  Guettarda 14:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda is correct here in terms of interpreting the rules, and if one thinks about it it makes sense. If we had to exclude any possible quotes with perjoratives in them, most controversial subjects would be quite bare. JoshuaZ 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I concede the point to Guettarda. Given the context (i.e. relaying what scientists think of ID) a non-neutral wording is OK. Moreover, "junk science" seems to convey something that is not captured in "pseudoscience", viz. being agenda-driven. However, I still think that Peter Menke and Hinotori have a ½ point. We should, prima facie, relay information without being insulting. I think we should at least consider some alternative phrasing. PJ 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'd like to ask to replace "overwhelming majority" with instead "large number" seeing as that it might not be entirely true of the entire scientific community. Furthermore, I have no objection to having ID called "junk science" seeing as that the article makes it very clear that it is a point of view from certain people of the scientific community.
 * Also, I'd like to state that evolution can be just as "religious" or "junk science" as ID. Here is how:
 * Evolution (in general) advocates the ideology that there is no supernatural entity/beings that caused everything to come to being, making it mainly atheistic. As will probably be pointed out though, there are Christians, or Catholics who do believe evolution, but the theory that appears to be heavily advocated by the scientific community excludes any supernatural intervention.
 * A number of the proofs of evolution have turned out to be misrepresentations (ie: pepper moths experiment, Nebraska Man, Miller-Urey Experiment, and others)
 * Some of the evolution arguements are circular (ie: homologous organs, organs that are similar through a common ancestor, as proof of evolution; in order for the tissue to be homologous, evolution needs to be true first.)
 * Also, evolution is not actually testable or falsafiable, and niether does it really make a hypothesis that can be tested.
 * The arguements listed above are simply to indicate the fact that both should either be treated as science or neither.

Teckor 16:39, 2006-03-03


 * A few different comments: first, it isn't really relevant to this page so much what evolution does or does not say about the supernatural. Similarly, whether certain evidence (not proofs, in science nothing is ever proven, at best one can have overwhelming evidence) for evolution has had problems is not relevant to ID (unless ID really is just a negative argument as many of its critics claim). As for your examples- Miller-Urey is still in quite good standing and improvement/critiques/modifications continued to be done with related experiments. Nebraska Man was proposed shortly and very quickly debunked and had no large influence on evolutionar thought. The other examples have similar problems. I suggest you look at www.talkorigins.org for more information about them and the usenet group talk.origins to discuss these issues(this is really not the forum to discuss them in more detail) . Also, all evidence I have seen has put it as "overwhelming majority" certainly the fact that every major science organization in the US has come down strongly in support of evolution is pretty strong evidence of that(if you want I can supply a list of orgs). All of that said, I'd be open to a possible rephrasing of junk science. What do you suggest? JoshuaZ 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This feeling of déjà vu just won't go away. Jim62sch 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflicts]
 * "Overwhelming" - are you aware of any segment of the scientific community which embraces ID and uses its framework of science (or bothers to cite any of its ideas)?
 * "Evolution (in general) advocates the ideology that there is no supernatural entity/beings that caused everything to come to being, making it mainly atheistic." - this statement is false. Since the supernatural is untestable, it lies outside of science.  Science can neither embrace nor reject the supernatural, since by definition it lies outside of what science can test.
 * "A number of the proofs of evolution have turned out to be misrepresentations" - the "Nebraska man", was an example of the popular press running with one person's idea (which was questioned by most of the scientific community) - a century ago. It was discovered in 1922 and invalidated in 1925.  It shows that even back in the dark ages science was rapidly self-correcting.  The same self-correcting science has been looking hard at evolution since the 1920s, and it has performed wonderfully under scrutiny. The peppered moth does show evolution.  It shows change in phenotype under changing selection pressure.  How is that a misrepresentation?  (And likewise for the others).
 * "Some of the evolution arguements are circular (ie: homologous organs, organs that are similar through a common ancestor, as proof of evolution; in order for the tissue to be homologous, evolution needs to be true first" - don't be silly. Can you show me one reputable source which does this?  If homology can be shown then it is evidence for evolution, sure, but where do you see people assuming homology to demonstrate homology?
 * "Also, evolution is not actually testable or falsafiable, and niether does it really make a hypothesis that can be tested" - again - don't be silly. Evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly, and evolutionary biology is full of hypothesis testing.  Pick up the journal Evolution or Evolutionary Biology or one of dozens of others.  They are full of hypothesis-testing.  Guettarda 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The current content is accurate as it stands. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen! To use an scientific inappropriate word.... :-) --KimvdLinde 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the lack of any embracement of scientists for ID is typical when ID is severely frowned upon and hardly ever mentioned as an alternative, not because of lack of evidence but because it goes against evolution.
 * Does evolution not testify that there is no supernatural being? You have in no way shape or form proved otherwise. In which case, it is dealing with something that is unscientific, the existence of a supernatural being.
 * Peppered moths dont rest on tree trunks, peppered moth colour is independant of moss coverage, ironically enough the results varied in several different places, moths are not active during the day (which is when they were released). Furthermore, science has still not corrected problems with using Haeckel's Embryo's which are false. Also the Millery-Urey experiment is fiercely debated as whether or not it had the right conditions, among other problems with it. There are probably many more examples as well.
 * My biology textbook states that homologous tissues prove evolution. It also defines homologous tissues as I have presented. Oh ya, here's the brand and name "Biology 11-- McGraw-Hill Ryerson" pg. 400
 * If its so easy then make a hypothesis right now, please. A hypothesis that is testible and falsifible.
 * But still this is all besides the point, I still feel that the word "overwhelming majority" be replaced since it does not give actual statistics that can be used to form percentages, nor does it give percentages.

Teckor 19:54, 2006-03-18


 * Thank you for your input. We've had this discussion 10 times (see the archives). Overwhelming stays.
 * BTW, This argument is false: "Does evolution not testify that there is no supernatural being?" You might want to read a bit more on the subject. Jim62sch 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please specify why overwhelming should stay when the evidence given doesn't support the claim? Sure the are a large number of scientists that seem to support it, but that doesn't mean that it's an overwhelming majority. Just because a prominent scientific group supports it doesn't mean that it's a majority either. A good example of something very similar is the same-sex marriage issue in Canada. The Canadian Government "legalized" same-sex marriage last year, however, this does not mean that the majority of Canadians support it.
 * Once again, please specify why this arguement is false. I strongly believe that it is true it that it leaves no room for any supernatural intevention. It utilizes the ideaology that everything came about by pure chance, without the interference of the supernatural. Teckor 16:03, 2006-03-20


 * No, you have been misled. No one suggests that "everything came about by pure chance" - that's just deceptive propaganda.  As for "overwhelming" - yes, it is the case.  To accept ID requires you to reject basic philosophy of science.  Almost no one in the scientific community accepts that idea.  The same-sex marriage issue is a flawed analogy. Scientific organisations can speak for their members, but if the membership (or a non-trivial portion of the membership) feels differently, they can speak up as well.  Almost no one has done so - in fact, the 4-day petition  showed, "overwhelming" is a most appropriate term.  Guettarda 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the case that the "overwhelming" majority of scientists reject ID and other forms of creationism. FeloniousMonk 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why does evolution commonly use the word "chance" and never include the supernatural but rather thoroughly reject the ideaology that there is a supernatural being.
 * How, pretel, does believing in ID require you to reject a "basic philosophy of science"? ID does not require the rejection of any "basic philosophy of science" other than the (personally flawed) theory of evolution, and other closely related theories (ie: the Big Bang). Also, evolution appears to reject a basic law of the world and of logic, "where's the proof". If there is no proof that can be obtained (that doesn't actually support or fit with the opposite theory) then it is not proven, hence it should not be accepted. To continue, evolution is an atheistic ideal, an explanation of how we came to be without supernatural intervention.
 * There are enough scientists out there who believe ID to form their own institution, have their own journals, and probably much more. Furthermore, sure, there appear to be alot of scientists who appear to support it, but those numbers do not confirm that a "overwhelming majority" of scientists agree to evolution.
 * The same-sex marriage is not a flawed issue seeing as that it is very similar. If you dont like the government then you stand up. However, it gets kinda hard to stand up when the instant you do, you are automatically branded a "creationist" and pretty much lose all credability and funding from the "scientific" community. Furthermore, there is an alternative to standing up, it's called leaving. A fourth option however is called "follow the crowd", which seems to be what people are common to do, even scientists. Teckor 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Jim62sch 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for listening, but I feel totally justified in changing the wording from "overwhelming majority" to "large number" or "substantial number" which would more accurately describe the evidence, that there are alot of scientists (or scientific communities) that accept ID as false. Teckor 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion several times before. Consensus, based on the facts, was that overwhelming was the appropriate word.  Please see the note at the top of this page about respecting consensus.  Thank you. Jim62sch 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do and will respect consensus's but I must argue against the use of "overwhelming majority" because of misinterpretation or lack of suffiecient evidence to accept such a wording. The numbers given and the groups listed are not enough to condone the use of such a statement. Teckor 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I will try "vast" majority. It has a similar meaning but is more neutral. rossnixon
 * I was reverted. If there was a consensus on this, when was it? (Is there a way to search the archives without opening each one up?). Was "vast" considered as an option? Also, a consensus is not necessarily permanent. Not all editors have participated in the "vote". rossnixon 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be unnecessary, because the relevant info is right in the article in the footnotes. i believe the numbers add up to about 99%, even despite that not all practicing scientists are members.  If that is not an overwhelming majority, then I will begin advocating that the term "virtually all" be used to replace the current wording. good day...Kenosis 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes, the discussion is unnecessary by the third or fourth time around. Ross, you'll have to go through the archives to find the consensus. Jim62sch 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the term "overwhelming" was specifically used by Judge Jones in summing up the Kitzmiller trial. I don't know of any comparable citation for "vast" ..dave souza, talk 01:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There inna ane. Jim62sch 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming majority is the correct term for a position held by greater than 99% of scientists. Pasado 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Plunge
Plunge has just made some rather bold additions to the article. I'm inclined to remove them, until they can be reviewed and reworded. The basic points seems to be twofold; 1) the article that was mistakenly published was rather weak, and contained no original research; 2) it is impossible to determine design without knowing aspects of the designer.

I suggest atleast rewriting the text for NPOV and stlye. For example, the simplistic addition of the words 'featuring supporting research' to the text about said article seems a bit out of place. -- Ec5618 13:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. With some reworking, and maybe some sourcing, it may very well be a good addition to the article.  Jim62sch 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Plunge has done some good work at Phillip E. Johnson. FeloniousMonk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, new, and I didn't realize there was special care to be taken with controversial subjects. I think the gist of what I wanted to add was:

a) more detail on exactly what the content of Meyer's article was (the fact that it was not a research article is a key detail, and the fact that journal it was published in does not general publish articles of the kind is also worth noting) b) two of the major objections as to why ID is a substantively different project than normal design detection c) Some reordering. The current state of things as regards peer review seems disjointed rather than presenting the debate over peer review in a narrative rather than just a list of unconnected critical examples.  Most of the ID article does seem to rush to get to the criticisms of ID, and while I admit to being critical, that seems to make for a hard to read article as well as not very in depth.

I'm going to try to be much more robust and rigorous about being neutral in the future. Plunge 29 January 2006


 * There's some obvious issues with your proposed edits of the peer review section. It glosses over the main point, that there are no peer reviewed ID papers, and implies that the Meyer article (aka Sternberg controversy) was indeed published, as opposed to published then retracted, which you glaringly failed to mention. Omitting two key details like makes it comes off as a whitewash, not neutral. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. I mostly reordered the existing text, putting the summary of the objection first rather than last and starting to get some of the events described in the controversy in a more chronological and logical order.  There is no failure to mention the retraction: that's in fact how the paragraph concludes (as well as mentioning that the article was outside the normal subject matter of the journal).  The point that the article was a literature review which did not include new research is an important detail in the controversy, since the controversy primarily is over whether or not ID proponents are really producing experimentally justified work of their own.  In any case, it's still probably too sloppy and I'll wait and propose any further changes here first. Plunge 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, well I've made just a few tweaks to your content to account for my points and reinerted it in the article as a compromise solution. How's that? FeloniousMonk 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lack of peer review
I apologize for the lack of detail but it was brought to my attention recently that at least ten ID articles have been peer reviewed although I cannot quote their names but this wikipedia article states that only one has been peer reviewed. Someone might want to look into this.68.2.83.183 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard numbers between 0 and hundreds quoted. It's very slippery since a lot of people talk up the numbers. Can you tell us where you located this statement? --Davril2020 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute and other proponents often claim this, but but it's been shown to be an exaggerated claim. In Behe's own recent testimony he conceded that their is no pro-ID peer reviewed papers in mainstream scientific literature. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have sent out a number of iquiries and am waiting a reply. I am not above standing corrected. I heard the comment made by someone I know to be well informed. I will let you know what I find out. 68.2.83.183 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DI lists a number of such articles on their web site. As has been discussed here, although DI claims these publications as supportive of ID (and a few of them even promote ID) none of them actually address ID - they merely point out what they see as difficulties in explaining certain issues through evolutionary theory.  Perhaps the most solid of them (one of the few that is actually in a real journal, as opposed to an edited book collection), a modelling paper by Behe and David Snoke was not only challenged in terms of its assumptions (that is used a non-selectionist model to critique selectionist processes) but also made no reference to ID.  No publication (at all, as far as I am aware) has attempted to address ID experimentally.  It isn't good enough to point out (real or perceived) flaws in evolutionary theory - there's a world of possible mechanisms, not just an evolution/ID dichotomy.  So it's accurate to say that there have been no peer-reviewed publications which support ID - only a few publications by DI supporters which claim to point out flaws in the ability of evolutionary processes to explain observed structures or diversity.  None of the ones I have seen explicitly address questions about ID - at best they suggest that ID may be an alternative (which is, of course, just speculation).  All of this has been discussed at least twoice - see the archives.  Guettarda 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Ec5618 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A pretty definitive statement on this is given at Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science, and there might have been some publicity if any had been published since December. The credibility of the DI is shown in an interesting light in a debate with the Thomas More Law Center. ....dave souza: talk 07:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

None of my "reliable" sources have found it necessary to respond to my inquiries in a timely fashion. I shall concede the issue.68.2.83.183 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good to know the text is currently accurate. Thank you for checking it out. -- Ec5618 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The major problem is the way they prefer to define peer-reviewed, but by academic standards of independent articles in scietific journals (aka not books etc), not more than a hand full. Compounded to that, many articles claimed to be peer-reviewed ID do not mention it, and are only skirting the topic in the slightest sense..... Compare that with an average university professor, they have at least one peer-reviewed article a year. Compared to that, even if they had some articles, it would have been minimal. --KimvdLinde 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about footnote: "While its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life, to date, no ID research has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.[3]"

But footnote 3 is a reference to: ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. Ignatius Press. [75]. See also Darwin's Black Box.

It appears that this foot note is simply misplaced--it should be up after "...origin of life", right ?

On a separate issue: Discovery Institute has published a new list of what they claim to be Peer-reviewed or Peer-edited publications. By my count, they are claiming 32 articles and 7 books in various categories.

One is particularly worthy of mention: S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

According to his website, the managing editor of the Proceedings, Dr. Richard Sternberg, received retaliation and discrimination after he allowed the article to be published following a peer review by other qualified scientists:

"After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication."

Sure sounds peer-reviewed to me. BradC 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was later retracted for failing to meet 'Proceedings' standards. The editor responsible for allowing the article to be printed was found to be affiliated with the intelligent design community, and has since been removed from his position.
 * This article was printed, not peer reviewed. -- Ec5618 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot to move the Myers ref back to where it belonged. Sorry, and thanks for catching it.  Anyway, I tweaked the last sentence in the intro slightly and added a ref to support the statement.  Jim62sch 13:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618 - That's the no true scotsman falacy.
 * Argument: "Ach! No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
 * Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
 * Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
 * Yes, he was roundly criticized for printing the article. He was wrongly discriminated against by the Smithsonian Institution. But he is not a creationist. Again, you can't have it both ways. "There are no peer-reviewed publications supporting ID." "Here's one!" "oh, well that's not really a peer-reviewed publication. Its a secret plot by an evil creationist." BradC 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that a) the Meyers piece was a review, not research and in any event bypassed normal aspects of peer review. Do you think we should mention that if we discuss the article? JoshuaZ 13:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Actually there are two separate points. One is that Meyers article was retracted by the journal because it was improperly published.  Meyers and Sternberg may call it a conspiracy against ID, but the journal board says it was not peer reviewed and, AFAIK, they have not produced the alleged reviewers.  The second point has to do with the assertion that this (and the other) papers are about ID.  Quite frankly, none of the ones I have looked at (including the Meyers paper) are about ID.  They address some aspect of biology, point out flaws or perceived flaws, and (some of them) then suggest ID as an alternative.  They aren't actually about ID.  Guettarda 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This Wall Street Journal opinion piece seems to have a fairly detailed account of the whole event. This paragraph is a good summary of my opinion of the whole thing:
 * "The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.
 * "It may or may not be, but surely the matter can be debated on scientific grounds, responded to with argument instead of invective and stigma. Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."


 * OK, I've re-read the section on Peer Review in this Wikipedia entry, and I am (reasonably) satisfied that it addresses the issues I brought up above. I also think the "very little or no" wording in the intro is (reasonably) sufficient. So rather than let this talk page degenerate into an argument on the merits of ID itself, I'll let the article stand as currently written. BradC 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) WSJ is not a source on scientific peer review.
 * 2) The Meyers article, however you want to look at it, is not a scientific publication on ID.  Ditto for the others, as far as I have seen.  It's all been discussed at great length here, several times - read the archives.  Guettarda 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up this section a bit without changing any content, so I hope it flows somewhat better. But I found one small issue I wanted to bring up because it involves a proposed slight change of content. It has to do with the following paragraph:


 * "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, conflicts with the naturalistic axiom of science. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents claim bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. ID proponents believe that the merit of their writings is rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic non-supernatural mechanisms rather than on grounds of their research not being up to "journal standards". This claim is described as a conspiracy theory by some scientists.[62] The issue that the scientific method is based on methodological naturalism and so does not accept supernatural explanations becomes the sticking point for intelligent design and is addressed in "The Wedge" strategy as an axiom of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community."

I propose to change the last sentence of this paragraph to: "The issue that the scientific method is based on methodological naturalism and so does not accept supernatural explanations became a sticking point for ID proponents in the 1990's, and is addressed in "The Wedge" strategy as an axiom of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community."

I think this might make the point more clearly. Permission to proceed?Kenosis 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, is it possible to hyperlink this use of "The Wedge" strategy in the Peer Review section to the Wedge Strategy article with the endquote stuck in the middle? I don't know quite how to properly format this in Wikipedia...Kenosis 10:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like a fairly minor clarifying edit. You are only changing "becomes a sticking point for ID" to "became a sticking point for ID Proponents in the 90's". I think that a reasonable clarification.


 * I think you would need to do something like "The Wedge" or "The Wedge" strategy to get the link you want. Edit this page to see how I did it. That or you can just move the quotes around the entire phrase. BradC 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks BradC...also for the correct-incorrect quote by ForrestKenosis 16:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design and Dianetics
Now there's an unholy combination. :-) I've found this article very useful for describing the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, and I've blatantly stolen a chunk of it to flesh out a new subsection on Dianetics and pseudoscience. Comments would be very welcome, particularly if there's anything I've missed or misstated... -- ChrisO 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me...you might want (given Hubbard's Engram bit) to look at Neuro-linguistic programming as well. Jim62sch 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ChrisO seems like a nice guy. Why would you do that to him? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good god, thirty references in the intro? 259 total? ChrisO may not live to tell the tale. -- Ec5618 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I followed your link to God - nice one! :). PiCo 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The higgs boson seems to be neihter falsifiable nor directly observable and I am not sure whether it ever will be :) --Peter Menke 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch! And I thought I was going over the top adding 80 footnotes to Dianetics... -- ChrisO 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes by anon user 128.113.236.114
Your changes were rather POV. Please consult with other editors when altering sensitive material such as this; the language in the article (particularly the introduction) has been established after lengthy discussion. In addition, remember to assume good faith - do NOT refer to things as 'vandalism' unless it is blatantly obvious (manipulation of dates and names, insertion of abuse, deletion of major sections without explanation, blanking etc.). --Davril2020 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New changes, by User:Chris Melton have similar issues. I have reverted with an edit summary requesting discussion on talk prior to major additions or changes. Diff is here. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618 went back and reverted further attempts at POV/OR edits.  Looks like we need to watch this page a bit more closely.  Jim62sch 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While the second set of edits seemed better, at first glance (referenced even), it merely reused existing references outside their sections. -- Ec5618 00:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling Chris Melton may be testing us. He just made an edit, which was followed by an anon (128.113.234.88) edit which appeared to tell him off ('Please see the discussion section before making major changes'). This second edit however was not a reversion, and instead made a lot of the same changes Chris Melton has been making. -- Ec5618 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is User: Chris Melton. I certainly didn't mean to test, provoke, or otherwise bring non-neutral POV to that particular article or to cause such feelings in any particular writer or contributor.  By trade, I am a physicist so balancing a proposed idea against the data which exists for that idea is important and second-nature to me.  The edits I made to that particular article reflected, in my opinion, a more balanced (i.e. neutral) POV for the sections which stated a tenet of ID without a following statement on how that aspect of ID differed from the natural sciences.  Since I am a scientist, and the consensus within the scientific community is clear regarding the difference between the axioms of ID and the axioms of science, I simply wanted to highlight those contrasts.  I see that this is a very controversial article, and I will be quite careful with large edits I make in the future - I will check on this talk page first.  At the same time, as a physicist I want to uphold the high standards of Wikipedia so if there are issues regarding concepts of scientific merit, I would like to contribute my expertise in an unbiased manner.  Thank you for your patience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Melton (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 February 2006  (UTC)


 * Not a problem, thank you for posting here, and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as theory
I've tried to fix the first sentence of the "Intelligent design in summary" section twice now but each time it was rv-ed w/o discussion. Here is what it currently says:

"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic forms of the theory of evolution."

Here is what it should say:

"Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to the purely naturalistic conception of evolution by natural selection."

Why? Because the term "theory of evolution" (other than unnecessarily pointing to a redirect) is highly misleading. Natural selection is the theory that explains the occurrence of evolution - evolution is not properly speaking a theory itself. (It is a true observation). See: Mikkerpikker ... 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Evolution
 * 2) Talk:Charles_Darwin &
 * 3) Evolution as Fact and Theory - S.J. Gould
 * I agree with you. Also, the term theory in normal use would be correct, but the misuse of that word (as only a theory) within this context makes it a loaded word, that radiates a certain POV. In the context of NPOV, I think it is better to avoid theory. Like the header change you made. --KimvdLinde 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. What about:
 * Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to the purely naturalistic theory of evolution by natural selection.
 * I believe the issue is the word theory; there is a scientific theory for evolutionary process. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would go for something like:
 * Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to evolution by natural selection.
 * We do not talk about the Hypothesis of intelligent design, and normally, we neither talk about the theory of gravity, we just say gravity is caused by.... So, we could do also:
 * The intelligent design hypothesis is presented as an alternative to the purely naturalistic theory of evolution by natural selection.
 * --KimvdLinde 21:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but your version still makes it seem like "evolution" and not "natural selection" is the theory. In a (subtle) sense the "theory of evolution" is natural selection but, as KimvdLinde pointed out, the word theory is misused and widely misunderstood as "only theory". We should therefore avoid it whenever possible. Mikkerpikker ... 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (ps. that was meant for KillerChihuahua but also applies to KimvdLinde's second suggestion) Mikkerpikker ... 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How about:
 * Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic mechanisms of evolution.

or


 * Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic explanations for evolution.

