Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 31

Change of Topic perhaps
Dropped by to see what content Wikipedia had on Intelligent Design and was absolutely amazed to find an ANTI-Intelligent Design topic! I know the beginning of this discussion had all kinds of representations regarding the PC NPOV content of the present ID topic ... but quite frankly, beyond all the interesting rhetoric and $20 words, it appears that the topic has evolved into an anti-ID topic!

Perhaps this topic should be renamed "The Evololutionist's View of Intelligent Design" and another topic started for ID? I Googled ID and found an interesting mix of IDers proposing their "scientific proofs" that life, as we know it, cannot have evolved ... and evolutionists claiming that the IDers are all wet and have no idea what they are talking about. I found it very amusing that both sides seem to be perfectly willing to engage in the same "fingers in the ears, I can't hear you" attitude as the other. Almost as amusing as people who believe in that which they cannot see vs. people who think they came from monkeys. But I digress.

Anyhow, back to my earlier suggestion of renaming the topic, it seems to me that it would be more eruditious to allow each camp to present their data separately so that we might more readily compare notes, so to speak. As a side benefit, since each would have their own "soapbox" as it were (and I realize that appears to contradict Wiki principles so bear with me) they could expend their time and literary efforts describing and constructing their own sciences and philosophies rather than attacking the other(s). Or perhaps these two topics (ID and Evolution) are not sufficiently developed enough for Wikipedia just yet and both should be banned topically until they can be proven and scientifically justified (which neither really is if one reads up on the details); though that would leave some gaping holes in 11 grade biology curriculum wouldn't it! :-) Just my two cents. --JimScott 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Shame on us I suppose, but this particular article has been researched and hashed over with the finest-toothed combs you'll ever see anywhere. If anything it's bending over backwards to be deferential to a philosophical or theological concept attempting to pose as science.  Shame on them too, incidentally. ... Kenosis 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Almost as amusing as people who believe in that which they cannot see vs. people who think they came from monkeys." - Two errors here, the first minor, the second major. First, you mean "that which they cannot perceive or detect", not "see". If you don't believe in anything you can't see, then you must not believe in music, ultraviolet radiation, etc. Second, noone believes that humans come from monkeys; this is a strawman. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, yes, but so do humans and all other species of life. Humans are vastly more closely related to chimpanzees, gorillas and other great apes than to monkeys, who are not even members of the same family (Hominidae, the great apes) or superfamily (Hominoidea, the apes) as humans.
 * It's probably worth pointng out that "monkey" is not a good clade term. We are descended from apes, in that we are all apes, and our last common ancestor with apes is strongly implied to have been an ape.  The same would hold true for monkey, except that "monkey" doesn't really mean anything.  One of our ancestors was itself, therefore we not only are descended from monkeys (Anthropoidea) but are, right now, monkeys.  The problem arises in that we've for arbitrary reasons (well, mostly because the terms were developed before really in-depth studies of ancestry and morphology) decided that at least in common usage "monkey" is a term only applied to two separate branches, which makes no definitional sense.
 * As for your suggestion that we make two separate sections, one for the ID advocates and one for the critics of ID, I'm afraid that this would be a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which requires us to present noteworthy points of view and present noteworthy criticisms of those points of view, each in proportions relative to their respective commonality or mainstream acceptance. Specfically, what you are proposing would be a POV Fork, a very bad idea that inevitably leads to horrible bias on both sides. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written; relevant arguments and relevant counter-arguments are presented side-by-side, not segregated or hidden away from one another.
 * Your proposal that we "ban" all information on ID and evolution from the encyclopedia is also quite absurd, especially since you haven't lodged any specific criticisms of any real problems with Wikipedia's coverage of these articles. Contrary to your belief that Wikipedia's coverage of these topics is profoundly lacking, our evolution article is currently one of Wikipedia's Featured Articles, an example of some of its best work (though I will agree that there are many things still to be improved in that article, and in this one). Also, I don't understand what you mean by "not sufficiently developed enough for Wikipedia just yet"; ID has been around for almost 20 years, modern evolutionary biology has been around for between 70 and 150 years (depending on where you set the benchmark), and evolution itself has been around for billions of years. :)
 * "until they can be proven and scientifically justified (which neither really is if one reads up on the details)" - This is incorrect. ID has not been proven and scientifically justified, true. However, evolution has certainly been proven to occur, and modern evolutionary theory has certainly been "scientifically justified". Could you explain why you feel that this is not the case, and what, exactly, your requirements are for scientific facts and theories to be "proven" or "justified"..? -Silence 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern is noted. The tone of the article is shaped by policy. Since the scientific community says ID is pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." And NPOV: Giving "equal validity" says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." ID proponents claim ID is valid science on par with evolutionary theory, a claim the scientific community rejects. That makes ID the minority view. NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." Finally, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions on "What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?" tells us "No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc." This article is well within those guidelines. FeloniousMonk 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent responses. We should refer any new editor to this section. -- Ec5618 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes...Kenosis, Silence and FM very well done! Many kudos to each of you! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is artificiality?
In "Intelligence as an observable quality" we quote SETI researchers as distinguishing between complexity and artificiality. While I understand that complexity is not the same as artificiality, I can't help but feel uncomfortable with the term "artificiality". How someone determines "artificiality" seems to me to be controversial. It also is a poor response made by ScienceApologists in, for example, C/E debates. IDists currently don't use the term "artificiality" but they do use the term "supernatural" which seems to me to be somewhat related. Is it only a matter of time before "Of Pandas..." replaces all its "ID" wording with "artificial design" wording?

I am of the impression that "artificiality" refers to a phenomena that have only been observed to occur as the result of the "intervention" (whatever that means) of human engineering (in reference to the Drake Equation, for example) whereas "supernatural" refers to an assumption that certain phenomena can only be explained if a deus ex machina rearranged the universe to its fancy. This distinction, however, seems very tenuous to me. I am a SETI-skeptic, though, so it might just be that my baloney detector is more sensitive than others. In any case, I linked to "artifial" which is a terrible disambig article but seems to capture the gist of what I think is the way the distinction is supposed to be made by SETI researchers, but some discussion may be in order.

--ScienceApologist 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * SA, artificiality is indeed a relic of design, thus that would be how we would determine if a complex-seeming series of bips, beeps, and boops from space was a "message" or just noise: if it was complex but unchanging, no message (just noise); if complex but varying in ways that we understand and think likely to be representative of design then it's artificial (and a message). Of course, this presupposes that ET is sufficiently like us to develop along a similar technological path.  I digress.
 * As for supernatural, yeah, I suppose that would be the artifice of whatever deity or other supernatural (paranormal, too?) being to which they (IDists) were referring.
 * I'm not one hundred percent sure where you're going with intervention -- I presume you mean that we'd not've noticed these "artificialities" absent specific technology? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, artificial means "made by humans". It's derived from a Latin word meaning "craftsmanship", and thus requires that the thing in question be deliberately arranged. I have never seen artificial used in reference to the creations of a deity or supernatural agent; although it meets the basic requirement of deliberate design, it deliberately sidesteps the "human" requirement in the most common definition. Furthermore, the word artificial is commonly used as an antonym for natural: our anthropocentric outlook subdivides the world into things created by humans, and things not created by humans. Hence the distinction between, for example, artificial selection and natural selection. There is thus a fundamental problem in calling nature itself "artificial", even if you believe that nature was deliberately designed by an intelligence: you are essentially defining the word natural out of existence. For this reason, most creationists wouldn't call the universe or nature or life "artificial" even if they believe that a supernatural intelligence created it; they will simply say that it has a supernatural origin, or that it is "designed", not "artificial" per se. Maybe I just haven't read enough ID pamphlets to see them use the term, though; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As for the word supernatural itself, it means exactly what it sounds like: "outside of the natural world". Whether that means that the "supernatural" is physically impossible (cf. naturalism (philosophy)) depends on how broadly you define "natural world". -Silence 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Artificial as SETI uses it is actually just anything outside of what is known to be produced by known astronomical phenomena. It's not much more complex of a concept than that. It's only once we find something of this ilk that we can then begin to ask whether it is complex or not.  Really complex information can look exactly like random strings unles syou actualyl know beforehand what you are looking for, and there are lots of random noise sources.  So SETI looks for things outside the normal ranges of known sources.


 * Artificial in the sense of SETI means created by an intelligent life form -- so, an artificial signal, like one from a TV program, will be both complex and clearly artificial. We use it most often to refer to things created by humans, but there is no inherency in the word requiring a restriction to only anthropocentric usage.
 * I've never seen and IDist or other creationist use the term artificial (nor do I ever expect to), but in reality, if something is created it is effect artificial as it was "made with skill" (ars+facere), whether the creator is supenatural or not. Hence, for creationists, all that is natural is artificial. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd point out that since we don't have a definition of "intelligent" or "life form" that science can agree on, then we naturally fall back on our anthropocentric assumptions about what this entails. It could be that the dark matter is all composed of extremely intelligent life forms that we just cannot communicate with because we're so stuck in our ways, for example. Trying to measure an artificial signal relies on the data points provided by the only means we have for determining what "artificial" is: human intervention.


 * What's more something that is artificial does not need to be complex. Seth makes that point very adamantly in his critique of Dembski. Repeating a string of prime numbers over and over again is very simple, but it is still considered "artificial" since no one has observed prime number generators that were not human.


 * --ScienceApologist 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But what about the dark energy? ;)  Seriously, we're stuck with an anthropocentric thought process, no matter how much 20th and 21s century philosophers claim to have cleansed the doors of perception and saved us from the shackles of of our humanity.
 * Somehow I bristle at the use of "human intervention"...how about "human observation" instead, as we are not truly intervening with the data itself but rather observing it? (we do intervene with the observations).
 * I wonder how we'd even recognise a string of prime numbers generated elsewhere. What if the prime numbers were presented in a base seven system?  Would we understand it or see it as random noise?  As humans, we are going to focus on base 2, 8, 10 or 16 systems and are unlikely to recognise anything that is at the very least, a multiple of one of those numbers, much less something based on an "odd" number.&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** * *** ***** ******* *********** WAS 4.250 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice I said "a base seven system". I didn't mean to create a repeating list the first few odd primes (BTW:, one isn't normally considered a prime, and two is missing). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points all. The real problem is, I think, with the "artificial/natural" distinction which may be just as much a false a dichotomy as the "supernatural/natural" distinction. Presumably the "human" is a part of "nature", so what's to say that it isn't "natural" for there to be a Great Wall of China or head sculptures on Easter Island? Similarly, according to the scientific method, whenever one observes something to happen, then presumably that phenomenon is "natural".


 * I'm comfortable right now with the way we report the distinction even though it is arbitrary because I'm reminded of a dispute that we had a year ago trying to describe "methodological naturalism" vs. "ontological naturalism". Certain editors pointed out (correctly) that science does not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural because it assumes that everything observed is the result of natural phenomena even though one may chose an ontology which worships some part of that nature and would therefore allow for a ontological supernaturalism associated with a certain set of causes. So, methodologically, nature would be the "ground of being", to borrow a phrase from some of my least favorite mystics, and even if deus ex machina showed up, said "deity" would necessarily be "natural". While this argument is convincing, ultimately the reason that these advocates failed in their arguments to define the terms of the distinction was because culturally people are more comfortable distinguishing between material and spiritual causes in terms of the institutions that support them (religious, political, scientific, industrial, etc.). So the supernatural/natural distinction remains on Wikipedia in both method and ontology since we report what the opinions, beliefs, and research of the outside world is and don't allow for novel interpretations no matter how righteously correct they are. I'm afraid natural/artificial may be a distinction that needs to remain for the same reason.


 * --ScienceApologist 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will agree with you fully that the "artificial/natural" and "supernatural/natural" dichotomies are completely false ones, with no objective validity. I have long felt it strange and arbitrary that we consider even the simplest of human creations "unnatural", while beaver dams, birds' nests, ant hills, etc. are 100% "natural". This is why I qualified the distinction as "anthropocentric" in my above explanation, which was a descriptivist explanation of the common usage of artificial (which, apparently, is not quite the one SETI is using; thanks for clarifying, Jim), not a prescriptivist endorsement of it. If we are to use natural world in a meaningful and consistent way, then, as you correctly point out, any divine or mystical or transcendent being we encounter in the future will, necessarily, be natural, not supernatural. The natural world is, by its very definition, everything that exists; to be supernatural is like being "outside existence". (For a similar reason, it has been argued that "miracles" are inherently impossible: even seemingly miraculous events cannot violate the laws of nature, merely operate under ones which we are unaware of.) Likewise, if we are to use artificial in a less arbitrarily anthropic way, we must concede that everything artificial is also natural; human creations are a part of nature as much as beehives are, regardless of their complexity. So, we end up picking apart the false natural/supernatural dichotomy and merging it all under a "natural" umbrella referring to everything that exists; and using the other, less formal sense of "nature" (where we mean the birds and bees and flowers untainted by human civilization, not "existence"), we likewise end up deconstructing the natural/artificial dichotomy and including all artificial constructs under the other "natural" umbrella. But I get the feeling that we're getting a bit off-topic here. <_< -Silence 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Off-topic, yes, but, let's be honest...it's been one of the best Wiki discussions most of us have ever had. This would be great continued as a real conversation over a few beers (or whatever drink floats your boat).  Hmmm, "untainted by human civilization"...is there anything on this planet untainted by human civilization?  ;) &#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Experiments which prove evolution is true

 * Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

What experiments has biological science done to prove that the Theory of Evolution is true? (I know about evolution within species, called "microevolution" by some.) I mean what experiments have shown that new species have come into being by evolution?

I'm not arguing that evolution is false. I'm trying to improve the Intelligent Design article.

Based on my extensive reading in wiki and elsewhere, it looks look nearly everything is "after the fact" explanation - both by evolution supporters and design theorists. Where can I find out about experimentation that explains how mutation and natural selection have produced new species? Is there a List of species produced by evolution in modern times? --Wing Nut 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

YES! I believe all of them were!68.0.214.211 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Talk Origins web site has a page describing observed instances of speciation, which some might call macroevolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LenW (talk • contribs)


 * a) Nothing about "after the fact" which makes evolution less experimental. An experiment is something which is done to test an hypothesis.  Lots of hypotheses about evolution are tested all the time (there are several journals, publishing dozens of articles per month per issue which publish experiments looking at evolution; there are as many dedicated to systematics, which is becoming an ever more experimental field which tests hypotheses about how species originated).
 * b) See triticale for a new species which was produced experimentally (in the 19th century!).
 * c) Richard Lenski has a long-term_evolution_experiment_with_E._coli which has gone on for more than 20,000 generations. Since they have the ancestors and the descendents, they have been able to document the evolution of novel traits in the species.  Guettarda 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent
 * Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
 * Lee, P. N., P. Callaerts, H. G. de Couet and M. Q. Martindale, 2003. Cephalopod Hox genes and the origin of morphological novelties. Nature 424: 1061-1065
 * "extensive reading in wiki and elsewhere" is no substitute for an actual education in science. FeloniousMonk 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is limiting to say that science is based solely on experimentation. It would be more accurate to say that science relies on experimentation and observation (though experiments are really a type of observation, just in controlled settings): the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is not based on "experiments", it's based on simple observations. Likewise, the fossil record, genetic data, morphological similarities, etc. are not experimental evidence per se, but generally observational evidence (though we can certainly perform various experiments on many of those things), and it is on these that the fact that evolution occurs is based. It's not like biologists need to be able to create dinosaurs in test tubes to show that dinosaurs existed; observational evidence, in the form of fossils, is more than sufficient.
 * Anyway, with that out of the way, I'll answer your question about speciation (the generation of new species). Although speciation is a relatively rare and gradual event, generally taking thousands of years to occur, it has indeed been observed a number of times. You can read up on plenty of Observed Instances of Speciation at the page I just linked to. There are even examples of speciations occurring under controlled, experimental situations, though these are indeed few and far between because of the rarity of new species arising. In around 1963, renowned biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky successfully bred a new species of Venezuelan fruit fly (i.e., one that was unable to reproduce with other strains of Venezuelan fruit flies, the most common definition of a "species") over many generations of cumulative differentiation in an isolated strain. Does that answer your question? -Silence 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HeLa is interesting in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be interested, Wingnut, to know that "true" as understood by scientists essentially means "hasn't been proved wrong yet". Pretty much everything ever scientifically believed as "true" at a particular point in the past has been at least partially disproved at one time or another.  See falsifiability.  What's important is that natural selection, which has been observed as the article claims, is only "unproven" because of the irrelevant detail that we simply haven't been studying it for millions of years yet.  It's not our fault that our species is too short-lived to do a really good long term study, and shouldn't be counted against the theory in principle.  And yes, there have been observations of examples of speciation; the Kaibab Squirrel is the first example that comes to mind, since I got a chance to see some when I visited the Grand Canyon.  Cheers, Kasreyn 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. note that the Kaibab Squirrel is only a subspecies of the Abert's Squirrel, but it clearly demonstrates an instance of speciation that is currently in progress. Kasreyn 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to be technical about it, nothing in science is ever genuinely "proved" or "disproved" with any certainty. Science is fundamentally probabilistic, not proof-based: "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is considered a fact because it is extremely likely to be true based on empirical observation, not because it has been "proven" with the certainty of, say, a mathematical proof. Evolution is considered a fact for the same reason: because of thoroughly convincing consistent evidence that indicates that this is the case. The most reliable scientific facts and theories are not the ones that have been "proven", but rather the ones that have been thoroughly tested and grounded in solid evidence to the extent that they are exceedingly likely, based on the current information available to us, to be true. So, although "prove" and "disprove" are commonly used in colloquial contexts to refer to scientific facts, theories, hypotheses, etc., in a formal context it is preferable to use more accurate words like "verify" and "falsify", to avoid potential ambiguity with the meanings of proof which connote certainty, something science (and empiricism in general) lays no claim to. -Silence 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I ever open my mouth, when you can explain things so much better. ;)  Well said.  Kasreyn 23:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * good call. Sillygrin 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody has got sidetracked here. The discussion began with looking at arguments that prove evolution. Unfortunately there are none. The nearest we have are variations within kinds, eg horse/pony/donkey or Alsation/Dalmatian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddyman1989 (talk • contribs)
 * I think you have the wrong topic. If you want to argue about evidence for evolution, go to the specific topic; or if you want to contribute to the history of creationism vs evolution go here. This article is about ID and it's positive and negative points.  --Roland Deschain 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a standard creationist argument which I will briefly respond to. However, if you want to argue about truth/falsity of evolution, you should take it elsewhere. That said, part of the problem with "kind" is that creationists don't define it almost ever. They use to say no evolution occured. Then they said within species. At this point many creationists (such as yourself it seems) are willing to even go above the species level. And some are just ridiculous-I've heard creationists refer to the "bacteria kind." This is constant moving of goalposts, nothing more. At this point, "microevolution" seems to mean to creationist "any evolution which there is such overwhelming evidence that even we need to admit it if we want to seem passably sane." JoshuaZ 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kind? What the hell is that, anyway?  As Josh pointed out, creationists never define "kind" (of course, as it's a biblical reference I suppose it needn't be defined).  But, as the "kinds" you noted are within the same genera (horse/pony/donkey -- equus) and (Alsation/Dalmatian -- canis), you've actually managed to prove speciation, i.e., evolution.  A big oops there, huh? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Paddyman, let's go over some evidence. First, the evidence for microevolution supports macroevolution. If you can't change an organism through evolution, then you can't create new species with evolution. Second, more abrupt changes like chromosome shuffling can occur. Third, there is this great web of compatible fossil, physiological and morphological evidence, and genetic evidence that indicates a continuous process of evolution tracing back to the earliest multicelled organisms. Fourth, we have yet to observe an alternate mechanism to evolution. If, for example, there is an intelligent designer, then where is it? Why haven't we found evidence of this entity or entities?


 * Further, as noted elsewhere your concept of "kind" is flawed. If evolution and abiogenesis holds, for example, then there really is only one kind on Earth, at least before human intervention. You need to demonstrate why for example genus equus and genus canus are seperate kinds. -- KarlHallowell 08:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued below: -- Ec5618 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And moved back here, for contiguity -- Ec5618 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Experiments to prove evolution, redux
I moved this down, and have split GeorgeFThomson's post into two parts, as he first posted the first part, and later added the second, after others had already commented on it. -- Ec5618 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To my pure logic, logic and illogic, there are no experiments that prove "evolution", although you think so. Micro mutations/evolution is an "intelligent design" adaptability of an autonomous being/creature. Macro mutations/evolution is what "evolution" teaches and thinks has ocurred. Most design teachings of "creationists" and "Intelligent Designers" are objective observations of what you see, aided or not, unless you are so naive ! "Near Perfect Life" theory or hypothesis proposes that although life and humans have imperfections, the design perfection is very apparent and functional. So that as the best of humans AI (artificial intelligence) robots of the day, has to be designed intelligently, so was the human organic robot of more complexity and structurization, with other possible components/composition of other nature, that are unprovable so far. But you find out what/who/or whom did this as I refuse to believe I self developed to what I am today organically, as I don't remember ! GeorgeFThomson 17 August 2006


 * Thank God science isn't founded on pure logic. Also thank God that there are 150 years of experiments across all fields of science (from physics, chemistry, embryology, genetics, immunology, biology, astronomy, etc etc) that support the theory of evolution.  I mean, pure logic would absolutly necessitate that all mammals have the same hand structure, than all organisms use the same basic chemicals, and that developmental biology gives firm empiracal basis for large scale evolution.   What would we do without pure logic.--Roland Deschain 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Every experiment suggests evolution is true, but you're right, nothing will ever prove evolution is true. Mind you, nothing will ever prove that all objects fall down when you drop them. This is why nothing in science is ever blindly accepted.
 * However, what would be the alternative? Many people suggest that evolution may not be true, and that a deity may have created the world a while back. However, that would also mean that this deity created a whole lot of false evidence to suggest that evolution is true. And that is not a scenario anyone seems to find plausible. -- Ec5618 01:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would someone post an experiment to prove that the earth goes around the sun? Would someone also post an experiment to prove that the universe was not created last Tuesday, and that all memories of anything earlier are not false evidence planted by a mischievous creator.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here'a one. Assume the earth is flat, and that all rational discussion based on scientific progress since the 1600's is false.  Now try to find your way around in life for awhile, and see if it makes better sense, then publish your own alternate theories.  Prediction: if they're interesting enough, take the book money and buy a nice mansion somewhere, hire servants, live happily ever after. ... Kenosis 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But watch taking cruises...might just fall off the edge of the Earth. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case may I recommend The Crimson Permanent Assurance? ..dave souza, talk 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I don't have any certain explanation, although of course I have some hypothesis and probably not theories, on what has made humans mentality "evolve" and "advance" so quickly in the last 300 years more or less, as their mental tendency is to "antiquity" ! Thus I'm in deep thought analysis over this issue ! -- GeorgeFThomson 18 August 2006
 * I'm sorry? What are you trying to say? You asked for experiments to prove that evolution is fact. It was explained to you that no such experiment can ever be devised, on the grounds that nothing in science can ever be proven with infinite certainty. -- Ec5618 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting interesting !, wow...! Please keep it up...! I'm highly interested ! As I won't be adding much more, I'm all ears and eyes ! -- *****GeorgeFThomson***** 18 August 2006


 * So, for the record, you're not trying to say anything? A refreshing sentiment. Thus ends this section. -- Ec5618 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This topic is about ID. So rather than starting a topic on evolution (with the unspoken assumption that there is a bianary choice between ID and evolution), one termed Experiments to prove ID is far more appropriate and would actually help this article if experiments could be found.--Roland Deschain 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] :::Yes, it would. Unfortunately that shall prove to be a fruitless search as there are none. But perhaps our intrepid inquisitors might be the first to perform one. Oh, that would be OR. Unless they get it published in a peer-reviewed science journal first. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. Still, we can hardly expect intelligent design proponents to prove intelligent design when nothing in science is ever truly proven. If ID were science, it would be improvable.
 * This is a continuation of a section above, titled 'Experiments which prove evolution is true'. Still, we should be able to put this issue to rest, and allow it to be archived. -- Ec5618 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. In fact, this page needs archiving anyway, and since you like to do that... ;)  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The very topic of this section misunderstands experiments on two points. Experiments(except for statistical ones) can be used to either demonstrate or invalidate one hypothesis(or multiple hypotheses if the structure of the experiment considers an alternative possibility). Evolution isn't a hypothesis. It's complexity is too great to be rejected all at once by any simple experiment. One can, however generate hypotheses BASED on evolutionary theory. One such hypothesis could be "If there is highly selective pressure exerted by the expirementer on a population of mice, there will be visible results after several generations". This hypothesis would be based on natural selection, a very important premise of evolution. One could specify the specific parameters of a test for this: introduce a population of mice to a closed environment. Create a starting population of equal parts red eyed and black eyed mice. After every new mouse is born, if it has red eyes,use a random number generator to determine a 75% probability of the mouse being removed from the experimental system(let's pretend that it wouldn't be killed). after some objective measure of time(let's say 10 weeks), one would expect, that should other selective pressures (e.g. food) should be controlled for, that there would be almost no red eyed mice left.( I don't know the reproductive habits of mice well enough to give an estimation of the number with a margin of error). If the numbers of red eyed mice were outside expectations, then that's either experimental error, statistical deviance, or a disproven hypothesis. Now imagine that same principle expanded for multiple hypotheses extrapolated from multiple core ideas of the theory of evolution, and you have a clear idea of how to demonstrate(not prove) evolutionary theory. (think that's hard? quantum physics has it way harder) i kan reed 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've shown artificial selection, which is used all the time in the breeding of animals and the maximization of output from food-bearing plants. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine fine, semantic error. I realize that's true, however, it's also got a non-human element involved. (I.e. the random number generator) in an attempt to mimic natural conditions in a strongly controlled environment. So it's not pure artificial selection(i.e. ALWAYS selecting certain traits) if one attached a 25% "kill" rate on black eyed rats, it would further remove the human element. No experiment is designed to actually be a natural condition, so separating on those grounds is somewhat silly. Regardless, artificial selection is also part of evolutionary theory. Forgive my mistake(and it was only partially a mistake, as the system was designed to mimic certain kinds of pressures, rather than a "pure kill" system that is usually part of artificial selection. Nature contains more randomness than an experiment can mimic and still be an experiment. Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't necesarily indicate that there's a scientific distinction between artificial selection and natural selection. I could propose something more "natural", but it was mostly supposed to be an example of the fallacy of trying to mass prove or disprove thoeries. i kan reed 14:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And illustrated nicely in this experiment (see the figure's full description for reference, etc.) :


 * --Plumbago 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion closed. -- Ec5618 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's getting OT. Archive away.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IDCAD part 3b
Since has been scrolled up the page a bit by the last 5 sections of discussion, and thus may be a bit too out-of-the-way for users to easily respond to new additions there, I'm continuing the list of copyedit changes here (though, as ever, more replies are still welcome to the previously-listed changes).

