Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 34

Public opinion on ID
FM moved info on US public opinion out of the intro although - so far - at least two other editors seem to think it belongs there. The reason (given in the edit summary): "move out of the intro. Intro structure is 1) what ID is, 2) what ID proponents claim it is, 3) how the scientific community receives it, 4) what the courts say"

I do not think that explains the need for FM's edit and propose that the information be returned to the lead (and, if necessary, improved). Please discuss. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk  18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposed structure of the intro is:


 * 1) what ID is
 * 2) what ID proponents claim it is
 * 3) how the public receives it
 * 4) how the scientific community receives it
 * 5) what the courts say
 * AvB &divide; talk  18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the current introduction/lead. The public is not near as important as what the ID proponents claim and the evaluation of the scientists. The court opinions are based on these two, but a useful summary, balance and review of these facts. The public opinion is difficult to gauge and more complicated. As to what it is, it is a rewarned piece of pseudoscience which is scarcely different from the Paley argument presented 200 years ago.--Filll 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro is long enough already and the result of long standing consensus and compromise. ID proponents very pointedly claim that ID is a scientific theory. How the public receives it (based on polls which are open to interpretation) is neither relevant nor necessary to understanding whether it is an actual theory or not, but how the scientific community receives it is. So how the public receives it is not necessary for the intro, and why I moved it down further in the article where is it more relevant. FeloniousMonk 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As basically an irreligious pagan, I am puzzled by this Wikipedia article. The general gist is that ID is religion or religious. I am involved with several pro-ID and ID-friendly blogs and religion has nothing to do with it. Nor is ID the same as creationism. Creationism traditionally starts with some holy book and attempts to process the evidence thru that sieve. ID is about design detection. Moreover, you can accept ID, descent with modification from a common ancestor, and a four billion year-old earth all at the same time. This article needs a serious re-write.


 * If ID is science, Wikipedia has to deal with it as science and scholarly sources are what we need to report on, with possibly some info regarding lay opinion. However, if it is religion, and it is, according to me (and, coincidentally, mainstream science and US law), Wikipedia has to deal with it as religion, with some info regarding scientific evidence. The poll results are a relevant example illustrating the established fact that an incredible number of Americans have fallen for ID. These polls are not quoted here in order to say anything about the question whether or not ID is an "actual [scientific] theory". AvB &divide; talk  03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm not sure I agree with FM's moving that piece of content to where he did (and I find "it's that way because that's the way it's always been" to be the weakest argument on Wikipedia), your proposed format is even worse. Its bad enough that both sides of whether ID is science are in two different paragraphs, but now you want to seperate them even further?-Psychohistorian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly wedded to a format. I just think that Raspor, between voluminously verbose opinion, has flagged up a minor problem with the article which can be solved by adding the few words I proposed. Also, this is not about whether or not ID is science but about its broad acceptance in the USA. AvB &divide; talk  03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the change you proposed is that it introduces a non sequitur into the intro, muddling the issue. There is no shortage of sources from both sides of the fence I can provide showing that ID proponents primary thrust has been to present ID as a scientific theory (exclusively), and one superior to evolution. The only relevant viewpoint in relation to their primary claim then would be the scientific community's; how widely ID is received by the public has absolutely no bearing on the validity of ID proponents claims (though they would no doubt argue differently since they're reduced to the 'grasping at straws' stage since ID has found no traction within academia). FeloniousMonk 03:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You say: "non sequitur". That's a fact, not a reason to revert my edit. (A "non sequitur" is something that does not follow from what has been mentioned before - this applies to some 99.9% of all info in Wikipedia intros - not a reason to remove). You say: "muddling the issue" but you do not say how mentioning information regarding slightly under 50% of all Americans muddles the issue. You say that only scientific information is relevant since ID claims to be scientific - yet you do not consider the complementary view that only religious information is relevant since science claims ID to be religious, or acknowledge the fact that the article body addresses both views. Finally, once again, this is not about the validity of ID proponents claims - just about the acceptance in the US. Hiding this from our readers is, I think, not very encyclopedic. AvB &divide; talk  03:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

thats why it is a *** controversy *** both sides should be expressed in a controversy. if there was one side it wouldnt be a *** controversy ***