ID and the wedge stand as an alternative to naturalistic explanations as a whole. Guettarda 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! I like it... Prefer the second to the first tho. Mikkerpikker ... 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Same here, second reads better. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make the change; let's see whether it lasts... Mi kk er ... 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Like it too....--KimvdLinde 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Stricly speaking, I agree that the change is more appropriate than the former as well, since ID is an explanation, rather than a model of mechanisms. This appropriately delineates the contrast of process between ID and science.  You've got the approval of one scientist here! C.Melton 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I usee where you're coming from, but I do have a reservation. In order for ID to be a proposed explanation, it would have to have some net explanatory value.  Instead, like all God of the gaps arguments, it demands more explanation than it delivers, since it explains a simple thing in terms of a more complex one, as opposed to the other way around. Viable explanations are reductionistic, this is enlargionistic (if that's a word). Alienus 18:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's reasonable to say that it is presented as an alternative to an explanation. The wording does not say it provides an explanation, just that it is presented as an alternative to "naturalistic" explanations.  Guettarda 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, I understand your reservations. As a scientist myself, I share them.  However, after a thorough reading of the ID article, your reservations are addressed.  In an NPOV manner consistent with WP policy, this ID article clearly illustrates the current state of the ID concept: that it raises more questions than it answers, that its axioms have inconsistencies with what is known from the natural sciences and the scientific method and process, and that in the end ID cannot answer the questions it raises because of the infinite regression problem.  This article clearly represents ID as it currently stands, and it does so w/ NPOV. C.Melton 18:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. In context, the article does make it clear that ID is offered as an explanation witout claiming it to be a viable one. Alienus 18:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ID vs. Evolution, or ID vs. Natural Selection/Darwinism?
I've found this issue (is ID opposed to evolution, or just opposed to natural selection?) in a few places in the ID article. My understanding of this issue is similar to as KimvdLinde's: evolution simply means that species change over time, without identifying any particular mechanism. ID purports to accept evolution as a scientific fact, but then claims that some examples of evolution must have required a designer. I see this confusion a lot in the media: over the last 150 years evolution has become so identified with Darwinism that it's easy to forget the evolution is a much older concept, and that before Darwin there were other theories of evolution such as Lamarck's idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Anyway I've fixed an example of this in the opening paragraph, but then noticed a few others in the article:
 * "Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs."
 * "Even though evolution theory does not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred."
 * "Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution"
 * "Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design."

I'd like to change all the italicized evolutions to natural selection or Darwinism, but would like some kind of consensus from the users before making such a change. It might even be worth putting a section on this question into the main article. What do other users think? Grover cleveland 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not the primary position of ID proponents to date, at least not in their published representations to the public.... The primary position of ID proponents to date has been that it is an alternative to EVOLUTION.Kenosis 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Nor is it the way the court decision in Kitzmiller primarily framed it... This statement was hashed and rehashed many times, since before I became involved in Wikipedia. I personally would want to see significantly more evidence of this, as I imagine would the preponderance of other editors.Kenosis 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Kitzmiller decision there are over 150 references to evolution, and only 11 references to natural selection, all of which are discussed in a very limited context. I am going to revert this pending the weigh-in of those more experienced in the evolution of the ID article itself.Kenosis 02:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Grover_cleveland, please also see FeloniusMonk's reminder of the consensus on the three introductory paragraphs of the ID article intro, which can be seen in the section below on "Why PR doesn't belong in the Intro". The third paragraph is to be devoted to ID's legal status.Kenosis 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Grover cleveland, I agree with you that the introduction is not completly correct, but not for the reasons you mention. The previous instances where I agreed in replacing evolution for natural selection, where at specific instances, it is not a general replament I would like to make. Some of ther arguments have to do with other aspects than natural selection, but with the impossibility that so many mutations arrise, whic is part of evolution, but not NatSel. However, my understanding of ID is that it is not a full alternative to evolution. ID does accept microevolution, and some proponets even accept to a degree macroevolution. Equating evolution with speciation is incorrect. Neocreationists supplement evolution with the misunderstanding that some things can not be explained by evolution, and there it is where their intelligent designer comes in the picture. I would prefer to clarify this point in the introduction, and I think it will also deal with your issue at the same time. --KimvdLinde 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. Note that one only needs to look at Uncommondescent and ARN's regular posts to see that ID is anti-evolution not anti-natural selection. JoshuaZ 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Evolution. When IDers allow for micro-evolution they wouldn't oppose natural selection as a mechanism. But unqualified use of "evolution" is understood to mean macro-evolution which is exactly what ID opposes. To replace "evolution" with "natural selection" everywhere would sound like they are advocating a Lamarckian theistic evolution! That being said, it is appropriate to change anything that refers to the mechanism, so "even more scientific than natural selection" would be the only change that would work. Nick 06:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that? I know many creationists allow for some evolution but not too much, AFAIK in general ID does not take a position that allows or disallows natural selection.  Guettarda 14:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about anything! I just know what makes sense ;-) I assume "mirco-evolution" means within "kinds"; ID seems to be just allowing a broader range of this micro-evolution than traditional creationism but still insisting on multiple supernatural creations, otherwise it would be theistic evolution. I think you're right about ID not taking a position on the mechanism for micro-evolution; so we agree, the wording should remain "evolution". (I was only suggesting that it was permissible for Grover to change that one instance that was talking about the scientificity of the theory, rather than the phenomenon. I wasn't recommending he change anything.) Nick 17:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, the issue here is not whether the theory of evolution is, to-date, challenged by ID advocates on the grounds of perceived vulnerabilities in the specific premise of "natural selection" or on the grounds of the whole theory of evolution's percieved vulnerabilities.
 * Natural selection is mentioned in the first paragraph of the intro, where more deference was agreed to be given to ID advocates' preference of how they would like to frame the issue. In the third paragraph of the intro, which is solely devoted to legal issues, the presently agreed upon summary presents the LEGAL status of ID in the United States today.  Here, the issue overwhelmingly is the attempt of ID advocates to give credence to their arguments against EVOLUTION and forcibly add to school curricula an additional "theory" of their choice, without it having passed muster in the scientific community.  That is how the issue was framed by ID proponents, and that is how the court dealt with it.Kenosis 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I guess my understanding of the issue (which was based more on a background in history and philosophy of science), doesn't correspond to the current status of the ID debate. Thanks to everyone who commented for making things a bit clearer.  Could someone help me out a little, then?  If an ID advocate were asked "Do humans and apes share a common ancestry", what would (s)he reply?  No?  Yes (but the divergence is due at least in part to a designer and not completely to NS/mutations)?  Maybe?  Refuse to answer?  If there's a current Wikipedia article that answers this question, please just point me there.  Otherwise I think it might be worth putting a section on this question in the main article, since I was confused about it and probably others are too.  Grover cleveland 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that it depends on whom you ask. For example Paul Nelson is a major ID proponent and is essentially a Young Earth Creationist. Michael Behe however completely accepts common descent, but seems very vague on when the IDer intervened. William Dembski has a weird ambiguity, generally leading towards not believing in common descent (to look at the vacilations of this one would need to look at his weblog uncommondescent.com and look at the Panda's thumb critique of it (especially since Dembski frequently retroactively edits the blog)). Dembski often seems to simply support some highly vague, non-falsifiable version of front-loading. The Wedge strategy, of course, specifically calls for this sort of approach, so it shouldn't be surprising on the whole how vague and self-contradictory the various IDers are. Relevant wikipedia articles that might help you are the Kitzmiller v. Dover article and the of Pandas and Peoples article. I hope this is informative. JoshuaZ 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IDers accept micro evolution, and to a degree macro eveolution, it is the major jumps that they attribute to a designer. As such, it is not an full alternative to evolution, but an extension out of the realm of the naturalistic science, which they claim can be observed in nature, but have not provided confincing evidence for it. --KimvdLinde 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, this third paragraph of the intro is solely devoted to legal status. Unless and until there is another major court case specifically about "natural selection" and ID, it must remain as it is.Kenosis 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No more "irreducibly complex" argument
Flagellum and blood clotting explained. Nomen Nescio 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "(Behe) said he has no idea how complex biochemistry actually came about, no suggestions for testing how intelligent design occurred, and he knows of no scientists who are planning such tests." Interesting. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The link needs to be posted on the IC article, too. Jim62sch 17:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a registration page, it is not really anything new, so I vote against that.--KimvdLinde 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Free registration![[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, regardless of the free registration, surely the information must exist elsewhere. If all else fails, the information may be included through a footnote, linking to the article, with a quote of relevant information. -- Ec5618 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The registration's a pain in the shirt, the article reads well but not much new. eSceptic reported of the trial "One of Behe’s central claims has been that there is no serious scientific work or progress on how complex biochemical systems like the flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system could have evolved, and he testified as much. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, in a Perry Mason-like flourish, pointedly dropped dozens of peer-reviewed books and journal articles about the evolution of such systems in front of him; Behe admitted that he had read virtually none of them.", and Miller nicely illustrated the points about the flagellum in the BBC Horizon programme. Good idea to quote any good bits, such as Behe's words....dave souza, talk 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On re-reading, note that Behe's still being evasive: those "are different questions" to his "arguing that some systems could not have evolved naturally". ...dave souza, talk 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the time to register (inconvenient, sure, but not a pain in the rear). I read the article.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that the article contains information which should be in this WP ID article here.  Since the concept of ID is constantly being reframed by new scientific studies, and since the founders of ID propose that it is "science," then it is necessary to present new scientific studies, models, or conclusions, which have a bearing on ID as a whole - in order to give readers of WP a clear representation of what ID is, and what it is not.  This is simply NPOV.  I'll look for another source of this information that does not require registration.  If anyone else finds one, please do link it to the main article as a reference for the new material which should be included in this article. Now I'll go get to work. :D C.Melton 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if you came up with anything scientific that is new. The number of peer-reviewed articles is close to zero, and the Dover trial made clear that there arguments did not withstand the scrutiny of the normal scirtific debate. And yes, they shift their positions. Dembski recently became more vocal about that common decent is part of ID, and although he has said more weekly before, he is getting stronger on this. Anyway, if you have good stuff to add, you are more than welcome to contibute it... --KimvdLinde 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand, science is explaining the so-called examples of IC. As a result the IC argument is fading away.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The registration seemed unusually demanding of address etc. - if it's linked, a registration required notice would be appropriate. The article and related sources show the opposite of "the concept of ID is constantly being reframed by new scientific studies" - proponents seem to be in self denial about studies that destroy the debating points ID has brought up, as when Behe refuses to see that homology shows possible precursors to the flagellum: "They're saying part of the flagellum looks like some other part of the cell," Behe said. "None of that says what the first step would be in trying to construct the flagellum." ...dave souza, talk 11:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if registration is required for this comment, but it does hint at origins and a new name for ID. ...dave souza, talk 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KimvdLinde, I said pretty much what you just said here. I think you misunderstood me.  There is no new information on the side of ID to include, but rather on the side of research by scientists which address claims by ID.  It is the inclusion of this research, cited in the original sources, that I'd like to see here.  However, I don't have the time during the week to do this because of the demands of my job.  It will have to wait until the weekend.  C.Melton 21:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article
designerspeaks.com. Not encyclopedic, but still funny. -- Ec5618 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all leading ID proponents are members of "The Discovery Institute." As the article states they are affiliated
With that edit summary removed the statement "all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" from the sentance "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.".

Would you provide the names of leading ID proponents who are not associated with DI? Thanks. Guettarda 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * .. I dunno, Archimedes Plutonium? --CSTAR 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Did a search up top for Discovery Institute and replied to a statement by FeloniousMonk up there by way of explanation. Should have scrolled down -- apologies! I find the whole statement to be suspect: defining 'leading' and 'affiliated' (a fellow of? member of? employed by? Knows a guy who knows a guy?) is slippery and potentially weaselly to start with, and it gives the whole article a paranoid ring to my jaded ears. I mean, you could consider C.S. Lewis a "leading proponent" (now deceased, of course), or even George W. Bush by extension. John H. Calvert isn't a head honcho at the Discovery Institute, at least not according to their entry. But maybe he knows a guy who knows a guy or got some funding from them or ... something... Very fuzzy stuff, and again sounds awfully paranoid. I'm no fan of ID, but I think it weakens the entire article. --MattShepherd 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of verifiability. All of the verifiable sources of information on the subject we have indicate that the people you name are not leading proponents (that is, they are not referenced as such by sources which describe ID). The issue may be with how you define "leading proponents", but a pretty good way to do it is if you can find their name in this article, they are a "leading proponent". It would be difficult, in my estimation, to work in John Calvert into this article, for example, simply due to the lack of verifiable sources which link him to ID's main arguments. John Calvert is no Phillip Johnson, if you know what I mean. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Type "Intelligent Design" into Google, and the first result is the Intelligent Design Network. It's run by John Calvert. He's not a 'leading proponent'?" It's an issue with verifying the status as "leading" that's giving me a lot of trouble.--MattShepherd 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fourth on Yahoo, but who cares. What is relevant is that a lot of IDN's internal links are refer-backs to DI, clearly the answer to the question, "Who's yer Daddy?" Jim62sch 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Googleranking isn't the best way to establish verifiability. For example, the first hit on "Many Worlds" is a website for Business Strategy & Innovation Thought Leadership. That's not to say that the ID Network isn't a website about ID, but the ID network is really connected really to Kansas standards rather than being part of the ID movement as a whole. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On what grounds do you say that? While the Kansas thing certainly is significant for them, it's hardly the only thing.  Confer for instance the symposium they're having in New Mexico, their publications, their press releases, and their teaching resources.  For good or for ill, it seems this organization is about the ID movement “as a whole” and not just for the Kansas standards.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Having generic resources culled from DI and moving a state over to do a symposium in no way qualifies as national or international prominence. --ScienceApologist 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that the organization has divisions that go beyond Kansas, and let's also not forget the citations I gave regarding John H. Calvert's apparent prominence below. And of course, let's not forget verifiability.  The claim that all leading ID proponents all belong to one organization is not only fishy, it's difficult to verify and so far has no citation to support this challenged claim.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The point hinges on prominence of the supporter and affiliation. As it currently stands you have not named a supporter who fits both criteria. The best way to support this fact is to link to a list of Discovery Institute fellows and admit that these are the prominent supporters. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of verifiability, do you have any verifiable sources that say all leading proponents of ID are “affiliated with” (whatever that means) Discovery Institute? Usually the burden of proof on challenged material (according to WP:CITE) is on the individual who wants the challenged material to remain.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum I did some web browsing. John H. Calvert is listed as one of the 24 in the "Kansas Intelligent Design Army" here and apparently even made the closing statement to the prominent court trial according to here.  Another news article says, "John H. Calvert, [is] the lawyer who runs the Intelligent Design Network and opened the questioning of witnesses."   He's been mentioned in various articles, including the Washington post, which said:


 * Harris teamed up with John H. Calvert, a retired corporate lawyer who calls the debate over the origins of life "the most fundamental issue facing the culture." They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy conference.


 * And American Geological Institute quotes him commenting on a remark from the President of the United States regarding intelligent design. I also found another Washington post article that quoted him.  He was also mentioned in the Kansas City Star, which seems to refer to him as "a prominent Kansas proponent of intelligent design."  Are such mentions by the Washington Post and other news articles (in addition to his role in the trial) sufficient to show he is a "leading" ID proponent?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The facts are: There no leading ID proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design arose out of the Discovery Institute's efforts. The institute remains the guiding force of the concept and movement. FeloniousMonk 21:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say, "Intelligent design arose out of the Discovery Institute's efforts." Behe wrote his seminal book before he became a fellow of the Institute, did he not?


 * Did you forget about Johnson? Jim62sch 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Matt brought up a good point regarding clarity earlier. What does the article mean when it says affiliated with?  Employed by? A 'fellow' of? Hang out with other members of?  It will be difficult to provide a counterexample without knowing what qualifies as "affiliated with."  Nonetheless, the universal declaration that all leading proponents of intelligent design are affiliated with a single organization does seem a bit fishy.


 * Still, if intelligent design is merely a form of creationism, there are many "leading" ID proponents who are not affiliated with Discovery Institute (to my knowledge) such as Gary E. Parker, who argues that life is the product of intelligent design in the major creationist book What is Creation Science?. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of difficulty in how ID as an idea and ID as a movement get entangled. ID is a form of creationism, but it has been caught up with its movement as a means to identify it. Morris' work is not strictly in the ID canon simply because the stated proponents of ID (who are basically the proponents by virtue of their superior funding status and their ability to attract renegades). Parker is not a proponent of ID, therefore, even though his arguments may sound similar. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You said, "Parker is not a proponent of ID." On what grounds do you make that claim?  From his writings he certainly seems to be a proponent of ID.  He advocates that life on Earth was designed.  What's your definition of intelligent design theory?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me a reference that states that Parker is a leading proponent of ID and we'll talk. --ScienceApologist 02:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me a reference that lists all leading ID proponents, show me a reference that says such a list is exhaustive, and show me a reference for each one that states they are a leading ID proponent. Show me such references, and we'll talk about leaving the challenged material in (confer WP:CITE) regarding all leading ID proponents being affiliated with Discovery Institute.


 * Obviously, we may have a bit of a problem here. And if this is to be a fair game, let's all play by the same rules.  For the moment, let's say intelligent design is creationism or "creation science."  What is Creation Science? is a major book in this field, in which Parker advocates the idea that life was designed (he never mentioned God in his section IIRC; see also p. 34 of the book).  The editorial description of the book at amazon.com reads, "Two leading creation scientists provide conclusive evidence for intelligent design (an extremely popular topic today), and examine the major arguments used to support evolution."


 * Now, care to show me your references? --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked first. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. Let's ignore my citations for the moment.  According to WP:V and WP:CITE, the burden of citations is on you if you want the material to remain.  Why have you ignored this?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So why not Be Bold and just flat-out say that the Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the ID movement? "All of its leading proponents are affiliated with" sounds like you're dissembling for technical accuracy to dodge some sort of POV bullet. I don't have any problem with the claim that the DI is the main engine behind ID, but the current use of "leading" and "affiliated" is ... well, I think weasel words is too extreme, but it's got a dodgy ring to it, no? It's a little syntax dance that avoids making a direct statement. --MattShepherd 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; "the Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the ID movement" or similar is a good replacement for the leading proponents line, as it avoids the objections that are only likely to become more frequent in the future about who exacting qualifies as a leading proponent.--ragesoss 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest just replacing "all" by "many." JoshuaZ 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be the best way to go about it. We wouldn't have the factual inaccuracy of all leading ID proponents being with the organization, and we'd still convey the idea that the Discovery Institute is a prominent ID organization.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains the leading ID proponents Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Johnson, Thaxton, Gonzalez, Pearcey, Beckwith, Moreland are all Discovery Institute/CSC fellows: I challenge anyone to name three leading proponents who are not. As for Calvert and his Intelligent Design Network, they are small fries; a regional group who works closely with the Discovery Institute. Wade's tossing out red herrings again. FeloniousMonk 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC) FeloniousMonk 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Center_for_Science_and_Culture
 * Discovery_Institute


 * Smells like pickled herrings to me, or maybe lutefisk. Either way, it's the same rotten stuff served up before.  Jim62sch 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like we might be getting into the thicket MattShepherd described. The claim that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute seems to have problems with verifiability.  For the moment, let's ignore the fact that there's no verifiable citation associated with the claim.  What qualifies as a "leading" ID proponent?  It's a bit vague.  And Felonious, on what grounds do you call them "small fries"?  The leader participated in a fairly significant court trial involving ID.  And they are not merely regional--they're having their next symposium at New Mexico.  And why have you dismissed out of hand all the citations I offered above that seem to suggest John H. Calvert is a prominent ID proponent?  Note that I am not the only one to suggest that Calvert is prominent.  MattShepherd pointed out that if you put "intelligent design" in google, the #1 entry is the Intelligent Design Network, which is run by John H. Calvert.  So there appears to be some reasonable evidence suggesting that John H. Calvert is a "leading" ID proponent, and thus the claim that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute is not likely to be true.  We should be skeptical of such universal descriptions anyway.  I agree with JoshuaZ's idea of replacing "all" with "many."  The fact that "many" leading ID proponents are affiliated with Discovery Institute is correct, but it seems like an overgeneralization to say that "all" of them are.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And they are not merely regional--they're having their next symposium at New Mexico. -- you've got to be kidding. Are you really suggesting that moving a symposium across state lines makes you more than "merely regional"? Googleranking is not a verifiable source for information, so we're waiting on a citation. Let us know when you find one. --ScienceApologist 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But ScienceApologist, did you read what I said about verifiability above? The claim that all leading ID proponents are members of that one organization itself has verifiability issues.  For instance, there is no verifiable citation supporting it.  According to WP:CITE, the onus is on you to provide a citation for the challenged material, not on me to disprove your claim.  And let's think about the symposium for a moment.  If this is merely regional, why aren't they hosting it in their home state?  It's because the organization has a division there (in addition to several other states).  And why have you ignored the citation that seemed to refer to John H. Calvert as a prominent ID proponent?  (See the citations I proffered above.)  --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to show that there is a contradiction to this. So far, its a reference offered by User:MattShepherd that has come the closest, but is not considered a reasonable one for reasons outlined above. So we wait patiently for you to respond with something better than a tu quoque fallacy. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to WP:V and WP:CITE the onus is on you to show that all leading ID proponents belong to a single organization (namely, the Discovery Institute)--assuming you want the claim to remain in the Wikipedia article. For instance, WP:V says, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."  BTW, I have given citations of my own, e.g. the Kansas City Star that seems to refer to Calvert as a prominent ID proponent.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A Kansas paper writing about a Kansas ID proponent does not make him a leader in the movement. The leaders in the ID movment have already been long-identified by experts on the movement:


 * Barbara Forrest's testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:
 * "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."


 * Barbara Forrest in her Dover Expert Report for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:
 * "auxiliary ID organizations such as Access Research Network (ARN) and the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet), both of which work very closely with the CSC." (pg 11)
 * Forrest identifies leading ID proponents as members of the Discovery Institute (CSC) (pg 30).
 * She lists as being the leading ID proponents the following: Johnson (pg 30), Dembski (pg 32), Wells (pg 36), Meyer (pg 37).
 * She lists the following as "supporting" ID proponents: Nelson, Chien, Kenyon (pg 40).


 * Those with an interest in facts and a internet connection can also do their own research to verify that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute:


 * Again, how does one verify that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? The citations show that many leading ID proponents are affiliated with the organization, but not that all of them are.  You said, "A Kansas paper writing about a Kansas ID proponent does not make him a leader in the movement."  My purpose of citing the Kansas paper was that the article referred to Calvert as a prominent ID proponent.  Add to that the man leads an ID organization with multiple state divisions, was mentioned a couple times in the Washington Post, played a prominent role in a prominent court case involving ID etc. and it's safe to say he is a leading ID proponent.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to [ARN], the information clearinghouse for all things ID and other bubears of christian right. Click on "Featured authors." The number of those there who write on ID and are not Discovery Institute fellows or advisors: 0. None.


 * But for me the most telling evidence that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute remains that which is not seen: ID proponents here showing just 1 instance of a leading ID proponent who is not affiliated. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument that googling "intelligent design" determines that IDnet are the leading ID proponents is laughable. Talk about red herrings. Further, it's supported by neither policy nor reality. Instead of going fishing with google, let's just rely on what has been written by and about the leading ID proponents. Both you and I know who they are; we've had this conversation before, so don't start another one of your disruptive games here.


 * The common criteria for notability is generally the most cited and published authors in any field. And the leading published ID authors in order of number of ID books published (and likely copies sold) are: William Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Behe, Francis J. Beckwith. All, every last one of them, is a Discovery Institute fellow or staffer.


 * Barbara Forrest, in her Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design named the central players in its intro chapter: "Led by Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells—the four current top names of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture—with a growing group of like-minded fellows and co-workers," (PDF)


 * That IDnet is a small, regional group that acts in concert with the Discovery Institute, which sets the national agenda, is common knowledge:


 * Marshall Berman in Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to Society – Not Just Biology place IDnet in its proper relationship to the Discovery Institute: "The Discovery Institute now has state subsidiaries in Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio. These subsidiaries began with the establishment of the Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) in Kansas, which has now branched out into New Mexico. New Mexico now has its own ID Web site: http://www.nmidnet.org/. The Kansas IDnet site is at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/. IDnet also helped establish another state subsidiary in Ohio, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), http://www. sciohio.org/."