Changes 17-20 (3)
These changes deal with the end of the second paragraph and beginning of the third, including a sentence moved from the former to the latter for the sake of topical relevance, coherency, and fluidity:


 * 17. Remove "theory of the origin of species". First, this is simply inaccurate; The Origin of Species is a book, not a theory. Second, it is misleading: going into so much detail on what Darwin did will prompt uninformed readers to think that Darwin's book is being mentioned for the same reason Haley's and Cicero's and Aquinas's and so on were: because it was a significant precursor to ID. In reality, exactly the opposite is the case. Third, it is unnecessary and extraneous: there is no special relevance to this book in the context of intelligent design. It is only significant insomuch as everything in the history of evolutionary thought is significant to an anti-evolutionary movement, and that's not what the scope of this section of the article is. And its mentioning detracts from the significance of mentioning Charles Darwin here, and dilutes the quality of the writing; simply replacing it with "own research" or similar is more than sufficient.
 * 18. Move the last sentence of this paragraph, "Similar reasoning...", to the next paragraph, and have it immediately follow the first sentence there. Ending the previous paragraph on Darwin is a good idea, and the last sentence is properly, content-wise, more similar to the third paragraph (which discusses modern creationist ideas) than to the second (which lists various significant people in the history of pre-ID ideas from the Middle Ages to the 19th century) by an order of magnitude. The next three or four edits will deal with various changes to this sentence in order to fit it effectively and smoothly into the new paragraph. Although all of these changes will be dealt with individually, if you want to compare the final version to the original version, see this:


 * 19. At the start of the moved sentence, replace "Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by" with "However, while some creationists, such as". The former was misleading (as it implied that Darwin was a believer in or founder of theistic evolution) and not really accurate even when properly understood. In context, the new beginning makes the sentence flow very well with the overall paragraph. Also, remove "who" before "consider modern science".
 * 20. Change "to be fully compatible" to "to be largely or fully compatible"; not all believers in theistic evolution believe that evolutionary theory is fully compatible with theism; indeed, many reject one or more aspects of evolutionary biology in order to better accomodate their supernatural belief.

-Silence 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Theistic evolution adherents are not creationists in the narrow sense being used here. That's evolutionary creationism. The difference is that the fomer holds historical-critical method (in conservative catholicism, for example), or, alternatively, sees Genesis as a metaphor (mostly in liberal theology), while the latter adheres to literalism and tries to read the theory of evolution literally from the bible. The evolutionary creationism is creationism because they still hold the view that natural selection is incapable of producing macroevolution, so that macroevolution needs direct divine intervention. (It differs from progressive creationism in that it holds comment descent instead of the creation of separate kinds on their appearance in the fossil record) --Rtc 15:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also object to characterizing theistic evolutionists as creationists. While TEs share a belief in a deity with theists, they side with evolutionists in regards to the science of evolution. JPotter 20:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk.Origins defines theistic evolution: "Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries. I think the issue here is that theistic evolution has many levels.  Theistic evolution falls into creationism if it claims that God stepped in at opportune moments and worked outside the laws of nature.  It should not be called creationism if God is equated with natural laws.  Any mention of God stepping outside of those natural laws will invoke creationism.


 * Theistic evolution is a form of creationism by necessity. FeloniousMonk 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is bad, since they falsely claim "Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science". That's wrong. The former accepts only common descent while the latter also accepts natural selection as the origin of macroevolution and species. Please rely on more reputable sources, such as, which does not include Theistic Evolution in the narrow creationism, but only in the broad sense. Narrow creationism means god intervened into naural laws, while the soul thing means god intervened only on a metaphysical level. The soul you are refering to is a metaphysical construction, assumed to be independent of the natural world. --Rtc 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take that up with Talk.Origins then; this isn't the place. Theistic evolution remains a form of creationism regardless of whether you prefer a broad or narrow interpretation of creationism and you're entitled to your opinion as to which makes more sense for you. But for our purposes here Talk.Origins is a very reputable source and theistic evolution is a form of creationism by any meaningful defintion. Our task here is not to determine or argue for truth, but to summarize verifiable facts. How anyone can keep a straight face when claiming evolution guided by God is not a way life was created is beyond me... FeloniousMonk 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take Talk.Origins as a final authority on all matters but look for other sources that contradict their views. About the reputability of talk.origins, I really would like to cast doubt on this. It's a newsgroup's web page and the quality is often not very high (though better than competing creationist web pages). The position of the catholic church is nowadays not considered creationism anymore, since they do not oppose natural selection and do not hold literalism as required for narrow creationism. Let's call them simply "Adherents of Theistic Evolution" or something neutral in a similar fashion, without claiming that they are or are not creationists. Ken Miller is a catholic, would you call him a creationist? Seems pretty nonsense to me. --Rtc 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents' worth here: if one were for example to believe that God set the universe in motion, but let it run its natural course afterwards (say He was just watching), I would consider this to be theistic evolution, and I don't see how this could be called "creationism" except by a very wide stretch of the imagination. Let's please remember here that creationism revolves around the literal truth of Genesis. One could believe God set the universe in motion, but in a different way than what is written in the Bible. Then, one would not endorse any literal part of the tale of creation, and I don't think at this point one should be called a creationist. That is, unless we want to affirm that the creationists are right and that if one is an evolutionist one is perforce an atheist. That doesn't work for me. --Ramdrake 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No authority here is final. All are weighed against the others. Those that repeated consistently stand up to scrutiny may be favored, but none are exempt from scrutiny. Talk.Origins just happens to be in that category; it has stood up to scrutiny well many times in the past. FeloniousMonk 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether or not theistic evolution is called "creationism" here or not. I'm pretty sure it just depends on how broadly you interpret "creationism": two distinct definitions are provided in the lead of creationism, one being the general idea that God created the world, the other being the specific movement associated with Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism that commonly rejects other, scientific explanations for the origins of the world. If there is agreement that theistic evolution is a form of creationism, or at least is creationistic, as is implied by the usage of creationism2 at the top of the theistic evolution article, then I see no problem with the rewrite I proposed above (or with the current article, which implies the same). If there is agreement that theistic evolution is not a form of creationism (or that this is more controversial than, say, the idea that ID is a form of creationism), then simply replace "while some creationists," with "while some theists," or similar and move on. Which word we choose there is not of central importance, and is not a very significant aspect of the proposed change. I'm pretty sure this would be a more relevant discussion on, say, Talk:Theistic evolution. -Silence 23:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, to be honest, I think confusion stems from the term 'theistic evolution' being used generally in a very broad fashion, containing evolutionary creationism. So it embraces views which are clearly creationist (common descent is true, but god's creative intervention instead of natural selection is the cause for speciation) and such which are clearly not (whatever science says is okay, since genesis is a metaphor/needs to be critically evaluated in the historical context of its writers). So you can't call all theistic evolution adherents 'creationists' in this broad sense, but you can still have theistic evolution as a type of creationism, since that's what part of it is. Now let's look at your version "while some creationists, such as many believers in theistic evolution, consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be largely or fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer" You are clearly refering exactly to those theistic evolution adherents here who are not creationists. Those theistic evolution adherents who are creationists accept common descent but reject natural selection as the cause for speciation and thus do not "consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be largely or fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer" if 'theory of evolution' refers to the theory of evolution by natural selection, or the modern evolutionary synthesis or something similar, and not merely to common descent.--Rtc 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think there will be a lot of unnecessary hoopla over something of trival importance to the point the paragraph is trying to meet. Yes, the TO archive lumps TE with creationists, so that should be reported in the theistic evolution article, but it serves little purpose here. JPotter 03:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this is the wrong place for this discussion. FeloniousMonk 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes 21-24 (3)
These changes deal with the beginning of the third paragraph:


 * 21. Replace the period after "supernatural designer" with a comma, and begin what was originally the second sentence of the paragraph afterwards, with "seeking" replaced by "intelligent design seeks".
 * 22. Replace "evolution theory" with "evolutionary theory", to be more consistent with the terminology used elsewhere.
 * 23. At the start of this paragraph, remove the "in the late 20th century" qualifier from "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen"; first, as of 2006, this applies to intelligent design both in the late 20th and early 21st century. Second, this qualifier has the unfortunate consequence of implying that the intelligent design movement is older than "the late 20th century", which is not true.
 * 24. In "As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena,", replace "evolutionary theory" with "evolutionary biology". The theory has not "expanded" per se, it's been updated and revised. The field of evolutionary biology, on the other hand, can be argued to have "expanded" to deal with more and more types of phenomena.

-Silence 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, to all. (Great answer above regarding theistic evolution, BTW). <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes 25-28 (3)
These changes deal with the middle of the third paragraph:


 * 25. Change "the examples that are held up as evidence of design" to "the examples that are held up by design advocates as evidence of design" for clarification. Only IDers (and other design-asserting creationists) hold them up as "evidence of design".
 * 26. Change "changed. But" to "changed, but". No reason to end the sentence here.
 * 27. Change "complex systems imply a designer" to "complex systems&mdash;what intelligent design advocates would call "irreducibly complex systems"&mdash;imply a designer" for added informational value, and to avoid having to use the awkward, out-of-context "see also" link to irreducible complexity at the paragraph's end ("(see irreducible complexity)"), when it is less useful and informative.
 * 28. Remove "(optical system)" after "eye" as unnecessary.

-Silence 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK to all (well, of course removing (optical system) might lead someone to think of a potato's eye...  :)  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
The Introduction reads:
 * A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Does that refer to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as laid out in the rest of the paragraph? If no, can you please be more specific? If yes, can you please make it clear from the beginning that both sentences refer to a single case? --Rtc 15:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point...I copyedited it...it should be better now. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New reference style?
I've been concerned for a while now that Intelligent design's current ref/footnote style is not as consistent or user-friendly as it could be. I've been looking for a useful method to clearly and consistently present readers with both the footnotes and elaborations on the text, and the references and citations providing sources for its claims. After some experimenting on User:Silence/ID, my current conclusion is that the best option is to use a method combining the current system with the Harvard referencing-style system in use in featured articles like Saffron and Donkey Kong (arcade game). This will effectively coordinate the footnote and citation aspects of the current "references" section, and keep the two distinct but interrelated. I've also brought the topic of this style of referencing up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources for feedback from Wikipedia editors in general, if there's any interest. -Silence 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd object. The Harvard reference style requires the reader to familiarize themselves with the references, scroll down until they see the reference, then have the misfortune of trying to find their place in the text of the article again should they wish to continue reading.  Footnotes allow a quick link, quick backpage, and pick up reading just where the reader left off. ... Kenosis 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. That may be the case in textual use of Harvard references, but online, things are considerably more flexible. Try clicking one of the first refs in User:Silence/ID, for example, and you'll be brought to the footnote, with a clickable link that will instantly take you to the specific reference in question, not just to the section it's in. It works the exact same way as the "ref" tags, basically: it will jump directly to the line it should. -Silence 08:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kenosis regarding ease of use: yes, going from a (ref in article) to b (ref in notes) back to a works the same, but a to b to c (see ref for Paley for instance) leaves you at c, and in all honesty, just creates more work for the reader. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, footnotes here will need to accomodate direct quotes when appropriate, as there are a number that are necessary to the article. I don't think the Harvard style accomodates that requirement. Footnote format should be consistant and provide for some flexibility in quotes, explanations, etc. FeloniousMonk 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the proposed page, and to be honest, I do not like it, as you indeed have to know your way back, which is just a pain in the but with the referincing style. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Silence/ID is not an improvement. It creates more work for the reader and the editor, is less flexible, and does not even adequately seperate notes (that can themselves require a source) from sources. WAS 4.250 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Our current style can be improved like this if anyone cares to spend the time: WAS 4.250 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The push by some in Wikipedia to lean further towards the Harvard style rather than moving towards footnotes where possible is, in a word, crap – deviod of proper analysis about what are the main kinds of intended readership. The Harvard style is not conducive to an encyclopedia of any kind, let alone an online encyclopedia.  It is really only for the convenience of the editors and virtually no one else.
 * The style may, of course, be convenient to:
 * professors grading academic papers who are already familiar with most or all of the references involved in a subject (or if not, are expected to become familiar with the references, something easier to do in a hard copy of a brief paper than it is in an online format such as this);
 * a community already familiar with the general "lay of the land" as far as who has published what in a given field or area of inquiry, to whom a new unfamiliar name or two here and there will immediately tend to leap off the page to catch their eye. Alternately, the expectation here is that the reader will be required to familiarize her or his self with the lay of the land as to author citations if they are not already familiar;
 * WP editors who wish to donate relevant parts of an already written academic paper by merely pasting it in relevant sections or articles;
 * WP editors who find it difficult to parse through the text-box for editing when they're in a hurry;
 * WP writers/editors who want to feel or look academic, and like the idea of using something called the "Harvard" style;
 * and perhaps others.


 * But for articles written for a general readership such as this article, the Harvard style is a disservice to the readers. Besides the scrolling problems I mentioned, they clutter up the text with names that are irrelevant nonsense to most readers other than those interested in dwelling in, or feeling like they're participating in, an academic format. Such citations also go against the general push for WP editors to use "encyclopedia-style" or "news-style" writing. Footnotes can readily accommodate multiple formats within, such as citations, comments, technical notes, etc., without cluttering up the body text. ... Kenosis 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, that was well put. I strongly agree. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: Kenosis, the style you call "academic" and several other bad names developed over many years in all of those realms that care about sourced research, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to care about. The footnoted, ibid, loc cit, op cit style was already going out of favor in sourced research when I was in high school, and that was many years ago. Aside from the ragged line spacing caused by superscripts, and the degradation of source information that gradually occurs by doing things by RefBot, there are many good reasons for having alphabetized lists of references at the end, and doing inline citations in the text. The name of "Who Said It" is very important to keep attached to each statement, for the sake of WP:NPOV and WP:VER, and it serves the reader to maintain awareness of the contingency of each assertion in the text. This is triply important in a resource that has no primary authority on its own, in part because its "editors" use pseudonyms. Jon Awbrey 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JA, didn't you have this elaborate plan where you were leaving? What happened to that? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interest in his diatribe waned, he got lonely. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all well and fine for print, but it does not translate as well to web. WP:FOOT is the convention at wikipedia for good reason; it provides the most utility to the reader. FeloniousMonk 20:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JA: Ha, ha, you mispelled "futility". Jon Awbrey 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A word for which a new definition has been added: attempting meaningful discourse with JA. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg|40 px|Reminder: Don't feed the troll]] FeloniousMonk 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means, use whatever the appropriate "academic" style for academic work - but that differs not only from discipline to discipline, but from journal to journal. While footnotes & endnotes may have been on the way out in the sciences a generation ago, that isn't the case in the humanities or social sciences (as far as I can tell, based on my admittedly limited reading). Yeah, I find end notes annoying in paper. And, I also find it annoying that I can't see the source in the middle of the text when I am reading something that uses endnotes. But the average reader doesn't recognise (Name, 2000) - it's just filler. "Harvard style" references are great when you know the literature and you can recognise authors, if not actual references. Using isn't perfect, but it's slightly better. Not to mention that is doesn't preclude the inclusion of a proper alphabetical list of refs at the end. Guettarda 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: One of the utilities of the inline style is that it familiarizes the reader with the sources as they read. Nobody routinely scrolls down to the end and then back, anymore than they will routinely click on the superscript and then back again, not after the novelty of that has worn off — either way of flipping is a prescription for cognitive whiplash. Some people will give the list of references a quick scan beforehand and others will not. Either way, the inline citation does create a mental association between the statement and the source name, recognized or not, and it gives a sense of how many different sources are being used and how heavily the text relies on just a few. Tons and tons of actual cognitive research studies have been done over the years to test which methods of citation lead to comprehension and critical perception, and this style has come about in part on that basis. Jon Awbrey 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you done a study on this (of course you have, blah, blah) or are you just releasing verbal flatulence because it feels good? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So says you. That nobody routinely uses the footnotes is not a given.


 * WP:FOOT is the convention, and like most other articles at the project, this article will continue to follow the convention. FeloniousMonk 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jon, we aren't training grad students, or even undergrad here. Most people who consult Wikipedia are never going to develop even a passing familiarity with the literature.  In addition, Harvard-style references are confusing for people unfamiliar with them - very confusing.  I've had undergrads in advanced classes who are puzzled by them - they should know better, but to someone whose formal education ended 25 years ago in high school, they are a barrier towards comprehensibility.  The target audience for this project isn't undergrads - for the most part they have access to high-quality, level-appropriate resources through their library.  The target audience is someone for whom a free resource is a huge benefit.  The more barriers we erect to usability by the general public, the further we end up from our goal.  Guettarda 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: I just do not share this low opinion of the reader. Jon Awbrey 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "low opinion"? Do you not believe that most of the readers of Wikipedia lack graduate degrees?  Guettarda 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nay, he thinks we are all projecting. His mirror is broken. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: I do not think that it takes a graduate degree to understand the difference between an unsourced statement like "S is P" and a sourced statement like "S is P, said Tom recently". I think that folks without graduate degrees are capable of picking up very quickly on the fact that "S is P (Tom, recently)" is just a conventional way of stating the latter. Jon Awbrey 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, imagine that: an idea cribbed from the Truth article! (Which is looking much better, BTW.) <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  13:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aubrey has surpassed troll, and moved on to the next level. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bamboozled By Delinquent Propagandists
The Intelligent Design Network, Inc., is a Kansas "NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION." The corporation's Business Entity ID Number is 2785558. See http://www.accesskansas.org/srv-corporations/index.do

The Intelligent Design Network, Inc. (IDN) is "DELINQUENT" and "does not currently qualify for a letter or certificate of good standing" (contact the Kansas Secretary of State at (785) 296-4564). John H. Calvert is the corporation's "Resident Agent."

The home page of the IDN presents the unattributed opinion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

The IDN defines intelligent design as "a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." This definition of intelligent design is a classic example of the straw man propaganda technique.

"The straw man fallacy occurs when a statement misrepresents or invents an opponent's view (sometimes even the opponent is invented) in order to easily discredit it. The straw man fallacy does not consist of stating an opponent's position, but only in stating it inaccurately. The straw man argument is intended to give the appearance of successfully refuting the original argument, thus creating the impression that it has refuted a position that someone actually holds. A straw man is constructed expressly for the purpose of knocking it down."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Straw_man

The IDN's definition of intelligent design contains the assertion that the theory of evolution includes the "core claim" that "the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." This assertion is untrue. We can now see that intelligent design, as defined by the IDN, is nothing more than propaganda of the straw man variety.

The Discovery Institute is publishing an unattributed opinion of intelligent design that is almost identical to the unattributed opinion of the IDN. Wikipedia is presenting the DI's unattributed opinion about the merits of intelligent design as though that opinion is a definition of intelligent design. And Wikipedians are overlooking the actual definition of intelligent design, which is being published by a delinquent corporation, the Intelligent Design Network.

My conclusion: The editors of Wikipedia's "Intelligent Design" page have been bamboozled by delinquent propagandists.

Scott G. Beach


 * I'm sure the pro-ID editors here think much the same thing about us, just not for the same reasons. We've been called a lot of things here over the years, but "bamboozled by delinquent propagandists" gets the "creative use of rhetoric" award. FeloniousMonk 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm just showing my ignorance, but aren't DI the originators of ID per se? Not of creationism, of course, but of "Intelligent Design", the modern spin-doctored form of creationism-that-pretends-to-be-science?  Because if DI concocted ID, then they have a right to define ID to mean whatever they want it to mean - it's their theory.
 * I don't see where the "bamboozled" comes in. We report on what they claim ID to be and their arguments in favor of it, then we note that the vast majority of scientists consider ID to be premium, grade-A bullshit and have dismissed it.  What more could you ask from an NPOV encyclopedia?  Kasreyn 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kasreyn:


 * The Discovery Institute poses the rhetorical question, "What is the theory of intelligent design?" Then, instead of providing a definition of intelligent design, DI presents the OPINION that intelligent design is the "best" explanation; "The theory of intelligent design holds 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."


 * Bruce Chapman, the founder of the DI, holds the opinion "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." In order to hide his opinion, Mr. Chapman turns "intelligent design" into a person who has the capacity to formulate and express an opinion.  This propagandistic switcheroo allows Mr. Chapman to remove his name from his opinion and write, "The theory of intelligent design holds [the opinion] that..."  And then, in the name of Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View", you help to hide this switcheroo by deleting the hypostatization "The theory of intelligent design..." and by describing Mr. Chapman's hypostatized opinion as a "concept."


 * Wake up Kasreyn! YOU have been bamboozled by a master propagandists.  You can redeem your credibility by revising the first sentence of Wikipedia's "Intelligent Design" page to read, "Bruce Chapman, the founder of the Discovery Institute, holds the opinion '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.'"


 * Remove the hypostatization! Put Mr. Chapman's name where it belongs.  And don't describe his opinion as a "concept".


 * Scott G. Beach 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing me for an ID supporter. I do not support the veracity of DI's claims; I merely point out that ID, as a theory, is "defined" by they who invent it.  Therefore when we cite the definition of the ID theory - which I apparently must remind you I disagree with - it is important that we note the origination of that theory.
 * Additionally, whether or not Mr. Chapman holds the particular opinion you claim he holds - and I wouldn't know because I've never heard of him before - it's quite clear that many others hold, and held, the same opinion. It would violate NPOV for Wikipedia to pretend that Chapman is alone in his opinion.  Millions upon millions of people have been of the opinion that an intelligent cause must be behind the origin of life and/or the universe, since time immemorial.  (In case your memory is fading again:  I am not one of them).  ID is merely an attempt to dress this opinion up in the clothing of pseudoscience.   This makes the new, ID version a creation of DI, but it draws upon a continuing tradition of belief that is much older than this recent dispute.
 * If you dispute whether Wikipedia is correctly attributing the origination of the specific definition of the theory as cited, then please provide sources showing that the concept originated with Chapman.
 * Oh - and please cease your insulting claims that I have been "bamboozled" and need to "wake up". I do not appreciate or deserve being held in such light regard when, for my part, I have treated your objections with civility and respect.  Sincerely, Kasreyn 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kasreyn:


 * I respect your good-faith effort to abide by Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy. However, I do not believe that the NPOV policy requires you to accept a propagandist's willful misrepresentation.


 * Discovery Institute is a Washington corporation. As a "legal person", DI has the power to buy, own, and sell real and personal property, and it can enter into contracts, and it can sue and be sued.  However, DI is not a human being.  It cannot formulate and express an opinion.  If DI's website includes an unattributed opinion then DI's current president, whoever that may be at a particular time, must take responsibility for that unattributed opinion.  DI's website includes the unattributed opinion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation and Mr. Chapman must take responsibility for that opinion.  Mr. Chapman cannot be allowed to hide behind a corporate charter and a hypostatization.


 * I have a very good reason for emphasizing this point. Many years ago, while I was watching a television news report, I saw and heard a U.S. cabinet secretary (it might have been the Secretary of State) assert that "national security demanded" that American munitions be given to Iran in exchange for American hostages (this came to be known as the Arms-for-Hostages Scandal).  The Secretary used the hypostatization "national security demanded" as a way of avoiding stating the simple truth -- the President of the United States of America had ORDERED that arms be traded for hostages.