raspor 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Both sides -are- expressed. As FM says, what the public has to say about it is irrelevant to whether it is science.-Psychohistorian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I said to give you the idea that this is about whether or not ID is science. This is about the encyclopedic fact that ID has broad acceptance amongst the (inevitably lay) public in the US. AvB &divide; talk  03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People editing this article would do well to recognize intelligent design is pseudoscience by mainstream science. That is not a point to argue, it's a point to stress.  We're not talking about comparing democrats and republicans.  We're talking about pseudoscience.  With that in mind a wise contributor here would make themselves very familiar with WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience.  Mr Christopher 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Undue Weight has important exceptions, notably this one: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." This is the article on Intelligent Design. Even if we were talking about a tiny minority view, we should give it as much attention as we can give it in this article. Let alone where it is a significant minority, in this case almost a majority in the US. AvB &divide; talk  03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one clause of WP:NPOV trumps the others. WP:NPOVFAQ tell us unambiguously how articles on pseudoscience are to be covered: "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." That's exactly what this article does, and it done in this way as a very conscious choice in light of the policy. As a topic, and one that is widely considered pseudoscience, ID gets more than its due weight in this article; if anything, it is given undue weight. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority view is described in articles such as Evolution. This is the article on a minority view (which is not exactly a small minority either). And it is not as if I am about to rewrite the article. Thisd is just about informing our readers of the FACT that an enormous number of US citizens like ID. Finally, you say: "No one clause of WP:NPOV trumps the others" - this is not a matter of contradictory clauses. Info on minority views (especially on views held by many millions of people), pseudoscience or not, "should not obfuscate the description of the main views" - but they can and should be detailed in articles dedicated to them. (Off to bed: it's already morning here. Happy New Year to you and All!! AvB &divide; talk  04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You won't find the scientific community's response to ID at Evolution, and again, WP:NPOVFAQ says "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." Also, this article does not go into the arguments for evolution, hence my point about ID getting more than a fair shake here. Bear in mind that WP:NPOV describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." And you'll find the article does just this: It presents a definition of what ID is, followed what ID proponents claim it is and how the scientific community receives it, and what the courts say about it. FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with the article; since I find it, for the most part, satisfactory, I am not trying to make major changes. I think the following summarizes my view: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." - you may recognize it - we should tell our readers who believe what, and I think 100,000,000+ Americans believing in ID is pretty basic encyclopedic info belonging in the lead, however preposterous the rest of the world may think their beliefs may be. AvB &divide; talk  04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No is arguing that the level of public acceptance of ID has no place in the article, just not the intro. Also, any polls will need to be vetted for any notable controversies over their methods and results prior to numbers being presented. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the figure of 100,000,000 Americans believing in ID? Believing in what, anyway?  ID is more than just belief in creation, it's a narrow view of creation which constrains God to the role of a tinkerer, but also makes him intentionally responsible for evil.  Many people are sympathetic to the general ideas of Paley, but not the specific ideas of modern DI-ID.  Guettarda 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a rough estimate of the upper figure of the ranges found in numerous ID claims (the source I quoted gave 46% if I remember correctly). FWIW, I've already agreed with edits by FM and Kenosis, polishing the resulting para a bit in the process. I was not particularly interested in a specific figure, just in giving a sourced estimate of the number of adherents/proponents/believers/whatever one wants to call it. I still think that para should be in the lead but I'm the only one so the current version is supported by consensus. AvB &divide; talk  22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

psych i have an response for you in my private quarters

raspor 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This "controversy" is just a fake controversy, driven by donor dollars.--Filll 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a response in my private quarters

raspor 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should we hide the fact that some 50-100 million Americans have fallen for ID? AvB &divide; talk  02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think one should hide it. However, this does not mean it needs to be in the lead either. The lead is already pretty larded up with detail.--Filll 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not mention that Avb here is taking the poll's numbers at face value; a number of polls that purport to show a huge ground swelling of support for ID have been shown to be biased, skewed to favor ID and ID proponents have an interest in and a history of making inflated claims (as the Dover trial showed). I'm not saying that is the case with this poll, I haven't reviewed it, but it has happened before and for that reason we need to be circumspect here about is presented as fact in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not taking any polls at face value, nor am I saying the numbers are on the rise. In fact I am quoting a source explicitly explaining the problems with such polls. And I am quite sure you are NOT questioning my actual edit, the one whose location in the article you are disputing: "Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the USA, it has little support in other parts of the world.Polling for ID" AvB &divide; talk  04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Zogby poll. Yes, that was one of those shown to be skewed, as your source (Chris Mooney) describes. If numbers are to be given or characterized, a more up to date poll may be available. Let me see what I can find. You are correct, I thought your prose was fine. FeloniousMonk 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The 2005 Harris poll is a reasonably decent source. According to it, "10 percent [of U.S. adults] subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design)." FeloniousMonk 04:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any advantage in further expanding the lead, especially since this is a relatively minor and hopelessly fuzzy point. Guettarda 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