 * Barbara Forrest, who's testimony was central to the Kitzmiller ruling, also correctly ids IDnet as a regional player: "Discovery Institute’s efforts have caused problems in a number of states, notably Kansas, Montana, Texas and Ohio. (Only 10 states have not had problems with ID.) And there are two additional de facto Wedge subsidiaries. Access Research Network (ARN), headquartered in Colorado Springs, serves as a clearinghouse and marketer for ID books, videotapes, etc. The Intelligent Design Network (IDnet), which does a great deal of the footwork with state and local boards of education, is headquartered in Kansas but has extended the Wedge’s reach through branches in New Mexico and Minnesota. IDnet operatives also worked closely with Science Excellence for All Ohioans, which spearheaded the highly publicized effort to insert ID into the science standards in Ohio."


 * IDnet's New Mexico branch acknowledges that the parent org is the Kansas branch "The Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico (IDnet-NM) was established in July 2002 as a Division of Intelligent Design network, inc, (IDnet) of Kansas. IDnet-NM operates under the supervision of its Manager, Joseph D. Renick of Los Lunas, NM and an Advisory Board." [http://www.nmidnet.org/whois.html


 * IDnet often works with CSC, something the CSC acknowledges:


 * So again, I challenge you: Name 3 leading ID proponents who are not Discovery Institute. You can't, because there aren't any; it's a simple and widely acknowledged fact. It's time to stop denying the obvious.


 * I predict another long, tedious, trollish denial of the obvious and common knowledge from you on this issue in you long-running POV campaign here. Just like the last 4 o 5 times you sought to insert POV by deletion of facts only to succeed in disruption. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "And they are not merely regional--they're having their next symposium at New Mexico." Now I know you're trolling... Please don't waste the time of knowledgable, good faith contributors here with specious objections yet again. FeloniousMonk 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, why do you believe the fact that the organization has divisions in multiple states to be a "specious" objection? On what basis can you still claim it's regional?  I'm not denying that John H. Calvert has ever worked with the Discovery Institute, but nonetheless he is not a member of that organization.  You said, "let's just rely on what has been written by and about the leading ID proponents."  Okay, so then what about my citations above on what has been written about the ID proponents (e.g. the Washington Post and the Kansas City Star)?  All you've done is ignore them without providing any citations of your own.  And according to WP:CITE, who has the onus of providing citations regarding the challenged material?   --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wade, FM's citations are more than enough; you need to stop your contentious trolling, to stop hiding behind your own curious readings of Wiki policies/guidelines and to stop regurgitating the same tired arguments over and over. Quite frankly, your behaviour serves no purpose other than to waste people's time. Jim62sch 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My interpretations of Wikipedia policies/guildines are curious? Please tell me how you interpret the following (from WP:CITE):


 * Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.


 * I interpret this as if material is challenged and has no citation, it can be removed by any editor. Do you agree?  Then why have some editors here ignored this?  And how do you interpret this (from WP:V:)


 * 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.


 * How do you interpret this? I interpret it as the burden of proof lies on the people who want the claim that "all leading proponents are affiliated with a single organization [paraphrased]" to remain in the article.  This also has been ignored, and some editors almost give the impression that the burden of proof is on the other side.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly Wade, you miss your own point. You come up with a reference from the KC star, which as we noted makes his impact regional, so you've proven nothing other than FM's point. Yes, Calvert also had one hit in the Washington Post, and, believe it or not, one in the NYT, but by the same token, the Discovery Institute had 61 hits in the NYT -- seems to me that's there's a pretty large gulf there.  The problem is not that we didn't cite the statement voluminously, but that you refuse to accept the cites because they don't match the fantasy you've created (as always).  Jim62sch 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "makes his impact regional" have you forgotten that Calvert runs an ID organization that has divisions in multiple states? Calvert's impact is hardly merely regional, as evidenced further by his mention in the Washington Post and (if what you say is true) the New York Times.  Add to that he played a prominent role in a prominent court trial involving ID, he is certainly a leading ID proponent even if he is not as significant as the entire Discovery Institute.


 * Additionally, let's not forget where the onus lies when it comes to making citations and verifiable references. Remember, according to Wikipedia policy, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."  There have been no cited sources to prove that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with a single organization (Discovery Institute).  I understand that DI is a very prominent ID organization, but saying that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with it seems a bit too extreme and very difficult to verify.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that they are all members of that organization, just that they are affiliated with it. By your own admission Calvert is affiliated with the DI.  FeloniousMonk also just provided numerous cites.  The problem isn't that Calvert isn't a "member" of the DI.  "Leading proponents" and "affiliated with" are apparently just difficult concepts to grasp.  Calvert, who is not even mentioned in the article, might not qualify as a leading proponent... However, I realize that most people who come to the article aren't doing so without biases.  JoshZ's suggestion to replace "all" with "many" (I would prefer "most" because that seems to be closer to the truth) seems simple enough.    &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 11:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the evidence, and the definitions of leading proponent and affiliated, it needs to stay all


 * af•fil•i•at•ed, —adj. being in close formal or informal association; related: a letter sent to all affiliated clubs; a radio network and its affiliated local stations. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997)
 * lead•ing, —adj. 1. chief; principal; most important; foremost: a leading toy manufacturer. (ibid)
 * pro•po•nent, —n. 1. a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal...2. a person who argues in favor of something; an advocate. 3. a personwho supports a cause or doctrine; adherent. (ibid).


 * None of this is really difficult stuff to comprehend. Jim62sch 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm, my good man. Sarcasm.  :)    &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have realized that, doh! Sorry.  But, your signature is these weird symbols now, and I though that maybe an alien had landed on these hallowed pages. ;)  Jim62sch 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of replacing "all" with "many." This also has the advantage that we will then not need to go into the defintional issue of what constitutes a "leading proponent of ID." Certainly, there are some people who are arguably proponents who are not DI connected (for example that Utah senator (what ishis name? Buttars?)). JoshuaZ 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Utah senator? Please, he's not a leading proponent -- and being a senator does not de facto make him one.  Jim62sch 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this suggestion because I don't see evidence for it being verifiably more correct than what we currently have. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea I was opening such a can of worms -- but it looks like I've wandered into a bit of an ongoing battle and released a few more nightcrawlers.

My perspective originally was I wanted to read up on ID, because I think it's goofy (I'm a big fan of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) but felt like I'd never really given ID a real fair shake. So I popped over to their Wikipedia entry and immediately found a statement that "all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." Which sounded really weird to my ears... I mean, I could say that "all prominent world leaders are affiliated with the United Nations," which sounds (to me) like the UN runs the planet, which is obviously not the case. In good faith (really!) I ran a quick Google search on "Intelligent Design" and turned up this huge (apparently) ID organization run by some dude named John Calvert. Also found, in short order, that C.S. Lewis is a 'guiding spirit' behind ID, and that a lot of people attribute it's current popularity to G.W. Bush, given his 'openness' on the subject.

So right there, three "leading" (popular, at the forefront of the 'movement,' well-known, powerful) "proponents" (a favourer, supporter, in C.S. Lewis' case, a forerunner) not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. So, in good faith, I edited the phrase that sounds like at best pigeonholing and at worst a conspiracy theory, because not all "leading" "proponents" are "affiliated" with the DI.

I figured it was a sensible change, since "leading," "proponent" and "affiliated" are all difficult to verify. To me, a "leading proponent" is somebody in a position of influence either within the movement or without, who advocates ID. Calvert, Lewis and Bush all fit the bill, as do, I'm guessing, Billy Graham, Jack Chick, and a bunch of other people who are "proponents" of ID if not leading "scholars" (authors? I hesitate to call anyone who presents the flummery as a science a 'scholar,' but I'm struggling for a word here) of it.

As it stands, it's a weird-ass sentence. "Leading" is designed to let you cherry-pick your "proponents" to bootstrap them into an "affiliation" with the Discovery Institute. My argument is that the sentence weakens the entire article by throwing a conspiracy theory into the lead paragraph without any solid statement of what "leading" means or what an "affiliation" consists of. --MattShepherd 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is almost precisely why I think "many" instead of "all" makes more sense. JoshuaZ 14:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The primary problems with a change from all to many, and with Matt's position, are these: CS Lewis is dead (and isn't going to be resurected), George Bush is not a leading proponent (other than noting in one uneventful interview that both should be taught); Calvert is essentially a lackey of DI; Billy Graham, Jack Chick, et. al., are not leading proponents, they've played no critical role in ID's creation, development or insertion into school curricula.
 * And, while you may complain about cherry-picking, I think you are missing the point: to the best of my knowledge, Lewis, Bush, Graham, Chick and Calvert were not present at Dover for the Kitzmiller trial. DI folks were.  Thus, they ARE the leading proponents.  If one wishes to argue that there are other proponents in the sense of people who believe in ID but have done nothing substantive to advance its case, we'll need a 2 gigabyte daughter article to be sure that we include everybody's name.  Of course in the interest of fairness, we'd need a 1 terabyte daughter article to mention all ID opponents.  Jim62sch 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, considering that no one has been able to even name 1 leading ID proponent who isn't a Discovery Institute fellow or staff, that anyone can assert that there are 'some' leading ID proponents who are not is beyond me. Who are they?


 * BTW, I hope that those who intend to continue to argue these points have read Barbara Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, or at least its free intro (PDF) FeloniousMonk 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The joy of Not Really Caring is that I can engage in this conversation as an intellectual exercise without getting bent out of shape and trying to actually change the article. But what you're saying, in essence, is that your definition of "leading proponent" is "alive, consistently supporting, and present at one particular trial." My definition of "leading proponent" is "person of note who supports ID in some significant way." C.S. Lewis, George Bush, and Calvert all fit MY definition of "leading proponent," but not yours. So we have different POVs of what "all leading proponents" actually constitutes. Just because my defnition of "leading proponent" doesn't meet the secret criteria of all concerned doesn't mean it's wrong. NPOV is making reasonable assertions, not sweeping generalizations. That is, of course, only my POV.
 * Heck, if you're comfortable with tossing an unverifiably broad conspiracy theory in the leading paragraph of an otherwise darn fine article, I'm not going to argue any further. I've spelled out how I, with no particular foreknowledge of ID and merely moderate intelligence, ran across the article and found that sentence glaringly bizarre. I stand by the fact that it's a weird-ass statement that presupposes that everyone will share your undefined and unverifiable concept of what constitutes "leading," "proponent" and "affiliated." I'll also say one last time that it weakens the entire article by leading (ha ha) with a statement that is so eyebrow-raisingly vague and conspiratorial that it puts the whole thing in an off light. With that, I wander. I'm enjoying the conversation, but it'll be better continued on talk pages, as I don't think anything is going to change in here. --MattShepherd 18:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FM, can't you see? The leading proponents are A Dead Guy, A President who mentioned Creationism once, and a Discovery Institute Lackey. Oops, can't count the last guy, he's affiliated. That leaves the Dead Guy and the Prez who etc.  Jim62sch 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that we have Buttars, Berlinski and Calvert who are not DI fellows, the defintional issue seems to be serious. Even "almost all" would be reasonable, but the statement is too vague as it stands now. JoshuaZ 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * nm about Berlinski, it seems he is a DI fellow. JoshuaZ 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we really don't have an issue. From the article itself: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." (emphasis added) -- af•fil•i•at•ed, —adj. being in close formal or informal association; related: a letter sent to all affiliated clubs; a radio network and its affiliated local stations.  Note the afilliated.  Does not mean "Fellow".  It means affiliated.  Read the rest of the page where the affiliations are pointed out.  Also, note the definition of leading (also above).
 * You'll have to read the rest of the page anyway because I need to explain why yet another of Wade's posts is in error. Jim62sch 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have Buttars or Calvert published many seminal ID books? No. Have Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Thaxton, Meyer? Yes. Buttars and Calvert are not leading ID proponents by any meaningful definition of "leading." FeloniousMonk 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FM, Calvert is arguably one of the more prominent leaders. He has been incredibly sucessful in Kansas which is the only place where ID has really had any actual success so far. I'm personally inclined to agree that by most definitions they would not be leading proponents of ID. However, universal quantifiers over vague defintions are always dangerous. Jim's point about "affiliated" is a good one however, and so I am inclined to change my opinion on this possibly, although I worry that this could become tautologous. JoshuaZ 21:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, Calvert is not recognized as a leading proponent by credible observers of the movement. Nor has Calvert published any definitive ID texts. Clavert's writings on the topic are not heavily cited and any influence they have exert is at a regional, not national level. Calvert has not contributed to the national agenda nearly as significantly as recognized proponents like Johnson, Dembski, Behe and Meyer have.


 * Barbara Forrest, a leading expert the movement, identified the leading proponents and their roles at the Discovery Institute in her testimony at Kitzmiller: "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes. Q. Mr. Johnson? A. Mr. Johnson is the advisor. He's held that position as advisor. He's listed that way on the website. Q. Steven Meyer? A. Steven Meyer is the director. Q. And Michael Behe? A. Michael Behe is a senior fellow. Q. Scott Minnich? A. Scott Minnich is a fellow. Q. Nancy Pearcey? A. Nancy Pearcey is a fellow. Q. Dean Kenyon? A. Dean Kenyon is a fellow. Q. Paul Nelson? A. Paul Nelson is a fellow. Q. Jonathan Wells? A. Jonathan Wells is a fellow, in fact one of the earliest ones along with Dr. Behe and Dr. Nelson." Calvert's nowhere to be seen.


 * Furthermore, Forrest in her Dover Expert Report for Kitzmiller says about Calvert's IDnet: "auxiliary ID organizations such as Access Research Network (ARN) and the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet), both of which work very closely with the CSC." (pg 11) FeloniousMonk 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, good enough for me. JoshuaZ 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Again, Calvert is not recognized as a leading proponent by credible observers of the movement." Do you have a source for that?  Especially considering he leads an ID organization with multiple state divisions, the existence of a citation stating he is a prominent ID proponent, his mentions in the Washington Post etc.?  In any case, at least you finally have a citation regarding the claim that all leaders are "associated" with the organization (whatever that means).  It's still somewhat troubling to see how the challenged claim persisted without a citation.  The irreducible complexity entry is now facing a similar problem.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What, no claiming the cite isn't sufficient? Amazing.
 * A credible observer of the movement is Barbara Forrest, and she names the leading proponent above, and here: Calvert is not on that list and she specifically names his IDnet as merely an auxilliary group.
 * The apparent lack of relevant common knowlege on the topic and the long history of raising specious challenges and tendentious points here likely have something to do with the absence of traction your objections. Something to consider. FeloniousMonk 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "What, no claiming the cite isn't sufficient? Amazing." When the cite actually supports the claim in question, of course I must concede.  But sometimes a proposed citation does not support the claim in question, and of course I must raise an objection.  And sometimes the obligation to provide verifiable citatations for challenged material is simply ignored, as was the case here for a time and elsewhere.


 * We should note that merely because a person is not on a list doesn't mean the individual is not a prominent ID proponent. And it is the case that Calvert runs an ID organization with divisions in multiple states, played a prominent role in a prominent court case involving intelligent design, has been mentioned in the Washington Post etc. and is thus quite arguably a leading ID proponent.  Merely because someone calls his organization "auxiliary" doesn't change that, any more than access research network being "auxiliary" prevents members like Stephen C. Meyer from being a "leading" ID proponent.  But since there is no rigorous definition of what it means to be a "leading" ID proponent (even though Calvert is technically a "leader" given e.g. the organization he runs) we'll have to make due with what we can.


 * Your accusations regarding me having a "long history" of raising "specious" points is itself questionable, to say the least. For instance, I'm rather curious as to why you find blatant violations of Wikipedia policy a "specious" objection .  And before you answer, I’d like to point out that merely pointing out the existence of a consensus (real or imagined) to ignore Wikipedia policy is not a satisfactory reason (e.g. see WP:V).  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wade, given that I don't recall you ever ceding a point (even when proven wrong beyond a reasonable (or even unreasonable) doubt), I'd have to say that FM's noting that you have a "long history" of raising "specious" points is hardly questionable, in fact had I a hammer, chisel and piece of marble, I'd carve his statement in there. Jim62sch 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Then perhaps you would like to explain to me why a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy is a "specious" objection?    --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's like Groundhog Day, the conversation just repeats (kinda like cabbage). Jim62sch 23:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to distinguish between:
 * 1) exponents: people who come up with an idea and explain it
 * 2) supporters: others, who like the idea and get on the bandwagon

I'd put Johnson, Behe and Wells in the first category. Bush is not a "thinker-upper", so let's put him in the second category.

In any case, the Discovery Institute seems to be the ringleader here. We could say that virtually all of ID's primary exponents are associated with the institute. If need be, we could list each one and clarify his relationship, e.g., "fellow", "senior fellow", "founder", etc. --Uncle Ed 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

2 a : one that expounds or interprets b : one that champions, practices, or exemplifies

Focusing on the issue of "can we find a leading proponent that isn't in some way connected to the Discovery Institute?" is really beside the point. The current phrasing, while likely factually correct, is not NPOV:

Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]"

The implied subtext, of course, is that because everyone who is proposing this idea is part of DI, this organization has some secret agenda or something like that. Ideas that are really advanced by only one small group are de-facto dismissed as fringe ideas. (Maybe this is the original authors' bias, but it is definitely not NPOV.) Another likely explanation is that after the founding of the Center for Science and Culture (the portion of the Discovery Institute that actually deals with ID), the ideas and publications about ID attracted other like-minded people, who had already reached compatable conclusions, and they decided to "join the club", if you will. So that leaves us with 2 questions: Do we need a mention of the Discovery Institute or CSC in the intro? (I think we do) And what is a good NPOV way to include the mention? I propose:

Its leading proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life. The Center for Science and Culture, a division of The Discovery Institute, is the leading organization for proponents of ID."

This is similar to some of the language in the CSC article describing the CSC as the "hub of the ID movement" --BradC 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, the Discovery Insitute does have a hidden agenda: It's called the Wedge strategy. This is common knowledge and reflected in the Kitzmiller ruling. FeloniousMonk 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, MattShepard and ScienceApologist: I have been following the development of the ID article with great interest for some 18 months now, and only recently obtained a username. I don't want to get too much in the thick of things here, but did first want to thank FM very much for his superb shepherding of this article. I think it's virtually complete, and have only a couple little NPOV issues I wanted to state, issues which may be in the way of this article becoming truly top-flight.

All of what the article says about the Discovery Institute plainly is true. But I would watch out for a couple of things.

First, Barbara Forrest's testimony in Kitzmiller is not necessarily proof unless it is included in the judge's finding of fact in Kitzmiller. Therefore I'd be very careful about asserting right in the article's introduction any form of the proposition that "all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" even if the proposition is true. Surely there is a better way to summarize the truth of the close association of ID and the Discovery Institute, and not appear as if the article is editorially biased against the Discovery Institute (even if such editorial bias is completely justified and factual).

Second, I urge caution about the use of such terms as "neocreationist" to describe the Discovery Institute, even to the degree that what the Discovery Institute does is completely consistent with the currently accepted use of the term "neocreationist" (which it plainly is). "Neocreationist is a term applied by folks other than the class of people to which it refers. That is to say, the vast majority of neocreationists choose not to call themselves such (I found one exception at http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/neo-creationism.html ), and as such it is arguably a POV term without mutual consent.  Thus, much more grounded proofs should be available if one is to impose such a term on another group without their consent. Kenosis 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, whether referenced by the judge, Barbara Forrest's testimony in Kitzmiller is germane as it is sworn testimony that was not (to the best of my knowledge) contested, and accepted into the record as being absolutely true (else a charge of perjury would have been brought).
 * That "the vast majority of neocreationists choose not to call themselves such" is not relevant, either. It's simply a matter of politics.  See the original draft of "Pandas" and compare it with the published version. Jim62sch 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim: This is not a matter of "uh" or "duh". The ID article should be every bit as cautious about the use of the proposition "all leading proponents are X" as the judge was, for exactly the same reasons the judge was cautious about it.

Re:"It's simply a matter of politics" I couldn't agree more, which is why I urged the most cautious and accurate use of the language possible in this or any controversial article, so as not to fall even a little bit into that very same trap over-against the creationists. Rational voices having finally prevailed in this article, some of the current language plainly still falls a bit short of diligently objective (i.e.,NPOV). I made my offering, and if the consensus is to be visibly angry at these neo-creationist-types, so be it-- I won't argue excessively about it. (Incidentally, I did manage to source "neo-creationism" to 1997, when Dembski et.al. were first exposing the academic world to this stuff.  Will note it separately on that topic, and then most likely go back to being an observer on this for a little while--.)

Having said that, I will paraphrase my original assertion, which was: All told, you and FM and SA and others have done extremely good work on a very difficult topic. Kenosis 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I forgot one more very important thing here: If you assert in the opening paragraph of the article that "ID is the concept that X..." Then you immediately get into trouble by asserting that "all leading proponents are Y or Z.   The section on Origins of the Concept describes the concept as going back almost three millennia, so you are really saying that Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle, among others are also Y or Z (affiliated with the Discovery Institute).  This all should be reconciled somehow or other.Kenosis 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I attempted the following version hoping someone would hone it further, rather than reverting it out of hand:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Intelligent design proponents assert it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life. The modern ID movement was both invented and disseminated by persons and groups that were recently proven in a U.S. district court to be closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2][3]"Kenosis 15:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

revitalized?
Can someone tell me how it was not mentioned for a long time until now? In other words, who made the idea resurface? and also, if there is a answer, please include it in the article. The pointer outer 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What???? Jim62sch 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * second that What???? and raise you a ?
 * Please clarify - what was "not mentioned for a long time" and has now "resurfaced"? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 20:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Institute as Neocreationist
I urge caution about the use of such terms as "neocreationist" to describe the Discovery Institute, even to the degree that what the Discovery Institute does is completely consistent with the currently accepted use of the term "neocreationist" (which it plainly is). "Neocreationist is a term applied by folks other than the class of people to which it refers. That is to say, neocreationists choose not to call themselves such, and as such it is arguably a POV term without mutual consent, and much more grounded proofs should be available if one is to impose such a term on another group without their consent. Kenosis 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Multiple DI Fellows (such as Nelson) are YECs. At best they are neo-creationist. JoshuaZ 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that DI is not neo-creationist-- of course they are. The point is that the term neo-creationism is not well sourced (yet), and by its very nature it is inherently derogatory in its origin and use. Its use in the ID article detracts from the appearance of objectivity in favor of putting a not-yet-well-established adjective on them. Not that they don't deserve it; it just should be in the category of "see also, neo-creationism" which is still very much a new and still developing concept.Kenosis 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my objection. JoshuaZ 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How precisely is "neo-creationist" derogatory? Creationism? New? I fail to see Kenosis' point here. Am I being dense? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well given that the DI and most of the major ID poeple claim that they are not creationist, to claim otherwise without serious sourcing is problematic. JoshuaZ 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They claim that for purely political reasons. Let us not forget that "Pandas", the ID/DI manual, changed all references from creation/creationism to intelligent design before it was published.  So, whether they agree with the term or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that that is what they are all about.  [Left unsigned by Jim62sch, 19:53, February 23, 2006]


 * "They claim that for purely political reasons." To make accusations like this without serious sourcing would also be problematic.  Maybe they do so for purely "political" reasons, but it is entirely possible that they sincerely do not consider themselves creationists.  It all depends on how you define "creationism" and "evolution," and these sorts of things get fuzzy when we try to apply these terms to some ID adherents.  Evolution is defined as "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."  For instance, the biochemist Behe actually accepts common descent but also believes intelligent design intervened in at least some cases.  So can we call him a "neo-creationist" or a kind of theistic evolutionist?  How does one define neo-creationism?  Would the definition of neo-creationism be consistent with evolution?  If we're going to start attaching such labels to people, it might be helpful to first have a cited source for their definitions.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi KC: My point merely had to do with being excruciatingly objective and proving every single point about the Discovery Institute rather than taking broad swipes at them and classifying them with a not-yet thoroughly documented adjective. Us non-neo-creationists all agree what neocreationism is, but not very much has yet been written about it-- no doubt that will change in the next couple of years. For the moment, I believe that the use of "see also: "neo-creationism" lends itself to a much more objective atmosphere while still making the same point to the unfamiliar reader. Thanks for asking me to try to clarify.  :)Kenosis 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis, I understand your point, but I disagree with the change to the article. Jim62sch 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate it Jim. I have been following the development of this article with intense interest for over 18 months, since before it took any real shape. I have also noticed how you yourself have knocked out some important non-NPOV edits with a decisive swipe. Now that the rational voices have finally prevailed, I think just a tiny bit more scholarly restraint might actually be productive. After looking around, I couldn't source neo-creationism definitively-- it is still a new term (though one which undoubtedly will take root in the near future).