 * When I heard the Secretary's testimony I immediately recognized it as a hypostatization designed to conceal the truth. And when I see Discovery Institute give "The theory of intelligent design" the capacity to formulate and express the opinion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation then I also recognize that as a hypostatization which, in this case, tricks the reader into thinking that Mr. Chapman's opinion of intelligent design is a definition of intelligent design.


 * Okay, you do not need to "wake up." You can accept DI's "definition" of intelligent design if you think that the NPOV policy requires you to do so.  However, please recognize that Bruce Chapman, like the aforementioned cabinet secretary, was a member of the Reagan administration.  Reagan's operatives were very good at using propaganda techniques to spin the truth into a maze of smoke and mirrors.  They were professional bamboozlers so please be very wary of anything that they say or publish.  Respectfully, Scott G. Beach 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Monk:

John Calvert, a retired lawyer, wrote a paper titled "Should Public Schools Suppress Scientific Controversies over Core Claims of Evolution?

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/AEI%20102105%20final.pdf

In that paper, Calvert wrote, "It is argued that it is religion in disguise. Actually, ID is simply a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolution that design is an illusion. So long as that disagreement remains theoretical, then it is scientific.  From this it should be clear that ID is science and not religion.[10]  Furthermore, the hypothesis that an intelligent cause may have played a role in the origin of life and its diversity, is science because it arises only from an observation and analysis of the very same data that evolutionary biologists use to postulate no-design."

From this writing, I have deduced that intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent cause played a role in the origin of life and its diversity.

When Calvert asserts that evolutionary biologists "postulate no-design" he is slamming a "postulate" into the theory of evolution simply so that he can create a "scientific disagreement." This is straw man propaganda because the theory of evolution does not contain a "no-design" postulate or "core claim."

The first sentence of the Wikipedia page about intelligent design should be revised to read, "Intelligent design is the claim that an intelligent cause played a role in the origin of life and its diversity." Scott G. Beach 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the "creative use of rhetoric" award.
 * I'm sorry, are you arguing against allowing the Discovery Institute to define Intelligent Design, because some other person defined it differently? This man suggests that he has proven that ID is scientific, when he clearly hasn't. Why should we use his definition? -- Ec5618 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618:
 * No, I am NOT "arguing against allowing the Discovery Institute to define Intelligent Design". The Discovery Institute has bamboozled YOU into presenting Bruce Chapman's hypostatized OPINION as a "concept".  Don't be silly!  Put Mr. Chapman's name on his opinion or provide a REAL definition of intelligent design. Scott G. Beach 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But you are. The Discovery Institute defined and created Intelligent Design. So it makes perfect sense to use their definition of Intelligent Design. There is absolutely no reason to value John Calvert's definition over the Discovery Institute's. And that does seem to be what you're suggesting we do. If Bruce Chapman's definition is the oficial definition used by the Discovery Institute, then Bruce Chapman's definition is the official definition.
 * What does it matter what some random individual said, when we have the definition straight from the horse's mouth. And please, try brevity. -- Ec5618 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618:


 * The home page of the Intelligent Design Network includes the two following sentences: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." I understand the first of these two sentences to be an OPINION that intelligent design is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things".  I understand the second of these two sentences to be a definition of intelligent design -- intelligent design is a "scientific disagreement."


 * Personally, I think that the IDN has the cart before the horse. The DEFINITION of intelligent design should be presented before the OPINION that intelligent design is "best."  But I suppose that the IDN is entitled to do things ass-backwards if it wants to.


 * Now take a look at what the Discovery Institute does. They present the question, "What is the theory of intelligent design?"  Following that question is the sentence, "The theory of intelligent design holds 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."  This OPINION is nearly identical to the OPINION presented by the Intelligent Design Network.  But after presenting its OPINION, the Discovery Institute does not go on to provide a definition of intelligent design.  Is the absence of a definition an oversight or is it a propaganda ploy designed to trick the reader into accepting an OPINION as though that OPINION is a definition?


 * The Wikipedia page about intelligent design is inappropriately presenting an OPINION about intelligent design as though that OPINION is a DEFINITION. Scott G. Beach 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop yelling. Now, the Discovery Institute defined and created Intelligent Design. So it makes perfect sense to use their definition of Intelligent Design. This is how they present it to their audience. The bias you find in the definition when you call it an opinion is inherent to the presentation. If Bruce Chapman's definition is the oficial definition used by the Discovery Institute, then Bruce Chapman's definition is the official definition. -- Ec5618 10:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

All ID proponents from the Discover Institute
The following was just left on my talk page. ... Kenosis 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * == All ID proponents from the Discover Institute ==
 * Hi, I was about to alter the ID article concerning "All Proponents from the discovery institute" to "many" when I read the comment in the article...I found your section on the talk page and posted a couple of questions and am waiting for a response, so you have a moment, I'd appreciate a response.


 * I think saying "all" probably goes too far. While it may be true for academics there are numerous columnists and other authors that have supported ID and I think it unlikely that everyone is associated with the DI.


 * I noticed a reference to further discussion in "archives"...I'm not familiar with how to find these archives, perhaps you could post links on the ID talk page or maybye copy and paste those discussions into the talk page for people's review when this question comes up. Thanks.  AbstractClass 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi AbstractClass. I couldn't believe it was possible at first, but it is quite true.  All of the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.  Amazing. ... Kenosis 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been looked at before. The standing offer is, find one who isn't before protesting - if a verifiable source can be found for a leading proponent who is not, then it will be time to discuss how to re-word, but not until then. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem expressed is that he couldn't find the archives (they're at ). Suggests that we may have too many orangy boxes at the top of the page... Guettarda 14:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found this on my talk page, following up on the above. Have asked that the discussion be moved here. ... Kenosis 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your reply. I was curious specifically about Lee Strobel (the author of The Case for Christ) who advocated for ID in The Case for a Creator.  Is he affiliated with DI?


 * Also, and I didn't ask specifically about this person, but there is also, apparently a columnist for the "National Review" (Online) named George Gilder who had a recent article advocating ID. He may be more obscure as I only know his name from a column I read.  I guess the question may also stretch into what is a "leading proponent".  At any rate if you have any information on these, particularly Lee Strobel, who is well known, I would appreciate it.  Thanks.  -  AbstractClass 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, apprently George Gilder was a co-founder of DI, as I just found out. So that leaves Lee Strobel and then I suppose that will be the extent of my challenges at this point.  :p - AbstractClass 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation is in the article. If the situation changes, the wording and citation will change accordingly. ... Kenosis 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All - even Strobel . <sup style="color:purple;">Jekyll <sub style="color:green;">Hyde 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that everyone he interviewed for his book is affiliated with DI shouldn't be taken as evidence that of a connection. On the other hand, the article says that all major proponents - not sure if you could call Strobel a major proponent - more like a hack ex-journlaist who tries to use the fact that he was a journalist to imply that he's doing investigative reporting.  Guettarda 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

27 to 56
Don't know why you reverted the Dembski formulation. If we keep it, the intro will be 27% definition of ID and 56% objections to it.

Are you saying that would give an article on ID undue weight, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This just placed on my talk page. Moving it here to the relevant forum. ... Kenosis 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ==Exclusion of perspective on ID==


 * When reverting my latest change to Intelligent design, you wrote:
 * What is going on here? "in other words... [POV follows]" "Indeed, ...[POV follows]" Please stop these POV entries into already consensused material


 * I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that what I added was an example of "point of view editing" in violation of some policy?


 * Allow me to call your attention to the following:


 * It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. Arbcom link)
 * Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
 * The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.


 * My addition points out a significant reason that supports and critics of ID are in conflict. So my addition was relevant to the article and not a violation of policy.


 * Please reassure me that you did not mean to accuse me of violating policy. --Uncle Ed 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy you cite is irrelevant. No 'block of information' was removed. What was removed was the unsourced and badly formulated assertion that "much of the difference between ID and the Theory of Evolution stems from a disgreement over what sorts of causes are the legitimate object of scientific study (see scientific naturalism]])". You'll have to provide a source, firstly for the suggestion that naturalism is used in arguments by ID supporters, and secondly that that qualifies as a major difference between evolution and ID. Obviously, and as you are well aware, very few scientists would agree that the major (or even a major) difference between ID and evolution is a simple disagreement. -- Ec5618 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, you essentially engaged in POV editorialism that didn't even manage to present something with even a remote correlation to reality. In other words, your claim was spurious.  Indeed, the specious nature of your edits was rather clear to the average well-informed reader.
 * In future, when making substantive edits to this article, please have citations at the ready -- citations that conform to WP:V and WP:RS. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition to the Discovery Institute's definition of Intelligent design
It occurs to me that a site as big as theirs would probably give more that one definition, so perhaps a subsection or footnote or something using their own definitions might help. WAS 4.250 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"What is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design holds that the universe and its living things are not simply the product of random chance; an intelligent cause is behind their existence. Intelligent Design does not conflict with Darwinism’s belief in evolution – that living organisms will change over time. It does run counter to the new school of Darwinism that holds random selection drives evolution. Chance mutations occur without reason. Intelligent Design challenges this direction head-on based upon its belief that changes occur due to a reason. One useful definition of Intelligent Design can be found in the book, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. The definition presented in this book holds that Intelligent Design is “the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism.”"

"The leading scientists and scholars researching and advancing the theory define intelligent design as: The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. “All intelligent design can do as a scientific theory is try to identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence,” said Luskin. “We’re researching whether things were designed, not who the designer was.”"

"What is your definition of intelligent design? Intelligent design is the study and search for objective evidence of design in nature. It holds that certain features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause."

"Suffice for now that we are sad that, once again, reporters (and editors) found it necessary to write ABOUT our definition of intelligent design--and getting it wrong--rather than quoting what WE say is the definition. We don’t believe reporters are dense or hard of hearing, only that they think there just has to be a trick in there somewhere and, by golly, they are not going to fall for it. Or is it because our definition (that "intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process like natural selection”) is just not sensational and objectionable enough? If we cannot be quoted trying to get God into classrooms, the words will have to be imputed to us."

"As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics."

WAS 4.250 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to see the larger context. I'd like to see the article start with more than 15% to 25% "definition of ID". Right now most of the intro reads like a carbon copy of Criticism of intelligent design or Intelligent design controversy.


 * How about a nice, simple definition?
 * Adherents of ID consider their idea that God causes speciation a viable scientific hypothesis. Scientists deny that this hypothesis can be considered scientific at all, but rather a philosophical or religious idea outside the realm of science. --Uncle Ed 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All of which are subordinate and corollary to this article's primary definition - which is the institute's primary definition. These corollary definitions are covered to varying degrees in the article already. FeloniousMonk 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. ID causing speciation is at odds with many, but not all, ID researchers. Meyer himself has stated that ID is not only finding evidence that there is design in nature, but that it finds problems with the idea of common ancestry. While Behe may endorse this almost theistic evolution approach to ID, many ID researchers are going after the whole ball of wax JPotter 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also the problem of God did it -- such rhetoric is saved for the fundamentalist/evangelical Christian crowd, but generally avoided in public, both in recognition of the fact that there's nothing scientific about the concept of god, and also as a part of their overal policy of deception.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

POV-check
This entire article reaks of bias from the atheist/secular humanist community. --(an unsigned comment from )


 * If you'd like to cite some peer-reviewed scientific sources that counter this bias, that'd be great. The content here has been carefully edited over several years to ensure it presents an objective treatment of ID.  If ID wants to be labelled as science, it has to stand up to scientific scrutiny.  What you label "reaks [sic] of bias" is the result of this scrutiny.  I'm going to remove your tag, please don't replace it unless you can come up with some reason for doing so.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's likely because it presents both sides of the story as called for by WP:NPOV and you were expecting a ID-pov article. Do you have specific objections to discuss? FeloniousMonk 15:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Improbable versus impossible events
This section should be removed. It is completely irrelevant to the claims of the ID advocates. The appropriate example should rather be the probability of being dealt two bridge hands where one mirrors the other. (JohnCarter 10:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)).


 * Why would that be being dealt the same bridge hand twice have anything to do with the probability of life arising? That's more like what the probability would be of the same type of life arising independently on two different worlds. -Silence 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

E.g. enzymes are only functional because they act in a meaningful context. CSI applies when a string of information is related to another string of information. Arguments like this is silly; "consider the low probability of the event that all of us showed up tonight, yet here we are!" By the way, ID advocates do not argue that OOL is a rare event, they argue that it can't be explained by chance and/or necessity (JohnCarter 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
 * "ID advocates do not argue that OOL is a rare event, they argue that it can't be explained by chance..". If I read ID (Dembski's) work correctly, then you can reject the chance hypothesis if a event drops below a certain probability.  Therefore, the first step in Dembski's filter is to see if the event can be explained via pure chance and random events (which necesserily brings in probability).  If it is below a certain probability then chance can be rejected and necessity can be assumed and tested.  Prnbability has a very strong presence in all of Dembski's work (as the first step in his filter) and is therefore a pertinent point of criticism.--Roland Deschain 14:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Our job is to report the debate to the readers of WP, in keeping with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. This is what the article presently does. ... Kenosis 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed at Articles for deletion
The aforementioned articles are listed at AFD. Uncle G 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient Objective Description of Intelligent Design
I find that the article about intelligent design is very biased and lacks a clear objective description of intelligent design. Why can it not just be defined and objectively described to the reader instead. There seems to be too much of a personal viewpoint attached to this article. Why not remove all text except the definition and relevant links? Then you could have a separate page that showcases the intelligent design theory vs. evolution theory debate. That way you could have a balanced description of the key arguments pertaining to these opposing worldviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolasclyde (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Coolasclyde 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of this page, please read carefully the WP:NPOV policy, it has dictated the structure and tone of this article. Specifically, pay special attention to the sections of WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Having done that, if you still have a specific objection to the treatment or defition of this article's topic, please come back and tell us exactly how you think the article violates the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the definition given is the definition provided by its advocates, consistently with the citation(s) in the article
 * Second, the "debate" or "controversy" is a socio-political one manufactured by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in order to push a creationist POV on the public schools in the US. Ample verification of this fact is provided in the article and in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision findings of fact.
 * Third, evolution is not a theory but a fact. Calling it a theory is similar to calling gravity the "theory of gravity", to calling relativity the "theory of relativity", or to calling electromagnetism "electromagnetic theory".  The only "controversy", occurring within the last 30 years, has to do with the newer understanding that many of the more complex species evolved stepwise in a punctuated equilibrium pattern.  This involves specific questions about morphogenesis and other factors, and is not a controversy about the essential fact of evolution, contrary to what ID advocates would have the public believe.
 * Fourth, intelligent design is not a theory either, at least not a scientific one.
 * Fifth, if the article is biased in light of the facts, it is biased towards bending over backwards to analyze a philosophical or theological speculation attempting to masquerade as science. Since ID's advocates attempt to call it science, it must be subjected the kind of scrutiny applied to any assertion that is put forward by an advocate that would have us take that assertion as "scientific".  This scrutiny involves an expectation of a much greater level of empirical verifiability than is typically applied to theological concepts.  The article correctly reports this to the reader, in summary form, but with adequate detail for the reader to gain a basic understanding of the relevant issues.
 * Kenosis 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Coolasclyde's suggestion for this article to only have the definition of ID and supporting links and to create a new article for intelligent design theory vs. evolution theory clearly creates a POV Fork, violating the WP:POVFORK guideline. FeloniousMonk 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the policies you have indicated. Thank you for pointing them out. I still find the article to be as how I have described it before. How can a description of intelligent design be objective when it is depicted and described as pseudoscience? Coolasclyde 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC

Regarding Kenosis comments:
 * Second, the "debate" or "controversy" is a socio-political one manufactured by the Discovery Institute and its affiliates in order to push a creationist POV on the public schools in the US. Ample verification of this fact is provided in the article and in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision findings of fact.

How can intelligent design theory be objectively described when it depicted as a creationist point of view? Coolasclyde 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take another minute or two with this out of an assumption of good faith here. It is in fact a creationist POV, and if you read the article you will see that it is a sneaky and dishonest creationist POV (see e.g. wedge strategy and forked tongue. ... Kenosis 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Third, evolution is not a theory but a fact. Calling it a theory is similar to calling gravity the "theory of gravity", to calling relativity the "theory of relativity", or to calling electromagnetism "electromagnetic theory".  The only "controversy", occurring within the last 30 years, has to do with the newer understanding that many of the more complex species evolved stepwise in a punctuated equilibrium pattern.  This involves specific questions about morphogenesis and other factors, and is not a controversy about the essential fact of evolution, contrary to what ID advocates would have the public believe.

How is evolution a fact? How has it been proven without a doubt? Have we been able to prove that all organisms have evolved from a single organism? Unless someone is able to reproduce the exact beginnings of how life came to be according to evolutionary theory from start to finish it will remain a theory. Coolasclyde 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic facts are in the article, but you may also refer to Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution... Kenosis 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fourth, intelligent design is not a theory either, at least not a scientific one.

How can evolution be a scientific theory but intelligent design can not? Both can be tested scientifically to some degree via hypothesis testing as scientific method allows. Coolasclyde 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, fine let's say ID is a theory. So is this: "A commonly held theory in town is that Joe's Tavern gives you smaller drinks after you've had a few."  This theory is eminently more falsifiable or verifiable than the theory of intelligent design.  The reason ID is not a valid scientific theory is explained in the article, with appropriate citations. ... Kenosis 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kenosis has, of course, nailed the reason ID is not a scientific theory -- it is not falsifiable. The inclusion of a designer, who apparently works outside of nature blows any chance it has of falsifiability.  Yes, yes, some have said that the designers could've been little green men, but that's merely a facade to hide the Abrahamic creationist bent of ID.  (It also creates an infinite regression fallacy.)  Bottom line, ID's as scientific as phrenology  (maybe even less so).  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fifth, if the article is biased in light of the facts, it is biased towards bending over backwards to analyze a philosophical or theological speculation attempting to masquerade as science. Since ID's advocates attempt to call it science, it must be subjected the kind of scrutiny applied to any assertion that is put forward by an advocate that would have us take that assertion as "scientific".  This scrutiny involves an expectation of a much greater level of empirical verifiability than is typically applied to theological concepts.  The article correctly reports this to the reader, in summary form, but with adequate detail for the reader to gain a basic understanding of the relevant issues.
 * Kenosis 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How can this be objectively described when it is depicted as theology attempting to masquerade as science? Coolasclyde 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By describing it for what it is, and about which the article is very restrained, patient and deferential. But this leads us in circular fashion right back to where you started above, doesn't it?  Sorry you found the article not to your liking--I feel the same way about it, mostly because a great deal of valuable time was spent by many people researching and clarifying these issues for the readers. ... Kenosis 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Science is used to accurately predict things and therefore is what is used by people trying to achieve real world results. When intelligent design can be used to design new medicines or find oil deposits then it will be science. Religion and psudeoscience only produce results by changing the behavior of humans. Reality is what still exists even if no one believes in it. WAS 4.250 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Erm, because that's exactly what it is. It has no research agenda, no publications and no presence in the research community.  It may present itself as if it does have these features, but it doesn't.  That it's theology masquerading  as science is pretty clear from the motivation behind the Wedge strategy that drives ID.  --Plumbago 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As editors here, we have to follow the policies and the content of the article is shaped by the WP:NPOV policy. To your question, ID proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory. WP:NPOV says that both sides of a debate must be presented, opening the door for the viewpoint of the scientific community's reception of ID's claim of being legitimate science.


 * Since the scientific community rejects that claim and says ID is pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."


 * Since the scientific community rejects ID proponents claim ID is valid science, ID is then the minority view. NPOV: Giving "equal validity" says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..."


 * As to how much article space it dedicated to the two opposing viewpoints, NPOV: Undue weight says "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." Finally, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions on "What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?" tells us "No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc."


 * Does that help you? FeloniousMonk 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How does evolution help predict things? How is it used by people to achieve real world results? Evolutionary theory does not enable people to design new medicines or find oil deposits. Intelligent design is a theory (just like evolution) that has been developed to describe how life came to be, that's all. If intelligent design is to be described as psuedoscience or religion then evolutionary theory must also be described in such light. Evolution is just a theory, it has not been proven and it never will unless someone is able to reproduce the exact beginnings of how life came to be according to evolutionary theory from start to finish. Until then, evolution will remain a theory just like intelligent design. Coolasclyde 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have large misconceptions about evolution. Please read up on the subject.  --Roland Deschain 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The theory of evolution itself is not an origin of life theory.  It attempts to describe the process by which one species becomes another, not how the very first organism arose.  Evolution makes no claims on that subject; ID does.  The two are not analogous; see false dichotomy.  Kasreyn 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How can we say that the scientific community rejects intelligent design? Has everyone that is in the scientific community been properly versed on ID and asked this? How is it possible to make this statement? To do this we would have to define what scientific community means and who works within it. Then we would have to have experts of intelligent design describe it to them. Then we would have account for everyone and ask them what the think about it. This is impossible. So it is unfair to assume the all people in the scientific community have been sampled and their viewpoint has been accurately depicted as the article describes. Thus, it cannot be decided that intelligent design is of a minority or majority view and therefore it cannot be described as it has. Coolasclyde 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientific community rejects ID because ID has not published a single peer reviewed scientific paper that shows that their theory is superior to the theory of evolution. All your concerns about ID have been amply discussed before: a good starting point would be to read the transcript of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial where all your isses are brough up and discussed by both sides.--Roland Deschain 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming that everyone in the scientific community has been properly versed on ID and asked their opinion. Another problem is that you are letting the decisions made by one case influence your thoughts as well as assuming that the correct judgment was made in the case. So, according to your line of thinking, truth is what ever you can prove in a court room. I find that line of thinking terribly frightening given the numerous court decisions that have been overturned and the countless people that have been falsely imprisoned. Coolasclyde 17:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Roland didn't cite the case as proof, he suggested you read the transcripts and make up your own mind. 2) This is not the place to argue about the status of ID, take it somewher else like talk.origins. This is the place to discuss making this a better article. If you think the relevant parts of the article do not meet WP:V and or some other Wikipedia policy then please explain how you think they fail. JoshuaZ 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been presented with the reasoning of why the concept of intelligent design has been described as it has. I have already replied above to explain why this current reasoning fails to allow a clear objective description of ID. Coolasclyde 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you pick specific quotes from the article you disagree with and lay out specifically why you disagree with them and how you would rewrite them. This, I found, is the most constructive way to approach this kind of problem.--Roland Deschain 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the reasoning used to describe ID is changed to ensure objectiveness, it won't matter what I say I am afraid. I have outlined above the error in this reasoning. However, if it will help to show specifically what text I am referring to, then I will do this. Coolasclyde 18:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Coolasclyde, please sign using four tildes. Comment2: Time to archive, yes? This page is loading poorly for me. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am signing with four tildes. Coolasclyde 18:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you change your signature under preferences to not have a link to either your user or talk page? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that I did that. I will look into it. Thanks! Coolasclyde 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let see if this works. Coolasclyde 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To compromise, I request that the article add a "Criticisms of Intelligent Design" category within the article and move all the non-objective text under this heading. There is a great deal of persuasive text attached to the introduction alone. I will describe in detail these subjective descriptions later. Coolasclyde 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What "non-objective text" are you talking about? The article used to have a "criticisms" section, but it was removed because of complaints from ID supporters.  Guettarda 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say the introduction is persuasive. I find it quite well writter.  It summarizes the article quite well and is heavily cited: the first paragraph defines ID, the second addresses ID's place in science and the third paragraph concerns the legal standing of ID. Roland Deschain 21:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, another suggestion from Coolasclyde that would violate policy or guideline. My advice to Coolasclyde is to become far more familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies, guidelines and conventions before criticizing long-standing article content as flawed and long-term contributors as biased. FeloniousMonk 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism says: "Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created."
 * Criticism says: "Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are. Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism."
 * Words_to_avoid says: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other."


 * (dump of entire article removed, posted again below under Long post II) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above text is persuasive and biased and should be deleted. JPotter 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

!!!!
What the heck ''is' that? I am not going to read that, I doubt anyone else has the patience either. Guettarda 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there was a formatting problem obviously. Coolasclyde 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it. He simply says after each section he doesn't like that "the above text is persuasive and biased and should be deleted/moved to the criticism section" without providing why the preceding text was either persausive or biased. JPotter 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, my point exactly; you didn't take time to read it at all. Although that is a common concern it is not everything I said but thanks for at least acknowledging its existence.  Coolasclyde 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You read that Jason? You deserve a barnstar!
 * As for the post: he who asserts must prove. As everything you object to is well-sourced, the objector needs to point out where the alleged flaws are (or even what the alleged flaws are) -- preferably a point at a time. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not going to be bothered sorting through a text dump like that. The only problem here is that Coolasclyde, as a new editor, doesn't understand the nuances of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and how it applies to pseudoscience in general and ID in particular. Until he does, there's no point in further discussion of his objections. We've pointed him to the relevant policies, we've quoted and explained those policies in the context of the content, but Coolasclyde comes back with objections of the article being 'persuasive,' a concept not addressed in Wikipedia's rules (WP:RULES). Again, unless Coolasclyde can point to how a specific passage violates a specific policy there's nothing here to discuss.