varthold, 31 December 2006
In the secular world, the beginning of wisdom is the phrase "I don't know." Nobody knows how we got here. The constant references to ID being "unscientific" in this article are bizarre, at the very least. In order for a thing to be scientific, it must have two characteristics: it must be observable, and it must be repeatable in an experimental setting. Nothing else is "scientific." So, while ID fails in this regard, so does evolution. Indeed, when anyone points out that evolution is not observable, the usual response is to simply throw a few more million years into the equation, making it ever more unobservable.
 * I dispute your criteria for what is scientific, and I dispute your statement that evolution is not observable. Certainly, supernovae are not "reproducible in an experimental setting" yet I wager that few would say supernova astrophysics is not science. Certainly inferences about the evolution of the solar system, inferred from isotopic ratios in meteroites, are scientific, yet this has the same observability as fossils. If one takes all the different types of animals, that is certainly "reproducibility". as for not observalbe, we can certainly observe evolution in action in microbes and insects, and, through the fossil record, evolution in organisms with longer lifespans. I believe that scientists are starting to see evoluiton in action in certain cases that favor rapid evolution, eg when a new type of fish is introduced into a lake, where there are few existing fish species, the new fish can diversify very rapidly. I apologize for not having the reference handy, but perhpas a specialist can help out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Secondly, Michael Crichton has writeen a series of speeches (available at his web site) starkly illustrating the silliness of predicating science on an ethos-based argument. In other words, the early assertions in the article concerning the beliefs of a "majority" of scientists is patently absurd. For example, a majority of people didn't agree with the polemic version of the solar system, but that did not make it invalid. The invocation of a majority opinion argument dramatically shows both the intellectual vacuousness of the evolution crowd, as well as their desperation.
 * Yes, I would say the scientific crowd has a certain desperation: for scientists, ID vs evolution is like arguing if malaria is caused by insect bites or swamp vapors. To most scientists, it seems really silly. I'm not sure about the majority is vauousness argument (which indicates a certain bias on your part): if 99.999% of people who study this for a living agree, more or less, that evolution is a good theory and ID is not, I think that is worth something: would you disregard the opinon of car mechanics if 99 out of 100 said you needed a new oxygen sensor and one said you needed new rings ? maybe the one mechanic is right - maybe not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

If there is a sincere desire to improve the article, remove all references to who, and how many, approve or disapprove of the concept, and roll it out for what it is. If you insist on tagging it as "unscientific," then have the intellectual honesty to say the same for evolution, for that is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.215.86 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2006