I respectfully submit that this little bit of restraint on this one issue, as well as a cautious new consensus on how to phrase the first paragraph of the article without appearing potentially biased to the uninformed reader, might be the difference between being a "good" article and on the other hand being a classic example of how Wikipedians settle a controversial subject without unnecessariily appearing like they are throwing barbs. But you and FM are the experienced ones here. Take careKenosis 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did manage to source "neo-creationism" to 1997, when Dembski et.al. were first exposing the academic world to this stuff. The earliest source I could find is: Eugenie C. Scott, "Creationists and the Pope's Statement," Quarterly Review of Biology (vol. 72, December 1997), p. 403., where Scott says: "Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism."


 * Κενοςις, can I have a bit of time to think this over and maybe reword what you wrote? Jim62sch 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course Jim. Incidentally, I notice someone removed "evolutionist" without objection recently.  I still think the removal of the adjective "neo-creationist" should be seriously considered.  Kenosis 16:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because no one noticed the deletion. (I've been a bit busy).  ID is neo-creationist -- it's just dressed up a bit differently. Jim62sch 01:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, as you know I'm still a newbie here. But I'd be a little upset if someone called my ideas, however stupid, newbieist ideas.  Moreover, such a statement might say more about the person making the statement than about me.  Wikpedia urges "present[ing] competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone."  I still believe the appropriate approach is to delete "neocreationist" and replace it with "see, neo-creationism" at the end of that sentence.  That is the approach taken in the Intelligent Design Movement article, and I believe it to be the appropriate approach here.


 * I've already said I agree that a measure of anger is still due the DI affiliates for their conscious duplicitousness in their representations to the public, and about the fact that so much unnecessary work and cost has been required to rebut their badly mistaken beliefs. Nonetheless, this one adjective leaps off the page and really says more about the attitude of the article editors than it does about those who propound neo-creationist beliefs.  The statement "arose out of an organized campaign" says quite enough.  The rest is very well articulated throughout the existing article.


 * I recognize, though, that tempers still deserve some time to cool off. C'est la vie.  You take care, OK?Kenosis 02:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ken, if you took offense, I'm sorry, but I wasn't criticising you...I made two observations: first, no one may have noticed the edit; second, ID is neo-creationist. If I noted in an article that Supply-side Economics was Conservative, or that maintaining the status quo on Roe v. Wadw was Liberal, would anyone object?  Same thing here. However, I wouldn't be in opposition to your proposal; however, I'm only one editor.   Jim62sch 19:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim: No, not at all; I didn't take the slightest offense from you and feel nothing but mutual respect here. What I was trying to do was find a quick illustration of attaching an adjective ending in ...ist (e.g. "neocreationist), and quickly show how easily it can be perceived as if barbs are being thrown when such an adjective is used.   A quick and rough analogy to, say, calling a group "stupid neo-flat-earthers" or something like that. That's the kind of appearance of visible resentment I'm advocating trying to avoid, especially in an important article such as ID.


 * In an introductory statement, the use of a noun such as "neocreationism" to describe this group's philosophy and advocacy position somehow seems more appropriate I believe, and also allows other appropriate characterizations to be added more readily than would a long string of adjectives. Why only neocreationist?  At this point in time, one could truthfully and verifiably say "...arose out of an organized duplicitous, pseudoscientific, neocreationist, sociopolitically motivated campaign..." and probably throw in a few more verified adjectives that were already proven in court.  Why should the writers/editors throw such barbs when the article already makes all of those points effectively?, is my only point here.


 * So I still maintain that the most appropriate and effective way to introduce the analysis of the ID Movement is as the Intelligent Design Movement article does, which is as a noun stating the class of their ideas and/or advocacy. Since the opening sentence of that section of the ID article is already fairly long, it seems the easiest edit is to simply say (see: neocreationism) at the end of the sentence.  This approach or a similar one thus makes the point effectively and avoids the potential trap of appearing like the editors are engaging in name calling.  Same with "evolutionist."


 * Good regardsKenosis 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should be reconciled with the section Origins of the Concept
If you assert in the opening paragraph of the article that "ID is the concept that X...", then you immediately get into trouble by asserting that "all leading proponents are Y and Z." The section on Origins of the Concept describes the concept as going back some 2,500 years, so you are really saying that Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle, among others, are also Y and Z (affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and asserting equal footing with science). This all should be reconciled somehow or other.Kenosis 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I attempted the following version hoping someone would hone it further, rather than reverting it out of hand:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Intelligent design proponents assert it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life. The modern ID movement was both invented and disseminated by persons and groups that were recently proven in a U.S. district court to be closely affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2][3]"Kenosis 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In this attempted revision, Footnote 2 reads: # ^ See: Kitzmiller, et. al., v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688 (MDPa, 2005) at 136. The decision states: "Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false." Note also, the following testimony from a principal expert witness: "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. [73]

Question about "origins of the term" section
Quote from the article: "..., in an 1868 book,..."

Anyone know what book this statement is referring to? -- JosephCCampana 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * John Brocklesby's textbook "Elements of Physical Geography" (1868). In it, Brocklesby states that "the physical phenomena of the world reveal in their harmonious action a unity of plan and purpose, and display in an infinite variety of ways the 'Power, Wisdom and Goodness of the Almighty Designer."  Don't have a page number for you, but he does not appear to have used the precise term "intelligent design".  Perhaps more accurately, Brocklesby appears to have stated the concept rather than the term itself--Kenosis 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Added to article and footnotes Jim62sch 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great work, Kenosis and Jim! Thank you! -- JosephCCampana 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed from the article, since 1) it was relative not to the term but to the concept, and it was in the "Origins of the term" section, 2) Benapgar has insisted on a quote of Brocklesby using the term, a quote which Kenosis stated above doesn't exist. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ready for another attempt at FA status?
I admit that I have followed this article only sporadically and am far less familiar with it than several of the regulars here. Nevertheless it is my impression that it has reached a very fine quality and should be considered for FAC.

One of the central criticisms on the previous FA candidature seemed to be that criticism of Intelligent design has an overly prominent place in the article. However, before it is resubmitted, everybody should be aware that that is a "feature not a bug" of this article. Given that Intelligent design has little if any acceptance in the scientific community, has been judged in a U.S. federal court of law as being faith disguised as science, and consists to a great degree of activism rather than research, it is totally unsurprising that there is much more and much more solid criticism than defense. It is predictable that the same sort of arguments will reappear in a future FAC, and it would be reasonable to discuss that foreseeable criticism here beforehand. The fact remains that WP:NPOV stipulates to "present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone". It might be worth discussing whether not to challenge the literal interpretation of this sentence of the NPOV policy itself, with the specific idea that a concept with few "pro" arguments that withstand criticism should be treated as a minority view even if it has many adherents. After all, we are not here to count numbers of believers, but to weigh arguments pro and arguments contra, and if the arguments contra are as overwhelming as in this case, it is plain impossible to give them an equal weight compared to the arguments pro. See also WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPOV. I am aware that some will consider this a slippery terrain, but I can't see how this article will ever get featured as long as people can come along and successfully argue that so and so many people believe in Intelligent design and their views are not appropriately represented here. Your ideas, please? Kosebamse 20:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article, in my estimation, needs some more work before further consideration as a featured article. Intelligent design, by its very nature, is an extremely difficult topic readily given over to many prejudices, such as religious, theological, philosophical, socio-political and scientific.  Given the difficulty and complexity of the topic, that some 300 million English-speaking people with internet access can edit it pretty much at will, and perhaps most importantly that of the Discovery Institue's co-opting of the term in the 1990's to further its agendas, the work on this article has been nothing short of astounding.  But it needs to have worked out a dependable way to express several important issues which interweave with one another, such as the difference between the concept and the term as it has been used by the Discovery Institute's affiliates, and the concept and the term as it has been used by others. I think it also needs to be shortened very substantially in the last few sections, perhaps with new articles added to explain the last few lengthy sections.  Kenosis 07:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who contribute comments toward WP:FAC don't need to successfully argue that their views are not appropriately represented, they only need to make the assertion. As long as WP:FAC remains a simple matter of consensus, the basis in realtity of objections will remain a non sequitur and FACs can easily be scuttled by a few nogoodniks.

Most of the objections from the previous WP:FAC are easily recognized for what they were, sour grapes from ID proponents unsuccessful at making this a fawning pro-ID screed. Long term editors here have devoted many, many manhours in a good-faith effort to address legitimate issues that are raised. The recurring problem has been though that many objections are not actually legitimate or made in good faith, but only to further a pr-ID.

The article as it stands is recognized outside of Wikipedia as both fair and accurate. It fully meets all clauses of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. As others have previously observed ID proponents will likely scuttle any any ID article that does not present ID in a favorable light: in other words, any accurate and neutral ID article. For this reason alone articles on contentious topics seldom if ever make it to FA. What I'm more concerned with now are bad faith attempts using the pretense of FAC to "improve" or "fix" the article to the detriment of NPOV, completeness and accuracy. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FM makes a significant point about balancing brevity with completeness. While the debate is often in good faith, it seems a strong likelihood that an FA candidacy would be scuttled by those with a vested interest in pushing ID viewpoints, no matter how good the article is.Kenosis 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that this article is less than balanced. If articles on contentious topics rarely make it through FAC, then something is seriously wrong with our processes. The heart of the problem seems to be the interpretation of what is balanced, and that the directions given in WP:NPOV are subject to interpretation, specifically, as outlined above, the "fairness and sympathetic tone" clause. While adherents of a SPOV, like me, would see the article as fair and balanced under the other clauses mentioned above, the ID representatives would take their fight for acceptance into the FAC and claim unbalancedness. I can't see how this conflict can be resolved as long as anybody can come along and acite his own interpretation of WP:NPOV only to shoot an article that does not suit his views. In any case, it would be a shame if this article would not get the recognition that it deserves. Kosebamse 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Section "The Designer or Designers"
Both primary arguments made in this section against ID are arguments against straw men.

Jerry Coyne's quote is a good example of the "if there is a designer, why did he/she design (fill in the blank) so poorly?" argument. This totally misses the point of ID.

William Dembski, "Signs of Intelligence", in his intro titled "What Intelligent Design is Not": "...intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand, and optimal design on the other. Apparent design refers to something that looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in some idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven")."

Basically the criticism is a variation of "if there is a God, why is there imperfection/pain/evil in the world?" This is a time-old theological/philosophical question, to which there are some thoughtful answers: (see Problem of Evil)

Anyway, I have heard arguments like Coyne's fairly often, but it pretty much misses the point of ID entirely. I think we should still include it or a similar argument somehow (as it is a common objection) with an explanation like Dembski's quote above.

The second argument about "who designed the designer", is another interesting theological question. See Cosmological argument. It is an (imho, fairly weak) argument against the existence of God, but as ID makes no (overt) specific claim about the nature of the designer, its not an argument against ID per se.

I don't have a proposed re-wording for this section yet, but I'm mulling it over.

BradC 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of a section that could either be reduced to a quick summary with link(s) to the Intelligent Designer article (which already exists), or alternately could be eliminated completely from ID (with a quick link such as "see also: Intelligent Designer"). This discussion about the designer(s) he/she/themselves is always interesting to me, but arguably doesn't belong in the ID article, and I think that a simple link to the Intelligent Designer article is the best approach here.  My reasoning is that the article's central question is whether ID belongs in the category of theology and philosophy, or can be successfully attached to science-- that is, in a word, can you use science to prove there is a God.  The article already describes the arguments about legitimacy of ID's proposed attachment to science by describing the scientific method and showing that a much more specific hypothesis must be proposed to explain any gaps or flaws in the current theory of evolution in order to qualify as a scientific theory.  Once that is done effectively, suddenly the article gets much shorter, with links to most of the philosophical and theological problems.  What remains is a summary explanation of the history of the teleological argument, a history of the term ID, and of course the most difficult thing is how to explain how a small group of DI-affiliated people fell into the God of the Gaps problem (i.e., if we don't understand it, it must have been God), but I think this can be done more succinctly given the Intelligence of the folks working on it.)Kenosis 08:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling that somehow the whole picture is being missed here. The sections in the article ARE relevant, and were agreed to by consensus many moons ago.
 * Whether ID worries about the "who designed the designer?" question really isn't relevant for several reasons: first, evolution does not worry about the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and yet the IDists try to paint is as materialistic atheism; Second, intelligent design merely adds another unknown to the picture, the existence of a designer, and thus the question of who designed the designer is relevant -- i.e., how far do we want to keep going backwards with the process; Third, the theological aspect of ID (as noted by the judge in the Kitzmiller case) allows this question to be raised. Jim62sch 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One other point, I'm not necessarily saying that some sections couldn't be more concise, but consensus will need to be reached here before any such changes are made. Jim62sch 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed Jim. Each fresh edit should be cautiously considered firstKenosis 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, I should perhaps have already offered a better version of the following in my response above. My reasoning for suggesting consideration of removal of the Designer(s) section is: The ID article's central question (the reason it so controversial) is whether ID belongs in the category of theology and philosophy, or can be successfully attached to science.  That is, in a word, can you use science to prove there is a God, Gods, or an intelligence of some kind at work in nature.  Framed in ID terms, the central question is: Can it be proved that intelligence is the cause as well as the result of certain aspects of the development of the cosmos.  Fundamentally it is, lacking a specific testable, peer-reviewed hypothesis, either a meta-scientific question, or a pseudoscientific question, depending on how one looks at it.  It is, to date, not even a protoscientific question, because of its lack of testability and a lack of agreement on what the paramater "intelligence" is.  (This part the article has been handled well, although it could be yet more concise and still treat the subject properly from all sides of the dabate.)


 * The article on ID can easily neglect the questions of WHAT the designer or designers is or are, and what might be the nature or "super-nature" of the designer(s). This is because the main question presented is whether you can show scientifically, or prove definitively, that a prior design is required for the universe to have developed into its current form.  Only if you can show scientifically that there MUST be a designer do you get to the question of what is the nature of the designer.  Thus, the  manner in which the question is framed by modern ID advocates (the DI affiliates) allows the writers of the ID article, if they wish, to choose to remove discussion of the nature of the hypothesized designer(s) from the main article and put it in a separate article.  Although it will require more work and debate, it is certainly possible to achieve a more concise treatment of ID by yet further delegating these branches of the debate to their own separate articles.  Kenosis 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * POV forks are rarely a good idea, and original research is also not allowed per WP policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi once again KC: Please explain a little more what you mean about POV forks and original research in this context?Kenosis 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * POV fork- putting different views on one subject in different articles. OR - doing your own research. What is unclear? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am wondering in what specific way(s) both of these relate to the discussion about conciseness and manageability of the ID article. If you are concerned about getting into the trap of back-and-forth arguments about the Designer(s), I agree-- you could easily end up with a few megabytes of article length.Kenosis 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also about refactoring the article to be a purely theological or philisophical focus. This is inappropriate. The DI is the promoter and originator of this permutation of this concept; they present it as science. It is of course not, which makes it psudoscience not philosophy. We cannot do original research and reframe this. Until the DI changes the presentation from science to something else, thats the assertion we must treat in this article. Anything else is speculation and/or original research. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean now. The DI has corrupted the use of the term ID probably for our lifetimes at least.  Like your view, mine also is that the main challenge is to keep the term where it belongs-- out of science, and as I said above.  In that respect the article is on target, but just a bit too long.  My specific point(s) above is give further opportunities to reduce the size of the article.  Because it is psuedoscience (which I already said), there is permission for a consensus to remove this back-and-forth about the designer(s).
 * Kindly tell me what new "own reasearch" you were referring to?Kenosis 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]For us to sit around and say "intelligent design is really philosophy and not science is OR ("original" research, not "own") because we take it upon ourselves to create a new definition of the way things are. Now, mind you, it may be a superior definition to what's out there.  But if it doesn't match what someone else has said, if we are constructing knowledge of our own, then it's OR.  Of course ID isn't science - but it is primarily presented as science.  That's what this article is about (hence the boilerplate at the top of the page).  I disagree with KC's "Until the DI changes the presentation from science to something else..." - even if they were to redefine it, since they have proposed it as a scientific hypothesis it is what it is and they don't have ownership of the idea.  Now, if the dominant interpretation of ID moved from "science" to philosophy, then we would probably have to rename this article, and give the "ID (philosophy)" article this name.  But that's just a naming issue.  "ID as science" might be (will be?) relegated to little more than a curiosity, but this article would remain about "ID as science".  Guettarda 20:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed Guettarda. I have seen and appreciated your diligence in protecting the integrity of this article.  There still remain ways (yet to be consensused) to tighten this article up further.  Don't know what they are yet, but arguments about the nature of the designer(s) arguably shouldn't be here unless the threshold question "can you prove there must have been an intelligent rather than accidental or random design?" is met.  As the article already successfully shows, ID advocates haven't met that threshold.Kenosis 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ken, the Kitzmiller conclusion was that "ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science." It's worth reading 4: whether ID is science and noting both the extent to which it's tied up with religion, and lacks a logical basis. ...dave souza, talk 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed Dave. One of the challenges at the moment is to make more concise the explanation of all this for the previously uninformed reader (ideally of course, it requires at least a whole book).


 * Towards the ideal of better conciseness and an objective NPOV consensus, perhaps this specific observation by the judge should be used to help make the point more concise than it currently is. But the question of who or what the designer(s) might be doesn't even get reached unless the central question is proven by the ID advocates, which is essentially: "Can it be proved scientifically that there must be a designer?" Since the ID advocates have failed abysmally to cross that threshold, the question about the designer(s) needn't necessarily be articulated here, and can readily be relegated to it's own article (which it already is).Kenosis 20:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The criticism "What designed the designer" is not dependent upon ID advocates making their case, nor is whether it is articulated in this article. Its' mention of here remains relevant and necessary regardless of whether it is expanded upon at intelligent designer. Splitting it out altogether from this article creates a POV fork. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. No POV forks, no OR. Its fairly simple. Don't split off IDer to a fork, and don't postulate your definition of ID. All done now. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree here too with both FM and KC, but take strong exception to your assertion that it would be a POV fork. It would in fact be a topic fork if this avenue were chosen.  The problem is not that it shouldn't be mentioned in the ID article, but rather that if it is mentioned at all it needs to be tightened up further, and can be tightened up further, with a link to the Intelligent Designer article.  By the time you get to Intelligent Design as a Movement, the reader is already reeling in confusion from the back-and-forth of it all.  Same thing with the last few sections-- they need to be tightened up and delegated to their own articles.  One of the primary complaints rendered against the ID article is it's just too long (although in my opinion the work has in fact been fantastic, just somewhat too lengthy).Kenosis 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We constantly weigh concision against completeness and accuracy. The length of the paragraph you propose to remove is negligible, but the significance of the information it contains is substantial and necessary to readers who only will view this page and not the daughter articles (which are the majority of readers). This article's completeness and accuracy would notably suffer by it's loss. Completely shunting a notable criticism to a daughter article is by definition a POV fork, not to mention bowdlerizing. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing to remove or tighten up the last paragraph of this section, but to remove or tighten up the entire section, per the original statement in this talk thread. The back and forth between Behe, Coyne, Dembski, and Wein, among others is just too much here.  It kills off too much of your readership before you get to the really important part, ID as a Movement.Kenosis 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, as I said we've already discussed that one before and we didn't see a need then and I don't see a need now. I disagree with each of your points, the information is necessary to this article and should stay. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see that you disagree, and I know you have put a great deal into this effort. Nice work on the Faith and Reason article too, incidentally.Kenosis 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ken, please read the section below, which you seem to have missed. Deleting part of the controversy would violate NPOV policy.  Guettarda 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't read my point before making this assertion.Kenosis 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your psychic powers need a tune-up. Contrary to what they told you, yes, I did read your post.  And there was something about "I am not proposing to remove or tighten up the last paragraph of this section, but to remove or tighten up the entire section".  And my comment was in reference to that.  Since you posted that, it seems logical to conclude that you had not read the section at the end.  My apologies for assuming that you didn't read it.  Let me re-phrase then "Ken, please don't ignore the section below..."  Guettarda 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No sweat Guettarda. My point was, and remains, simply that this article could still be improved further, in part by tightening up or even removing this entire section.  I certainly recognize this is a complex topic.Kenosis 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SIZE: ''A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself. In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.''
 * Breaking out a controversial section.

Guettarda 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Useful online publication
Donald Simanek has made a useful publication available online Creationism and Intelligent Design: Fraudulent Pseudoscience. --Ian Pitchford 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why PR does not belong in the intro
When we reached a consensus in crafting the current intro some time ago, it was widely agreed that the intro should consist of 3 paragraphs, the first one stating what ID is and what ID proponents say it is, the second stating how the scientific community has perceives ID, and the third devoted to ID's legal status. We intentionally chose to allow each faction it's own paragraph where their positions would be presented without rebuttals or other mitigating asides. Adding a note about ID's lack of peer review to ID proponent's paragraph undoes this balance and adds little to the intro; it would have been more appropriate to the subsequent paragraph, that of the scientific community's, but even there it adds little as the absence of peer reviewed ID research is but one of many of the reasons that the scientific community rejects ID, and not even the primary reason. Hence, PR is not necessary to the intro. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did place the original sentence in the 2nd paragraph - it should have been moved back there. The peer review process is central to the scientific process. The two elements most scientists will look for in a new theory is replicability (can the same results be produced by other independent research groups) and peer review of the paper it's submitted in. The two biggest criticisms of ID that I see recorded are the lack of predictions (hence no experiments and no replicability) and no peer review. The intro should reflect this when the first paragraph makes clear that ID claims to be equal to or superior to normal scientific methods. CuteWombat 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with FM's assessment that the peer review is secondary, not primary, and that the goal of a short intro trumps the extra data added here. The short intro is effective partially because it summarizes a National Academy of Sciences position (linked in the footnote). The full NAS postion does mention the publication issue, though it doesn't mention "Peer-review" per-se: "Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates." BradC 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well use the NAS wording then - it means the same thing. Any scientist reading this page will know the two central issues - one of those is missing from the intro. Readers not as well informed deserve the same information. The intro is not very long any way and one sentence will not overload it. CuteWombat 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I weigh in on the same side as CuteWombat here. Now, I know that FM has been so instrumental to this article that its arrival at a reasonable state of organization and objectivity would have been delayed significantly or perhaps even scuttled completely without his diligent participation and long hard work.  But here, I agree that the proposed sentence is very concise, and is central to the relevant introductory assertion that despite claims to the contrary, the ID movement has not really participated in "science" at all.  I respectfully suggest that it be tried for a time, and if it attracts too many malicious edits due to the falacious publicity still propounded by ID advocates even today (to wit, that ID has peer-reviewed articles in support of its view, which it has not), then the question can of course be revisited.  (You of course already know that the list of "peer-reviewed" ID articles really are articles dealing with the punctuated equilibrium question and morphogenesis/abiogenesis questions, not ID per se, and that this constitutes valid grounds to reject any spurious additions to the intro by misguided anonymous editors.  Same with such spurious attempted additions to the "Peer Review" section.)