To Coolasclyde: What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong? I simply will no longer take seriously or reply to challenges that do not address this question. I have found this to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in seriously contributing to a factual and complete article or just advancing a particular POV. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for substantiating what you claim. It's easy to criticize long-term contributors here for being "closed-minded" and unwilling to compromise. Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas about the neutral status of this article might be wrong? FeloniousMonk 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Long post II
Coolascyde's penchant for exceedingly long posts, this discussion has been moved to /Coolasclyde_objections to free up this page for other discussions. FeloniousMonk 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was horrendous. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for simplifying that. I graciously await the administrators critique.  I am sure it will be read thoroughly and with open minds and with close regard to the betterment of the article.  Thanks again KillerChihuahua and FeloniousMonk!  Coolasclyde 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also asking you that before we devote the significant chunck of time to addressing any of your objections to please read the Archives above, since most of your objections have already been discussed here at length previously. That being the case, unless you introduce new evidence all previously discussed objections will likely be viewed as long-settled matters by long-term contributors here and any objections of yours that do not bring new evidence may be deemed by some not be worthy of discussion. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have read the archives sir. However, asking me to re-read the archives is not grounds for dimissing my suggestions. I ask that you actually review my suggestions prior to assuming I have nothing new to add to the discussion. Thank you sir. Coolasclyde 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. or Ms. Coolasclyde evidently has taken a username with one purpose in mind, which is to deliver the Word in accordance with ID to the lost souls of WP editors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coolasclyde) None of Coolasclyde's commentary is either new or persuasive in light of the massive research effort and discussion by many editors that has gone into this article. There is a compelling modern story to tell in the article on intelligent design, an interesting mixture of ideology, politics, religion, science and legal intrigue. The current article tells this story factually, accurately, and informatively, with ample links to direct the reader who wishes to research further into the various issues involved.  For a difficult subject such as this, this article's about as good as it gets anywhere in the real world.  ... Kenosis 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Coolasclyde has failed to introduce any new evidence whatsoever or show that he has a grasp of WP policies or is interested in getting one, so my replies to his objections are in proportion to their legitimacy. It is becoming increasingly obvious based on his responses on the subpage that he's long on facile criticisms but short on substantive ones. Unless he comes back with some specific objections and shows how the article's content violates specific policies, there's nothing really to discuss. Coolasclyde's edit history is indeed troubling, belying any pretense of his not being here for simple advocacy. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong again. I have made several points that you do not wish to acknowledge. For instance, you and your fellow administrators challenged me to find just one proponent of ID that was not associated with DI and I did; Charles Colson. When it was found that discovered that indeed he was a proponent of ID and not a fellow of DI then you conspired to remove the link and the paragraph on Colson's Wiki page proving my point. See the links: Before removal:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson After removal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Colson&oldid=65863300

Shame on all of you conspirators! This is not a venue for creating objective, useful information. Obviously there is no room for logical arguements based in fact that differ from those of the current administrators. I am disappointed in the administration and will file a complaint. I will be surprised if this addition or myself is not removed because I have uncovered this conspiracy. No thanks to FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, and WAS; the conspirators. Best of luck to all those who intend to follow the evidence wherever it leads; for you won't be able to find it here I am afraid. Coolasclyde 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Er excuse me? From the timestamps it looks like Felonious, exactly one of the poeple you are accusing of conspiring, restored the material before you made this post. And WAS hasn't many any comments about this topic that I can see, nor is WAS an admin. To be blunt, you sound paranoid. Now, to turn to more serious matters: Colson is not a major proponent. In fact, outside of his connections to Watergate, he's barely notable. The idea that he constitutes a serious proponent of ID is frankly ridiculous. By this logic whenever any barely notable born again open his mouth to support ID, they would be a counterexample to the claim. There is no way that Colson is a "leading propopent" and the current claim is well-sourced. JoshuaZ 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Er Excuse You! See the link: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/4760.article Colson is a proponent of ID. Thank you! Coolasclyde 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One article does not make a "leading proponent". Guettarda 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He is a leading author and a proponent of ID. Hence, leading proponent. Thank you! Coolasclyde 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Must we go through this crap every month or so? Don't answer, the question was rhetorical. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a comprehension problem with the word "leading"? Should we change it to "major" or "like really major" or "one of the big cahunas of..."? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He is a leading author and a proponent of ID. Hence, leading proponent. Thank you! Coolasclyde 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Words in english don't magically separate. "leading proponent" is a phrase by itself. Leading modifies the type of proponent. Would you attempt to argue that George Bush is a "leading proponent"? JoshuaZ 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Look someone has revised and removed the intelligent design link and associated text from Colson's page again! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson

What a fraud you people are. Is there no justice? Where are the administrators? Please, administrate! Thank you! Coolasclyde 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct English would be "what frauds you people are"; Justice is blind; admins to the left of him, admins to the right... <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 again has been allowed to alter and remove the intelligent design link on Colson's page and other relevant text. Administrators, please administrate! Thank you! Coolasclyde 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to revert him, but you know what? The amazing thing about a Wiki is that you can edit the page if you disagree with his edit. Being an admin has nothing to do with reversion. Have fun. JoshuaZ 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is not an amazing thing. Rather it is quite sad because the truth is not adequately defended here. It is just a matter of who can change the article last. Yet, one cannot change or revise an article like ID because it is guarded by those who possess viewpoints that are used to subjectively critique it. Coolasclyde 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough. Based on our experience discussing with Coolasclyde his objections at /Coolasclyde_objections and his recent comments here, I'm ready to call this one closed. He's shown himself to be utterly impervious to evidence or reason, dismissive of policy and bent only on lessening critical viewpoints of ID or removing them altogether. Either he's being wilfully tendentious or we're being trolled, I'm not sure which. Either way there's little point in continuing with these discussions which are bound to be fruitless. All in favor... FeloniousMonk 03:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No sir. I am not a troll nor am I trolling. "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls." I have not displayed any of these characteristics, especially not rudeness. I have addressed persons as sir out of respect and have said please and thank you throughout the discussion. I merely am persistent about my suggestions and am doing nothing wrong. I have not tried to revise the ID article at all. I have done nothing at all wrong here nor have I removed anything like you have charged. I graciously ask you to please review my suggestions and give them the attention they deserve. Thank you! Coolasclyde 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so you're not trolling. You're just being wilfully tendentious then. Either way there's nothing to be gained by continuing this. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have, we've explained to you why they aren't valid. As for rudeness, repeated complaints about "conspiracies" would fit under most peoples defintion of rude. JoshuaZ 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye! May I first point out that the Clyde was dammed hot today, so much so that lots of kiddies were swimming at Lunderston Bay. As for C, rather reminiscent of an aggressive question put once to a friend of mine: "Youse tryin' to be f***ng objective?" (when objectionable was probably what the chap had in mind) ...dave souza, talk 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your respect and for cussing at me. I didn't know that was allowed here. I didn't cuss at you. Thanks for the hospitality. Coolasclyde 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see Dave's comment as swearing at you, but as using a properly edited vulgarism to illustrate a point to colorful effect. But considering the amount of the community's good will you frittered away here today with specious and tendentious objections I wouldn't be surprised if someone were swearing at you. FeloniousMonk 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great, thanks for condoning it and thanks again for an objective viewpoint. Coolasclyde


 * It wasn't even remotely close to "cussing at" you Clyde, and you know it. I think you're just playing a game, but what your game is exactly I haven't quite figured out.  I have no doubt there's a point to this disruptive and trollish behaviour, although so far the only point I can rule out is any attempt to actually have anything constructive to say about the article.
 * BTW, Clyde, re the definition of "troll", there was one very clear word that you either failed to comprehend or willfully overlooked (no surprise either way): "inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages" See that "or" in there?  That means that only one of the criteria needs to be met, not all four.  And, here again we have that same "or": "annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion."  Thus, you have come into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posted rude and repetitive messages designed intentionally to disrupt the flow of discussion.  QED. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, Dave didn't say what you claim, and I wouldn't condone it if he did. We have a policy against personal attacks too. FeloniousMonk 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but that hasn't stopped anyone from attacking me yet. Coolasclyde 03:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has attacked you. In fact, people seem to have shown quite good restrain. Now, please calm down. If you have any substantial new points to bring up, do so. Complaints and allegations of conspiracy are not useful. JoshuaZ 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. They are attacking me and trying to discredit me by calling me a troll. Coolasclyde 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, a few points: "they" - the only person I see who has called you a troll was Felonious. b) Given your behavior, it isn't an attack but rather a description. You have come to a page which people have been spending months of their time working on and rehashing and improving, in complete ignorance of the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you have then spent hours arguing despite being told repeatedly that none of your objections are new and being pointed to where they are addressed. c) when you don't like edits, you have accused people of "conspiring" against you. Now, to me at least, that sounds a bit trollish. Maybe not a deliberate troll, but the general result is similar. I suggest you calm down, take some time to slowly read the major wikipedia policies, maybe try to contribute to a few other articles, and then when you have more experience come back here. If you still feel as you do now, you will be able to then bring up your objections and explain them using the standard policies and vocabularly to discuss such matters. JoshuaZ 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Clyde knows the policies -- he's playing a game. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it won't matter how I bring up an objection and explain them with the policies because the viewpoints controlling the text with in the ID article will not allow it. I will get the run around again just like I am; "read the archives". Even when they speak nothing of objectivity. This is not a place for truth. It is a platform. Now one but the administrators can edit and that is why the ID article is so subjective. Coolasclyde 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Being an admin has nothing to do with anything. Recent edits have come from Roland(who is almost as new a user as you are), Kenosis, Jim62sch, WAS.4.250 and others all of whom are not admins. Again, please calm down. JoshuaZ 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request to Delist Intelligent Design
I graciously ask that the article be delisted on grounds that it does not meet the criteria for a "good article" based on the following:

1. It is factually inaccurate and nonverifiable. 2. It is not well written.

Review my suggestions and lack of consideration they received for further explanation.

Thank you. Coolasclyde 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Coolasclyde, in the relative cool of the night here (though rather hot for sleeping) may I point out that your problem seems to be your demand that the article should be objective? It appears to have escaped your notice that according to Wikipedia policy "There's no such thing as objectivity". And policy sets the rules here. That should be enough food for tonight. ..dave souza, talk 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Thank you. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey FM. How do you expect to present a honest depiction of what ID truely is when there is no such thing as objectivity in your vocabulary. I refer you to the term ignoratio elenchi. Look it up and get back to me oh defender of truth. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vere, FM defensor veritatis est; sed notione veritate tua defensioni non licet bovi, ne iovi quidem. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 10:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Experimental evidence concerning irreducible complexity
I'm not sure if this fits within this article, so I'm putting this up here first. Bahe's claim is very hard to test directly, as it requires knowledge of past protein-protein interactions. However, a 2006 paper in Science (Volume:312, Page:97-101) uses evolutionary theory coupled with bioinformatics to physically reconstruct ancient proteins and test their interactions. These experiments directly address the concept of irreducible complexity and show that slow gradual changes in pre-existing protein systems can generate more complex interactions. Here is the abstract from the paper entitles Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation:
 * According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element’s function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor’s affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex.

I think this finding should be included in the Irreducible Complexity section. For one, it addresses the fact that apparent irreducible protein-protein interactions can be explained by gradual amino acid changes, but, more importantly, it shows that scientific work is being done investigating the issues in evolution that Bahe has brought up. --Roland Deschain 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a few sentences as a summary with a cite to the article. The subarticle for IC is where it could go more into some depth. It's not as if there's much discussion of IC anymore. Behe's testimony in the Dover trial and the judge's ruling both heavily undermined any credibility IC had, read Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science, pgs 78 -82. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the good tenured professor, don't know if you've read Eden and Evolution, but not everyone seems to have noticed Kitzmiller. ...dave souza, talk 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that going in the article, I think it would be a nice little addition. It can go at the end of the section stating something like, "In fact, in a paper published in Science magazine in 2006 (names of authors) showed that...  And then do the reference to the article as <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. I have put the info placed by Roland Deschain into a footnote. No objection to a reversion back into the body text if editors feel strongly about it. ... Kenosis 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolasclyde's comments
Wow! Again, I refer you to the term ignoratio elenchi. Thank you FM! Coolasclyde 04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe my latin is a bit rusty, but now I really don't think you understand what that term means. Even I didn't have a (very rudimentary) knowledge of the language, the sheer number of different sorts of context you have used the term would be a strong indicator that you don't know what it means. Maybe you should look at ignoratio elenchi? JoshuaZ 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure I do, that is why I said it. It is defined by Webster: a fallacy in logic of supposing a point proved or disproved by an argument proving or disproving something not at issue. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Webster? We're OED people here.  In any case, you're using the phrase incorrectly.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give your reasons for your assertion that this paper does not deal with concepts raised by IC. And friendly advice, you might want to read the paper first.  This way you can construct the best possible critique.--Roland Deschain 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't let him hijack this discussion. Don't feed trolls. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is totally unfair and unwanted. I am not a troll nor am I trolling. I have told you numerous times. You are now attacking me. Stop it this instance please. Personal attacks are not allowed here. Thank you! Coolasclyde 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you mean unwarranted. Has it ever occured to you that the easiest way to erase the perception of trollish behaviour is to stop behaving that way and contribute appropriately to the discusion?  Persisting in the very behaviour that has led people to see you as a troll only reinforces the opinion.  Pretty simple, really.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly tossing discussion-terminating sayings instead of addressing actual points and making baseless accusations like 'conspiracies' is a hallmark of trolling. You've responded with ignoratio elenchi to Joshua and me at least six times between /Coolasclyde_objections and here. You're fast earning a place on many people's 'crank' lists with your behavior here, and there's a limit to how much disruption we have to put with. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect to present a honest depiction of what ID truely is when there is no such thing as objectivity in your vocabulary due to the limitations of Wikipedia? Coolasclyde 05:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nota bene: a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts rude, repetitive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion. See that, you've graduated from merely "disrupting the flow of discussion" to also "intentionally annoying and antagonizing the existing members".  Quite a feat in so little time.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't expect to depict anything objectively, we try to depict it with a neutral point of view with verifiable sources. Much more practical and doable, and much less divisive. JoshuaZ 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. This is Wikipedia's mistake; they have created the term "neutral point of view". Yes, it is inferior to objectivity because it is distorted by a "point of view". Objectivity is not distorted by such things. Thus it is far superior to NPOV. Coolasclyde 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly, while objectivity is a nice goal, it is not truly achievable by human beings -- not even by you. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 10:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Be fair, Jim, Coolasclyde may have indeed seen THE TRUTH, though apparently failing to comprehend that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A more courteous and sympathetic site deserves Coolasclyde's revelations: perhaps AiG. Meanwhile on the real Clyde it's another scorching day, time to foray out for the messages. ..dave souza, talk 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How silly of me...another site of interest might be Uncommon Descent, quite the howler, that one. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here? This quickly became a debate about a debate. From the getgo, Coolasclyde had an agenda, which was to seek to turn this article into a pro-ID article without any substantive criticism of the concept or objective reporting about how and why it's become an issue in contemporary North American culture. He, or she (or "it", hell, maybe we're talking to an algorithm here) has presented no substantive points of any merit that haven't already been hashed, rehashed, and rehashed yet again, checked, double-checked, triple-checked, nearly ad infinitum and definitely ad nauseum. ... Kenosis 14:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out you're dangerously close to a personal attack here. disagree, and let it go. i kan reed 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "dangerous" is meant to imply a danger of some thing or things. Care to tell me what that might be?  Such an observation also generally hinges on a justification (or at least a convincing pretense thereof) for subjecting someone such as myself to changing a "danger" into an unpleasant reality of some kind.  AS a rule I don't offer such criticisms as above without being able to back them up.  For one thing, the "agenda" of which I spoke may be found here.  For another, a thorough reading of the recent exchanges here will support my assertion that each criticism offered by new user Coolasclyde has been directed towards removing from the article criticisms of the advocates' preferred interpretation of ID, and criticisms of the advocates' verified actions and statements. Finally, the cyclical nature of the exchanges is distinctly reminiscent of an algorithm.  Have a good day. ... Kenosis 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I said close, not there, the reduction to equivelance with a machine is a point some people may be a tad insulting, it's a half step away
 * assume good faith even from people with an agenda to promote
 * if such an agenda is worked towards unjustly, wikipedia has a number of processes and concerned editors to deal with it. Try not to worry about the editor, and worry about the edit i kan reed 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NP. sorry to get angry. ...Kenosis 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. There comes a point with tendentious editors where assuming good faith is little more than encouraging disruption. FeloniousMonk 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do so tire of this AGF nonsense, as well as the carting out of NPA by people who've little clue of what a personal attack really is. Maybe it's my having grown up in a large East Coast city (think snowballs and Santa Claus), maybe it's my intolerance for fools, maybe it's my aversion to the dumbing of America, but I think the NPA card is overplayed, and Kenosis was quite correct in what he said.  FM is quite correct in what he noted of AGF -- it is not a suicide pact: assuming good faith can only go so far as the point where the person provides evidence that "good faith" (however that's defined) is no longer possible.  Beyond that point, anyone who continues to assume good faith is living in a pseudo-paradisiacal utopia (no where) that has little semblance to the real world. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul's law #5: Over time, contentious articles will grow from edit-war inspiring to eventually reach a compromise that is agreed upon by all involved editors. This equilibrium will inevitably be disturbed by new users who accuse the article of being absurdly one sided and who attempt to rewrite the entire article. This is the cyclical nature of controversial articles. FeloniousMonk 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * so? the result must be that new people to articles must understand the consensus. Unless they're commiting vandalism, even the most POV of entries can add helpful information(deletion only POV can be considered vandalism under some circumstances).  anybody can edit.  If certain kinds of edits get out of hand, just watch for WP:3RR.  Invalid comments are just that, demonstrate it was a simple counter-arguement and if it comes up repeatedly created a subtalk to address the common debate and link it. Please don't let little things stress you out and make you waste your efforts complaining about them.  WP:AGF isn't a shield, it's a policy about treating editors with respect. i kan reed 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reversion of edits to "Origins of the concept" section
The following was just posted on my talk page. Moving it here to the relevant forum. ... Kenosis 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ==edits to ID page==


 * why did you revert my edits? the text was on the talk page for ages, and nobody objected to it. the distinction between Aquinas and Paley is critical: Thomists do not have a problem with evolution, those with Paley's ideas are creationists. Sillygrin 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not see any agreement on the talk page for these edits. There were some significant modifications to the consensused text and the sectioning in an article that has a history of being controversial. What the re-sectioning attmpeted to do was separate out "precursors" to the teleological argument from "historical" teleological arguments. This is an arbitrary distinction.  ... Kenosis 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They're all teleological arguments, including Plato's Timaeus, Cicero's Deorum, Aquinas' Fifth, etc. ... Kenosis 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have reverted it too. It didn't improve on the long-standing text, and we don't edit the article just because something was posted on discussion page and appeared uncontroversial. Since our goal is an accurate and stable article, we edit only to improve the article. FeloniousMonk 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The following just placed on my talk page. Moving it here again. ... Kenosis 14:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * there was also no disagreement, which is significant on a controversial page.
 * it is not arbitrary: Aquinas in particular, and Aristotelianism in general, are not the origin or precursors of intelligent design:


 * Aquinas' five ways and Paley's watchmaker argument are actually quite different (for instance, in their consequences - the acceptance or rejection of evolution), though I don't think I brought this out well.
 * Thomists in particular, and Catholics in general (the Catholic Church is still heavily influenced by scholasticism) do not go in for creationism.
 * evangelical and free-church protestants, who are the vast majority of creationists, are not influenced by Aristotelianism, and certainly not Thomism - the reformation generally followed the Renaisance in repudiating scholasticism.
 * i.e., creationism does not follow from Thomism in general or Aquinas' 5 ways in particular.
 * the page is not about teleological arguments for the existence of God, but ID, which is a rather special and distinct case. ID pretty specifically accepts the premise that "if evolution is true, atheism is true." this premise contains the erroneous one that atheism (and theism) are empirically | falsifiable hypotheses. this is one of the important sources of ID. the other one is so blindingly obvious I do not understand why it is not explicitly explained (although editors do touch on it from time to time) - the protestant (sola scriptura) literalist interpretation of scripture. they are apparantly forced to interpret Genesis as a biology lesson (even though there are plenty of other allegories in scripture - Christ's parables, for instance). if Genesis is a biology lesson (in an otherwise religious text), then evolution necessarily contradicts scripture, and more or less disproves their religion.
 * I think I am not the only editor with the vain hope that Wikipedia can do something about doing away with the opposition to evolution. stuff needs to be properly explained for that.
 * to recap, it seems to me that:


 * it is a historical and philosophical error to regard Thomism as a precursor or source of ID
 * the real sources of ID, which should be brought out a bit on the page, is a kind of scientism (believing that theism and atheism are empirically falsifiable hypotheses (i.e., regarding empirical science as unlimited in scope or competence)), and dogmatic scriptural literalism.
 * Sillygrin 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Aquinas and Paley are different approaches, otherwise Aquinas would have to cite to Cicero and Paley would have to cite to Cicero and Aquinas. Nonetheless, the Fifth of Aquinas' "Ways" is among the garden variety historical teleological arguments, or argument from design if you prefer; so is Cicero and Paley's watchmaker.  Period. ... Kenosis 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * true. but beside the point, because the section is not A list of teleological arguments (which wouldn't fit very well there anyway), but origins of ID.
 * unless I am mistaken, ID (and I am artificially including Paley here) is not an organic philosophical development from earlier philosophical theories (any more than ID is a scientific development from earlier science). earlier teleological theories are not the origins of ID.
 * ID has its origins in what I have stated above: the belief that athesism and theism are empirically falsifiable theories; a desire to refute the percieved argument that evolution proves atheism; and scriptural literalism.
 * I tend to doubt that you really dispute this, but we'll see.
 * I am not arguing to remove the other teleological arguments from the page; I am arguing that they should not be presented as the origin, source or cause (other than in a rather remote and tangential way) of ID. this misrepresents ID as bona fide philosophy. comma,,,,,
 * incidentally, Aquinas would be citing Aristotle. Sillygrin 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "Aquinas would be citing Aristotle": Agreed that Aristotle should be among the teleological thinkers.  But it needn't be cited in the ID article.  Moreover, this is not even adequately dealt with in the article about the teleological argument at present.  Bottom line, after all the pages of arguments about this that would almost inevitably result from a point-by-point analysis of the numerous overlapping issues, is that this Sillygrin's defense of Thomism from the onslaughts of reactions to the politicization of the teleological argument by ID advocates has little or no place in this particular article.  Aquinas rendered an argument from every angle he could think of, one of which was a teleological argument.  The editors of this article have rightly included a reference to his teleological argument, and this article is not the place to micro-parse the theological and denominational implications of the Thomist argument.  ... Kenosis 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I would like to defend Thomism (if I had sufficient background to do it), no, that is not what I am trying to do here.
 * I was "microparsing" the differences in an attempt to show that the origins or ID were not in philosophical teleological arguments.
 * the "origins" section seems to mean that philosophical teleological arguments were the main cause of ID. they do not seem to be. this is an historical argument (whether it is correct or not), not a philosophical one. if my argument is true, then the page currently misattributes the main origin of ID. do you think that it is false? and if so, in what way? Sillygrin 10:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem with this section is that it's presented as Wikipedia's opinion rather than as the antecedants the IDers claim? Rather than having cites of the works of these originals, we could do with cites where, for example, Behe says that Paley originated the concept (or whatever exactly he says, but as I recall he has cited Paley). ..dave souza, talk 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This section lists standard arguments from design consistently with standard philosophy curricula in colleges and universities worldwide. Is the argument here that ID is not an argument from design, but instead is something else? ... Kenosis 15:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dembkiites claim or disclaim so many things, (often claiming what they once disclaimed after claiming it in the first place), and engage in such deception and disingenuousness, that presenting the article just on their words alone would be nearly impossible. Whether the Behean branch of Dembskiism acknowledges the debt Paley owes to Aquinas (who owed a debt to Aristotle) is irrelevant: what is relevant is that Dembskiism is merely a recasting of Aristotle's teleological model  -- specifically the version adopted by Aquinas in his fifth argument, which was then modified by Paley. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was just thinking that relating these antecedents to IDers claims might help with putting them in context, but fully agree that ID rehashes the old argument that Paley got accused of plagiarism for restating. ..dave souza, talk 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Paley gets a free pass on the plagiarism. Here's the way it was written in the article on the teleological argument, which rightly goes into somewhat more detail than the intelligent design article: "The Watchmaker analogy framing the argument with reference to a timepiece dates back to Cicero, whose illustration was quoted above. It was also used by, among others, Robert Hooke and Voltaire, the latter of which remarked: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool." Today the analogy is usually associated with the theologian William Paley, who presented the argument in his book Natural Theology published in 1802. ..." ... Kenosis 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try if from another angle: from one point of view, perhaps a teleological argument is a teleological argument is a teleological argument.
 * but just about the most salient feature of ID in practice is the opposition to evolution, e.g., the recent excitement over Kansas schools. and from the point of view of the evolution wars (surely a significant one in an article on ID), Aquinas'/Aristotle's argument and the Paley/Voltaire/Cicero argument (at least as given by Paley) are completely different. Paley's is associated with denying evolution, Aquinas' is indifferent to it.
 * the arrangement of the article as it stands tends to perpetuate the pernicious Dembskiite/Dawkinite agenda of using science as a vehicle for superfluous metaphysics (ID and materialism, respectively), unecessarily making science and religion appear contradictory. this is unfortunate, given, for instance, that some astonishing percentage of Americans rejects evolution because of this error. Sillygrin 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Court ruling in intro?
I'm not an adherent to ID nor am I against it, but I thought that I would mention something that really struck me while begining to browse your article. The information regarding the court ruling does not belong in the intro. I know what it's like to work on a controversial topic, and I considered this article pov as soon as I saw that. In fact, I looked no further and went here to write this message. This is clearly put in by people who want to make a point against ID. It's too specific and should be moved to another place in the article that discusses these kinds of controversies. Overall, your intro could be more neutral, focusing more on facts regarding and surrounding the theory itself rather than what people think of it. These are just my thoughts, which you can take or leave. I won't likely be back to defend them. I apologize for disrupting your discussion. Mcconn 15:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The court ruling was major enough to be put in the intro. Prior to the ruling, major figures both for and against ID said that the court ruling would be a watershed moment or similar comments. William Dembski made multiple comments that predicted it would be a "Waterloo" for either evolution or intelligent design. See for example www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371 . JoshuaZ 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Also, no need to apologize. Issues like this are precisely what the talk pages are for. JoshuaZ 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Intros are summaries of the major points in articles, see Summary_style and How_to_write_a_great_article. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition by anon
I reverted the following addition by an anon, but on looking at it further, it might be reasonable to clean up and include in the article in some fashion:


 * Only intelligent beings can reverse entropy


 * Mr. Dembski argues that only intelligence can reduce entropy, or more simply, "You can't unbake a cake."


 * Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), show that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation - let alone actual transformation of matter - made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" is acheived.


 * Put simply, if an intelligent being (e.g. a human) attempted to "unbake a cake" by converting it back to flour, water, etc., the human would expend more energy, and create more entropy (compare the food ingested by the human to the waste products expended by the human), and would convert more reagents (the chemicals involved in the "unbaking" process) to disordered waste products, than would be gained by "unbaking." In other words, if one considers all the inputs and outputs to any system involving a human or other intelligent actor, rather than falsely drawing the boundary of the "closed system" to exclude the very actor performing the "entropy reduction," it is seen that intelligent beings observe the Second Law, and are very efficient at converting ordered inputs to disprdered waste products.

End of Anon's addition. The writing style needs to be improved among other issues. More substantially, I'm not aware of Dembski having made the 2nd law argument. Does anyone have a citation to back this up maybe? JoshuaZ 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, no...not 2LOT again. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This just placed on my Talk page. Putting it here in the relevant forum. ... Kenosis 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * == Intelligent Design ==
 * Please explain your objection to the discussion of Second Law of Thermodynamics in "Intelligent Design." It's one of the oft-quoted arguments of ID theory.  I think I presented both sides with no spin, and with citation to sources.  It's certainly in the same ballpark as the preceding points, which I used as a model.  If you'll tell me what the problem is, I'll fix it.  Or you're welcome to edit it as well.  (But just removing it is rather rude, isn't it?)  Thanks.  Boundlessly
 * Actually, if you look at the edit summary, please note that it read as follows: Edit summary: here ... Kenosis 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The material I removed is reproduced below. A bit long to just add yourself and then call someone "rude" for removing it, I'd think. The objection I have is that it is User:Boundlessly's opinion, and as such it's a violation of WP:OR and WP:VER. As it is a whole new section it also violates WP:NPOV because it doesn't show the opposing point of view to this line of reasoning. Moreover, it is not in any way germane to the issue of ID. Rather, this a counterargument to the old mid-twentieth century quandary about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which the "new agers" later clarified as being applicable only within a closed system, or without life present to counter the entropy in a limited space such as, say, the biosphere. And lately the Evangelicals are all over this slant because it's convenient to their apologetics, which is all fine and good for the world I suppose. But it does not belong in this article because it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. ... Kenosis 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ===Intelligent beings as an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics===
 * - 	Intelligent Design theorists argue that intelligence must have intervened, because only intelligence can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics to arrive at more-ordered systems. Specifically, highly-ordered humans could not have evolved from disordered hydrogen atoms. [ http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886 Mr. Dembski's blog] explains, "The layman’s expression relating to this is you can’t unbake a cake. The reason why you can’t unbake it is it would violate 2LoT [the Second Law of Thermodynamics]. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy." www.uncommondescent.com, March 5, 2006.
 * - 	The scientific community responds by showing that intelligence necessarily follows the Second Law. To consider the layman's example, if an intelligent being (e.g. a human) attempted to "unbake a cake" by converting it back to flour, water, etc., the process would increase entropy by converting chemicals used in the "unbaking" process to disordered waste products. Further, the intelligent being would expend energy and create entropy merely by thinking, totally aside from the mechanical expenditure of energy to reorganize the hydrocarbon atoms (compare the food ingested by the human to the waste products expended by the human). The two increases in entropy would be more than the reduction in entropy gained by "unbaking." In other words, if one considers all the inputs and outputs to a closed system, rather than drawing the boundary of the "closed system" around only the cake, to exclude the "sufficiently advanced intelligence" performing the "entropy reduction" on the cake, it is seen that intelligent beings observe the Second Law. The scientific analysis is that a random process can produce local reductions in entropy, but such local reductions will be accompanied by global increases. Thus, goes the argument, a natural origin for life is entirely within the Second Law, by simply "moving" entropy from the matter that becomes the living body to somewhere else.
 * - 	More academically, Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), showed that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" can be acheived by that being. Later papers by Claude Shannon and Rolf Landauer showed that any change in information content that is either irreversable or that occurs in a finite physical memory - essentially, the exercise of intelligent information processing - necessarily involves the expenditure of energy and increase in entropy. Thus, goes the argument, an intelligent designer is bound by the Second Law, not an exception to it.
 * - 	The scientific community responds by showing that intelligence necessarily follows the Second Law. To consider the layman's example, if an intelligent being (e.g. a human) attempted to "unbake a cake" by converting it back to flour, water, etc., the process would increase entropy by converting chemicals used in the "unbaking" process to disordered waste products. Further, the intelligent being would expend energy and create entropy merely by thinking, totally aside from the mechanical expenditure of energy to reorganize the hydrocarbon atoms (compare the food ingested by the human to the waste products expended by the human). The two increases in entropy would be more than the reduction in entropy gained by "unbaking." In other words, if one considers all the inputs and outputs to a closed system, rather than drawing the boundary of the "closed system" around only the cake, to exclude the "sufficiently advanced intelligence" performing the "entropy reduction" on the cake, it is seen that intelligent beings observe the Second Law. The scientific analysis is that a random process can produce local reductions in entropy, but such local reductions will be accompanied by global increases. Thus, goes the argument, a natural origin for life is entirely within the Second Law, by simply "moving" entropy from the matter that becomes the living body to somewhere else.
 * - 	More academically, Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), showed that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" can be acheived by that being. Later papers by Claude Shannon and Rolf Landauer showed that any change in information content that is either irreversable or that occurs in a finite physical memory - essentially, the exercise of intelligent information processing - necessarily involves the expenditure of energy and increase in entropy. Thus, goes the argument, an intelligent designer is bound by the Second Law, not an exception to it.
 * - 	More academically, Leo Szilard's 1929 paper, “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,” Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), showed that no being, intelligent or not, can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Szilard showed that any measurement or observation made by the being must involve expenditure of more energy - and thus creation of more entropy - than is gained by whatever "entropy reduction" can be acheived by that being. Later papers by Claude Shannon and Rolf Landauer showed that any change in information content that is either irreversable or that occurs in a finite physical memory - essentially, the exercise of intelligent information processing - necessarily involves the expenditure of energy and increase in entropy. Thus, goes the argument, an intelligent designer is bound by the Second Law, not an exception to it.


 * END OF REMOVED MATERIAL ... 00:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kenosis, both for removing this and for posting it here for posterity. I found it absolutely hilarious. This is a bit of a continuing issue that's on the back burner for me at the moment, as I've tried to sort out the usual misconception in the Evolution article. The explanation of how the creationist take is wrong in thermodynamic terms has held, but attempts to get over the confusion with "information entropy" have yet to stick in the article. Greater minds are thrashing out the basis of this confusion at Talk:Entropy, with any luck they'll come out with a lucid and definitive explanation. If Dembski is coming out with this bonkers stuff it may be notable, but then could his blog possibly be described as a reliable source? Thanks for the laugh, anyway. ..dave souza, talk 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dave, these fine minds at Talk:Entropy appear to be quite busy at present explaining such things as the difference between "disorder" and "entropy" to folks on that page ;-) I'll tell ya', this whole modern attempt by some to draw equivalences between bits of information and heat entropy is quite interesting to me, although I believe it's not directly relevant to the intelligent design article.  In my opinion it's irrelevant because the similarities in the formulas involved between heat entropy and "information entropy" as delineated in units of "bits" of information, is far from properly established, and indeed it ought be clear to seasoned philosophers and ID advocates alike that it is not a simple equivalency between information and heat entropy, even though the same logarithmic equivalency can be applied to the probabilistic mechanics of bits and bytes of information.  I'll give you an example why, by way of analogy.  Microsoft writes code that occupies massive amounts of information and organization, but any programming expert who's being honest will tell you it's not "tight code", that is, it takes a lot of information to express relatively little compared to what could be expressed in a given amount of bits each having a single truth value.  On the other extreme, a formula such as E=mc2 or F=ma takes very little in the way of total bits, yet expresses, shall we say, wide worlds of information, an understanding of which contributes in major and widespread ways to the ongoing organization of life.
 * The concepts of information entropy and self-information are all well and good in terms of counting up probabalistic events when the outcomes become known by way of what these theorists like to call surprisal. But it says nothing that speaks properly to the argument from design, except in a very loose way. What this set of arguments actually represents is a counterargument to the use of the Second Law of thermodynamics which gripped the philosophical discussion by the throat through much of the 20th century.  The implications being that the universe is inevitably winding down, literally dissipating, and thus widely taken as proof of the cold, hard Newtonian reality of a hopeless future for all humankind and all the universe.  So Dave, I think you're absolutely right that these two realities get confused in people's minds very readily, and this is just what the ID advocates are doing presently.  Any possible equivalency between a mechanistic view of information and a mechanistic view of physical mechanics is hopelessly askew in the end, and misrepresents the nature of human consciousness in terms of a probablistic mechanics.  So, if I were the ID advocates, I'd be very cautious about using this supposed equivalency to argue the idea that "therefore there must have been a designer".  Because what it really is is an argument for a mechanistic view of consciousness.
 * That said, I recognize that I digress somewhat from the main issues relevant to the intelligent design article... Kenosis 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well put, thank you. Maybe you might wish to share that with the fine minds on the entropy talk page.  Like you, I find the subject of interest, but I gave up on the Wiki articles on 2LOT and entropy a long time ago.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  16:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This just placed on my talk page. I've placed it here, where it properly belongs as part of the public discussion with all involved editors, and frankly I'm quickly tired of the lobbying, jockying or whatever it is that this user(s) is/are attempting to do with me separately from the public discussion. Feel free to check the history of my Talk page to verify that all the material I've placed here is identical to that which was posted on my page. Here's the material just posted: ... Kenosis 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis - Your edit history is essentially a form letter that raises many questions and answers none - no individual point of your edit note is applicable to the paragraph you reverted, and it's not helpful in identifying the problem to which you object. My entry is not "irrelevant" - it addresses one of the top five arguments for ID (not one directly advanced in the Kitzmiller case, but one you'll find in nearly every discussion of ID).  It is verifiable - the arguments of both sides are drawn directly from the sources cited in my original.  The original gave a full cite to Szilard's paper (it's the paper that resolved the "Maxwell's Demon" paradox).  Claude Shannon wrote the dozen or so papers that defined what we now call "information theory" in the 1940's and 1950's - Claude Shannon is a "household name" to Information Theory specialists, and Google gives hundreds of hits for his work.  I cited Rolf Landauer, another seminal paper known to everyone in the field (and I added a full cite to the above).  (I recognize that Boltzman entropy and Shannon entropy are different things, but they're joined at the hip, much like electric fields and magnetic fields.)  In what sense "rambling?"  My first paragraph presents the ID side of the story.  My second paragraph presents the issues at a layman's level - essential in an escoteric area like the interface between information theory and thermodynamics.  My third paragraph addresses the information theory/entropy/thermodynamics relationship that is key to an advanced deep understanding of the topic - a bit of theory known to specialists in information theory but not to many others, and that is key to fully understanding the flaw in the ID "entropy" argument.  It is slightly oversimplified and therefore a little bit wrong (but has been fixed up a bit in the above), but an absolutely correct discussion would simply be too long (but can be found at the Landauer's Principle page).  What's the "POV" that you find objectionable - what do you think my POV is, and which sentence is not clearly attributed to one of the two sides?  My entry only presents the two arguments as they are commonly made, without expressing my opinion on either side.  Please identify the sentence that is my opinion, not merely a report of the views of others?  Please identify the "original research?"  I took a direct quote from the www.uncommondescent.com for the ID side, and condensed the responsive arguments, and pulled together a few ideas from the main scientific papers in the area for the responsive side - nothing original except the selection and organizaton.


 * Please identify the particular features to which you object. We can't cooperate if you only communicate in form letters that do not connect to the particular facts at issue.  Thanks.  User:Boundlessly(talk) ...
 * END OF MATERIAL ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MY TALK PAGE, NOW MOVED HERE FOR PROPER DISCUSSION. ... Kenosis 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "...one you'll find in nearly every discussion of ID". Can you provide quotes from ID books/publications dealing with that topic.  I have read many of them, but all of them have been written for layman and had many flaws.  If you can provide a published rigerous mathematical (alongside physics) analysis of thermodynamics by ID proponents (for that's the only way to approach thermodynamics) and how it advances/invalidates ID, could you please post it here.  I am quite familiar with the theory of themodynamics and I do not see how it can be used to validate the ID theory.--Roland Deschain 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So presumably Dembski believes that plants and cyanobacteria are intelligent? Guettarda 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Boundlessly(talk) (aka User talk:207.237.138.184), your analysis appears to be plausible, but put in a way baffling to a layman like myself. Firstly, I've overcome my principles and had a look at Dembski's bizarre blog archive. It should be noted that this is an "article" by "DaveScot" rather than Dembski himself, and it opens with the semi-lucid "A number of people conflate heat entropy with information entropy and then willy-nilly substitute one for the other. This is what the NeoDarwinists do when they point to the sun and say it makes the earth an open system to explain the evident way life violates information entropy. The sun is irrevelevant in this siutation as it is adding heat, not information. While heat and information entropy are closely related (they both behave according to 2LoT which was originally formulated for heat alone) they are not the same thing and cannot be exchanged." before going on to the weird stuff about unbaking cakes. The crux of the issue is the assertion that information entropy behaves "according to 2LoT", but according to TalkOrigins this is false. As this list of FAQs makes clear, this is one of many creationist claims about the 2LoT which rely on the difficulties most people have with thermo, not to mention information theory, to confuse the public. Your explanation regarding Szilard and Shannon is too specific and appears to relate to Maxwell's demon rather than the wonderful misconceptions creationists routinely introduce. In terms of ID it's questionable if this is notable: from the little I've seen of Dembski's blog it has all sorts of stuff on it, and this doesn't seem to be by him. Has the DI produced such arguments, or is it published in any ID books? ...dave souza, talk 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by User:Boundlessly's user contributions as_seen_here, I wonder if it is actually User:Boundlessly who is writing this stuff, but rather anon IP User:207.237.138.184 and anon IP User:208.222.71.77 who have been signing as User:Boundlessly. This can be seen here and here. I notice that these anon IP's have a familiarity with patent law and an interest in intelligent design, and that one of these anon IP's chooses to edit others' posts on User:Boundlessly's talk page . Yet User:Boundlessly, the self-described former electrical engineer and current patent attorney, has chosen not to have an edit history associated with intelligent design to date. Is there some reason that "the real User:Boundlessly" would care to divulge as to why he chooses to avoid having a demonstrable edit history directly associated with this article?. ... Kenosis 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sure this is harmless error. It's good to meet you Boundlessly. Upon a closer reading of the second version you added (reproduced above in this talk section), I found it interesting, although far too technical for this article, and too spurious a connection between these arguments the the main bases used by ID advocates-- at least in my estimation. Perhaps other editors will feel differently about this. Incidentally, I also left a peripheral set of comments/observations above for Dave Souza and perhaps also of interest to Boundlessly. ... Kenosis 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response here to the comments above, yes, it's fascinating and in my opinion has to be clarified somewhere on Wikipedia, but it's only peripheral to ID. As a couple of points of interest, the Dembski blog guy frequently answers comments with links to - Wikipedia! Including the information entropy article which doesn't say what he says it does. As for the interminable discussions on talk:Entropy, one Frank Lambert is trying very hard to wean people off the old "disorder" analogy which underlies a lot of the creationist claims: and an article by him is top of the sidebar at the TalkOrigins list of FAQs. ...dave souza, talk 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And let's post this one "little" fact so that all those who misuse 2LOT to support ID can see the error they are making: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds from the simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.  Note too, IDists, that "spreading out" is entropy, and note that entropy &ne; disorder.  Capisce? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Roland Deschain The time has come for me to advance a POV. No, I can't provide "a published rigerous mathematical (alongside physics) analysis of thermodynamics by ID proponents." ID'ers arguments based on thermodynamics are as bo-o-o-o-gus as the rest of it. It seems some folks thought I was writing in FAVOR of ID? NOW would you please acknowledge that my piece is so POV-free that you thought I was on the other side? Good grief, I'm a lawyer. When I take a side, you'll know it. :-)

Reply to dave souza. I'm keeping the two forms of entropy separate - so separate, I only mention thermo entropy. For example, Landauer showed that any destruction of information necessarily involves an expenditure of energy. Note that this only speaks of thermo entropy, not Shannon entropy. There have been several articles in MIT Technology Review and Scientific American over the last 2-3 years about the relationship of energy, information, and the two entropies, so maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think it's within the ken of interested readers. (Just as an off-topic FYI - magnetic fields are to electrical fields as Shannon entropy is to Boltzman entropy. I agree with comments above - they're not the same thing, but they cohabit - you can't change one without changing the other except in a test tube environment.  But in any event, I don't rely on the duality in my note.)

Reply to Kenosis Put -- second law thermodynamics "intelligent design" -- into Google. 115,000 hits. If that's "peripheral" or "too spurious a connection between these arguments the the main bases used by ID advocates", I'd like to know what your threshold is.

Thanks. User:Boundlessly(talk) 6:00 1 August 2006.

Geezzzzzzzzz, I get overlooked. By a bottom-feeding shark, no less. ;) Anyway, entropy has to do not with the expenditure of energy, but with the spreading out of energy.  Yes, the IDists misuse 2LOT, as do many philosphers, but it still hasn't figure into much of their writing.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Boundlessly, I appreciate that you've only mentioned thermo energy, but the article you linked as an example was specifically saying that information entropy was different from thermo, included the second law and therefore prohibits the increase in information creationists perceive in evolution. Having tried a google search on the publications you suggest, nothing appearing useful came up as far as I could see. though I did come across such mind boggling stuff as In the future, we may come to see the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as a consequence of information theory and not the other way around. and In the discrete and continuous forms, the uncertainty corresponds to the entropy of statistical mechanics and to the entropy of the second law of thermodynamics, and it is the foundation of information theory. I suppose that ID could be taken as a demonstration that over time misinformation increases exponentially, but if you could point to a reliable source link showing that information entropy does or does not involve a "law" that prevents evolution from developing information and insists on increasing "disorder", I'd be really grateful. ..dave souza, talk 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Boundlessly(talk) (aka User talk:207.237.138.184) and User:208.222.71.77. Please refrain from vandalizing others' comments on talk pages as happened here. This is a public space, and others' comments are not to be edited out or substantively changed in a way that changes the documented conversation.  Similarly, your own submissions should generally be left intact except for minor copyedits that do not involve a significant change of the substance of what you've submitted.  Instead, submit a separate correction or qualification once others have been exposed to and/or otherwise already involved in your previous submissions. ... Kenosis 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy reminder
Although not everyone agrees with this policy, here it is:

WP:NPOV:

I can't guess why anyone would think this policy was irrelevant to the ID article. FM, what are your ideas on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)
 * Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
 * Opposition to an idea should be stated in the same or following paragraph, as it makes the article flow much nicer. To relegate all opposing views to the bottom will require a reader to go back up to the original idea to reread it.  This way a view is stated and then any valid opposition is also given.
 * We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.
 * ID is plausible. Nothing in the article says that it's not.  However, the arguments for the actual scientific validity of ID are flawed and the criticism is made accordingly.


 * I've said this many times, but if you want the article to change, make specific examples for people to discuss. This type of broad criticism isn't specific enough to inspire change.--Roland Deschain 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest, Ed. As my edit summary said, the "Read This" section here already points to the NPOV policy and the relevant sections. You're simply trying to emphasize those portions of the policy that you'd like to use to wedge in your pov here. Your personal rant against consensus proves that point: Marginalizing minority points of view FeloniousMonk 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt he'll give it a rest...ever try to get a preacher out of his pulpit? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Teach the controversy and critical analysis are both ID says Dembski's assistant
Says Dembski's research assistant. See. JoshuaZ 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote:

And when someone else tried to argue that the Kansas science standards had nothing to do with ID but were only about teaching evolution in a "balanced" way, Joel responded:
 * It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.


 * If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

--Roland Deschain 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And in other news, the creationists/IDers were dealt a setback in the Kansas primary. This should presumably be mentioned in this article or a related one. JoshuaZ 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another article please. ... Kenosis 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a short article on the election results --128.100.90.205 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It can go in Intelligent design movement. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or not. I put it here Intelligent_design_in_politics <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of science
Icanread wrote:


 * summary: science is, by definition, naturalistic, as it is an attempt to learn the laws of nature. Redundancy is fine for the article on science, but not here. feel free to revert if i'm wrong though

In Kansas, at least, the definition of science has been changed. FM should know this, since he's been working on the article with me: Kansas evolution hearings.

The school board redefined science so it does not exclude supernaturalistic explanations.

It would be odd to obscure distinction between:
 * science, seen as looking exclusively for natural (i.e. non-supernatural causes like God or angels in the spirit world or Greek gods even)
 * science, seens as looking anywhere (not excluding the supernatural)

This is significant, because ID proponents argue that the origin of life should not be treated dogmatically as only having material causes. They propose to stop excluding supernatural causes.

So whether ID is "scientific" depends on your definition of science. Hence, the link to methodological naturalism.

As for the other reverts, really, FM, you really should no better than to revert without explanation. It's the first thing you complained of in your RFA against me. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Kansas, at least, the definition of science has been changed." Wow, are you going to change the definition of science at Science too, or just here? Please. Ed, stop wasting your time ours with these specious, disruptive objections. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, I don't think the Kansas Board of Education of 2006 is the ultimate source for the definition of science, especially since the board revises its definition every two years. As a lifelong Kansas resident, I know better than to cite the KBOE as an authority. Aardvark92 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This topic already discusses why ID is not considered science. The fact that ID appeals to supernatural causes is just one reason why it is not considered science, but it's just one of many reasons.--Roland Deschain 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please re-cast that sentence so it's not in the passive voice. Who defines sciences as excluding consideration of supernatural causes? Nearly all biologists? Nearly all scientists collectively?


 * I think this article above all should emphasize the dispute over the proper definition of science, at least one sentence won't hurt. It's against NPOV to exclude the "view that science ought to permit supernatural causes" from this article.


 * We should quote a source which asserts that "science is, by definition, naturalistic" (the mainstream POV) but also include the minority POV (even if it's only a dozen or so D.I. fellows) who prefer to use a different definition. As in 'same as mainstream science but permitting the investigation of supernatural causes'. --Uncle Ed 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my problem. The sentance "...say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life." implies, by providing links to scientific and theory that ID is actually a scientific theory (as defined by the National Academy of Science and those two links).  Now if we were to go down the road you are taking, meaning that ID is proposing a new type of investigative methadology (supernatural explanation), this sentance needs to be deleted, as ID would no longer be scientific as defined by those two links.--Roland Deschain 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article adopts the POV of mainstream science, i.e., that science must examine only material causes for all phenomena, then that would be true. This article is about a theory (or idea or explanation or argument) that advocates a different POV, i.e., that the possibility that an intelligent force (or being of some sort like God), guided evolution.
 * Yes, but then scientific link needs to be updated to include this new type of methodology (which you claim to be scientific). At this point in time the links make no mention of your new defenition.  So your first avenue of attack is to try to change scientific topics around wikipedia to include your defenition of scientific, rathen than start with claiming that ID is scientific.