 * But whichever route is chosen, in my view the intro plainly does work effectively in its current form.Kenosis 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Naturalistic axiom of science
Is there such an axiom? I suppose it is correct to say science provides naturalistic explanations, but to assert that naturalism is an axiom of science, seems to lead us into a contentious area which could take us even further astray in discussions. --CSTAR 06:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is perhaps the most fundamental axiom of science, in order to distinguish it from supernatural speculations and the like, and from proclamations of the Church about the structure of the natural world.Kenosis 08:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I don't know if I'd call it an axiom.  And I suspect you're really referring to the scientific method, as opposed to the body of knowledge we call science.  In some ways, you are correct.  But I think the word 'axiom' rather overemphasises some natural-supernatural dichotomy, when in fact the scientific view merely asserts that the universe can be systematically understood in a consistent, repeatable, observable, measurable way (see Operational definition).  And really, if you attempt to study anything systematically (well, anything empirical, as opposed to, say, maths or literature), you implicitly hold this belief.
 * It isn't really the case that scientists a priori try to delineate between that which is natural or not. Rather, Supernatural can be defined as that which is beyond scientific understanding.  So yes, almost by definition, scientific endevours are naturalistic.  But that's more the definition of natural (and supernatural) than some principle scientists consciously apply to their theories and practice.
 * (Oops, forgot to sign Tez 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I'm used to thinking of axioms as propositions that are used in reasoning -- for instance, axioms of quantum field theory or of relativity theory or of Newtonian mechanics. Naturalism is a methodological principle characterizing certain kinds of knowledge (as you say distinguishing propositions of science from propositions such as proclamations of the church.) Anyway, I don't want to enter into this discussion any more deeply here, since I don't regard this discussion as very useful to this article. --CSTAR 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, it's actually more like a meta-axiom, but the statement is factually correct nevertheless. Does anyone have a quote available from a philosophy of science textbook?  Kenosis (forgot to sign before the reply came in)


 * No, it is not factually correct. As CSTAR has succinctly pointed out, 'Naturalism' characterizes the empirical sciences; we cannot directly apply the definition of 'natural' to determine science and non-science, so you cannot say that it is an axiom in scientific reasoning.  This is probably easier to see if you realise things are considered supernatural until an explanation is found. Tez 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will change this to "naturalistic orientation" in both the first and last sentence and see where it goes. You do make a good point about this as does CSTAR.  Maybe someone else will figure out a yet more accurate way, because as you already know, it's more than an orientation, naturalism's the very rock on which science exists and thrives...Kenosis 16:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the use of the word "science" in this paragraph refers to science as distinguished from pseudoscience, religion, theology, law, engineering, plumbing, landscaping....Kenosis 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, TBH, I am a bit peeved by the entire section titled Peer Review. This is more of a rant than an editorial suggestion, so I'm going to make one more comment on this and then (taking another clue from CSTAR's foresight) stop on this point of methodological naturalism.
 * My bias is this: that the whole of ID seems to be an exercise in giving different aspects of their movement's ignorance technical-sounding names. Misunderstand the mechanisms of evolution?  Invoke information theory.  Can't believe that certain structures improved step-wise?  Irreducible complexity.  Don't have any well-defined entities, haven't made any observations or measurements, don't have and charts, graphs, experiments, discoveries? It's Supernaturalism!
 * The section implies that ID has been actively excluded. The real problem is that they have barged in, pounded their fists on the table screaming "What I say is science!" when that is all they'll say.  And the problem is so obvious, that it's hard to find a cite for this POV.  No one's going to write an article or publish research saying that a non-argument is not scientific.  What is not scientific?  There are no studies of the variation of cancer incidence against the incidence of designed features in a population.  There is no paper comparing the frequency of intelligent intervention by geography or geological time.  It's as sinister as that.  This is why the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial ("Won't someone think of the children?!") has been so useful; it supplies the article with reams of expert testimony of stating these obvious facts (from both sides).
 * Back to your point, personally, I would prefer to change those first few sentences from 'conflicts with the naturalistic orientation' to something more like 'can never have an impact on the universe we inhabit'. But that certainly isn't NPOV. Tez 11:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tez, I personally am appreciative of CSTAR's and your points here. In my judgment it is true that there is somewhat excessive content at the moment in the ID article and that "Peer Review" can be summarized much more succinctly and more insightfully.  But this appearance neglects the sometimes wild arguments that have come across this page and the ID article itself over the last couple of years.  Much of what you see here is still under the shadow of the recent court decision which finally gave legal justification in an objective forum to the merits of the arguments posed by those resisting the imposition of "intelligent design" on science-- up to and including the advocacy by ID proponents to change science to allow supernatural explanations and still be called science.


 * After some more time passes, perhaps this article can be reduced in size by a reasonable consensus of editors. Good regards to you for the depth of your insight into this issue...Kenosis

Rare versus unlikely events
I appreciated seeing the further edits by BradC and ScienceApologist, and think they improve the article.

Putting in a new subsection seems a reasonable way to approach this, but someone should change the name of the subsection because it's redundant (perhaps "unlikely vs. impossible" or something like that?)...Kenosis 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "Unlikely versus impossible events"-- perhaps this too can be improved upon...Kenosis 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from Ignorance
Glenn Branch has personally pointed out to me that he and Eugenie Scott have not made published reference to "neologisms" in objecting to intelligent design as science.

His statement to me was: "Where would cladistics be, for example, if neologisms were scientifically unacceptable, with its synapomorphies and plesiomorphies and homoplasies and such jawbreakers?) It is true, however, that we contended, and continue to contend, that "intelligent design" -- and its supposedly novel contributions such as "irreducible complexity" and "complex specific information" -- have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.  And, of course, a review of the scientific literature bears this contention out."

Therefore, I am going to delete the sentence: "Perhaps most notable among the many aspects of intelligent design to which Scott and Branch object are the neologisms, which they contend are designed to end the desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of scientific hypotheses"

Tentatively, I will replace it with: "Scott and Branch assert that the concepts and methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are designed to end the desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of scientific hypotheses."Kenosis 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I went a step further and used some of the above language, tentatively until the NCSE can confirm its stated position exactly, within the next few days.Kenosis 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will leave this sentence as it is, unless and until the NCSE affirmatively states that their position is stronger than this: "Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research."


 * Previously the statement was substantially stronger ("... designed to end the desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of scientific hypotheses.") and made it seem as if the NCSE (Scott and Branch et al) were imputing unverifiable motives on the ID advocates.Kenosis 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ID vs. Evolution, or ID vs. Natural Selection/Darwinism?
Interested editors, please note the revisiting of this old issue in newly inserted section 14.1 above, proposed by Grover_Cleveland, which proposes to delete "evolution" and replace it with "natural selection" in the introduction, as well as wherever there is an italicized reference to "evolution"Kenosis 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a piece there. --KimvdLinde 04:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Not original research"
''The following were removed because they were allegedly "not original research", whatever is meant by that. I think they are good points regardless of the source medium:''

(Regarding universal constants:)

Ironically, using the anthropic principle to explain the fine-tuned nature of universal constants presents testability problems that in many ways resembles those faced by ID. They both may not be falsifiable. If there are or were other universes to provide the "probability fuel" for the universal constants, they perhaps may never be detected or detectable.

(Regarding SETI and "artificiality":)

However, artificiality alone perhaps may not be enough to deam a signal "intelligent", and content analysis may indeed be needed someday if a good candidate signal is found. Pulsar signals were once mistaken for artificiality also, embarassing many researchers and showing that confusion based on the nature of the signal alone is possible. Content analysis for intelligence has not been ruled out as "scientific exploration". [70]

(Reference was to: http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/idseti.htm) (the proceeding unsigned comment was made by 4.232.78.205


 * Please sign your posts. You may do so by typing ~ in the edit which will replace it with your name (or if not logged in, IP address) and the time your message was made. This is very convenient and makes it easier to follow what is going on. Now, the objection is that this information is Original Research. The above information would be in that category. If you can find a reputable publication that has made these arguments, then it might be included. (note that personal websites are not considered reputable for these purposes). JoshuaZ 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the topics should be split into small topics so that a wider range of opinions can be stated. It is against the democratic philosophy of wiki's to include only "official" research. I agree that official research perhaps deserve a higher ranking, but counter arguments should not be simply ignored. Wikipedia is more useful if it links to viewpoints that are alternatives to the "official" sources sited. Links are what the web is about. Sometimes I feel that some of you Content Police are more interested in winning stuffy awards than in making Wikipedia useful. (left unsigned by 4.232.78.205 at 01:11, 5 March 2006) (amended later)


 * The anonymous insertion was in fact original research, as shown by the link to a personal webpage, which is also forbidden on Wikipedia. JoshuaZ is correct on both points.  If there is material adequate for a new article, then start one, but it should not be supported by personal webpage(s).Kenosis 01:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As to your new comments, please see WP:NOT. In particularly Wikipedia is not a link farm, among other issues. JoshuaZ 03:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The insertion of the new paragraph in the Fine-tuned Universe section, making the argument about the relationship of the anthropic principle to ID in the context of falsifiability, is interesting and I would encourage you to make a further argument on this talk page and allow it to be discussed before considering re-insertion. Much effort was devoted to making those sections as brief as possible, and any additional relevant summary point should be very concise and probably be fit somehow in the second paragraph of that section ("fine-tuned universe"), as well as pass muster with the OR test.  If it's a good enough observation backed up by appropriate cites, and can be integrated effectively into that paragraph, perhaps the other editors will accede to such a maneuver.  So by all means do propose it if you think it will improve the section without lengthening it appreciablyKenosis 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, present your arguments, proposals, etc., here, not in the article itself. I'm not particularly fond of reverting, as it just wastes time that could be better spent on other articles, but I'm also not fond of unilateral changes made to articles with as long and detailed a history as this.  A lot of editors have put considerable time into making this a good article, and edits made out of the blue do not tend to improve the article. Jim62sch 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism
An entertaining article in The Guardian about a row over evolutionism, atheism and the fight against ID. ...dave souza, talk 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to nature
To clarify the point about science refusing supernatural explanations, the sentence in the Peer review subsection, "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, conflicts with the naturalistic orientation of science.", could be replaced by the following, which draws on Kitzmiller: whether ID is science:
 * Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, conflicts with the essential attribute of science that limits it to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, rejecting explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence.

This aims to meet the concern expressed by Tez in above that the section implies that ID has been actively excluded, thus giving some credence to ID proponent's claims to be hard done by. ....dave souza, talk 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC) and 10:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Jim62sch 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This makes the point much more precisely. I'll support it.Kenosis 14:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)  Only issue I have is with the use of "attribute".  Perhaps the words "essential tenets", "fundamental orientation" or another characterization might serve to clarify better...Kenosis 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The "attribute" came from Judge Jones "This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention.", and seemed the strongest statement: he also called it a "ground rule" ( his quotation marks). A better word would be welcome: tenet is good, if perhaps uncommon. ...dave souza, talk 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Another phrasing comes to mind:
 * Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, conflicts with the inherent requirement of science for empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, which means that science rejects explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence.
 * More ideas welcome. ...dave souza, talk 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest something like:
 * "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the most fundamental principle of science, which limits its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which rejects explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence."

Kenosis 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)With a footnote to the decision and page#...Kenosis 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To slightly firm it up, "and must reject explanations" ...dave souza, talk 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So you might end up with something like:
 * "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the most fundamental principle of science, which limits its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which must always reject explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence."

One could always quibble, but any of these seem to make the point more accurately and explicitly than "naturalistic orientation."Kenosis 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How about?:
 * "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the most fundamental principle of science, which limits its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which must always reject non-empirical explanations."Kenosis 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, probably "and requires explanations to be based upon empirical evidence" would be better. Presumably it could be added now, and subjected to the usual editing ..dave souza, talk 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, DaveKenosis 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Your last revision implemented, pending of course, as you say, the usual edits...Kenosis 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion with not much more than a moment's thought -
 * "Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the defining aspect of science: that scientific inquiries are testable hypotheses about observable data, backed by empirical evidence."

Again, my minor worry is that there is no 'limitation' or 'exclusion' -- science is this. Of course, it could be argued that a definition (by definition) includes things and excludes everything else, and that such a distinction is unnecessary, nit-picky, and too subtle for the reader. But that's the sort of phrasing I'd like to see included. Tez 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like an improvement to me: go for it. ...dave souza, talk 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Defining intelligent design as science
I would like to propose retitling the section "Defining intelligent design as science", which does an excellent job of summarizing the scientific method and the Daubert criteria, as well quickly dealing with how ID does or does not fit. The section of course concludes that it does not fit at all. The title is potentially misleading. The title was perhaps more accurately and neutrally as put by a recent edit by someone, and then more recently reverted, which is: "Can Intelligent design be defined as science?" I suggest further consideration of a more NPOV way of titling this section.Kenosis 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Using a question for a heading is poor style. Headings are meant to describe the content they contain, not elicit replies or be used for rhetorical effect. The heading "Defining intelligent design as science" is accurate in that it directly descibes the the subsequent content, it represents no one position on the issue, allowing the reader to decide what it means. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed FM, understood...Kenosis 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review and undue weight
About the recent insistance on inserting "very heavily" or "overwhelmingly" in the PR section such as "weighed very heavily against intelligent design being considered valid science" or "weighed overwhelmingly against intelligent design being considered valid science."

Neither are correct: The lack of peer review and failure of ID to follow procedures is not the primary reason ID is rejected by the scientific community; the fact that it's untestable is. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi FM: Good point, though it is rejected by that community on all those grounds. Problem is, they have nothing to publish, their procedures are shoddy and keep attempting to circumvent the standards, and when asked to submit they fail to submit research. So it weighs very substantially against being considered valid science, as the section proceeds to articulate. It is not 60%/40%, it is virtually 100% weighing against.Kenosis 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent this is becoming an unnecessary and fruitless argument. The problem appears to me to be the way the introductory paragraph of this section is currently written, which allows us to get caught in this back-and-forth (which I'm now finished with incidentally). I'm going to be busy, but will see if I can propose a more accurate way to phrase the opening summary paragraph that might perhaps be found acceptable, maybe later in the week. Take careKenosis 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FM has a very good point, it is the nontestability that creates problems, far more so than the peer review issue. To the best of my knowledge, neither of Einstein's theories of relativity (not that ID is even fit to lick relativity's boots) were peer-reviewed, but they were testable.  ID simply isn't science. Jim62sch 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, so it CAN'T be published and peer reviewed, because you can't test it. As TEZ so perceptively put it: "Don't have any charts, graphs. measurements, experiments?  It's SUPERNATURAL!" The very argument about peer review and "weight" (my mistake) is yet another straw man (Weigh against WHAT?!) creating the mistaken appearance that there is a genuine issue.  The real issue about ID is either fraud, or ignorance, or both (how's that for a shot at NPOV). This section could definitely be introduced more effectively than it is.  The improvements put together by dave_sousa are a good step in that direction, in my estimation.  Later--Kenosis 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, "fraud, ignorance or both" may not be NPOV, but...
 * Let's see what happens with Dave's ideas. Jim62sch 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, we must now present both sides of the issue with a NPOV, those who publish verifiable evidence of fraud (of which there is plenty), and those who argue it's mere ignorance of the basic tenets of science (of which there is plenty)...but I digress somewhatKenosis 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am reminded at this point of the great Ron Wyatt, whose theories on the correct place at which the Israelite's crossing of the Red Sea might be found rested on his discovery of the very chariot-wheels of Pharoah, sunk full fathom five, and still encased in gold (though bereft of Shakespearean pearls). Alas, Ron steadfastly refused to submit the chariot for laboratory testing, which undermined his credibility to the extent that even Answers in Genesis pointed the finger of scorn in his direction. No test, no credibility. PiCo 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of The Designer or Designers section
The introductory parapraph of The Designer or Designers currently reads:
 * Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. They do not state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a God could intervene. Intelligent design proponents, such as Dembski, have implied that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but since the authoritative description of intelligent design explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." Furthermore, 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.

I think the same material can be more clearly stated. And there are two noticeable, if small, factual errors. This detracts from a primary issue in the paragraph, which is that it contains an example or two of the wedge strategy in action (where one position is taken to the broader public but another is displayed to their known religious supporters who believe a discussion of God should be in the science classroom). For instance, Dembski did not "imply" that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements (of intelligent design); he stated it. And Dembski did not conclude that no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of life "since" (because) the DI's official website says what it does; rather, his conflicting statements are in keeping with the explicit design of the wedge strategy.

There also is no need for "and thus there exists a well-established link to Genesis and Creationism." This was already obvious after the previous phrase in the sentence, and the connection to creationism is well established elsewhere in the article.

I propose to replace the paragraph with:
 * Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. The arguments per se do not state that God is the designer, but elsewhere the proponents hypothesize the designer to have intervened in a way that only a God could intervene. For instance, Dembski has written in one context that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements.  But, the authoritative description of intelligent design explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed, and Dembski has written in another context that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." Further, all of the leading ID proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.

The footnote links would remain the sameKenosis 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe Dembske was talking about a non-physical agent who might have first presided over the intelligent design of alien culture, who in turn could have presided over the intelligent design of earthlings.Kenosis 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the original reasoning behind the current arrangement was to show the often conflicting claims as to the designer's nature ID proponents have made, with Dembski serving as an example.
 * Perhaps we can find room for Stewart & Co.'s line "We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set." from the Daily Show... FeloniousMonk 07:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this is an accurate illustration of the point; how might the editors include it? Perhaps one last sententce saying "The approach was insightfully summarized by John Stewart: "We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set."Kenosis 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny how only those things that agree with your own POV are "insightful." Funny how that no longer surprises me.  Izuko 00:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So one possibility is:
 * Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. The arguments per se do not state that God is the designer when arguing that intelligent design should be accepted as scientific. For instance, Dembski has written in one book that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, an approach which was lampooned by Jon Stewart: "We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set." Elsewhere, though, the proponents hypothesize the designer to have intervened in a way that only a God could intervene. The authoritative description of intelligent design explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed, and Dembski has written in another book that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." Further, the leading proponents have made statements to limited audiences of their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.

Kenosis 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The puppy likes it. Well incorporated. Only give the book's name. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A little sarcasm to lighten the mood? ;)  Jim62sch 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that this paragraph was reverted to the earlier form. The basis seems to have been that Jon Stewart could mistakenly be taken as an ID advocate. (The sentence read: For instance, Dembski has written in one book that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, an approach lampooned by, among others, Jon Stewart: "We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.") Sorry Jon Stewart, in going forward with that edit I did not mean to imply to readers that you were actually an ID advocate.

I will try the same language without the Jon Stewart comment. Perhaps "lampooned" was too strong a word. In any event, I'm not entirely sure this is the place to include an example of the many sarcastic encapsulations of the pro-ID position anyway, as it may perhaps be too offensive to some genuine believers in the concept. Kenosis 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following comments were originally intended to speak to the content of this section as well as to the RFC on Townes below, where it was first placed, so it is reproduced here because of its relevance to the proposed (and subsequently reverted) Jon Stewart quote...Kenosis 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently in deference to the kind of objections stated above, the reference to Jon Stewart has been deleted. I personally do not have strong feelings whether it is appropriate to offer an example of the numerous parodies of the most widely publicized forms of the ID argument.


 * What gave rise to this kind of parody and lampooning (of which there was much) was that it was obvious to many millions of reasonably intelligent people that something was amiss about the intelligent design assertion as put forth by the DI affiliates-- a fundamentally theological, religious, or at a minimum non-scientific, assertion was attempted to be passed off as scientific and non-religious. The judge in Kitzmiller came to the same conclusion in a far more articulate way, with the weight of federal law and volumes of testimony in front of him. And what led to all this controversy and anger was a demonstrably duplicitous stance advanced by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in attempting to implement their agenda of broad academic and sociopolitical change in the US.


 * Personally, I would want to offer my respect with a measure of sadness about the situation to persons such as Charles Townes who use the term ID in good faith as a philosophical and/or theological term of art, of which there are a number. Unfortunately, the use of the term 'intelligent design' by others in duplicitous and contradictory ways, in a disguised attempt to force creationism on the public schools in the US, has worked its way too far into the public consciousness as something sneaky, a political maneuver or even a con job, for it to have much chance to be successfully resurrected as a theological or philosophical term of art.  I would be extremely surprised to hear someone, today or in the near future, say, for instance, "In what sense are you using the term?"  At this stage in time, for the vast majority of folks it doesn't any longer matter whether a user of the term 'intelligent design' chooses to involve literal Biblical creationism, dynamic evolutionary creationism, or any of a wide range of non-Biblical speculative approaches-- [almost certainly] the term is kaput as a term of art because it has been so badly corrupted.


 * Having said that-- it would still be interesting to see if a broad enough sampling of editors, after further discussion, saw fit to include a brief section outlining several of the approaches where it is used as a philosophical or theological term of art today. To me, thus far they appear to be just a new set of slants on the teleological argument.  This is already dealt with extremely well in the existing article.
 * Kenosis 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick follow-up on this issue generally: We collectively have been unable to source any influential and notable alternative uses of the term "intelligent design" in contemporary theological and philosophical books or articles to date. To the extent that other uses of the term are at all visible, they are "all over the map" in terms of their meaning. Therefore, I too must now fall on the side of the preponderance of the ID-article editors that no particular current alternative use of ID merits specific inclusion in the article.

That leaves a small remaining question whether the article should include a brief reference to the fact that there are a bunch of alternative uses that are widely varied in meaning...but that's well beyond the scope of this section, and also beyond the scope of the RFC immediately below...Kenosis 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and RFC on Townes
The discussion has been moved here: Talk:Intelligent design/Townes RFC. Editors responding to the RFC with an opinion can respond there. Outline of concerns is found there as well.

Contributors may also want to participate in the straw poll started by Benapgar as well: Talk:Intelligent_design/Poll1

why is this article written from an obvious pro-evolution POV?
isn't this wikipedia supposed to be NPOV??? not of any notable POV? Doesn't this mean giving equal weight to two opposing theories and not picking one POV over another?--205.188.116.134 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, enlighten us about specific instances that are so POV... --KimvdLinde 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read any science book on biology you will note evolution is not a point of view. When we write a Wiki article about the Earth we don't worry about giving the fact that the Earth is a globe 50% and give another 50% to the folks that believe the Earth is flat.  I recognize creationists reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution, I belive that fact is covered in the article.  Wiki is not here to promote creationism but I think that is primarily what the  Discovery Institute promotes.  This Wiki article is not a forum to teach the controversy or promote imaginary conflicts in current scientific knowledge  Mr Christopher 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And FYI, Mr or Ms 205.188.116.134 (AOL) your address has been blocked more than once for vandalism and other nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously you might get an account here. Mr Christopher 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would it matter whether the article was written from a pro-evolution point of view? Evolution and ID are not competing ideas.  Many proponents of ID accept evolution as the most reasonable explaination.  What ID is at odds with, is the naturalistic axiom of science.  That is, the assuption, a priori, that all science must be due to natural causes.  Izuko 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * More accurately, the inherent requirements of evidence and testability that supernaturalism can't comply with. Nice to know that ID the idea ain't competing with evolution, have Dover and Kansas got the message? (well Dover probably has now). ...dave souza, talk 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I say, if Dembski thinks he can test for supernatural causes, then he should be allowed to make his case and have it evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof, without artifically barring it. As for Dover and Kansas - it just goes to show you the power of ignorance.  They heard an idea they liked and glomped onto it without understanding it.  Kind of like when Sean Hannity collected signatures from women on a petition to end womens' sufferage, just to see if they would sign it.  Izuko 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If they can prove the stuff, they will have immediatly a Nobel Price, but until now, there has not been anything of proof at all. I would say, bring it on!--KimvdLinde 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And if he did, would anyone accept it, or would it be just as it is here? "That's nice and all, but it isn't science."  "Violates the natrualism axiom, no good."  Though, I do agree that he needs to get off his duff and submit it to peer review, so at least he can say he's been blackballed, instead of trying a few times and giving up.  The Nature of Nature conference was a good start, but he should have kept it up if he wanted to make a serious case.  Izuko 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is very subtle sarcasm, but if it isn't, I ask what you think 'test' and 'supernatural' mean in the context of being able to test or observe a supernatural event, entity or property. Tez 17:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Science work by what can be proven. That what can be proven is naturalistic. If a scientist would be able to proof (with repeatability by other reseachers) either the existence or the non-existence of supernatural entities (I do not belief in a single god), those entities would become part of the naturalistic worldview. 'Test': any test using naturalistic methods. 'Supernatural': anything that fall beyond the normal scope of science. --KimvdLinde 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. Tez 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of competitive views to evolution-- why is flying spaghetti monsterism dismissed as "admittedly silly"? Equal coverage should be given to it as well, because numerous Pastafarians believe FSM reconciles creationism with observations of modern science. Same with the Raelian philosophy which keeps getting deleted.  It's important because it represents the viewpoint that aliens planted the seeds of life on Earth.


 * Evolution is not a POV. Rather, it successfully provides the basis for all of modern biology and biochemistry, and even some of modern medicine.  No doubt there's more work to be done on the theory of evolution to account for the punctuated equilibrium issue (stepped rather than continuous random development of many species), morphogenesis (how does stepwise evolution occur and what are its precursors), and even abiogenesis (how did it all start). These points are mentioned in the article already...Kenosis 01:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a page on ID, not on flying spaghetti monsters. God has his own page, Raelians have theirs, and the FSM has its own.  No need to clog up the ID page just to promote your own view.  This page is already one-sided enough as it is.  Izuko 02:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Izuko, I was just jesting. I see no need for these viewpoints, though I would probably not object to their very concise inclusion either.  FSM is already mentioned in the article...Kenosis 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The speed of light was once thought to be constant. Now it has been disproven. Let's not make the same mistake with evolution, thinking that because it is written in text books that it is truth. It is called the THEORY of evolution for good reason, so saying it is NOT a POV is just showing one's limited education on the matter. (Left unsigned by MrPeabody 03:38, 11 March 2006)


 * I agree with Peabody it is just a theory, and i don't unserstand what 205.188.116.134 is talking about I don't see any pro-evolution pov, and i believe in ID. I  Love Plankton 03:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Evolution is indeed a theory, a scientific to be precise, and has a lot of facts supporting it. I still have to see any evidence for a hand of the designer in evolution. --KimvdLinde 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's confusion as to what the word "theory" means. Seems many are using it to mean hypothesis. Izuko 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this confusion is fed deliberatly by many anti-evolution people who know darn well that a scientific theory is something different from a popular theory. --KimvdLinde 16:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps our anonymous objecter skipped reading the informative bit at the top of this page: "A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". " KillerChihuahua?!? 05:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KimvdLinde, personally I have yet to see any evidence that supports evolution. But then again i'm what you would probably call an ID extremist, by that I mean I don't believe in evolution one bit i believe God created everything.  I  Love Plankton 07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does that exclude evolution? The theory is viable with either naturalistic causality and deign causality. Izuko 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does that exclude evolution? because i don't think after God created everthing it evolved. which is why i said i am what s/he would call an ID extremist. I  Love Plankton 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know that evolution isn't one of the tools God used? Izuko 15:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly because they have yet to find a fossil that is inbetween man and monkey. and what does it matted why i believe what i believe, aslong as i don't force my point of view into the article i don't see how it matters. I  Love Plankton 15:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. How do you know evolution is the tool God used?


 * This discussion is getting pretty far afield from the article. If parties here want to discuss the relative merits of ID and evolution there are more appropriate online fora for that. Wikipedia article talk pages are strictly for discussing changes to article content. FeloniousMonk 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree I think it is time we got back to the article. Personally I do not see any pro-evolution POV in the artcle. I  Love Plankton 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

modern age reference
i added this caveat to the first paragraph, because the ideas of ID (including the name) of course go way back, and it read strangely to me to lump all of them together under the Discovery Institute, which seems to have successfully appropriated the ID banner nowadays... Petesmiles 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I will support this change on the grounds of its accuracy, even despite that the language is a bit cumbersomeKenosis 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC) I edited it down to a single adjective that makes the same point, rather than a phrase (airtime is very expensive in that paragraph)...Kenosis 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted to the original. We have an entry pointing the user to the dismbig page for other uses/meanings.  No need for further adjectives to describe leading proponents.  Jim62sch 13:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No strong objection to Jim's reversion either. The article does make it plain upon reading it further.  Note, though, that the incentive for this kind of qualification is increased by the inclusion of the 'first modern usage' paragraph in the "Origins of the concept" section...Kenosis 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

..so at the beginning of the article we introduce the concept of ID, then we claim that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. When i read this, it just seems wrong, and kinda undermines the article a little..... ID goes way back, doesn't it? So surely its wrong to say all proponents of a concept are connected to a modern Institute. The article goes on to mention Plato, Aristotle et al - and Paley - who made the most famous argument for the concept - but has nothing to do with the marginal modern institute... i'll gauge reaction here before having another go at less cumbersome wording..... Petesmiles 09:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The blatantly propagandistic tone of this article tends to discredit the whole wikipedia and for proof of this allegation, one need search no further than the entry for design in the wikipedia, itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

I edited the i.d. article to say the phrase intelligent design was, prior to the ascendancy of materialism, considered a tautology. Of course, the edit is gone now, but the truth of it can only be expunged by editing the wiki entry for design and to eradicate consciousness of it, the editors will have to change all the dictionaries, too.

As previously alluded to, the controversy between the materialists and sophists and the Plato's, Paley's, et al., including Newton, has ancient roots in the culture of the west. To give this article depth and prevent it from being a onesided cheapshot, this needs to be respectfully acknowledge in it. 70.156.42.46 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between the Design argument and Intelligent design. I think you confuse the two of them. --ScienceApologist 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe if we elaborate upon that in the introduction this wouldn't happen so often? (FeloniousMonk erased my recent attempt to do that though.) I think Cosmology (metaphysics) or Teleological argument is generally what people who have this criticism are looking for. See if what I put for the disambiguation and on the disambiguation page . Petesmiles or 70.156.42.46 would that have helped any?--Ben 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To respond to ScienceApologist, I would say that the scope of this article is obviously very clear to involved editors - I would question whether the text itself makes it clear though. It seems that the article is really about the modern ID movement in USA - do we agree? Personally, I remain interested in the concepts explored by Plate, Aristotle - but also take natural selection as scientific fact. I think we can do better than the current opening para. - cheers! Petesmiles 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The arguments by Plato, Aristotle, et al, are not ID -- they are the "design agument" and the "cosmological argument" combined. They are covered in the body of the article, and would serve no purpose in the opening.  Intelligent Design as used now has a very specific meaning, the definition of which is given in the first sentences (including references -- n.b. -- it is the responsibility of the reader to use the links).  That some people think it means other things is not our problem as it is merely a case of perception: we simply cannot combat every perception (or misperception as the case may be) in the introduction.  Jim62sch 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

changing all to most
i think it should be most because not every single one of the leading proponents are affilaited with the Discorvery Institute. if there isn't any objection then leave it, otherwise revert it I  Love Plankton 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the previous discussion on this matter. Remember to read the archives before making changes. --ScienceApologist 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Name one. FeloniousMonk 21:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what would be nicer? "I haven't found any who aren't, but if you can find some maybe we can work it in." --Ben 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering your long history of personal attacks disrupting this article, I don't think you're the one to be lecturing on the topic of "nice." FeloniousMonk 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't think it would be nicer? Or maybe you do think it would be nicer, but you're just annoyed that I had to tell you? --Ben 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And as soon as someone finds one, you'll just throw out the "not notable" excuse. Izuko 01:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really an "excuse" since the sentence makes that caveat anyway. --ScienceApologist 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The leading proponents of what the Discovery Institute says are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. It pretty much goes without saying. --Ben 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One productive thing to do would be to write an article on Charles Townes if you wish, including somewhere in it an accurate portrayal of his statements referenced in the RFC, then link to it in the disambiguation. Same with whatever else you can find, such as Robert Larmer (who holds another very obscure minority view ). As of now, the "disambiguation" links are all referenced to more information on the only notable ID position today (the one promulgated by the DI), which is what the ID article discusses...Kenosis 05:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ??? If you want to boss me around, at least do it in context.--Ben 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * BEN: with that reasoning it would be better to say they are all affiliated with eachother. why do you pick the DI you could say they are all affiliated with another one.


 * And with that i think we should change it to "they are all affiliated with each other" instead of picking one over the other (or we could name them all).  I  Lov  E Plankton 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue has been excessively hashed in previous talk threads. The leading proponents' affiliations are already articulated throughout the article-- the DI as a class of individuals, the CSC as a class of individuals, as well as, inter alia, Behe, Dembski, Thaxton.  The Discovery Institute is the nexus, as is stated in the intro.Kenosis 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * where is your proof that it is the nexus? you always through out those excuses(it's non-notable, it's the nexus) where is the proof of this? I  Lov  E Plankton 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the footnote given in the article directly below the comment. JoshuaZ 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ILP, you are correct in a way. Some of what I have put forth above are conclusory statements.  For the proof you must look though all the previous guff in the talk threads and find the relevant content amidst it.  I too find this cumbersome.  As I attempted to convey just above, there are productive things to do here if one wishes.  The proof of "not-notability" as to Townes can rest on the poll and comments in the RFC noted above, and even that might conceivably be overcome by digging in and writing a genuine article about him. Proof of not-notability you request on the Larmer paper might rest on the fact that in the intervening four years none of his peers chose to respond.


 * One more thing: the burden of proof actually rests on the party asserting notability, otherwise the ID article would be megabytes in length and be virtually unreadable. The editors of this article are as a general rule not dense, nor particularly stubborn about these things.  The evidence of this is that they collectively have taken a complex, immensely difficult and controversial topic and collectively written an extremely informative article on the subject...Kenosis 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

we should atleast put there wikipages at the end of the article so people don't have to read through it all to find them I  Lov  E Plankton 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like this, if not revert it. I  Lov  E Plankton 16:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ILP the problem is that this article, even though it does not say so for some strange reason, is about the Discovery Institute's body of work they call "Intelligent Design." Therefore, the leading proponents of the leading proponents' idea are the leading proponents of the idea. It is quite circular.


 * It's like saying the leading proponents of the decriminalization of marijuana are affiliated with the the Marijuana Party&dagger;. Sure there might be other people who want marijuana decriminalized, but they are not the leading proponents.


 * Name one proponent of the decriminalization of marijuana who is not affiliated with the Marijuana Party. And I'll just keep saying they are not notable, because everyone in the Marijuana Party is by definition more of a proponent, and more notable. Until there is an organization on par with the Marijuana party you will not be able to find any. And since those people would simply join the Marijuana party, unless they disagreed and are no longer a proponent of the same position it is not likely to happen.--Ben 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

&dagger;for the purposes of the analogy, assume there is a single leading Marijuana party. If someone acts like an idiot because they can't think abstractly, I can fix it just for them, but it will make the analogy more complicated.


 * Ben, are you going to give any citations or just keep making analogies? The claim has a strong reliable citation. JoshuaZ 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it has a strong and reliable citation. It is true. The reason it is true has a lot more to do with the construction of the claim than any enlightment it sheds on the subject. For all intents and purposes, it is a truism. All leading proponents of Republicanism are members of the Republican Party. All leading proponents of Catholicism are members of the Vatican. etc.--Ben 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case it isn't a truism by itself. Evidence for that: see the earlier archive where I actually tried to argue that the statement was false and Felonious convinced me otherwise. Also, isn't this section about chaning all to most? If you think the statement is trivially true, what exactly are you trying to argue? JoshuaZ 05:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm arguing that the sentence is trivially true. The reason it is included is to keep other "non-notable" POVs out of the article, while concurrently suggesting through its inclusion that the subject is broader than it is, so it doesn't seem strange when the article criticises non-DI, but related, ideas such as fine-tuning. It's to conceal the use of this article as a soapbox. --Ben 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh this. But we we're dealing with that in another section. Please don't turn every section into focusing on your issue. JoshuaZ 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked me "what exactly I was trying to argue." I told you what I was arguing: the sentence is trivially true. I expanded on that since you wanted to know why I would even bother to argue this. If you want to know another reason, it's because usually it's argued through sources and I think that misrepresents the reason that is true. --Ben 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and given that information I am now asking you to move this to an appropriate section. JoshuaZ 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. I was just answering your questions honestly. --Ben 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another version of intelligent design?
FORTUNE magazine reports "It's the evolved Mac, and it's intelligently designed". ..dave souza, talk 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This just seems to be low quality word-play. JoshuaZ 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, it's not just simple word play, it's almost clever... an apple...the Apple..Garden of Eden...Intelligent Design. :) Jim62sch 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be the result of some politically correct editing. The author probably originally just wrote: "It's the evolved Mac." And then the editor came along and said: "You can't do that, what about our creationist readers?" And then they just simply added the "intelligent design" phrase... Fedor 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Apple is affiliated with the DI so now we have to change the wording in the intro from "all" to "most".   &hArr;    | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 08:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PoT?, don't give anyone any ideas. :) Jim62sch 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are the odds of getting a Mac like that less than 10-to-the-minus-150th Power?Kenosis 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since one good bit of sarcastic dissembling intended to insult the intelligence of everyone who does not hold your POV deserves another, it seems the writer also doesn't think intelligent design is contrary to evolution. --Ben 00:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ID 101
Came across this, hope it is not a repost. Nomen Nescio 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind, The Next Generation
Dover trial to be a movie FeloniousMonk 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's hope that it proves to be a lot more historically accurate than the original Inherit the Wind. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the final court scene is very close to the actual trial transcript.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pope again
"Pope sides with 'intelligent design' advocates"

-- JosephCCampana 18:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These guys will latch onto anything. Next week – "theistic evolution and ID are the same" says DI" .. ..dave souza, talk 20:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter as much that anyone latches onto anything, it matters more whether what is latched onto is true. The above article is factually true. -- Joseph C. Campana 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that Dave's point is that the Pope's comments are nowhere near an endorsement of "intelligent design" - if the article is accurate, he made a statement about divine guidance in the universe, not about "intelligent design". But, because of the choice of words (whether intentional or not) ID-supporters appear to latch on to the idea and cast it as papal "support" for ID.  For the pope to take the opposite position - that there is no guiding force behind the universe - would be news.  This is no more than a statement that the pope is neither an atheist nor is he a deist.  Hmm..."Pope sides with Christians".  News story of the year.  Guettarda 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like people working on this article are antagonistic, not only towards ID, but also towards others trying to do research with this article. Dave's point is well-taken and I acknowledge it as true only in the context of that article. But in the context of history, I'm not sure it holds much water. Does the Pope approve of scientific research of evolution, including common descent? Yes. Does the Pope approve of scientific research of Intelligent Design? Yes. Would an official Catholic Church document signed off on by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who is now Pope Benedict XVI) mentioning specified complexity in a positive light be close to an "endorsement." Probably not, but here's the citation and quote, for our edification:


 * COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, article 69: "A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted."


 * -- Joseph C. Campana 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See [Theistic evolution]. Jim62sch 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, Joseph. That's one heavy theological dissertation from 2002, with a small section touching on the controversy. As I read it, the crux of the section is in the next sentence or four:
 * "The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation."
 * Which in my humble estimation translates as "whether scientific evidence supports ID's design inference, or evolution by chance developments [as guided by natural selection], is outwith theology. Either way it is still compatible with Catholic faith in creation". Or more simply, "God can create through Darwinian evolution, as far as we're concerned". A classic restatement of theistic evolution. Oh, and the church, astonishingly, is against interpretations of the evidence as support for atheism. Could be worth linking to in the TE article, but there's rather too much irrelevant stuff about what the image of God means. ..dave souza, talk 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ta, ane cannae put up the fecht anent that point the nou. Jim62sch 14:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Haud yer wheesht, mon. ..dave souza, talk 15:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Jim62sch 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review: Reviewed
From looking at the archives, it seems like peer review is quite a hot topic around here, so I hope to make this as painless as possible. It also seems like there are some standards for claiming that an article qualifies as supporting ID. So, I will simply submit these articles to everyone here and to the standards. I didn't see any discussion of these particular articles in the archives, but if I missed it, please disregard.


 * Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. [Link]
 * From the abstract: "Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines." The remaining of the article is going from this point. Except for the motivation of the assumption, investigating objects as a whole (holistic) is common sense in biology. I do not see any proof for ID in the article. KimvdLinde 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2006, Vol 28(4), 1000-1004. [Link]

-- JosephCCampana 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Wells' paper - please explain how this is research into intelligent design. It's a theoretical paper which looks at "what if" spindles functions differently to how they are generally thought to function. He appends the phrase "holistically designed" and references himself on ID, but quite frankly he doesn't appear to address the "design" of the spindles or why it would be more parsimonious to assume that spindles of this sort were "designed". It's a paper. It isn't a research paper about ID.

2. Voie paper - as hard-pressed as I am to take seriously an academic paper which gets definitions from Wikipedia... it appears to be a real journal. But it isn't science - it's mathematical philosophy. He appears to assume that life is irreducible ( top down causation constitutes an irreducible structure), and then says "Since biological function or “boundary conditions” are crucial also in replication, life seems not to have evolved from inanimate matter". It's an interesting philosophical ramble (albeit an almost unreadably badly written one), but I don't see how it can possibly be considered peer-reviewed research into ID. Guettarda 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Voie's section heading Gödel formulas are subsystems of the mind giant Red Flag. Amply justified by the stuff that follows.. For example
 * Another interesting example of “stand-alone formulas” is something called “fixed point” (a function that yields itself). .


 * I don't know what this article is, but it certainly isn't mathematics. And as far as I can tell, it isn't philosophy. --CSTAR 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And it definitely is not science, because it does not give rise to a variable that can be observed and tested in comparison to other known phenomena. Kenosis 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)...As to the Voie paper, only the Intelligent Designer can know for sure. But it appears to me to be unmitigated para-scientific speculation in my quick scan of it, with no hint of a testable independent variable here either.Kenosis 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cut-n-paste from the CSC dept of propaganda: Saved me a trip to discovery.org to check up the state of the misinformation campaign. FeloniousMonk 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it were printed it could be put to excellent use in the house-training of a dog. Jim62sch 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: I thought FM's comment was meant as a joke, but actually Voie's paper is listed at that URL as a peer-reviewed publication. Please, out of charity someone urge them to delist it. It is really an embarrassment.--CSTAR 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Both are listed there. And it's not that they just appear in the list, but that they are presented verbatim as they are here, hence, they were cut-n-pasted here. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish to offer a qualification. Voie may well be correct, although he does not demonstrate anything near the depth of Polanyi, and argues about science's boundaries with far less respect for the scientific community than Polanyi.  However, it is no more science than, say, Jean-Paul Sartre's "barbershop mirrors" observation about the interaction of human consciousness, for the same reasons I gave above...Kenosis 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you all for your comments on the articles, I seem to have a better understanding now of what is meant at this Wikipedia article by the words "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." (Copied and pasted from the "Peer review" section, )

Here at this article, we do not mean that an ID advocate writes a peer-reviewed article that mentions ID. Obviously these exist. It seems that members of the ID movement have, in fact, published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Other critics of Intelligent Design now admit that there are three peer-reviewed journals by ID advocates, as reported in this news story.

Nor is it meant here that logical bases are drawn from the author's use of ID as a scientific heuristic, explicitly includes the word ID, proceeds with research on ID premises, and the article is subsequently printed. Given the history of centriole research, and his understanding of ID, it is abundantly clear that Wells' work does exactly this.

What has not been printed is a detailed account of ID definitions, methods and techniques, or what might qualify as "scientifically substantial evidence." It seems that a "true" peer reviewed journal article at this Wikipedia entry is one where the methodology of ID are elucidated in detail, while simultaneously providing evidence for ID. Is this correct?

While the requirement for disclosure of methodology and evidence is agreeable to me (I am looking forward to the day more methods and data are outlined), it seems the wording of the above referenced phrase is not accurate. Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to reflect an accurate report of what is intended with this sentence. Maybe something like:

To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that describes the scientific basis of Intelligent Design, nor any properly reviewed article that provides evidence using this basis.

Please do not construe anything I have said here as a reason to think I am antagonistic towards this Wikipedia article. I have great respect for Wikipedia and what the authors of this article are doing. I would like to see it clearly say what it means to say. Again, thank you for your consideration of this matter.

-- Joseph C. Campana 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While the phrase "intelligent design movement" might not be the best choice of words, the simple fact is that none of the proponents of intelligent design have published any scientific papers dealing with intelligent design. It isn't a paper dealing with intelligent design if you merely stick a few words the that effect in, like Wells, or if you start from the assumption that life could not originate by chance and use that to conclude that life could not originate by chance, like Voie did.  Which is not to say that Wells' paper isn't peer-reviewed science, but it isn't science that deals with, addresses or even works under the assumption of intelligent design (I don't know what to call Voie's, but that's another matter).   Guettarda 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it sounds like my proposed criteria are the ones employed here? Yes? -- Joseph C. Campana 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Side-notes:
 * KimvdLinde, I'm not sure that anyone can ever find "proof" for a scientific idea, my understanding is that only (what is known as) "evidence" can be applied to science. -- Joseph C. Campana 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, you are correct, the Wells article is not an article about intelligent design, per se. Wells has employed ID as a heuristic in his understanding, arrived at possible research matter different than that of past uses employing neo-Darwinism, and is pushing on into research of the hypothesis. -- Joseph C. Campana 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no, he didn't. He stuck in an ad for his pet interest in the paper, yes, and threw in some snippy complaints about "neo-darwinists", but there is nothing in the article that actually employs or requires ID - his hypothesis is more parsimonious if you assume evolutionary origins than if you assume intelligent design.  Adding spurious assumptions does not make them useful or relevant to research.  It's like adding a term with zero explanatory power to your model - it may not take anything away from your model, but neither does it add anything, and thus, it really isn't part of your model.  The assumption of ID is irrelevant in that paper, and is, in effect, the paper equivalent of "linkspam".  Guettarda 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, your parsimony and explanatory analysis could be correct, but I'm not sure it is humanly possible for you to trace the root of his pre-model 'inspiration' to pursue this research matter the way he has approached it. This is a novel approach, and unless you developed this research with him from the ground up, you have to take him on good faith that he, as a researcher, is reporting what his inner thoughts and planning guides were. Whether it adds explanatory power is a secondary issue for a very young hypothesis like this one of his; he may develop his explanations later. Regarding his premises, again you may be correct, but again, it seems we must take his word for how he derived this approach, otherwise we are simply putting words into peoples mouths and even thoughts into their heads. His thoughts many not be parsimonious or explanatory as related to ID in the way we understand it, but could be in his view that may be described at a later time. -- Joseph C. Campana 15:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - you seem to be missing my point. It doesn't matter where you get your idea - if it came to you in a dream, and you cited the dream as your inspiration, that does not entitle you to call the paper "research into dreaming".  There is an difference between inspiration and the subject of your research.  Intelligent design is not a "young hypothesis" - the modern idea is over 20 years old, and Wells himself has been publishing on it since 1991 .  Given the number of fellows that the DI pays to work on ID, I can't see how anyone can call this field "young".  Guettarda 15:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it seems we're both confused, and that you don't know the history of Wells' TOPS hypothesis. I see your point with the dreaming example. But what if, and this is obviously a big what if, many people end up making scientific discoveries over and over again based on dreaming. What would be the implications for the research based on 'dreaming'? Just a thought, you don't have to respond to that. Next point: I'm not speaking of general ID formulations in the context of this Wells sub-thread, I'm speaking of Wells' variant of ID, which he identifies as TOPS in this paper, which came about in late 2004, I think. See my point with using 'young'? -- Joseph C. Campana 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is it that I am supposed to be confused about (I am now confused, by your assertion that I am confused, but I don't think that's what you were talking about). With regards to the dreaming idea - it's to be expected that people will dream about the things that are foremost in their minds (I'd be more surprised by a scientist who never dreamt about their science) - so no, it's entirely expected that people would get ideas from dreams, just like people get ideas while sitting on the toilet.  As for the TOPS idea -
 * "TOPS begins with the observation that the evidence is sufficient to warrant at least provisional acceptance of two propositions: (1) Darwinian evolution (the theory that new features of living things originate through natural selection acting on random variations) is false, and (2) ID (the theory that many features of living things could only have originated through intelligent agency) is true."
 * Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  Can we get a better definition of pseudoscientific circularity?  If TOPS is your paradigm (basically: assume that that best supported paradigm is wrong, and that the idea with no support is right) then you don't even need to bother with the part about doing science.  Based on the arguments he presented in Icons of Evolution I was aware of how Wells operates - but this really takes the cake.  I suppose we need only cite TOPS the next time someone questions whether Category:Pseudoscience belongs on this article.  What a joker.  Guettarda 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for your confusion, you were confusing ID in general with Wells' proposed variant in his article on centrioles, which he used in the development of his ideas, spefically TOPS. In other words, ID does not equal TOPS. Whereas you stated: "Given the number of fellows that the DI pays to work on ID, I can't see how anyone can call this field "young"." The only fellow working on TOPS is Wells, and he only for about a year. I think we're clear on your confusion now? As for the circularity, please take that up with Mr. Wells. -- Joseph C. Campana 16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * TOPS is polemics, not science. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) It's not a variant as much as an apology for ID, written by a Senior Fellow at DI. Here's an idea, I always though Ptolemy was right, so I'll use my own theory, TERRA(b) (The Earth is Revolved 'Round by Astronomic bodies), to declare, (1) Galilean heliocentrism (the theory the aerth and planets revolve around the sun) is false, and (2) Neo-geocentrism (the theory that mere appearance related to astronomy is reality) is true."  Jim62sch 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it sounds like my proposed criteria (Joseph C. Campana from above: "It seems that a "true" peer reviewed journal article at this Wikipedia entry is one where the methodology of ID are elucidated in detail, while simultaneously providing evidence for ID.) are the ones employed here? Yes?