 * Isn't part of their argument that science ought to consider the possibility of supernatural causes? (Or is this not part of ID? I don't know enough about it to say.)


 * The article should clarify things like this as close to the top of the page as possible, instead of pushing the POV that ID is 'wrong' because it "says it's scientific but scientists say it's not". That's WP:OR and an NPOV violation to boot. --Uncle Ed 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my point is that ID fails to meet the scientfic criteria across the board. Saying that ID is not accepted as science is because they want supernatural causation included misleads the reader as it indicates that that is the only reason why it is not science.  The actual fact is that ID is not scientfic because it misses almost all the criteria of science.


 * Okay, then perhaps we should list all the points on which mainstream scientists and ID advocates disagree on the subtopic of "Is ID scientific?":
 * ID insists that biology at least consider the possibility of a non-material cause (for evolution, speciation, etc.)
 * Mainstream science insists on excluding supernatural causes
 * ID advocates claim that ID is falsifiable
 * Mainstreamers say it's not
 * You know, stuff like that. Laid out in simple terms that the average reader can understand it, not just above-average smart folks like you and me and Jim and FM etc. --Uncle Ed 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article already does that:discusses. However, the discussion is too big to be put into the intro.  In addition, you will have to come up with counter-aguements to every single objection to ID  being a science.  I have read many ID books and haven't come across a good defense of ID being a science (besides the day old that science should not only embrace naturalism).


 * Why would I have to do that? It would violate 'undue weight'. Simply listing the "not science" arguments would be neutral, there's no requirement in NPOV that says all arguments must be balanced with counterarguments. Let's not get confused between trying to make a neutral, well-balanced article and 'trying to prove your side is right'. I'm not an ID advocate, no matter what others may think. I just don't like to see any article about X be 90% criticism of X, unless it's something really pernicious and evil like Nazism or disco music. --Uncle Ed 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused. The topic offers reasonable arguments (7 I think) that ID is not science.  Now you want to call ID science, but you do not want to give supporting evidence.  Neutrality is not the issue here.  One cannot call ID science just so that the article is neutral.  I will go to the round earth hypothesis side and argue that in the intro the earth should be called flat as well, so that the aricle is neutral.  If you want to call ID science, give your reasons.

The "definition of science" section should include all pertinent views of science's limits. The current version is unclear at best, or maybe wishy-washy (weasel-worded).

Relevant positions of "science" on supernatural causes:
 * 1) They might exist, but we choose to ignore them.
 * 2) They don't exist, and therefore we dismiss them from consideration
 * 3) They might exist, and we're willing to consider them.

The article merely defines science as without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural but neglects to mention whether this definition permits consideration of supernatural causes. The judge from Dover was more specific:


 * ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. (Judge Concludes Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught As Science)

I'd like the article to be more clear about this crucial point. Something like:


 * ID and mainstream science part company over the question of whether to permit consideration of supernatural causation.
 * That's just one of the reasons. If you want to state that, state the other 10-20 reasons why science and ID part company.  You are giving undue weight to just one point.
 * Mainstream scientists universally condemn such consideration (or 95% do, or only biologists, or whatever it is - I can't tell from that section)
 * ID advocates insist that no possible cause for natural phenomena should be dismissed, merely because it's supernatural --Uncle Ed 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm repeating my earlier objection, which you seem to ignore. You are giving undue weight to just one of the objections to ID, namely the supernatural causation.  If you want to include that in the intro, you must include all other scientific objections to ID.--Roland Deschain 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus version

 * Ed, we've been over this before. When there is a consensus version, please use the talk page first. don't make your edits and then when someone reverts tell them to use the talk page.not good behavior

I see no policy page regarding creation and maintenance of a "consensus version". But if there was a vote recently about this page, please provide a link. And don't say "it's in the archives" somewhere. Otherwise, I'm going to call immediately for a new vote.

I think the policy of Wikipedia is, first make your edits (using the Edit summary field) and then if necessary defend them on the discussion page. If there is policy or guidelines other than this, I'd love to read them (and heed them). --Uncle Ed 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we already know how you feel about consensus: Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). Give it a rest Ed, and please don't start disrupting this and other ID articles again. FeloniousMonk 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I beleive it's been stated before that the fact that he's making an edit disproves that there is consensus. I think I wiped the needless injection that came with the change, but please explain better to Mr. Poor and all the other editors why  you're changing other than "people agreed on the old version" specific points of contention are needed for a revert, and you know it.
 * I'm well aware of Ed's agenda, but that shouldn't mean every change is inherently wrong. If there's something wrong, such as POV injection, or other policy violations, address that,  Consensus is for resolving specific disputes i kan reed 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that he's making an edit disproves that there's consensus? What the hell kind of logic is that?  Oh, I get it, it's the "Teach the Controversy" logic.
 * Would you please be so kind as to render this into English? "I think I wiped the needless injection that came with the change, but please explain better to Mr. Poor and all the other editors why you're changing other than "people agreed on the old version" specific points of contention are needed for a revert, and you know it."
 * And nothing personal dude, but getting lectured by someone who's been on Wiki for three weeks is rather interesting. Now, don't take that the wrong way, it's not an attempt to WP:BITE, but it might be nice if you got a clearer picture of the dynamic before lecturing.  And BTW, not every one of Ed's edits are inherently wrong, only those with a specific POV.  Sadly, that pretty much sums up all of his edits. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:CON FeloniousMonk 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, and while I'm doing that you might want to review WP:3RR:
 * Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
 * It is strongly recommended that you revert any particular change no more than once ...
 * See ya in a few! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And how many times have you reverted here and elsewhere today? FeloniousMonk 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, strongly recommended has the whiff of a threat about it. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it, nothing in there about denying edits to a page which some consensus has occured on. Just that one should work towards a consensus. There could be more than enough reason for a change that would arrive at a new consensus, it's no justification for a revert. I'm not saying there wasn't justification, but that article GIVES no reason for reversion. I agree the old version was probably better, but you need to have better reasons than "that's how it was". i kan reed 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True, it's one clause or another of WP:NPOV that most of Ed's edits fail on. It's the consensus here that they indeed do. Also note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. Ed's actions here today and detailed at his RFC show that Ed only makes a pretense of working together and that he's more interested in favoring the ID viewpoint in the article in defiance of WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably pretty true, but nonetheless hate the edit, not the editor. Just because most of what he adds has NPOV problems doesn't mean you should assume everything he adds does.  That's a no-no on WP:AGF.  i kan reed 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't assume that all of his edits have NPOV or accuracy problems; It's just I have yet to see one here that doesn't. Can you point out one? As has been said many times before WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. As emphasized at WP:AGF "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" and we reached that threshold with Ed and his many tendentious and specious objections and edit warring long, long before you arrived here, which is detailed in his user conduct RFC Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2). FeloniousMonk 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel as though I should point out that the only injected POV I noticed, I removed, and that, other than that, he was doing formatting. reverting formatting seems silly.  I understand your perspective, but respectfully ask that you instead apply strong scruitiny to his changes instead of reverting. i kan reed 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern about this, but formatting is subject to consensus here as much as content; some of the most heated debates here over the years have been over formatting of the intro. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (reduce indent) Advertisers make billions of dollars a year based on their ability to sell a product (POV) based on how its packaged (formatting). ;) <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right... but I go back to my point about there being no way for there to be a consensus about an edit that hasn't happened yet, and there's no such thing as consensus against an editor in general. That perspective is damaging to wikipedia, and damaging to the ideal it represents.  There's no justification in reverting formatting just BECAUSE a given user made it.  If the edit harms NPOV, then there should be a reason besides (OMG ED POOR) for reverting it.  This debate has arleady made me feel like i've been climbing the reichstag dressed as spiderman, but my argument is that there can't be a consensus about edits that have not yet been discussed.  You're just declaring your action to be the result of Consensus unfairly, and doesn't give others a chance to voice their opinion about the specific change.  Granted there may be other reasons to enact the change, but those weren't the reasons you cited.  Please forgive me for being so argumentative over what must seem like semantics, but I really beleive that it hurts the notion of wikipedia.  i kan reed 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the top of this page it prominently says " This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. " If someone insists on knowingly making controversial edits prior to discussing them then they can expect to be reverted. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I again indicate that ordering of a few paragraphs and linebreaks is not substantial.  I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with it, but I am saying that there should be better reasons than "User X made the change".  It's analogous(and this isn't godwinning because I'm not comparing a "side" to it) to saying murder laws are wrong because nazi germany had murder laws. i kan reed 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Logic problem again: "but I go back to my point about there being no way for there to be a consensus about an edit that hasn't happened yet"...first if it hasn';t been made it can't be revertd, itf it was reverted it was made,. OK, seriously though, if standing consensus is that the sky is blue and you edit the article to say it's green, you can betcher bootie that it's going to be reverted.
 * Redux, "but my argument is that there can't be a consensus about edits that have not yet been discussed."...see above.
 * Here's a poser for you, "Human nature being what it is, can Wiki achieve the "ideal" you mention? What precisely is that ideal as you see it?  What do you think Wiki is and is not?" <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The ideal's I've seen are:
 * Everyone has something to contribute(this is different than everyone does contribute, and also different from everything that is contributed is ok, but everyone has potential to help)
 * Everything is a work in progress, never totally complete
 * Consensus can help guide direction.
 * I don't personally beleive you can already have consensus about everything. I beleive every change should be justified, including reversions.
 * And finally, reverting "the sky is green" would be done because it's unverifiable, not because Ed Poor wrote it. I dislike the push for intelligent design that people have, I've always been a fan of approaching things rationally and testably, but make changes for real reasons, not just because someone is a strong advocate for one side. i kan reed 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you heavily qualified your first ideal essentially to the point of negation, there's no point in discussing it further.
 * This is true -- we always welcome info that is verifiable, reliably sourced and within NPOV policy.
 * NPOV, verifiability and reliable sourcing trumps all and that is what has guided consensus here, not personal opinion.
 * Very good, you got my sky is green point, well done. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim is right WP:NPOV is paramount. Regardless of who is making them, all changes to this article must pass the hurdles set by WP:NPOV, which are unique to this article since Neutral point of view/FAQ and Neutral point of view/FAQ apply to this topic. Also, the edits must not violate Neutral point of_view and be verifiable, using sources that meet WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see now you've completely misunderstood what I'm arguing for. I am strictly arguing against the edit summary for the revert you used, and the justification it gave for reverting.  I'm not against the revert, and I'm not an ID advocate at all.  The most credance I could possibly give ID is that it's possibly constructed with a philosophical perspective, which is a far cry from scientifically constructed, which is still further from reasonably demonstrated cohesive scientific theory.  My only point is that unless Ed is a vandal, that you consider the potential that elements of his edits have merit, on an edit per edit basis.  i kan reed 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * reduce indent They have potential merit in the eyes of the editor when they are written. Unfortunately, when they are read, there is rarely any potential merit to the points (usually for reasons of POV) and they have a tendency to break up the flow of the article, and are very often grammatically incorrect. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Creation Science and ID
I'm getting confused, what with all the accusations being hurled at me of 'bad faith' and 'dodging consensus' and 'disrupting', over the distinction between Intelligent Design and its "evil twin" Creation Science. Are their advocates who assert that the two are:
 * 1) one and the same?
 * 2) related by one being a stronger form of the other?
 * 3) distinct, but related in some way?

I call on those who know these topics better than I do to help me get this distinction into the article, or (if I'm blind as a bat) simply to point out what section it's already in. --Uncle Ed 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does the distinction need to made in the article? I don't see any glaring need for it... Are readers in danger of confusing the two? FeloniousMonk 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as history has repeatedly shown, whenever the church gets involved in trying to define or redefine "science", it always leads to problems. Are these modern religious advocates trying to erase the need for faith and replace it with a science consonant with theistic convictions?  If so, where's the criterion of faith fit in once they've theoretically succeeded in that effort?  Then there's the issue of truth, but I don't even want to get started there.  Y'all have a nice day, OK? ... Kenosis 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ID as a hypothesis
As Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have pointed out: 'Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.'

Not sure whether this belongs in ID or Intelligent design movement, but we all read both talk pages, so here goes.

For those advocates who want mention of ID excluded from US public school biology classes, what criteria do they want for scientific hypotheses? And would they agree to (1) have the teacher and/or text present ID and (2) compare it to the "discipline required of a scientific hypothesis"? What do ID supporters say? --Uncle Ed 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesn't belong on either talk page so far as I can tell. It belongs on Talk Origins. Did you have a specific edit you feel would make the article more accurate? Because right now it looks like you're unclear that Scientific method is well established and not open to re-deifinition by the DI. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, the current definition of science excludes ID. The only people who would like to see the definition change is those who want ID considered science. Ladlergo 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to either article. The current practices of the scientific community go a long to defining hypotheses. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the 3 of you have missed the point of my question. I already know that modern science has defined the scientific method to exclude non-material causes. I do occasionally read other articles here, Ladlergo.

I'd like the article to address the question Dawkins and Coyne raise. Have any educators or 'science advocates' answered them? --Uncle Ed 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "[W]hat criteria do they want for scientific hypotheses?" Basic criteria for a scientific hypothesis include falsifiability, etc.  The problem with IC, for example (which appears to be the best developed ID "hypothesis") is that in order to falsify it you would have to demonstrate that, in every case things were reducibly complex.  That provides an infinite set of examples to disprove.  Thus, IC (as currently formulated) is impossible to falsify.
 * The second point is the assertion that to be taught in the classroom ID must "submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis". What that means is that any scientific hypothesis must "start at the bottom and work its way up", so to speak.  That involves having your hypothesis published in the literature, then having it tested and critiqued, and then, after surviving that process and making it into an established idea, making its way into textbooks.  ID advocates have sought to skip the process and try to get their idea directly into textbooks, and to do so by appealing to the public, not by meeting the scrutiny of the discipline of evolutionary biology.  Teachers and public pressure groups to not create science, and it is incorrect to make the case, as have proponents of ID, that this is the way that it should be.  If ID is science, it needs to make its way through the process of scientific review and publication.  66.188.11.15 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article makes it quite clear why ID is not a science. Moreover, ID proponents do not argue against most of the objections of the scientific community (besides science excluding supernatural causes, of course).  Here is a direct copy from the topic:
 * Consistent (internally and externally)
 * Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable 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)
 * Note that ID does not meet any of these criteria (some it meets by a long strech of the imagination). More importantly, ID proponents do not address these concerns at all (from my reading of 3 of their most famous books).--Roland Deschain 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And the Dover ruling makes all these same points, covering Ed's objection: FeloniousMonk 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe.... isn't there more to say against this?
• Yes, I know... I have a bad english. So don't bother mentioning it •

I thought the number one criticism against this argument that ID uses was the possibillity that several (or should I say infintely many) universes exist, a multiverse. Every universe has its own set of features (values of physical constans, strength of nuclear forces, etc. etc.), and since there are so many universes, there must exist one that have the set of features that makes life as we know it possible. But this article doesn't mention this.

PureRumble 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Follow the link at the top of that section for an in depth discussion of that topic. If you feel strongly that it should be included in the actual ID article make the change, state your reasons here, and prepare to defend the change.--Roland Deschain 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The multiverse is a nice theory, but still a very young one that is related to string theory (as specified further in M-Theory), and also to the concept of "branes". Is it possible?  Yes. Are we likely to ever know if it's true?  Probably not, especially if, as you note, physical laws are different.  "Life as we know it" really doesn't mean much, as even within our own universe there is absolutely no reason that life-forms must be carbon based, must require water, must breathe oxygen, etc.  Hell, even on earth we have anaerobic lifefoms that use sulfur for respiration, in seeming violation of our concept of what is needed for life.
 * In any case, the primary argument against the Fine-tuned universe is that it's really just a restatement of the anthropic principle and is thus a philosophy masquerading as science. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

verifiable2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; ]] 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The anthropic principle essentially argues in this case that there are some things that shouldn't be considered surprising - such as the fact that we are observing a universe capable of bringing forth observers.  The Fine-Tuned Universe theory claims that the fact that the universe appears so "made" for us should argue for a creator - but under the anthropic principle, the point becomes moot.  So isn't it a case of philosophy against philosophy?  How is the FTU theory more scientific than the anthropic principle?
 * In any case, my favorite quote on the subject, which I can't remember perfectly, was by Douglas Adams, author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and it concerned an egoistic puddle of water. To paraphrase:  Imagine a puddle woke up one day and said, "This is an amazing hole in the ground that I occupy.  Why, it fits my every contour perfectly!  The hole must have been made to have me in it."  I've never seen a better example of the FTU fallacy in all my life.  Cheers, Kasreyn 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kasreyn, I'll back up just a tad to help...There are two primary anthropic principles, the weak and the strong (there's also a final, but that's a bit different in scope). The weak is the one to which you refer, the strong is where FTU and other hypotheses of similar ilk come in. Also, when I stated, "...Fine-tuned universe is ... really just a restatement of the anthropic principle and is thus a philosophy masquerading as science."  I didn't say it was "more scientific", I was saying that it wasn't scientific at all, that it's just philosophy pretending to be science. Any better?  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was restarted by GeorgeFThomson. Moved the rest of this discussion to User talk:GeorgeFThomson. -- Ec5618 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Peer Reviewed Research
Can we rename this peice Anti-Intelligent Design? Only a fool would believe that this article is held from a neutral point of view. Bagginator 05:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please point out something which violates NPOV so that we can fix it? Thanks.  Guettarda 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this line here is false To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[77] It is demonstrated as false a couple of paragraphs later. The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. This is only one example, to point out all the examples of how this article violates the NPOV would take me days. However, I do not hold any illusions that the article will be changed to be less biased and more neutral. Bagginator 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, here is a list of Intelligent Design peer-review articles in scientific journals:

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

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166

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.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

'''W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.'''

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

Of course, that is only peer review in scientific journals but does not cover all peer review. There is also peer review of books, for example, and peer review of anthologies, etc. Strangely, this article on Intelligent Design makes no mention of these other types of Peer Review. Bagginator 08:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the list just given --part of the standard web-PR in favor of ID--is quite misleading, not the WP article. Most of these are samples of articles having to do with the current investigations of what is often termed morphogenesis and the issue of punctuated equilibrium.  The Voie paper is distinctly reminiscent of the papers touted by various "new age" commentators which were especially prevalent throughout the early and mid-1980's. No peer-reviewed journals to date appear to have chosen to even respond to Voie.
 * As to the assertion by advocates that they actually do peer review, I'm again reminded of Immanual Kant's comments about justification of truth, written in 1800 but equally applicable today.
 * "Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man." From Introduction to Logic.
 * Kenosis 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn you Kenosis, now my head hurts. But to answer Bagginator: there are many websites online that show the ID list to be false and useless for ID proponents.  However, a better piece of evidence for ID's lack of peer review (and to support the fact that their current list is bogus) is Bahe's words during the Dover trial: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."  If you still don't believe, read through the article cited by ID and convince yourself that not a single one favors ID.  --Roland Deschain 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blame Kant, not Kenosis. Kant was a truly horrid writer.  ;)  But yes, the evidence speaks far more loudly than the PR nonsense spouted by Dembskiites.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the link to Behe testifying under oath in the Dover trial that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." FeloniousMonk 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the Discovery Institute's "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) By: Staff, Discovery Institute August 1, 2006" is back again. What is it now, about every three months a new arrival brings this up? This list and its claims are already covered in the article. If Bagginator disagrees, he should 1) read the archives, where this very issue has been previously discussed and settled many times before, 2) explain how the judge got it wrong in the Dover trial and we should ignore his decision. There he ruled that "...ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications..." and "...as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community." FeloniousMonk 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what we have here is what Joe Carter has called the 10 ways Darwinists help Intelligent Design. This article, as ive pointed out, is so over the top that it will actually lead people to believe in Intelligent Design. Information wants to be free. The attempt by Darwinists here at Wikipedia to keep it hidden only helps ID advocates. As I previously stated, i'm under no illusions that the information here will be changed. Thanks for your replies, you all have been very helpful. Bagginator 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the paragraph above is supposed to be. Several members have given clear reasons why the article claims that ID does not have any peer reviewed research under its belt.  Rather than offer counter arguements, the above post is a pointless and elusive paragraph (using good old Creationist talk like Darwinists).  If it was simply at attempt at having the last word, it backfired rather badly.--Roland Deschain 22:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, Roland, it's supposed to be, uh, it's supposed to be, hmmmmm, it's supposed to be...merde! <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would want to assume that Bagginator is reading the Discovery Institute (and its offshoots') claims in good faith. It is the claims themselves that are, as I think Jim just meant to say, philosophically and theologically viable, but not scientific. The main problem with the ideas, debatable as they continue to be in philosophical and theological circles, is that the attempt to cast them as science is a jumbled mass of intermingled concepts up to and including political and social advocacy of how the world should be.  If that is "merde", then Jim is not being unreasonable here. ... Kenosis 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I partly agreed with Bagginator, as several of the older talk threads from 2006 will attest. I argued to remove the whole section on Peer review, because it plays right into the hands of the DI attempts to manufacture a "controversy" about evolution, when in fact there is no such controversy. To quote Tezh again:
 * "...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 [any] 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)."
 * If anything, the article is overly deferential to an attempted con-job that has been visited upon the general public in the US (see Wedge strategy). It's ridiculous-- "science" got its credibility (mainly throughout the twentieth century) as a result of millions of hard-working scientists and researchers worldwide toiling away and limiting themselves to what's been recently termed "methodological naturalism" and empirical research.  Now ID advocates want a piece of that action, and every time a group of scientists look at it and subject it to the level of scrutiny that scientific ideas are subjected to as a matter of course, it becomes positively absurd ("oh, they're biased against us").  This article bends over backwards to allow the ID position to be presented.  What it does not do is blindly buy into the demands that ID be considered "science".  ... Kenosis 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that I.D. proponents are denied access to peer reviewed journals by the science establishment, in the same sense that any non-science is normally not allowed into science journals. That is not by conspiracy but by consensus of science practitioners. Despite the tens of millions of dollars spent by the Discovery Institute over the last 15+ years, ID has failed to produce any fundamental ID research, instead what they have published is literature review, cherry picking at well-known problems and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. That is not following the scientific method for emerging new science. Any new scientific paradigm would provide detailed testable explanations of their own on the topics evolution now addresses. ID has yet to do this. FeloniousMonk 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FM, you are being very kind to ID advocates here. Fact is, they are merely recycling the same kind of material used in the "new age" literature since about 1980, except tailoring it to suit their own set of philosophical/theological/religious apologetics, with a heavy social and political agenda lurking within the package deal they've offered the world. Had the wedge document not been leaked, no doubt they'd still be arguing those points too. ... Kenosis 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It seems an act of conscience did make cowards of the Dembskiites.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the archives - this issue has already been dealt with. The phrase "peer reviewed" is actually unnecessary - ID hasn't published a single shred of research into ID. No one even applied for a round of grants offered to support research into ID. It's that simple. Guettarda 05:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Bagginator, withdrawn articles do not count as published. That's what "withdrawn" means - publication revoked. Kasreyn 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of overwhelming majority of the scientific community again
Hi,

I am new to wikipedia and I am trying to navigate my way through this process. I hope I have found the proper place to post some objections to the way this article has been handled. If I am posting in the wrong place, could someone please help me and redirect me to the right place.

There are two places in the article where it says that the overwhelming majority of the science community rejects the idea of ID, or something like that. Then the reference mentions associations and societies who have drafted policy and general rejection statements. I would like to see the wording here reflect the references and say that the associations and societies have made these statements.

The important distinction that this wording raises is that in a large organization, the majority rules, or even an elected minority. In either case there can be a large contingency who hold a dissenting opinion. A good example of this would be the labor unions. In an election year, the labor unions may support one candidate, but amongst the individual members, there may be a large group that actually vote for the other candidate.

I am not saying that there is a large minority among the scientific community, but the wording and tone of this article seem to imply that just about no scientists believe in ID. Actually I think there are a lot more scientists who believe in ID. than are accounted for in the popular press. I would be willing to do a little polling of scientists in my community and see just how many there are who would privately say they believe that in some way or another, there is an intelligence behind the developement of life.

I would like to know what the objections are to re-wording the two phrases to something like:

Among large scientific associations ID has been rejected.