 * And if that is the case, should the following quoted sentence be modified to reflect these criteria?


 * "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." (Copied and pasted from the "Peer review" section, )


 * Possible change: To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that describes the scientific basis of Intelligent Design, nor any properly reviewed article that provides evidence using this basis.


 * -- Joseph C. Campana 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. Describes more acurate where we are with those guys. KimvdLinde 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The current wording "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." is accurate and concise. The proposed wording "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that describes the scientific basis of Intelligent Design, nor any properly reviewed article that provides evidence using this basis." equivocates and is unnecessarily wordy. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So the fact that the ID movement has published articles has no bearing on this statement? -- Joseph C. Campana 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in journals considered legitimate by mainstream scientific commuity they haven't. There have been no pro-ID articles or letters in Nature, Science, PNAS and Physical Review Letters. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as the first article mentioned in this section is a peer-reviewed article by a member of the ID movement, and going from the startuing point that it is designed. But it does not provide proof for their point of view. As such, the current sentence is incorrect. KimvdLinde 19:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum is not a mainstream scientific journal. In fact, it's a pro-ID publication. Like the article says, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" that consists entirely of intelligent design supporters which lack rigor. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked a few things, and found out that I mixed another journal that is peer-reviewed. I retract my suggestion for changing the sentence. KimvdLinde 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I do not agree, I think I understand what is intended with the peer review section at this article. 'No published peer-reviewed articles' means 'not the type of peer-review articles I would expect'. A friend once remarked to me that the debate surrounding intelligent design is so conflated that any honest online discourse on the subject is futile. He said that everyone is talking past each other, sometimes using different words to mean different things, and at other times using the same words to mean different things. I was optimistic that he was mistaken. I think he might be onto something. -- Joseph C. Campana 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Expecting purportedly scientific research to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals considered legitimate by scientific commuity, such as Nature, Science, PNAS and Physical Review Letters is not a controversial or unreasonable position. Failure to be published in mainstream scientific journals is the basis of the criticism found in the peer review section. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Within the scientific community, peer review does not mean publishing another article arguing why you agree or disagree. What peer review is is a method of discussing the choices of variables, analysis of statistics, methods of measurement, and related conclusions drawn from experiments, and the degree of usefulness in other experiments by other scientists, as well as the usefulness of these results for applied sciences or in giving rise to more useful investigation.  For a biologist, an experiment might even be, say, "If you look for X in species Y at a given stage of its documented evolutionary development, you will find that the probability of Z is increased," to give just one of many, many possible forms such an experiment might take.
 * The problem with the concepts utilized by intelligent design proponents is that they cannot be used in any of these ways. They are conclusory, and their intended inference is in the range between slightly etherial and completely spiritual.  And, they do not give rise to any variable that can be tested.  Thus they are a poster child for the proberbial strawman.  There is nothing to peer review in the scientific sense, and nothing to argue against.  And that is the underlying problem.
 * The peer review section of the Wikipedia article on intelligent design has in fact been quite restrained and most generous in light of this. To me, the real question is not whether it is scientific in the sense of being devoted to investigation and further clarification of the operation of the natural world, but whether all the hubbub about this is due to a more forgivable ignorance of science, or due to a more conscious and somewhat less forgivable attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the public (for the sake of the children, of course).  In the Kitzmiller trial there is plenty of evidence to convincingly allow an inference of either, or both...Kenosis 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wedge strategy & Teaching the controversy
This conversation has been moved to the Townes subpage. This is due to the continuing disruptive nature of Benapgar's choice of method here, violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT while trying to force an issue: Additionally, these recent personal attacks have been listed at his ongoing user conduct RFC, and I suggest that our responses to further WP:NPA incidents, disruption and trolling be limited to reporting them at at the RFC. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In moving it, however, you also moved debate relevent to the topic at hand. I won't revert, but I don't think that's appropriate.  Izuko 16:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Any discussion can continue on the subpage. The history here shows that there's very little interest in what Benapgar proposes, considering he's been campaigning the same sort of changes since last fall, and even less serious debate on his proposed changes. What there's no shortage of though is disruption, and that justifies the move to a subpage. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 years of history showing "little interest", Felonious. Or perhaps you mean little interest from yourself and your Usenet buddy flamewarriors who've hijacked this article. --Ben 21:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben, again, No personal attacks please. Thank you. JoshuaZ 23:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Usenet. --Ben 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben, again, no personal attacks. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder
Don't feed the troll. FeloniousMonk 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be more specific? Izuko 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Talking With Trolls? ..dave souza, talk 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Creationism?
According to this articles own text, ID describes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

But I notice that on the right hand side of the article, at the top, the is an infobox thats declares "Part of the series on Creationism".

May this not give some readers the impression that "certain features of the universe" must then include the "feature" of "creation"? It is my understanding that ID does *not* explicitly require a creator, only a "designer" of "certain features".

My two bobs worth :-) Mehargp 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether it identifies the creator or not is beside the point. By invoking any cause other than a natural one means that ID is by definition a form of creationism. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Capital 'C' Abrahamic Creationism, which is what the sidebar is about, is not the same as the way you're using the word "creationism" here. That's quite a large error in context you've made there FeloniousMonk, one that happens to support your argument of course.--Ben 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not an error in context. All the time you've spent wreaking havoc on this page one would think you'd've actually read up on the subject.  Jim62sch 01:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is most certainly an error in context. Furthermore, your suggestion that I am ignorant is a personal attack. Please do not make personal attacks. Quite frankly, I could have suggested that it shows FeloniousMonk is either disingenuous or incompetent, which it clearly demonstrates, but I didn't until now, seeing as I highly doubt you'll be censured for your attack and I can simply claim anyone censuring me and not you is applying a double-standard. Note that it also reveals the same thing about you: you're either disingenuous or incompetent. Thanks for your reply, Jim.--Ben 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, Ben, but no go. Yet, if it were true that what I said were a personal attack (which it was not), your tu quoque response lends nothing to your case.  BTW, wasn't your one-month ban partially regarding your calling someone a liar?  And now you do it again, refering to two editors as "disingenuos"?  Please keep providing the evidence, Ben, it will come in handy shortly. Thank you for your persistance.  Jim62sch 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sort of my point... Does the definition of ID *explicitly* dictate that the universe was created by an intelligent cause?  The definition in the article itself only goes as far as saying "certain features".  If creation is *not* one of these features, then ID is not a form a Creationism:


 * "In Abrahamic religions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention."


 * Either the definition of "Creationism" needs to be redefined not to explicity list the creation of the Universe, or ID's definition changed to *include* the creation of the universe.


 * Put it another way, is a naturally formed universe totally at odds with the definition of ID? Or can a naturally forming universe be part of (or is part of) the concept of ID?


 * Maybe I'm questioning something now worth discussing - but my understanding of ID is that some "supernatural being" has "intervened" in the workings of the universe. I don't think that the automatic assumption should be made that this implies that this being was also responsible for the creation of said universe.  (I guess I am arguing that ID is not itself a form of Creationism, even though its main proponents may be Creationists) Mehargp 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "creationism" spectrum of beliefs includes theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creationism), then merges with non-creation deism and atheism: it's not just one belief. Two bob? That's inflationary: it was tuppenceworth before...dave souza, talk 17:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Puting my arguement another way, after a bit of thought... If the current defintion of ID is sufficent:


 * "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"


 * then (for example) an alien race modifying our genetic code a few million years ago (and we can't account for it via evolution, or any other concept) would qualify as Intelligent Design. But I dont feel this would be classified as a form of "creationism".


 * To sum up - I'm am just a little suprised that the ID proponents are not jumping up and down shouting "ITS NOT CREATIONISM!"... Mehargp 18:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, whence the aliens?
 * They tried initially, but the preponderance of the evidence proved otherwise. Jim62sch 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just ID proponents. I'm agnostic (or according to militant Atheists on Wikiepdia trying to redefine Atheism, a "weak atheist"), and I think DI's ID is ridiculous and pseudoscientific, and I personally hate this article.--Ben 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They are. Or should I say they were. Now that it's clear no one bought the charade there's little point in claiming it's not. BTW, if you read the article, you'll see why the idea of aliens as the designer never caught on. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict]Yes, Behe has suggested that the designer could be an alien. Of course, that creates a "who designed the designer" issue - not necessarily with Behe's more narrow IC, but with the broader presentation of ID.  In addition, statements made by the proponents of ID in the past have left little doubt who they see the designer to be.  In addition, the Kitzmiller case showed that, in the case of Pandas and People, the word "creation" was simply replaced by "intelligent design".  There is no body of research into ID - ID is just a set of arguments and analogies.  This is not to say that there aren't ideas of design which are based on aliens - Raelian ID is an example, as was von Däneken's Chariots of the Gods.  But DI-ID, which is the subject of this article, is creationist.  (In addition, I am not sure if creation by an alien isn't creationism).  Guettarda 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't create a "who designed the designer" issue. Aliens could have evolved and designed humans. --Ben 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So aliens, who by definition would be far more complex than us if they are assumed to be the designer, could evolve, but humans couldn't? Jim62sch 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you beg the question like that, you can pretty much say anything you want. --Ben 03:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the point where I ask you guys to take it to talk.origins. It is very rarely productive to argue over issues on the talk pages here. JoshuaZ 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Jim's example didn't have a proposition proved or assumed by one of its premises and therefore wasn't an example of begging the question. FeloniousMonk 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To cite the good judge, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". ..dave souza, talk 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ID as in "what the Discovery Institute wants to teach in schools." --Ben 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why the ID article should not be focused on DI. There's a page for them.  Let DIID go there.  Izuko 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try. It's the only ID in town at the moment.  Jim62sch 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And a big enough EGO ...dave souza, talk 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If, by "only ID in town at the moment," you mean "only ID we accept, for whatever reason," then you're right. But there's been more than enough here to suggest otherwise.  Oops, sorry, forgot I was supposed to close my eyes and pretend that everything you try to cram into "not notable" doesn't exist. Izuko 03:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's the only ID in town. When a sufficiently notable other form of ID makes itself known, then the article will cover it. Until then, this is the only notable form of ID, the only one in the news daily, the only one with a movement, the only one constantly in the court system and before school boards is the ID associated with the DI; the personal opinions of individuals, cardinals, Nobel laureates and other outsiders, not withstanding. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently notable, sufficiently notable, sufficiently notable. You really do like using that, don't you?  Define "sufficiently notable" in a testablem manner.  What criteria are you using.  Be specific.  Show me that you're not just engaging in information suppression.  Or shall we go back to the whole issue about word ownership?  Oh, and by the way, courts do not define what ID is.  That's not in their job description.  Nor do the news papers or school boards.  Izuko 13:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd already noted criteria above, and many other times here as well: The number of books published for any alternate form of ID vs the current version, the number of newspaper articles published of any alternate form of ID vs the current version, the size and scope of the movement for an alternate form of ID vs the current version, the number and size of court cases for an alternate form of ID vs the current version, and the frequency of any alternate form of ID vs the current version is raised in public fora, such as school boards, are all testable and determine the notability of any alternate form of intelligent design. So far, by these criteria, there's no there, there. FeloniousMonk 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where, and what criteria? Not just "signficant," but what are the criteria for signficance?  Izuko 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to come up with testable criteria. We aren't into doing original research or analysing primary sources.  Find a reputable source (which is connected to the issue) which considers something else to be significant, and we can discuss whether the source is appropriately authoritative.  Guettarda 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Poor cop-out. If you're going to start rejecting sources because they're "not notable," then you need to have a criteria by which it's judged.  Other than that, all you're doing is moving the bar.  And we get back to information suppression.  Izuko 00:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusation of a cop-out is retracted. Probably not in good faith on my part.  None the less, I put it there, so I won't hide it.  The reminder of my point still stands, though. Izuko 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a cop out. It's Wikipedia policy.  Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the goals of the project.  We aren't here to build a global democracy, we are here to build a credible, referenced encyclopaedia.  If you find Wikipedia policies to be tantamount to "information suppression" then I really think that this is the wrong place for you.  Guettarda 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you remove citations because they're "not notable," regardless of whether or not they actually have bearing on the topic, then you have utterly failed to build a credible, referenced encyclopaedia. It's not wekipedia's policys that I find tantamount to information suppression (and I like how you ignore that no information suppression is one of wikipedia's policies - I guess only the policies you deem notable count?), but rather the conduct with regards to this topic, which I see as violating wikipedia's policies.  If you find that wikipedia's NPOV, Information Suppression, and Word Ownership policies are tantamount to violations of wikipedia's polices, then I really think that this is the wrong place for you.  Izuko 13:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (ri)Izuko, FM just explained them to you, why are you re-asking the question? If you can find some other authoritative source (i.e., not from a blog, internet talk-page, or other similar source) that is directly related to ID as a concept dealing with life-origins, present it.  If not, there's really nothing else to discuss on this issue, is there?
 * It might do you some good to hit the Wiki help page and read up on what is acceptable and what isn't. You are presenting an argument, sans proof, thus ignoring the old debating axiom, "he who asserts must prove".  The burden of this proof is on your shoulders. Jim62sch 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Present it, and then have it shot down as "not notable." You're talking about credibility, I'm talking about notability.  I can present credible accounts until the cows come home, but they'll still be pulled out due to not being signficant.  What I'm insisting on is the criteria for signficance, which Monk most definately did -not- explain to me.  Izuko 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem sure that your sources are not up to par. If they are not, then obviously don't waste out time with them, but don't hide behind the excuse that they won't be permitted.  That's highly insulting to all of us, and quite frankly, simply false.  If you have sources, we would be glad to see them.  If you have nothing but are looking for an excuse to engage in attacks on your fellow editors, please desist, as such actions violate policy.  Guettarda 05:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find it insulting, then don't engage in it. Pesonally, I can't be held accountable for what you choose to take offense to.  However, I can address an issue as I see it.  And the way I see it, evidenced by many of the actions here, and with the Townes RFC is that there's a nice Catch22 here.  Any idea that opposes the DI is not notable.  Thus it can never be proven that there are definitions other than the DI's.  If that's not the case, then why is there such resistance to actually stating a criteria?  Surely there's no harm in that.  If you want to talk about insulting, personally, I'm insulted that I keep getting the run-around and people expect me to buy it.  Izuko 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * RTFA ;-) ...dave souza, talk 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so no answer. I guess that means I should feel free to make the edits that I think are needed, since nobody can seem to tell me what standards are being used for notability. Izuko 13:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this motion. I would like to see nothing more than the term "Intelligent Design" co-opted (or used otherwise) to refer to something other than the Discovery Institute's agenda. So far, I'm aware only of the architectural movement and unfortunately that's a whole lot more obscure than what DI does. Then there was that weird off-Broadway play "The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow", but I don't think that you are referring to that. Maybe you're referring to the "Intelligent Design" of Honda automobiles ? Let us know, because I've been researching this topic for years now and I have yet to see evidence of your position, Izuko. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know what counts as "notable." Why is that so difficult? Izuko 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Try WP:V on for starters. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, for starters, next time try a citation that actually has relevence to the question asked. It's clear, by now, that I'm not asking what criteria are used to determine if an author is credible, but whether or not he is notable.  Look.  It's pretty obvious that I'm not falling for the run-around.  So why don't we stop playing the game?  I'm not going to buy anything but real answers, no matter how much BS people try to feed me.  Izuko 13:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear to me that you didn't read WP:V very carefully at all. I won't quote chapter-and-verse. If you have a problem with "people" and their "BS", try dispute resolution. --ScienceApologist 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's pretty clear to me that you didn't post something relevent to the topic. Why not quote chapter and verse?  You could shut me up, right here, right now, and finally give a straight answer.  The reason, of course, is that no "chapter and verse" on that page actually makes the point you were trying to make.  As far as you referring me to dispute resolution, I've always believed that you should try to work out the problems with the person involved, instead of jumping the chain of command.  Maybe you were raised differently. Izuko 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The two most relevant pages are WP:V(already mentioned) and WP:N which deals with most of the notability issues. I hope that helps. JoshuaZ 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything in WP:V that covers it, but WP:N very much does, thank you. So, it seems that the criteria for rejecting a view as "not notable" are "original research, unverifiable, or a vanity page."  Everything else on the page was discussion of the debate, but not policy.  And, with this, my question is put to rest. Izuko 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not Usenet. --Ben 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this in reference to something particular? I also notice that WP:NOT doesn't actually state that Wikipedia is not Usenet, but what it does is:


 * "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views"


 * And it says this with reference to Wikipedia *aticles*. Or is "Talk" regarded as an article?  If not I think it should be added to WP:NOT.  Mehargp 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. Dave souza's comment about "big egos" is totally unnecessary (if I understand it right, since it barely makes sense). He is treating the talk pages like they were Usenet. I think this reminder is necessary for certain people. Actually, there kind of is a policy like this on WP:TPG, it just doesn't reference Usenet. --Ben 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a JOKE. See Freud.  Id, Ego, Superego.  Get it?  It's punny.  Jim62sch 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your history here, you're in no position to be lecturing others on talk page guidelines. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ben, please note that the top element there is no personal attacks and the first part of the in general is to assume good faith. JoshuaZ 03:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon reflection, I don't think "Talk" should be regarded as an article. Wikipedia should and does encourage discussion and debate about material to be included in an arcticle, but not in the article itself.  What should be discouraged is Talk about a particular viewpoint or material that is not backed up by references or by consensus.  That said, I can't actually find a reference to making any kind of "extraneous" comments in the guidelines (and I agree Dave souza's comment regarding "big egos" is extraneous).


 * But this thread is really extraneous as well!! Nothing really to do with the article in question.  So at this point I am going to shut up.  Mehargp 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mehargp, to repeat: It was a JOKE. See Freud.  Id, Ego, Superego.  Get it?  It's punny.  As far as I know, humour has not been banned from Wikipedia. Jim62sch 10:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh ok I get it. Usually I expect editors here to say at least something derogatory about Creationists/Christians/etc. I guess sometimes I take that for granted.--Ben 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch: Jokes can be extraneous.  Comments can be extraneous.  The point I was trying to make is that extraneous comments (or jokes) should be kept to a minimum in Talk, because the more you have, the more content in the Talk is off-topic (ie. not directly related to the content of the article).  And I'm just "fueling the fire" by adding this comment :-| Mehargp 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, "fueling the fire" is the wrong thing to say, as it implies I am shifting some blame away from me. I should have said "compounding the problem". Mehargp 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And actually on this topic(slightly) do we want to add to this page the sort of message over at Talk:Evolution about how theory debates should be taken elsewhere such as talk.origins? JoshuaZ 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid policy creep. Sometimes people get all riled up and want to express their indignation. Better to let them do this on the talkpages rather than the article itself. We run the risk of running new contributors off if they find their contributions reverted. It's better to have an inclusive atmosphere and let a little off-topic chatter occur. A kind editor can direct the frustrated editor to more healthy outlets (such as a newsgroup, for example) but making it an annonymous message at the top will just encourage more biting of the newcomers. --ScienceApologist 06:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No policy creep, up to a point. Gratuitous, wide-ranging attacks shouldn't be tolerated.--CSTAR 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Ben hates this article
Let me make a bold stab at why I think that Ben hates this article. I think he believes that "Intelligent Design" as a concept free from the constraints of Neo-Creationism should, in principle, exist. However, we have run into the problem of verifiability and original research. In particular, intelligent design has become a "hot button" issue and has been adopted as a cause-celebre for the Religious Right in their inexorable push towards revival in the United States/world as they know it. To that end, the Discovery Institue and their Center for Science and Culture have been the major banner carriers for this. They have managed to consolidate diverse researchers, academics, anti-Darwinists, and naysayers into a group that works in lock-step to try to Wedge a controversy into the academic and cultural imaginations. What has ended up happening is that they have defined a movement that is exclusive and elitist as a counter to the exclusivity and elitism they decry in mainstream science.

Enter Ben who likes the idea of evidence in the universe for "design" but cannot stand the apparent religious overtones of Johnson/Dembski etc. He wants to see his view validated. Unfortunately, here is not the place because "intelligent design" is not up for grabs as a concept anymore. It is effectively codified in the media, in the literature, and by the Discovery Institute as a particular perspective and a particular agenda. By the standards of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CITE, this article lays out these facts and arguments -- ignoring the perspective of Ben. However, it is required by WP:OR and to some extent WP:VAIN that we do this.

Ben, to quote those crazy revivalists, "let your light so shine before men", but don't do it here at Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not changing the world. If you want to see the Discovery Institute's nonsense trashed, do it by publishing, getting famous in your critiques, and co-opting the term. Starting at Wikipedia as seen in the undue weight section of WP:NPOV is not the place to do it. I look forward to you blasting DI's work in a forum other than this one.

--ScienceApologist 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems pretty accurate to me, SA. And I agree that trashing DI's work would be splendud, but it really does need to be done elsewhere.  I'm sure all of us have one scientific theory or other with which we do not fully agree, but arguing its validity on Wikipedia is not going to change anything.  Jim62sch 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it to my talk page ScienceApologist. If you want to talk about what you think I believe, that's the place to do it. Making comments about editors here on the talk page is inappropriate. --Ben 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Irony. Jim62sch 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is quite ironic that SA would chew me out for discussing what I think are the motivations and beliefs of editors here, and then go do exactly the same thing in reference to me.--Ben 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also wonder whether Ben realizes that ScienceApologist's above comment seems to be based on a large amount (possibly too much) of WP:AGF. JoshuaZ 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? I don't care. Why is SA discussing my beliefs? He should discuss them with me if he really wants to. Especially seeing as how he got some of them wrong, and he could easily have cleared that up beforehand. Beforehand, as in "before he stepped up onto a soapbox to declare his thoughts about my beliefs to everyone except me."--Ben 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazingly enough Ben is vaguely correct. Comments about other editors beliefs are not really germane to the talk page (even if those comments are some of the most good-faith assuming comments Ben will get). By all means, take it to his talk page. JoshuaZ 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent coding
Hey, nobody talks about the intelligent coding that has been decoded by the "Da Vinci code".--tequendamia 19:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor are we likely to on this page. Jim62sch 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) That isn't relevant to this article or its talk page 2) In any event, that book had only slightly more to do with reality than star wars, so I don't know why you think anything was actually "decoded" in it. JoshuaZ 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One good fiction deserves another. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL @ ID. --Ben 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA as information and information with intelligence
According to what a group of scienists said in the documentary television program, "Unlocking The Mystery of Life", Intelligent design only says that the information that DNA(if information) must have came from an intelligent source. The main thing is that they said that Darwinism only works after something can reproduce and proteins can not do anything if they are not instructed. That's where DNA comes in. There is a mathematical book called the "Design Inference". It says that a intelligent data is an "improbable object and recognizable pattern".

The website has a script avaible to the public at http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm I really do not know if this helps at all. Please let me know. Timothy Clemans 07:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and the link. As it happens, I've just been using my PVR to re-watch the BBC Horizon programme A War On Science which gives a less one-sided view of the subject, and opens with David Attenborough saying "It is so fundamentally against every scientific principle you can think of, that to put it in the same bracket is to seriously confuse thinking.", and Johnson saying "there is in fact a legitimate scientific controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution".
 * The second paragraph on the linked page says "Time, chance, and natural selection. Since Darwin, biologists have relied on such processes to account for the origin of living things." Eh, no they haven't. It's the origin of Species. The pro-ID program is right to say that Darwinism only works after something can reproduce, and that proteins need/use information/instructions to do what they do. What Darwin then says, is that the information/instructions (in DNA) can evolve from simple beginnings.
 * Dembski's "recognisable pattern" proves that we've evolved to be very good at perceiving pattern, and if you have faith in a supernatural creator you interpret that pattern as proof of your faith which makes you look for purpose, unlike science which looks for what is. Later on the page the website is still using Behe's flagella which has been pretty well explained.
 * Near the start of the Horizon programme Johnson says "The Darwinian theory of evolution is the grand creation story of our culture. .... The experts who tell the creation story to the public have great power, and they always have, or want, a monopoly of that power. They don't want to share it with anybody." The purpose of ID is to get a share of that power. ...dave souza, talk 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: "Design Inference" is not a mathematical book, it is a book by a mathematician whose goal is to prove that evolution did not occur. Countless mathmeticians have noted that his equation and the logic behind it are highly flawed.  There's a good quote in "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos (Mathematics professor, Temple University) who states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." Jim62sch 10:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether you agree with it or not, it is a mathematical book, by a man with a PhD in mathematics. His theory may be contraversial, but they are still the statements of a mathematician regarding his field, and should be treated as such.  If we discarded ideas because they are contraversial, there would be no ID, because we would have tossed out evolution as soon as it appeared.  As far as Paulos goes, his statements seem to completely miss the idea of specified complexity.  What Dembski discusses is not a random selection with a 1:6x10^11, he's discussing a meaningful event with a chance less than 1:10^150 those odds are on obscenely different scales.  We're not talking about something as small as a few orders of magnitude of difference.Izuko 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Izuko, you need to read WP:V and WP:NPOVUW. The standards for inclusion in articles are whether the arguments are relevant and represent a significant viewpoint, not whether the credentials of the author are known or how valid (or invalid) an argument is. --ScienceApologist 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would appriciate if you would stop misrepresenting my statements, or taking them completely out of context. It's getting old, and (once again), I'm not falling for these tactics (unless you're accidently responding to me in the wrong place, and the comment you responded to was not the one you intended to).  WP:V NPOVUW are irrelevent to my comment - as in not even close.  I responded to the suggestion that Design Inferrence did not count as a mathematical book because of Dembski's presumed bias.  Your links have nothing that discounts that.  The best they can do is suggest that Dembski should not have -as much- coverage in here because his views are "not significant to ID."  Of course you would have a hard time suggesting that Dembski is not significant within the ID circles.  But, anyways, that's beside the point.  Either way, your links do not reflect on whether or not Dembski's book is a mathematical book or not. Izuko 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are, as you seem to be implying, really simply arguing over whether Dembski's book is mathematical or not, this is irrelevant to how the article should be written. --ScienceApologist 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, however, relevent to a point brought up in the discussion. If you're going to have a problem with that, you had better go up and chide Jim62sch since it was his assertion that I replied to.  Also, I am not "implying" that I'm really arguing that Dembski's book is mathematical, I am stating it.  And since it's my argument, I think I well know what I'm arguing. Izuko 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Izuko, you are not off to a good start on this page. The confrontational nature of your edits here a certainly not going assist you in getting your point across.
 * Additionally, I was replying to Timothy regarding "Design Inference".
 * Finally, do you think that book belongs in the math curriculum of a high school or college? The only way I could see a math teacher or professor using it would be to point out the flaws. Jim62sch 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And you're not off to a good start with me. Looks like we're about even.  Or am I supposed to kowtow to the great old ones here?  Yes, I tend to be a bit rough around the edges.  That hardly seems to be an oddity here.  What's got your dander up?  The fact that I pointed out that ScienceApologist's criticizm is better directed at you, than at me?
 * Yes, I know you were replying to Timothy regarding "Design Inference." That's kind of the whole point of this little sub branch.  Good to know we're all on the same page now.
 * Whether or not I believe that the book belongs in the math curriculum of a high school or college is absolutely immaterial to whether or not it is a mathematics book. Whether Dembski's ideas are right or wrong has no bearing on whether or not it's a math book.Izuko 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a strange characterization of math. I usually think of it (i.e. math) as being right.--CSTAR 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it's right or wrong, it's a math book. The inability to understand that idea does explain a lot, though.  The fact that the book is disputed doesn't make it not math.  If it's wrong, then it's wrong math and deserves to be tossed aside.  That, however, does not change the fact that it is math. Izuko 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) Hey, feel free to act in any way you wish.  But, when no one takes your views seriously, recall that you were given advice that you chose not to take.
 * Actually, your statement regarding SA's criticism was pretty humourous in its illogic, so that certainly wasn't it.
 * How anyone could think Dembski's book is a math book, given its stated purpose is beyond me (and no doubt others). Jim62sch 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess that goes to show what I think of your advice. Funny how that works.  I notice you reference my supposed illogic.  Yet you don't point out that illogic.  Could it be because there is nothing illogical about it?  And if you can't see how a book written by a mathematician, on the subject of math is not a math book, well, that's your problem.  You seem so stuck on motive that you can't see the points he brings up without having it color your view.  To me, that's no different than the type of christian who can't accept evolution because he thinks it's an attempt to push America towards atheism.  And I have just about the same respect for either side that thinks that way (however, I still evaluate what you say objectively, I see it as my job to evaluate the information, not the informer).  Izuko 20:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm crushed. In any case, you need to note who first raised the topic of Dembski's book being a math book.
 * Yep, sure sounds like a math book to me (just like "Of Pandas and People" is a science book)
 * FROM THE PUBLISHER
 * How can we identify events due to intelligent causes and distinguish them from events due to undirected natural causes? If we lack a causal theory, how can we determine whether an intelligent cause acted? This book presents a reliable method for detecting intelligent causes: the design inference. The design inference uncovers intelligent causes by isolating the key trademark of intelligent causes: specified events of small probability. Just about anything that happens is highly improbable, but when a highly improbable event is also specified (i.e., conforms to an independently given pattern) undirected natural causes lose their explanatory power. This challenging and provocative book shows how incomplete undirected causes are for science and breathes new life into classical design arguments. It will be read with particular interest by philosophers of science and religion, other philosophers concerned with epistemology and logic, probability and complexity theorists, and statisticians. Jim62sch 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted. Now, is it a book on math, or isn't it?  Are you willing to consider what the book actually says, or what others say about it?  The funny thing is that one of the biggest reasons that the Design Inference is not considered a peer-reviewed work on ID is because Dembski pretty much sticks to specified complex information in it.  Thus it's properly a peer-reviewed work on SCI, not on ID. Izuko 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note the premise, "How can we identify events due to intelligent causes and distinguish them from events due to undirected natural causes". The book merely uses (or misuses, depending upon perspective) to support the premise.  (Yes, it's worded as a question, but one that actually "begs the question" by its choice of words, thus indicating what the math will "prove".) Given the amount of complex math in "Parallel Worlds" and "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku, or "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, I suppose one could misrepresent those books on cosmology as math books. Jim62sch 13:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The Design Inference was not peer reviewed in the normal sense of the word (books are almost never peer reviewed) and 2) its not a math book, there is really very little actual math in it. If you want a book that is a math book, try maybe Serge Lang's Algebra. JoshuaZ 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In that book, there are two requirements. The television program does not mention junk DNA. I think that we know to know what scienists think about junk DNA and intelligent coder of the DNA. To me they forget to talk about how their theory can be tested, yet they say it is science. If scienists have any work of the construction of DNA, I think that would be important. I think from that television program that ID is only ideas agaisnt evoultion but to say it is a science it weird. I think I'm lost. I do not know what to do with the information from that program. Timothy Clemans 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a scientist and probably not the best to answer your question, but here's what I understand. Firstly, treat information from that program with great scepticism. These people are out to mislead, as the Kitzmiller case sets out in some detail. Junk DNA, like vestigial organs, is consistent with natural selection as many neutral variations can arise and not be discarded or selected against. Arguably they pose a problem for ID by suggesting incompetence in the designer, but of course ours not to reason why. Which is what annoys scientists about ID, as it basically says "we don;t know, therefore it is unknowable and proof of God's the designer's works which we can never understand. So stop trying". For scientist's work, see Molecular evolution and Neutral theory of molecular evolution. You will note that the latter is yet another case of studies supporting evolution theory and adding new clarification being seized on with claims that they disprove Darwin. Enjoy. ...dave souza, talk 21:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) See also evolution, Evidence of evolution and others .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was saying is that junk DNA was never mentioned. How could DNA come from an intelligent source if a lot of it has no pattern. I do know that there is correct information in that program, but I also know that the Discovery instutite(sp?) is promoting it. I have tried to treat it like any other source by analysizing it.Timothy Clemans 20:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thing about ID is that it is vague enough to allow just about anything - the proponents of ID don't say that evolution by natural selection didn't happen, what they say is that "certain features" of living things are too complex to have arisen by the mechanisms propsoed by modern evolutionary theory. Evolution is likely to produce junk DNA but ID doesn't say that evolution didn't occur, so no evidence for evolution can be taken as evidence against ID.  Which is the reason why it's seen as pseudoscience/untestable - ID can only be disproven by disproving every single instance of things that could be "designed".  Guettarda 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternately, you could either prove that design is not a prerequisite for SCI, or that nature does not exhibit SCI. Izuko 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus it's properly a peer-reviewed work on SCI, not on ID. --> Please see peer review. I think you are confused by what this term implies. --ScienceApologist 06:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And the Design Inference fits as a peer-reviewed work. It was published, criticized, reviewed, and republished by Cambridge University after editing to address the issues of the reviewers.  Izuko 15:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the peer review article. It is clear that popularly published books are not peer reviewed. Editorial review by a publisher is not peer review. That the Cambrige University Press published the book does not mean it was subject to peer review. --ScienceApologist 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote from your article: "At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications."  Looks like books can be peer reviewed to me.  Izuko 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What "can be" and "what is" are different things.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and in the case of Design Inference, it is. But, I notice that you conveniently side-stepped the issue that it could not be.  Since I proved that wrong, you change the issue.  Isn't this game getting a little old?  Izuko 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't sidestep squat, I noted a truism. What you choose to read into that is your option.  Very few books are peer-reviewed, only those that are truly technical in nature are: most peer-reviews are for articles for publication in journals.  Additionally, I never said a book couldn't be peer-reviewed, neither did anyone else. What Guettarda said was "popularly published" books aren't peer-reviewed.  It's an important distinction.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you didn't, of course you didn't. I shouldn't be so foolish as to assume things said in the conversation actually apply to the conversation. Izuko 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Profound. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Each publication should always be analysized by the reading if it is good. Why does peer-review matter in this case? Timothy Clemans 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it has been presented as a scientific book with a new scientific theory (unless you're Izuko, then it's math book). In any case, when one comes up with what it allegedly a brand new theory that resolves age-old problems peer review becomes important.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Does design say anything that the rest of science does not? Timothy Clemans 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, ID creationism is very different from science. It posits a result without specifying the mechanism; there is no theory, only flawed anti-evolutionary ideas. Who the designer is, when and how they did the designing is not specified (and in this respect it is less scientific than "creation science").  A "don't know" answer does not default to "goddidit", even if you frontload it with fancy terms like "specified complexity".  It invokes the supernatural, and is therefore untestable.  It violate Ockham's razor.  It is based on demonstrable falsehoods and propaganda.  No-one does any research into it, there are no scientific peer-reviewed articles on it.  As Behe admitted in cross examination in court, ID creationism is as scientific as astrology. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did DNA come from? Here's one demonstrated source: TSRI converts RNA Enzyme to DNA Enzyme In Vitro After TSRI publishes the research in Chemistry & Biology you may have to find another issue to argue about. Pasado 05:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent sources
First the logic: If A is B and C is B, that doesn't mean A=C. i.e. apples are fruit and oranges are fruit but apples are not oranges.

One source correctly supports the statement that "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community reject the notion that intelligent design is a scientific theory." The source cites several signed statements by scientists. But the text said the majority views the theory as as "pseudoscience or junk science", citing an article from the verbose New Yorker, in which a journalist opined about the reasons of scientists. Hundreds of scientists signed statements that included language they support. There is no need to substitute the scientists' considered statement with the words of a New Yorker columnist. The idea here isn't to be sure we convince everyone ID is a fallacy. The idea is to accurately represent, without exagerating any point of view, the major views. Let the scientists speak for themselves. You, I, a New Yorker journalist and many scientists might consider ID "junk science" or "pseudoscience" but that doesn't mean an overwhelming majority of the scientific community choose those words to describe the theory. 207.200.116.132 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  See Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.  More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
 * 2) Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't. H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism ISBN 026216180X, ISBN 0262661659.

____________________________


 * I must say, I didn't notice that the these superimposed characterizations (not-science, and pseudo-science/junk-science) arose out of separate sources. My review of this issue presented by anonymous user at 207.200.116.132 indicates the point is valid.  The point is not insignificant, because two major organizations of scientists have thus: (1) given overwhelming agreement that ID is not scientific or unscientific, and (2) given no further classifications of the material at issue (e.g., "pseudoscience", "junk science".)  The two parenthetized classifications have in fact been offered by others, including a number of scientists, though obviously not in the same vein as the official positions of US scientists and Australian scientists/academicians.  I suggest correction of the language here to align properly with these facts, which ought be simple enough and without substantial controversy in light of this just-presented information...Kenosis 15:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the language to read as follows:
 * An overwhelming majority of the scientific community explicitly rejects the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[4] [5] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[6]
 * Could someone kindly add Pseudoscience and Junk science to the "Creationism2" template under "Controversy"? (I don't know how to access that template link.) These characterization are as legitimately a part of the controversy as the "Teach the children" and "Creation vs. evolution" articles...Kenosis 18:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've returned original phrasing, which was accurate. ID is viewed as pseudoscience and junkscience by the majority of the scientific community. Instead of just deleting significant viewpoints, find a source to support them next time. We'll sort out the supporting cites as we move forward. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The AAAS does not refer to pseudoscience or junk science in its published resolution, nor does the Australian coalition....Kenosis 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the New Yorker article does not mention Pseudoscience in this context either, though it does refer to "junk science", which is definitely not a term of art. I understand the point of contention (beyond the statement's inaccuracy in the article), which is that tne AAAS and other professional associations of scientists do not throw around casual terms such as junk science in their official resolutions, and have as a trend even avoided using the slightly more artful term "pseudoscience". to do otherwise would be unscientific.  More accepted terms of art might include "not scientific", "unscientific", "not scientifically useful", and other more specific characterizations such as "failed to offer credible evidence in support of" "not verifiable" "not testable" "unfalsifiable" "not replicable" and so forth...Kenosis 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Among the organizations which have used the term "pseudoscience" in their pulished statements regarding evolution and/or intelligent design are: The North American Benthological Society (2001), the California Academy of Science (1994, though not with specific reference to intelligent design), the Iowa Academy of Science (1986, prior to the ID movement). These are the only references to "pseudoscience" in the list of published statements referenced in the footnote to the Wikipedia ID article, and there is not one reference to "junk science"...Kenosis 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, I say your edit with footnote providing the source (National Science Teachers Association w/55,000 members) in support of the use of the term "pseudoscience" in this context, as well as the separate footnote linking to the NewYorker article's "junk science" characterization. In light of this, I personally consider the issue settled, with only a very minor caveat about the text potentially implying that the explicit term "junk science" emanates from the professional organizations (which is resolved by the footnote, presently #6).  Thanks...Kenosis 20:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why mischaracterize sources when it is easy enough to write accurately about who said what? Felon's addition of a statement by the teachers assocation in no way enhances his effort to attribute language to scientists not supported by sources he cited. His statement that "ID is viewed as pseudoscience and junkscience by the majority of the scientific community." is an argument on authority -- it is merely his assertion with no evidence.


 * His allegaton of "just deleting significant viewpoints" is unfounded because the edits accurately depict significant viewpoints and in no way serve to delete any significant viewpoint. In that regard, he lies not only about the content of citations, but about the character of edits. His request for a "source to support them next time" avoids responding to the question on the table, which is specifically in refernce to sources cited in footnotes and above on this page. His statement that "We'll sort out the supporting cites as we move forward" avoids confronting the fact that "we" are moving forward now by sorting out cites now. If Felon can't accurately cite sources he needs to defer to writers who can accurately depict the sources already cited. The latest revision includes both of his preferred terms, and accurately attributes them to the sources he cites. Any effort to deny who said what on his part will only serve to "delete significant viewpoints". 207.200.116.132 06:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How does JoshuaZ claim a contested version that misrepresents facts is a "consensus version". A general claim that is "well within wikiguidelines" simply argues from authority, and fails to respond to specific contributions that are irrefutably accurate. JZ, FM and others are merely defending a version that best reflects their zealous point of view. I have no point of view on the matter other than that when a source is cited, the content attributed to the source should accurately reflect the source. JZ, FM and others have made no comments on this page explaining why the more accurate revision should not stand, nor anywhere in even one of the extensive citations they offer from scientific organizations contains the words the falsely attribute to scientists. Scientists simply have stronger and more accurate language to confront notions such as ID than calling it pseudoscience or junk science. 207.200.116.132 07:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis, FM, Me, Alienus, Rory096 all agree with this version. So in so far as that, yes there is consensus. See the above discussion between Kenosis and FM as to why this version is best. JoshuaZ 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Four people do not comprise a consensus, and seeing as you exclude the contribution of a fifth person who happened upon this article, your tiny group scarcely constitutes a consensus. (4/5 != 5) Further, you have not addressed how a statement by a science teachers organization supports claims that scientists made a particular statement. What is the big problem with accurate representation of who said what? Is this about accurate content or something else? 207.200.116.132 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) I see that Math is not one of your strong points. Josh mentioned 5 people, not 4, and he forgot about myself, Guettarda and Duncharris (and I'm likely neglecting a few people, possibly Swatjester and Pasado).  So, there are at least 8.  I'm not sure what your definition of consensus is, but even the 80% you noted in your edit would be consensus (of course, as you miscounted, the true percentage would have been 83.3%).  Additionally, there is no limitation regarding the size of the pool to reach consensus.  If there were an article with only three active edtors and 2 agreed on a specific edit, that would count as consensus).  Additionally, I have little doubt that you did not even bother to read the archives on the opening paragraph; might do you some good to do so. Jim62sch 15:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will deal with your other concerns tommorow, but will briefly note that there 5 editors listed above, 1 Kenosis, 2 FM, 3 Me, 4 Alienus, 5Rory096. JoshuaZ 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then:(5/6 != 6) An association of science teachers used the term psuedoscience. Don't lie about who said it. There is no "deal" to be made. Just tell the truth. 207.200.116.132 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Make that (5/7 != 7). Izuko 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) And given the ommission of three editors I noted above, it's actually 8 of 10. Not that it matters, as it doesn't seem that either editor has read WP:CON.  Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, although the general threshold is between 60 to 80%.  Anyway, read the policy, the whole policy. Jim62sch 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you had read my other comments, you would realize that I have probably read it, and am just voicing my opinion on the issue. Or do you have issues with people making their views known?  And I notice, while you're trying to criticize us via WP:CON on one hand, you have no problem ratcheting up your side of the vote on the other.  Funny how that works.Izuko 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for totally missing the point. As for "ratcheting up the vote", there is no vote here.  And given that 5 of 7 supporting the version clearly represents a  consensus for Wiki purposes, I think it was fair to assume that you'd not read WP:CON
 * As for people making their views known, that's fine with me. And I'd like to note that I feel that you were quite correct in stating, "Changes to the article should be discussed in here, first...Please don't just go and edit it without justifying your changes in here." &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem isn't that I'm missing the point, but that I'm getting it all too well. If, as you suggest, there was no vote here, then my adding my view is not a vote, and should not trigger you talking about WP:CON.  If, however, it -was- appropriate for you to call forth your mighty Rulebook Larry attack, then you also committed the same crime, by adding eight, nine, and ten.  Sorry, but you can't have it both ways (I regret that I don't know if there's a WP:Having It Both Ways page to refer you to, so I'll just have to appeal to common sense and reason). Izuko 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add this link
This site would fit under the ID Perspectives links - Reasons.org
 * While the site appears notable enough (Alexa rank is around 200k), it doesn't actually appear to be an ID site. It is "an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior." That's fundamentalist Christian creationism, and doesn't belong in the ID article, IMO. --Ashenai 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) : That is an OEC site, not an ID site. JoshuaZ 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. While the site is a Christian site, it is not "fundamentalist Christian creationism ." In fact, most "fundamentalist Christian creationist" oppose the site because it does not hold to a young earth theory. In essence, you are stating that Christians are not allowed a voice in the debate, even when they argue from a scientific basis as the articles in the site do. Nevertheless I accept your point that the site is not purely a ID site. Perhaps a link to the articles specifically dealing with ID would be more appropriate. Here is the link: http://reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe All of the articles are by academics in the field.
 * I missed the fact that the site was Old Earth Creationism, sorry. I think you're assuming I am biased against the site; I don't believe this is so. I think that it is a good site, quite representative of the creationist side of the argument, and I would be happy to add it to another article (Creationism, perhaps) in a heartbeat. I just don't believe it belongs here. --Ashenai 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That fact is that it is OEC, not ID. Now, given the "big tent" nature of ID, the borderline isn't always clear (some IDist, indeed even some fellows of the DI, such as Paul Nelson are in fact YECs). But the fact is that this link simply isn't relevant to the topic at hand. JoshuaZ 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:172.196.11.239, User:172.190.98.116, User:172.196.125.230 & User:172.193.9.65
User:172.196.11.239, User:172.190.98.116, User:172.196.125.230 and User:172.193.9.65 are likely sockpuppets of User:Benapgar who is now permanently blocked for chronic WP:NPA violations. As such, they are blocked as well. Please don't feed the trolls people. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you think they are Ben's socks? JoshuaZ 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They're walking in Benapgar's footsteps. They all appeared within 24 hours of Benapgar being permanently blocked making the exact same arguments for the exact same changes using the same tendentious method. FeloniousMonk 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hell, even the syntax and grammar and vocabulary were the same. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My error in judgment for taking WP:AGF a bit too seriously. Take care for now, and thanks to the admins for bringing this back under some reasonable control...Kenosis 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, mine too apparently. JoshuaZ 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NP. You can always report any suspected sockpuppets being used to evade a block at WP:AN/I. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, all discussion related to this incident has been moved here: /Removed sockpuppet discussions FeloniousMonk 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And here I was bedinning to think I was the only one who noticed. ;)  Sorry Ken and Josh, but AGF is a nice principle, but when an anon starts off bad-mouthing the article and sounds like they're picking up on a previous point AGF goes out the window faster than liver and onions.  Geez, I even dropped a few hints.  Oh well, I'll be less subtle next time.  :)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)