By using the phrase, the scientific community, you are disenfranchising all of those scientists, who do harbor the feeling that an intelligence is at work in the universe. ArrrghBob 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue has been raised, discussed and settled previously, please read the archive, /Archive4. If you have any points to discuss that were not raised and settled previously, we'll be happy to discuss them with you. FeloniousMonk 23:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, looking over the objection you make here, our foundational policy, WP:NPOV has a clause called 'undue weight.' WP:NPOV says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Those members of the scientific community who believe in ID constitute a tiny minority and that's one reason the majority position get stated to the exclusion of the minority there. FeloniousMonk 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a universe of difference between the scientists "who do harbor the feeling that an intelligence is at work in the universe" and scientists who can prove scientifically that such a scenario is the case. The former is personal believe which many scientists hold (including Kenneth Miller, one of the scientific leaders opposing ID).  The latter, by Bahe's own admission during trial, has not been shown.--Roland Deschain 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. A number of scientists want to "learn the mind of god" -- god here being much more of an abstract than the "concrete" god of most religions, with many scientists believing not so much that god is an intelligence actively at work in an omnipotent sense, but rather a sum of the intelligence/physical laws of the universe.  However, as scientists they are able divorce their spiritual or philosophical beliefs from their scientific work, and as they do not have a dogmatic vision of god they have no real conflict betwen belief and science: if their science disproves something they thought was true, they adjust their beliefs accordingly, or see themselves as being one step closer to true understanding.  This is the definition of a good scientist, you see; a bad scientist is one, like Behe, who does things the other way round.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, much of natural history and Darwin's theory in particular came from the search to learn the mind of god, and as inconvenient facts piled up many sought laws rather than struggling with innumerable ad hoc miracles. ID attempts to find a place for miracles by pointing to the unknown and saying "look, there's scientific proof of a miracle!" Then not only failing to investigate further, but in Behe's cases failing to look at developing explanations. Judge Jones called this the same false duality that doomed "creation science", as I recall. .. As Darwin put it in his "pencil sketch" essay of 1842, "These facts, though affecting every organic being on the face of the globe, which has existed, or does exist, can only be viewed by the Creationist as ultimate and inexplicable facts." ...dave souza, talk 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked politely whether anyone could direct me to the correct place to discuss the topic at hand, and since you have simply charged ahead and dismissed my ideas out of hand, I am assuming that I have found the correct place.

I have now read the prior discussion of the objection I am raising. My arguments have never been discussed. Now because of the principle which I have already described in detail above, namely that official statements of large organizations rarely represent the "overwhelming" majority (which to me, and to the average reader, means, such a large majority that the minority is nearly or completely impossible to detect), I propose that the first sentence in the second paragraph of this article: An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5][6] or junk science.[7], be changed to read: An overwhelming majority of large scientific societies and organizations have officially stated that the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science.

This revision will more accurately represent the citations that have been given. It will also make a distinction between the idea of intelligent design, and the machinations of the Discovery Institute. Which, you have clearly stated is the thing you are describing in this article. Later I will raise other objections having to do with the obfuscation of these two things by this article.

(Sorry for not signing this on my last post. As I said, I am totally new to this process)

So let us proceed.ArrrghBob 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:ArrrghBob (talk • contribs)


 * Simply put, scientists cannot agree with Intelligent design on a scientific basis, because ID fits no accepted definition of science. That the wording and tone of this article seem to imply that just about no scientists believe in ID is because of this. Just about no scientists believe in ID. In fact, polls suggest that there are a far larger number of scientists named Steve who support evolution (and thus reject ID) than there are scientists who accept ID. And this includes a far greater proportion of biologists (scientists who know what evolution entails) than the list of ID supporters.
 * Now, you suggest that you expect that a large number of scientists in your community believe that in some way or another, there is an intelligence behind the developement of life. Please read the article. Intelligent design is a specific concept, claiming that scientific findings suggest that the intelligence can be studied and quantified. The general notion that there may be an intelligence at work in this universe is far from the issue.
 * Look, science is not in opposition to a deity or designer. Science is in opposition to pseudoscience. Deities may exist, but please don't suggest that the evidence proves this. -- Ec5618 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That the majority of scientists reject ID is amply supported throughout the article. This issue was discussed and settled long ago here, please read the archives. FeloniousMonk 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FM, this is yet another example of the dismissive way in which you deter newbies from editing this article. You refer to previous discussion on a point (which turns out not to settle the point), and instead of actually engaging in discussion, refer yet again to the archives.


 * You consistently refuse to discuss changes. You clearly intend for the article about ID to reflect only anti-ID positions, or as close to that as possible. What else could this be called but POV pushing? (I notice you chose wisely to stay out of the RFArb, where this malicious pattern of evading NPOV would come under scrutiny.) --Uncle Ed 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very poor display, Ed. One mustn't blame other's for one's faults.  Beams, motes, etc. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon and Ed, 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. Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence, and distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument. This is stated by a reliable source. To support the changes you propose, you will need to provide verifiable evidence of an equally reliable source putting the argument for your changes. ..dave souza, talk 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "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 evolution and origin of life." This article, in the very beginning, gives ID the benefit of the doubt.  However, as ID has not provided any shred of scientific work, this statement is clearly false and that is shown throughout the article.  --Roland Deschain 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the heading you posted for this discussion thread. I am not discussing the scientific reliability of the proceedings of the Discovery Institute or of any other claim to scientific methods regarding intelligent design in this discussion.

You are completely avoinding my argument for changing the wording of this phrase in question.

Do you not agree that my wording more accurately reflects the citations given? ArrrghBob 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, I think that the sum of scientific organizations represents the scientific community. The vast majority of professional scientists (including myself) have to be part of one scientific organization or other to make our living (to get grants, have positions, etc etc).  Furthermore, as has been pointed out above, there have been several (humorous) polls that show that, on an individual by individual basis, the vast majority of scientists do not accept ID as science.  So either way, the sentance is appropriate in my opinion.    If you can find polls that show that a significant number of scientists who understand the scientific topic of evolution say that ID is science then I'd argue for changing that sentance.  Otherwise, there is a lot of evidence that the majority of the science community opposes ID, but no evidence that a significant part of that community accepts ID as science.--Roland Deschain 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Roland Deschain, I'm afraid.
 * Firstly, let's look at the current line:
 * An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science.
 * This is true. The only way to accept intelligent design as science is to redefine science, which is what intelligent design proponents have tried to do. Consider that the new definition of science would be broad enough to encompass astrology as science, which is clearly not what anyone in science wants.
 * Secondly, your proposed line:
 * An overwhelming majority of large scientific societies and organizations have officially stated that the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science.
 * Your wording would suggest to readers that there may be large scientific societies which haven't spoken out against intelligent design, which is untrue, and that there may be a large number of scientists unaffiliated with any 'large scientific societies'. Scientifically, there is nothing to discuss I'm afraid. Years ago, it made sense to give intelligent design the benefit of the doubt, but that time has passed long ago. -- Ec5618


 * Quite frankly, I'm a bit miffed with this statement, "You are completely avoinding my argument for changing the wording of this phrase in question". No one avoided anything -- reasons were provided ad nauseum why the suggested sentence was not valid.  There is simply no reason to alter one word of that sentence. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jim, not one reason has been given yet why my suggested sentence is invalid except that I failed to make it clear that there are no large scientific organizations that haven't weighed in against ID. (See a future revision that just got deleted from the system when I tried to save it.)  I have raised a new argument, and it deserves to be discussed.  I am the one who should be miffed.  Or maybe I only think I am in wikipedia.  Did I stumble into some other place by accident? ArrrghBob 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of reasons have been given why your sentance is invalid by several members. Do tell why you think those reasons are invalid.--Roland Deschain 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cite one, and I will tell you. ArrrghBob 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to spoon-feed you. The responses are right there underneath your post and I'm not going to summarize them for you.  Take the time to read them, understand and research the objections and then come back with a response.  That's how this site works.  It's rather ridiculous that you expect me to read other people critique (which are just a couple of paragraphs above this post) of your idea and then relay them back to you.--Roland Deschain 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read every word of every post in this thread, and I have already stated that none of the objections to my suggestion have directly addressed my argument. I have stated my argument at least twice but I will state it again for your benefit.  The issue I am raising is the fact that official statements by large organizations rarely if ever encompass the "overwhelming" majority of opinions of the constituents.  Witness here the example I have provided of the labor union containing many members who vote for a candidate not endorsed by the union.  I am not saying that there is a large minority of scientists who believe in ID, but I am saying that you cannot know what the size of that group really is.  If you see any responses to this arguement, please point them out to me, and I will address them.


 * I can't believe how you are so focused on the anti-ID issue that you think, "ID is not science", is the answer to every arguemnt presented to you.147.222.29.95 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Y'know, Bob, you should really remember to sign in. So, how's the weather in Washington?  Isn't that where the Discovery Institute is located?  Not that that matters of course...well, it wouldn't if your behaviour hadn't been so trollish.  But, do carry on...I'm sure lots of people, maybe even some who've been on this page before, live in Washington.  Odd how your only edits are to this article and talk page though.  Oh, nevermind me, I digress. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK fine, so ID is science. Everybody stop arguing with this person and do the right thing now--change the article to say ID is science.  After all, about 500 scientists signed a petition saying it is.  Don't forget to include that the overwhelming majority are godless naturalists that don't know what science is either. ... Kenosis 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When organizations make official statements that constituents disagree with, there is evidence that can be presented to this effect. The constituents who disagree with the statement of the organization are, in free society, allowed to make their objections known. In Labor Unions, the objections of members are often made known in counter-statements of offended caucuses, for example. In organizations that pride themselves on "unanimity" such statements are stifled (c.f. North Korean government statements in support of Kim Jong Il). In the case of intelligent design, there is no overt oppression preventing disputants from coming forward with their objections, but nevertheless there are vanishingly few such objections. You might make the claim that evidence of absense is not absence of evidence, but this is ridiculous when you are trying to accomplish the task of "proving a negative". So the onus is on you to provide evidence that there is such a constituency of dissident members of the cited organizations. --ScienceApologist 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ArrrghBob, we can safely assume that the majority of scientists object to intelligent design for three reasons:
 * Major organisisations of scientists have stated that intelligent design is not science.
 * No groups of scientists have publically distanced themselves from those statements.
 * Polls show that a vast majority of scientists find intelligent design to be incompatible with the definition of science.
 * Now, the line, as it stands, doesn't go into all of these points, and it might not be a bad idea to clarify why statements from large scientific organisation matter, but the changes you propose are not improvements. -- Ec5618 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ArghBob, welcome to WP :) However ID is not science, it is an RELIGIOUS movement, with an intentionally awkaward name. E.g. at the very beginning, two years or so i merely knew the idea by its name, not what was behind it and i identified myself with it, my interpreting it stands for the inherent order that can be seen ubiquitiously. An order that arises from the quantum mechanical equations of matter as well as the ongoing research in quantum fields. Then i actually read that title "intelligent design" is actually religion and has nothing todo with science at all, which i couldn`t even grasp at first because i am deeply atheistic in my roots. I couldn`t believe there are a bunch of people spreading such foolishnees, reciting and blatantly ripping off images et al. from science reports, websites etc, and copy and pasting it to impress the public along with some downright foolish quotes and self worded ideas about godknowswhat. Intelligent design, choose two very prominent scientific terms that are abdundant in nearly all scientific fields these days, because in a way they represent the forefront of science: that is intelligence itself as in neuroscience, quantum states in the mind and so forth, and design self assembly et al. IMHO, psychologically ID is nothing other than the same intentions a "bad-graded" school kid has trying to stop others to make them join in their nonesense, in order to feel good about themselves. e.g. nobody want`s to be alone. "Nonesense" in that scenario would translate to all those ID people who just got tired or overwhelmed with the thundering torrent of scientific data that is published each month, they just got tired of thinking literally and wanna keep it simple, trying to drag others in their boat. All that coupled with certain religious motives.

Does anyone really think there is a conspiracy going on? I mean seriously, a scientist couldn`t care less about religion if he isn`t religious at all, i mean that is straightforward?! So a scientists doesn`t care whether an islamic fundamentalist, christian fundamentalist or whatnot published a certain scientific paper as long as the science is inherently fascinating, as in the end that fascination for nature is what being a good scientist is all about. So the conlusion really is that the supposed "irreducable complexity" is in the mind of those ID folks who set their barrier at a certain limit and got tired of anything else. IMHO this is okay, as long as it is not forced upon anyone else who actually gets a neurochemical reward out of the wonders that nature beholds. And as everything this rewarding pathway is plastic, and can easily be modified, so it is a serious concern for all of us to make sure that children can live out their ideas as freely as possible and not be forced into the imaginationary boundaries of a minority of adults.Slicky 11:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ArrrghBob's continuing objection, suggestion
OK, OK, everyone, please take off your anti-ID glasses for one minute and look at what I am saying objectively. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ID IS SCIENCE!!! You keep harping on this over and over. I think you have been at this for so long, it's the only issue you can see. I will address this issue in a future thread, but please for now, can we stick to the current issue.

I started posting this last night and now I have to amend what I started because at last a couple of you have actually started to address my argument, Peronal attacks removed by Guettarda.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't wikipedia supposed to be a dynamic repository of the users. Isn't it supposed to change over time as the articles get refined to more and more accurately reflect reality? (huh, kind of like science isn't it?) In that case how can an article or the contents, ever be "settled", as in:
 * "This issue has been raised, discussed and settled previously, please read the archive"

Can you people see how the controversy has so blinded you that it takes an enormous effort just to get you off the subject of whether or not ID is science, and that some people might just be trying to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE?

Now finally ScienceApologist and Ec5618 Peronal attacks removed by Guettarda are starting to see maybe this guy is talking about something else. "Oh, maybe we should address that" is beginning to cross their minds.


 * When it takes this much effort just to get someone on this forum to actually address another issue than the anti-ID issue, I am afraid we don't have a very good environment to have a truly Neutral Point Of View!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the future I will address the whole issue of ID not being science, but for now we just need to get this one phrase fixed.

Let me reveiw. Earlier in this thread, I suggested that we change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read:


 * "An overwhelming majority of large scientific societies and organizations have officially stated that the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science."

Since that time, I have had only two people actually address my reasons for this change, or offer a legitimate objection to this change. Ec5618 raised a legitimate objection to my revision when he stated:


 * "Your wording would suggest to readers that there may be large scientific societies which haven't spoken out against intelligent design, which is untrue, and that there may be a large number of scientists unaffiliated with any 'large scientific societies'."

I will correct this problem in a revision to my suggested change in just a few paragraphs from now. First I want to speak to the reasoning that ScienceApologist has offered. SA said in summary that when there is dissent in a free society that there will be evidence of that fact, and so I need to come up with the data to show that there is a significant group of people who are dissenting from the official statements of the major science organizations. I know this is really being free with his words, but if I am not stating that to your approval, please correct me SA. SA also says that:


 * "In the case of intelligent design, there is no overt oppression preventing disputants from coming forward with their objections"

I'm afraid that there is actually tremendous oppression in this country, on this very topic within the scientific community whether overt or under the waterline. As Roland states earlier in this thread:


 * "The vast majority of professional scientists (including myself) have to be part of one scientific organization or other to make our living (to get grants, have positions, etc etc)."

In our current environment a scientist wanting to voice his belief in a designer is subject to every kind of ridicule and even the possibility of the loss of job status or any other benefits or awards that he might desire. This general milieu which has developed over the last 40 years or so, is quite evident on this very forum. With this kind of top down oppression of personal convictions it is impossible to state categorically that there is not a significant number of scientists who believe in (not the Discovery Institute) but in the principle that there is a design in nature, and that that design suggests a designer. Harboring those feelings in no way restricts a person from being a good scientist, from being committed to ruthlessly uncovering the truth, even to the destruction of those feelings, if the evidence leads one to that point.

Since there is no way to get accurate data on just what the scientific community feels personally, I suggest a change in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article. My new revision will more precisely state the facts which are verifiable, and so is better than the existing sentence.

I feel I need to apologize to Ec5618. He actually had made his legitimate objection before I said no one had made one. But what had happened was that I was in the process of addressing his objection when other people made changes to the forum, and when I posted mine, some how it was deleted and I had to start all over again. In complying with his objection, I am presenting a new and improved alternative to the existing sentence.


 * All of the large scientific societies and organizations have officially stated that the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science.

This sentence more accurately depicts the verifiable facts. It does not state or imply in any way that ID is science. It is more accurate than the existing sentence. So, if there are no further objections, let us make the proper change and then we can get on to the topic I know you all want to discuss with me. ArrrghBob 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making personal comments about other editors - "play the ball, not the man". Guettarda 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "All of the large scientific societies and organizations have officially stated that the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science." There's an obvious factual and logical problem with this suggested passage. Not a single one of the cited scientific societies and organizations opposing ID have mentioned opposition to the Discovery Institute or other similar organizations as the proposed passages states. Saying they do simply won't fly. What they do state is opposition to ID. I'm sorry, but I don't think this change is warranted. FeloniousMonk 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bob's proposed wording is misleading. To begin with, can you support the statement that all large scientific societies have spoken?  I doubt it - ID is overwhelmingly a US issue, so I would be surprised if all large scientific societies had bothered to state an opinion.  In addition, how are you proposing to define large?  Scientific societies have spoken for this issue - when scientific societies make statements that prominent members disagree with, these individuals make their voices heard.  Do you have any evidence of, e.g., AIBS members distancing themselves from statements made by the AIBS?  More importantly though, the rejection by the scientific community comes not in their actions, but by their inactions.  No one even bothered to apply for funds carry out research into ID when grants were offered to do just that - not even ID proponents.  Of the millions of papers published in the last ten years in biology, almost none have had anything positive to say about ID.  Even if the (inflated and inaccurate) list provided by the DI were taken at face value, these are still on the order of 1 in a million.  If 99.9999% of scientists reject the DI's call for the overthrow of naturalism, it's pretty safe to say that the "overwhelming majority" reject ID.  Guettarda 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to agree that the proposed change is very misleading. The reason why I think that the current sentance is better is that there is a lot of objections to ID (not DI, this distinction has to be made very clear, as DI has many other programs) from the scientific community across all disciplins, but no scientific organization has actually endorsed ID. So, from the presence of large criticism and absence of all but minor local non-scientific support, it's very clear that the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science.--Roland Deschain 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By suggesting a change of "the operations of the Discovery Institute and organizations with a similar bent are pseudoscience or junk science", you imply that the scientific community does not have a problem with ID, only the DI et al. This is patently false.  I'm happy to provide press releases by many scientific organizations, should you want them. Ladlergo 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making the same basic fallacy over and over again: "In our current environment a scientist wanting to voice his belief in a designer is subject to every kind of ridicule and even the possibility of the loss of job status or any other benefits or awards that he might desire." There is a vast difference between voicing ones faith in the existance of a designer (which has no effect on ones career or reputation in science, as the case of Kenneth Miller clearly shows) and trying to prove, using the scientific method, that such a designer exists.  The reason why the latter is excluded from science is because it cannot offer hypothesis and ways to test them (the basic requirement to get a grant).  ID has not offered any scientific hypothesis or tests pertaining to its claims, but has rather remained stuck in the Creationist rut of using age old arguements against evolution.  This has been shown quite clearly in the Dover trial, when major ID scientific proponents droped out without any explanation.--Roland Deschain 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In our current environment a scientist wanting to voice his belief in a designer is subject to every kind of ridicule and even the possibility of the loss of job status or any other benefits or awards that he might desire. --> Can you back this up with evidence, references, or citations? An obvious counterexample is that Behe supports Intelligent Design and is still gainfully employed. It didn't seem to hurt him, in fact it propeled this obscure biology professor at a relatively obscure college in NE Pennsylvania into the limelight of fame. You are basically claiming that the bias is so great that the scientific community is acting like North Korean government. Finding evidence to this effect is going to be nigh-on impossible. Your fantasy of an unsung cadre of scientists who privately laud Intelligent Design while paying lip-service to their overlords is so far from being verifiable as to be unworthy of further discussion. Stop the rhetoric and start providing sources for your statements. --ScienceApologist 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To Guettarda I say, thank you for removing my attacks against the other editors. To everyone else, I say my only offense here was in using simile and metaphor to describe the way that some of my respondents are failing to recognise that I am not making a claim about ID being science.  Which in fact a number of you are still doing.  I never called anyone a name or attacked their personal character.  I hope Guettarda, that you will in the future be just as zealous on my behalf when my character is attacked.


 * To Ladlergo I say, "Yes Please!" I need those press releases and I don't know where to get them.  Thank you so much for your kind offer.


 * To ScienceApologist I say "Please" let's get real. You don't think that Behe and people like him who have dared to challenge the status quo

(I have removed the original phrase because I regret using it and it was foolish, see what happens when you let your anger get the best of you? Please accept my apologies ScienceApologist--ArrrghBob 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC))


 * haven't suffered in that effort? I have a simple solution to that question, let's ask them.  That there isn't ample evidence of this only goes to show who controls the money for what polls and surveys are conducted.  If you are employed as a scientist, you can't tell me that you would feel very comfortable announcing in your place of work that you adhere to the intelligent design idea.  There is ample evidence right here in this forum to show the viciousness of the environment against people supporting this idea.  All I am saying is that statements from scientific societies are verifiable, while the phrase "overwhelming majority of the science community" is not.  Let us choose our language to reflect that which is verifiable rather than that which is not.


 * Several of you have objected to my new version of the sentence because I have replaced the phrase 'intelligent design' with 'the operations of the Discovery Institute etc.', pointing out that most of the major scientific societies who have made statements against ID have done so refering to the general idea of an intelligent design rather than the operations of the Discovery Institute. Which brings me to a very important question.  Roland has repeatedly made statements like:


 * "There is a vast difference between voicing ones faith in the existance of a designer (which has no effect on ones career or reputation in science, as the case of Kenneth Miller clearly shows) and trying to prove, using the scientific method, that such a designer exists.


 * My question is this, which of these two ideas is this article refering to?--ArrrghBob 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * challenge the status quo of the environmentalist gestapo --> after reading this I have a hard time taking what you say seriously. You challenge: "If you are employed as a scientist, you can't tell me that you would feel very comfortable announcing in your place of work that you adhere to the intelligent design idea." Well, I am employed as a scientist and I am telling you that right now. You can call me a liar, but without supporting references this conversation is pointless. --ScienceApologist 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "If you are employed as a scientist, you can't tell me that you would feel very comfortable announcing in your place of work that you adhere to the intelligent design idea.". I am a scientist and I have several lab members in my lab that are religious and are great scientist.    However, ID is a totally different matter.  The reason why ID is not allowed anywhere in the scientific community (and the reason why it is not taken seriously) is pretty obvious and I'm not sure why everybody is skipping around it: ID is not science.  If you want ID to be included in the scientific community you have to show that it is science.  Have fun with that one. --Roland Deschain 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Both, because they're one and the same. Despite the Discovery Institute insisting otherwise, you cannot uncouple the assertions of ID proponents from their motives when their stated ultimate goal is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Dembski acknowledges this when he says "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" as does Johnson "The objective (of the Wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'", "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.", and "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." At Dover Behe testified belief in ID is directly correlated to belief in God. The Dover trial judge considered testimony and evidence from both sides and ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and that "that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." FeloniousMonk 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Point by point

 * ArrrghBob, please take a step back. True, the article is imperfect. And true, editing this article is a slow process. Still, the line you are objecting to is not so bad, surely. It is a valid assessment of the situation. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community does view intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science. (As evidence for this claim we have, among other things, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Project Steve, and statements made by organisations such as the United States National Academy of Sciences.)
 * In a word, do you disagree with this statement? -- Ec5618 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ec5618 for trying to calm things down a bit, and get to the real issues I am addressing. Yes I do disagree with this statement if the phrase "intelligent design" means seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer.  Because I think that there are many legitimate scientists who would find a resonance with that concept.  Before I address any of the other arguments just presented to me above, I would like an answer to my last question regarding the main subject of this article.


 * Also, to ScienceApologist, please see my edit to my above comments to you, and my apology there.--ArrrghBob 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've tried to explain before, Intelligent design is not the general concept that "in some way or another, there is an intelligence behind the developement of life." As you may know, accepting evolution does not mean that god cannot exist, and religious believers all over the world have accepted evolution.
 * Intelligent design proponents claim that evolution is impossible without a guiding influence. What's more, they claim to have found evidence of the existence of this intelligence. There is more on this in the article, as I'm sure you know. Now, the odd thing seems to be that while these people claim to do scientific research, no research is ever done. Please see intelligent design movement, which details much of this. If the proponents of intelligent design were conducting research, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But while they claim to have convincing evidence of the necessity of a designer, their 'evidence' never stands up to scrutiny. Go ahead and pick an argument. Someone here will be able to refute it effectively. Effectively, intelligent design is intellectually dishonest, and its proponents are lying. -- Ec5618 01:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a need to use that type of language? Even if you disagree with proponets of ID, there is no need to resort to these type of value judgements. Discuss the article, but not the subject, please. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate choice of words perhaps, but nonetheless accurate. Ec5618 deserves a little slack here since he's taken it upon himself to respond to the ill-founded suggestions being repeated here ad nauseum. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but a reasonable summary of the evidence put into the court record in Kitzmiller, the judge's findings of fact, as well as a plain reading of the wedge document, is that it is an attempt to pull a socio-political con job on the American public. It that preferable to the way Ec5618 put it? ,,, Kenosis 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kenosis and FM, and see nothing wrong with what Ec wrote. Given the threads introduced by Bob of Washington state, what Ec wrote is quite relevant and factual.  Ah, perhaps Ec should have noted that ID ... nope, there was no other way to put it. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ArrrghBob, Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Without relevant sources to support your claim, there is nothing to discuss here and you're flogging a dead horse. FeloniousMonk 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Felonious Monk. I appreciate your help here.  By pointing me to this particular policy, which from it's language and prominence I take to be finalizing in the posting of material and changes, I can now see a light at the end of this tunnel that you and the other editors have tried to build for me.  I believe that you are unconsciously doing this, and that as I have pointed out numerous times you are unable to see the difference when someone is making a legitimate claim to a change and when they are arguing for the idea that ID is science.
 * I am not flogging a dead horse.
 * Here is the simple fact:
 * "Science Societies have made official statements that intelligent design is not science", is a verifiable statement.
 * "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science." is not.
 * In order to verify that, you would have to poll the individual population of every scientific society with an anonymous survey. That has not been done.


 * Since there is nothing further to discuss in this fact, let us proceed to either come up with a sentence that abides by the guiding policy of WP:V or eliminate it altogether. It can not stay in this article as it is.
 * (Whoever has been editing my formatting please desist. This is an important and critical post and it needs to be seen by everyone who reads here.  I have formatted my editing to be most readable to all, and to emphasize important points.ArrrghBob 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I have, again, edited your formatting. I'm sorry, but standard formatting is preferred. Your posts will be read, and the important parts will be clear, if you clearly state them. -- Ec5618 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, the intimations made by jim62sch that I am somehow associated with the Discovery Institute because I live in the state of Washington, are false. I first learned of the Discovery Institute in this very article.  I have never met any of the people you have mentioned.  I have read a portion of Behe's book and found it very interesting.  But I have never met him, although I would like to.  By the way jim's calling me "trollish" is much more derogatory than the similies that were edited out of my earlier post describing the way most of the other editors fail to understand my plainly stated intentions.  Where is Guettarda when I need him?
 * I would like an answer to this question from jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, and from Kenosis: Do you understand that a person can believe in a designer and still make arguments about the quality of an article that have nothing to do with whether intelligent design is science?--ArrrghBob 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my post above. I gave you simple premise, and asked you whether you agreed with it: "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science."
 * You disagreed, on the basis that, in your mind, intelligent design "means seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer". I corrected you. I hope you now agree that intelligent design is a specific concept, not a general notion. If so, we have dealt with one point, and can move on to the next.
 * Your next point is that there is no way to prove that "an overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science". As I see it, considering that we have polls figures from Project Steve and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and statements from scientific organisations such as the NAS, the only way to reason that we do not have enough evidence is to suggest that there may be a large number of scientists (biologists preferably) who are unwilling to admit that they, too, Dissent From Darwinism. Is this correct? -- Ec5618 20:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will address the two points that Ec5618 enumerated in Point by point above only to clarify my request for the edit now, noting that there is no reason to delay this edit any longer, and even more importantly because it highlights a much more serious problem with this article, namely the obfuscation of the real and original meaning of intelligent design, by confusing the two seperate concepts and not keeping them distinct.
 * First, you misquoted me, I said I disagree with your premise, "IF" the phrase "intelligent design" means seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer. So we have not settled the first point, unless you are willing to see that the two concepts have been confused and intermixed by the article, and when a statement is made regarding the phrase which is the title of this article, you don't know which concept is being refered to.


 * Secondly, what I am saying, at this point is: it is moot as to whether I believe there are a large number of scientists who subscribe to the idea that there is any scientific basis for intelligent design, since that is not the way the sentence is phrased. And most importantly, because the phrase as it stands cannot be verified, which violates one of the very foundations of the wikipedia project.
 * I do not personally believe that intelligent design is science. I am also not personally opposed to the idea that evolution in some form or another has been used by the designer, but even if we restate the sentence to distinguish between the general concept of there being a designer and the much narrower concept held forth as science by the DI, the sentence as it stands is unverifiable and therefore does not belong in this article.
 * You cannot make sweeping generalizations about the scientific community at all, because it is not verifiable. If you remember one of the possible scenarios I have described shows that large numbers of people can hold differing beliefs from the official statements made by the organizations they belong to.  In order to verify a sweeping statement on the order of the sentence being discussed, you would have to poll ALL the individuals in each of the organizations to tell exactly how many dissenters there really are.


 * Since we are now at the point of making a change to this article, I am asking all interested parties to offer alternatives to the first sentence of the second paragraph of this article or to state whether they think we should just eliminate the sentence altogether.--ArrrghBob 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A little arrogant there, Bob (or whatever your name is). You see, consensus is that the sentence is correct, thus we're not at the point of doing anything.
 * This point, "you would have to poll ALL the individuals in each of the organizations to tell exactly how many dissenters there really are" is asinine. I'm sure you've heard of statistically valid samples.  See, they mean you don't have to poll "all" of diddly.
 * BTW, it's "moot", not "mute". <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can call me Bob if you like. Alright, where is your poll with a statistically significant sample size? The truth is there is none.  A poll would have to be much more specific in the meaning of the phrase "intelligent design" than this faulty article is, and would produce a large group of people who feel the way I do I am sure.  But of course that is conjecture since there is absolutely no poll of the type.  Which is why the broad generalization of the sentence in question is in violation of the principle of verifiability.  By the way, I am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed to you jim.--ArrrghBob 08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which question? "Where is Guettarda when I need him?"  Or arguing over the quality of the article?  Of course one could argue that point.  But the real problem I see is that your arguments tend to lack coherency.  It's pretty damned hard to figure out which part of the definition you object to.  You argue that there are two definitions of ID, when it's clear to any reasonably intelligent ninth-grader that the two sentences are complimentary, in fact the second is subordinate to the first.  At other points it seems you are aguing for some other non-origins definition of intelligent design. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  13:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't remember me asking you a direct question above? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read the above discussion thoroughly.  Here is a cut and paste from my earlier post:


 * "I would like an answer to this question from jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, and from Kenosis: Do you understand that a person can believe in a designer and still make arguments about the quality of an article that have nothing to do with whether intelligent design is science?"


 * "I will not respond to anymore of your posts until I get an answer on this from you.--ArrrghBob 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously anyone can make a comment about how the article might be improved, Bob. Feel free to make a constructive comment.  Guettarda 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)What happened to your police work when jim called me trollish.  Back your comment here, so we can't actually change any part of this article at all, just make comments about it?--ArrrghBob 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ArrrghBob, I hope you can see that, if we assume for the sake of argument that intelligent design is not quite as broad as you seem to think, then the outcome of the polls is quite understandable. If the question is not 'do you believe that there is design in nature' but rather 'do you believe that the existence of a designer can be empirically verified, and do you believe that proponents of (the narrowly defined) intelligent design have done so', surely you can see how the polls would reflect incredulousness in the part of most scientists.
 * As for you assertion that there is no "poll with a statistically significant sample size", how do you explain the fact that Project Steve, A Scientific Dissent From Darw.. etc. all suggest that the majority of scientists feel that intelligent design is not science. The sample size in these cases is vast. -- Ec5618 09:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it telling that the only ""polls"" you ever mention are Project Steve and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The etc. means nothing. Regarding Project Steve, surely you are aware that this is not an anonymous survey of randomly selected scientists. It is nothing of the sort.  It is a call for scientists, on a controversial topic, to stand up and be counted.  The other project is the same kind of claptrap.  Neither of them say anything statistically significant about anything.  Are you people not scientists?  If you were going to test a population to establish something about one of it's features that you intend to be representative of the entire group, would you call for VOLUNTEERS?????  Again I say, the sentence in question fails the test of verifiability.  And now, where is my heading?--ArrrghBob 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you suggest that intelligent design is a general concept about design in nature, rather than a specific one. I believed I had clearly explained this above. A quote: "Intelligent design proponents claim that evolution is impossible without a guiding influence. What's more, they claim to have found evidence of the existence of this intelligence." This is what intelligent design is. A specific group of people came together to suggest that they could prove the existence of a powerful force in this universe, because purely natural science was, and could only ever be, incomplete.
 * It seems that I misunderstood you though, if this is truly the issue you see here. You seem to be making the case that the term 'intelligent design' must apply to all concepts of "seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer". Simply, that's silly. Yes, there are concepts that could be described as dealing with intelligent design, but the article isn't about them. This article isn't about ergonomics (intelligently designing a better chair). This article is about Intelligent Design, as promoted by the Discovery Institute.
 * I hope I was clear and convincing. This article deals with Intelligent Design. If you would like to write about something that could conceivably be described as such, but isn't what this article is currently about, I suggest you take a look at our disambiguation guidelines and policy on original research.
 * ps. I have formatted your post to conform to Help:Talk page. Please, we format our posts to clearly differentiate between speakers, not to add force to our arguments. -- Ec5618 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618, I am not at this point just debating different nuances of the topic. I am calling for an edit based on the foundational principle of verifiability.  That is the topic now under debate.  I would like my heading put back the way it was, and I want to know why, you or who ever it is feels so free to edit what I say?


 * When everyone else can edit what I say, this is not a fair and equal forum for debate. You say that my ideas will be read and understood if I present them in a clear way, but someone who is just scanning through would never know that I am calling for a point of order here the way you have buried my edits.


 * (You wrote)"It seems that I misunderstood you though, if this is truly the issue you see here. You seem to be making the case that the term 'intelligent design' must apply to all concepts of "seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer"."
 * I'm sorry, I guess I haven't been clear enough. There really are two seperate issues that I am addressing, and they are joined in the same part of the text of the article.  In the first paragraph, the text starts out by defining "intelligent design".
 * "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."
 * This description I would say is the general concept that I have been talking about. The next sentence however presents the more narrow definition, which according to you is what the article is describing.
 * "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 evolution and origin of life."
 * Now we have been given two seperate definitions of 'intelligent design', the concept, and what the "leading proponents SAY it is". From now on, the two meanings are used intermixed and so when the first sentence of the second paragraph comes along, the first definition seems to be included in what the "overwhelming majority" have rejected.  This has the effect of making scientists like myself, who may not agree with the DI, but still harbor feelings that there is a design in nature pointing to the existence of a designer, feel disenfrachised.  I believe that there are still many legitimate scientists who feel that the first sentence represents something viable, but then comes the sentence in question, and the sweeping generalization of the personal feelings of the scientific community are presented without verifiability.
 * Is it the case that the consensus of anti-ID editors here on this forum, over rule the guiding principle of verifiability? Is that allowed in wikipedia?--ArrrghBob 08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by your interpretation of the first line. I don't believe anyone has yet argued that it defines intelligent design twice. When I read the introduction, I see a single definition, spread over two lines. In the first line, a neutral description of the concept (as created by the Discovery Institute) is given, after which the second line explains that proponents of the concept feel that it is more than a concept (it is a scientific theory). Again I would stress that (quoting myself again) "there are concepts that could be described as dealing with intelligent design, but the article isn't about them. This article isn't about ergonomics (intelligently designing a better chair). This article is about Intelligent Design, as promoted by the Discovery Institute."
 * Are you being purposely dull here Ec? Now that I have pointed it out, how can you fail to see that when the average person who has little or no knowledge of the debate reads the first line, that to them, this immediately represents the general concept.  It even states it that it is a concept.  The second sentence indicates that the DI says that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory.  We now have two seperate definitions of the same phrase.


 * Earlier in our discussions, you and some other anti-IDers stated that there was a "universe" of difference between seeing a design in nature that implies a designer and the idea put forth by the DI that ID is a scientific theory, and now you can't quite seem to see my point??? Huh???? What the ....--ArrrghBob 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems we haven't resolved the first point of contention (in which you feel that intelligent design is not the sole purview of the Discovery Institute) to your satisfaction, but you wish to move on to the next point. I am going to assume that you are aware of basic statistics: a poll can be used to accurately gauge the opinions of a large group of people. (If you contest this, I'm going to have to ask you to find another tutor.)
 * I'm sorry, but I am not going to allow you to skip over this. If you read my post to jim above from yesterday, (which I am sure you did because you posted right afer it.) you will clearly realize that I had already acknowledged the statistical authority of properly done testing and analysis, so I can only assume here that you are being purposely opressive in your tone, which I do not appreciate.  Which makes your next cut and paste moot.  I have answered your next cut and paste quite clearly in a post just above here.--ArrrghBob 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to copy/paste what I said before:
 * "Your next point is that there is no way to prove that "an overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science". As I see it, considering that we have polls figures from Project Steve and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and statements from scientific organisations such as the NAS, the only way to reason that we do not have enough evidence is to suggest that there may be a large number of scientists (biologists preferably) who are unwilling to admit that they, too, Dissent From Darwinism. Is this correct?"
 * I ask again, is this correct? -- Ec5618 08:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to know what is the official policy on creating headings and sub-headings in the discussion page. This is not the article and surely there should be a lot more freedom for the debaters here. I also want an answer to this question: Can a concensus of the editors overrule the fundamental principle of verifiability?--ArrrghBob 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) But we didn't poll the Williams, and Jameses and Johns and Roberts. Maybe Darwin only appeals to people named Steve. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not religious by many reasons but, I believe ID is "real science", as good as you can get it. Intelligent Design is a theory by mere logic to my logic. "Evolutionists" must be blest with the faculty of "all knowledge" or "full control of knowledge" rather !, when ID is not permitted to be taught in schools, as "evolution" seems to be the only possibility for most minds ! GeorgeFThomson 18 August 2006
 * ID is a hypothesis that has absolutly no scientfic support (as admitted by the scientific leader of the movement, Bahe, during the trial), for the simple reason that ID has not done any scientific research. One cannot teach something in science class that has absolutly no science in it. I have no problem teaching ID as a philosophy or a religious study class.
 * Science can never give all knowledge. Tomorrow evidence can come out that shows ID to be superior to evolution. However, as of this point in time, evolution is the best theory and you have not offered a single shred of evidence to the opposite.--Roland Deschain 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ID is not permitted to be taught in public schools because it's creationism revisited, i.e., religion, ergo it is not and cannot be science.
 * Why am I bothering to argue with DI flacks? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying again
The discussion above is far too muddled to figure out, so I'm going to try to fish out the main points.
 * Bob said "Yes I do disagree with this statement if the phrase "intelligent design" means seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer"
 * Well, that one is simple enough to solve. No, as used in this article, intelligent design is not used in that way - it is used specifically to refer to the DI-backed "theory", which purports to be scientific.  That is, as far as I can tell, the major way the phrase is used.  What you are thinking of is covered at teleological_argument.
 * Bob's suggested change to the opening phrase about how the scientific community views ID is less accurate than the current wording.
 * The rejection on ID by the scientific community as a whole is well established. Changing the wording to say that "major scientific societies have rejected ID" is inaccurate (since most scientific societies have not spoken about ID, one way or the other; since "major" societies is impossible to define; and since this statement appears to be unsourced) and incomplete, since the rejection has not been by the societies, but rather by the scientific community, as I explained in this edit.  Guettarda 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Project Steve and A Scientific Support For Darwinism also clearly show that even small random polls of the scientific community show a clear majority against ID.--Roland Deschain 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of ArrrghBob's points seem to be that we cannot prove that intelligent design is rejected by a majority of scientists without conducting an ordinary poll. Since he has claimed that a majority of the scientists he knows would support 'some kind of design in nature', he is naturally suspect when our data shows (in his mind) the opposite.
 * ArrrghBob, we have tried to reason with you. I have tried to explain to you, no less than three times that you are simply wrong when you say that this article isn't specifically about intelligent design, as proposed by the discovery institute. Several other editors have tried. You are wrong. This article is about the concept of Intelligent design, as proposed by the discovery institute. Read the article. Read up on the history of the term, the concept of irriducible complexity (as proposed by Michael Behe, of the Discovery Institute), and so on. You seem unwilling to accept this simple fact. Why?
 * As for being dull, given that your grasp of the English language seems somewhat poor, I am really not going to accept your logic here. You are the first person who has ever argued that intelligent design is defined twice.
 * And Project Steve isn't statistically valid, per se, no. But it is a clear illustration of a major point: the majority of scientists rejects intelligent design. (Note, again, that we are talking about intelligent design as defined by the discovery institute, not as by you.) Do you imagine A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism would have managed to find less than 41 biologists to dissent, in a world in which a significant group of scientists support intelligent design? It's not proof (we have other proof). It's a clear illustration. -- Ec5618 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record. I am considering moving this discussion, in its entirety, to ArrrghBob's talk page. This would have the twin effects of keeping this discussion from being archived (therefore reducing archive clutter) and of keeping this talk page shorter. The same thing could be done with all such discussions.
 * The only drawbacks, as far as I can see, are that it enhances the view that Wikipedia, and this article specifically, is run by a cabal ("What, I can't even visibly discuss things?"), and that it does defeat the purpose of discussion. Who are we to decide what discussion is pertinent?
 * Any thoughts? -- Ec5618 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to move it to ArrrghBob's talkpage. If space is the issue, simply archive the ID discussion topics that are the oldest.  This discussion is one sides, true, but it is still a discussion and did introduce a lot of valuable evidence as to ID's place in science.--Roland Deschain 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (You may not be aware that this discussion currently comprises over two thirds of this Talk page. All other discussions were still ongoing on the 15th, less than a week ago. There is nothing left to archive. -- Ec5618 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Move it to his talk page or a sub-page in his user space. ArrrghBob has disrupted this page long enough with tendentious objections, ill-founded proposals, and off-hand dismissals of all evidence provided him. He's not here to engage in constructive discussion from everything I've seen over the last few weeks. If he wants to chat about the relative merits of ID, he can do it at his user talk page or better yet, off-site. The warning at the top of this page is explicit enough, I'd think. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with FM, albeit for a slightly different reson. The discussion has lost any semblence of coherency and isd really wandering away from the topic and the task at hand which is to improve the artoicle rather than debating whether DI's ID is the only game in town (or whatever Bob's point was).  I think when discussion become that impossible to follow, and that off-topic they should be moved.  I appreciate Ec's concerns regarding appearances, but sometimes the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few (or in this case, the one).  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out the obvious,
 * 1) Bob says "if the phrase "intelligent design" means seeing a design in nature, and sensing in that design a designer... there are many legitimate scientists who would find a resonance with that concept". The point is that the term ID has been appropriated by the DI to mean what they say it means. Wikipedia is not a way of publicising non-notable concepts that have not been published under the article name. Many legitimate scientists might think they're a New Scientist or a Scientific American, but they're not going to get even a disambiguation link on these articles unless there's verifiable proof that the claim is notable.
 * 2) The term overwhelming was used by a Federal Judge, and is confirmed by the other evidence.
 * 3) While there are petitions showing scientists opposing ID, there is no petition or list showing any supporting ID: the DI's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list has signatories to a statement that "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural the selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Wow! Over 600 people who may be scientists and are sceptical! ..dave souza, talk 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is amazing. The anti-IDers are just as draconian if not more than the IDers.  Apparently this is just a place for discussing whether or not ID is science.
 * If you are a proponent of the Discovery Institute's version of ID, then you can have a nice non-combative talk about how you think it is science, but don't expect to get anywhere. You will just waste your time here with no results.
 * If you are against the idea of the Discovery Institute's version of ID, then you are in fat city, you can criticize people who come here to make material changes all day long with impunity. You can ridicule them and dismiss them with a wave of your hand.  And if they start to make substantive arguments against your cherished beliefs, whether those beliefs are verifiable or not, you can just relagate them to some place where they won't be making any embarrassing points about the faultiness of the article.
 * If you happen to be neutral on the whole issue of whether or not ID is science, and you think that the article is doing a disservice to the rest of the population, and you are only asking to make the article more verifiable, then forget it. Even if you carefully try to explain why the cherished beliefs of the dominating viewpoint is not verifiable, you will be banished from the public arena without recourse?


 * I have not been given even the opportunity to fully explain why I think that the sentence is unverifiable. I ask anyone of you, if you were going to do a study of a large population to establish a certain feature of that population, just for example what portion of the population is named Steve.  Would you make a general request for people who are named Steve to sign a petition?  Would you simply take the word of a Judge on the percentage?  Do those things give you any indication at all what the portion of the population is that is actually named Steve?  Would you take either of those sets of data as verifiability in the case of how many people are actually named Steve?  I don't think so.  What is verifiable is that a judge has made a certain ruling, and that a few societies have come out with statements against it, and that a lot of people named Steve have signed a petition.  Those are the facts that should be in an encyclopedic article, not broad generalizations without data to back it up.  Let people come to their own conclusions from those facts, since that is what they are supposed to do when reading an encyclopedia.


 * It really doesn't matter whether the statement in question is talking about ID or ID or ID. It's not verifiable.  I know this piece of news may make some of you feel particularly sad, but I'm afraid you will have to accept it.  If I am to be banished for making you feel sad, then I think that this is the saddest place I have ever come to.  I was very excited to be able to participate in the wikipedia experience.  But it has been nothing but disappointing to me.  What I have found instead of a vibrant discussion of the articles, is instead a bunch of people with an agenda, who are carefully guarding their belief system and their wiki territory, and apparently committed to not allowing anyone to dissent from what has been written.  Or if they are allowed to, only for a short time, and then it's "good bye" to the annoyance.


 * Felonius Monk said about me
 * "disrupted this page long enough with tendentious objections"
 * Is there any other way to ask for a change in an article that to object. That some of my assertions have been tendentious may be a just criticism, but FM has been just as strongly implicit in his objections to me.
 * "ill-founded proposals"
 * Isn't this what a discussion page is for, to discover whether proposals are ill-founded or not?
 * "and off-hand dismissals of all evidence provided him"
 * My criticism of the verifiability of the sentence in question have been forthright, well explained, and backed up with example and rationale. --ArrrghBob 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you disagree with the current wording. I disgree with your objections.
 * All major scientific organisations have publically opposed Intelligent design. This, in itself, suggests very strongly that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science. 41 scientists have suggested that they are 'sceptical' regarding the power of evolution. Over four thousand American scientists have responded by supporting evolution. We can safely conclude from all this that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science.
 * ps. I have formatted your above post again, as per Help:Talk page. -- Ec5618 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 99 to 1 sounds pretty overwhelming to me. As for the Steve issue, Bob misphrases it: the question is not how many people are named Steve, but how many scientists are named Steve.  The general population, the vox populi, the 'οι πολλοι, the LCD, the vox nullius, is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.  After all, prior to Copernicus and Galileo, the unwashed masses and their religious leaders thought the sun went round the earth. 50% of all Americans think humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.  Another twenty percent do not know how to define a year.  What matters then, is what scientists think, as they are trained in critical thinking and are unlikely to place more creedence in reality shows than in reality itself.  Sadly, the remainder of Bob's objections are just as spurious, and whatever the rationale might be in his objections, it is hardly rational.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ArrrghBob you've made some very serious allegations that are bound to come back and bite you. However, if you truly believe that you've come across a think tank with the sole purpose of casting a negative light on ID, go to WP:DR and make this dispute official. Your line of arguement will not succeed in this venue, there is too much opposition. Your objection has been considered and through concesus, rejected. Go over to WP:DR for the next step.--Roland Deschain 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone for your recent input. In the interest of allowing other topics to be discussed which in my mind are much more important than the verifiability of a single sentence, and in order to take some time investigating the standard processes and rules of wikipedia, I am going to discontinue this campaign to change the first sentence of the second paragraph.  I do not agree that there is any valid data to verify this sentence for the reasons I have already given, but I realize that the standard of verifiability for wikipedia may be lower than what I consider valid.  I think in the long run, in the interest of verifiability, there is absolutely no reason not to change the sentence and replace it with verifiable statements about what studies, rulings, etc. have actually been done, and then let the reader come to the conclusion that the "overwhelming majority" etc., etc.  This is a more neutral way to handle the issue.


 * I want to say that I do believe that those who have carried on serious debate with me are genuinely trying to maintain integrity in the article, and that they are acting in good faith. Now to quote a famous person who doesn't have any idea what verifiability really is: "Aawll be Bach"--ArrrghBob 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In a few days, this discussion will be moved into the archives. Perhaps, in time, it will be decided that it is neccessary to more fully explain to what extent Intelligent design is rejected by scientists. The section on Controversy might be a good spot for explaining not only why most scientist reject intelligent design, but only who actually reject it (in generalised numerical approximations, of course). For now I would hope for a few uneventful days on this Talk page. -- Ec5618 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Crank magnet articles
I am looking for information from experience WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki. See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistent and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship". (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better.

If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there. If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent.

There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page. User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.

I'm putting this message on this page for obvious reasons, although there doesn't seem to have been too much trouble here. If you know of any real problem pages, let me know or, better still, copy this message to those pages. Dbuckner 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a definitely problem... FeloniousMonk 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What if one is upset at the above, but is not an expert? Or, perhaps, is upset in more fields than the one in which one truly is expert?  Is a submission of education credentials required?  Kasreyn 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, original transcripts sent directly by the school(s). Guettarda 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition given on Lina Mishima's page is "These people are subject experts or skilled writers who hold the potential to significantly improve and add to wikipedia's coverage of their subject." Attacks on their work can seem to them like attacks on their professional standing, so some find the usual hassle more trouble than it's worth. ..dave souza, talk 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)