 * Doing so would violate our core policy, Neutral_point_of_view, which describes the "the neutral point of view" as "a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized, ... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." FeloniousMonk 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Take it to the judge. .. dave souza, talk 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They already have: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. They lost. FeloniousMonk 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The chant about ID being a science and evolution not being a science is incessant. It does not seem to matter how many times this is explained. It never seems to stop. And the ID advocates never seem to get it. It does not matter how many times they lose in court, or what the judge says when they lose (like ID is "breathtaking inanity"). This is ludicrous. ID is in no way shape or form comparable to evolution. I guess I will have to make sure I make this very clear in the other articles I am writing. But I have to say, in summary, this is a ridiculous argument. Evolution has been observed over and over. It makes predictions that can be verified...dozens and dozens in my list so far. ID has not. ID is a rewarmed theory from 200 years ago that has been shown to be false over and over and over. In test after test. So this is just pure nonsense.--Filll 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reduntant repetitiveness
I wonder how many times these discussions have been repeated. I've looked through the Talk:evolution archives and the same discussions were repeated 20 or 30 times with the same resolution. Honestly, the repetitiveness here is the exact same and it comes down to one point. Evolution as a fact is science, verifiable and repeatable. ID is based on religious faith that is accepted by few people who are very passionate. Religious faith cannot be proven, so therefore is POV, pseudoscience and religion. To repeat the argument 400 times, subtly changing the words, is not going to change anyone's mind. Wikipedia does not espouse any religion, just encyclopedic fact that is verifiable. Orangemarlin 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My view
What the discovery institute has done, with an infusion of money, is revive William Paley's arguments from 2 centuries ago with slightly more modern language. These arguments can be even more solidly rejected now than they were 200 years ago. Science's accomplishments are far greater than they were 200 years ago, and the definition of science is more precise, at least among scientists. The public still has very little understanding of what science is, so the expenditure of large sums of money by the DI and the publicity with having a high profile court case or two has confused the issue. In the public's mind, DI might as well have won the Dover court case. Most of them probably do not know that DI lost in court, they only know they have heard of ID now. Most of the public do not know what science is; just look at how many believe in alien abduction and telekinesis and ghosts and various conspiracy theories (JFK, 9/11) or whatever. So in some ways, the stink DI has made has served the purpose intended; it has given this issue a very high profile in the public's mind. This, coupled with an almost complete lack of understanding of what evolution is in the public's mind, has created a dangerous situation. After all, what politician or decision make could object to the very reasonable sounding "Teach both sides and let people decide for themselves" or "Teach the controversy", or "Mainstream science is unfairly supressing us". It would take very little for the fundamentalists to gain the upper hand on some future supreme court, or in some future congress. Just look at the anti-Michael J. Fox advertisements in the last congressional election. I suspect these ads would have been far more successful if Rush Limbaugh had not stuck his foot in his mouth and made such ludicrous statements. --Filll 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Strategy
As successful as the Discovery Institute's strategy was with the public, it is really caught in a difficult position legally and scientifically etc. To raise money and get support from churches, they must someplace make a connection to God or the divine or theology. If they do not, they will not get any money. However, they have to keep this agenda "secret" to have any chance in the US court system, or in the scientific establishment. Of course, this means that a huge volume of fairly extremist religious types will be exposed to the secret real motivation behind their books, lobbying, strategies, research, etc. And some will proudly brag about it, as religious people like to do, to the filthy heathens and infidels. For example, take a look at this story about the Biologic institute: --Filll 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies and statistics (or polls)
I'm not sure that throwing polling data back and forth between the Evolution side and the Creation myth side does any good. Facts aren't proven by polls, they just show how uneducated and silly people can be. I forgot the exact numbers, but a substantial number of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens. So, in the UFO article (and I'm going to check if that's considered pseudoscience, because if I'm going to stand on principle with Noah's Ark and ID, I'm going to do the same with Divining Rods and UFO's), does it qualify as NPOV information to state that in some Gallup Poll or something, 60% of Americans believe in Aliens? That just shows that 60% of Americans need to have their heads examined by a qualified psychotherapist. I don't care how many people believe in ID, it is pseudoscience, it is myth, and it is religion, but it is not factual and it is not science. If Raspor or whatever Mr. 3RR added to the revert war, I don't think Polling data belongs in an encylopedic article. Unless you're going to state how gullible some number of people are to mythology. I might buy that. Orangemarlin 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A more telling point might be a poll of southerners in 1962 on segregation. But you can't win an argument with this sort of thing. You can just be polite and keep pounding away at the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.220.64.105 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Are you suggesting 4 out of 5 dentists don't recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum? Seriously, I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject yet I can see how it could get nutty  The Harris poll numbers that Felonious Monk added don't move me one way or another but he must have felt they were relevant.  I'd like to hear his comments for including them. Mr Christopher 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally like them so I can gauge how effective certain campaigns have been for example, and what the mood of the society is. Polls and surveys can tell a lot about: If I know that only 5 % of the public in country X subscribe to ID, that is very different than knowing that 65% or 95% of the public in country X subscribe to ID. Knowing that 95% of the people in country X are creationists and that every other nearby country has about 10% tells me something interesting. Knowing that the belief in God is dropping or rising, or that the belief in biblical literalism is dropping or rising etc is all useful information. It should not necessarily be in the lead, but there is no problem with it being lower down in the article. For example, creationists are very surprised to find out that the vast majority of scientists and other Christians do not agree with them. In their own restricted circles they might not notice this. Also, in my circles, I know very few people who would deny evolution. None of my relatives. None of my friends. No one I work with. No one at any church I have ever attended. No one at any school I have ever been to. So obviously, when 30 or 40 percent or whatever of the public states that they believe in biblical literalism, that tells me something. I live on the outskirts of Washington DC. Now everyone I know is educated, with masters at least and PhDs and MDs and LLDs. But the average adult reading level in Washington DC is about grade 3 level (recently reported). That tells me that I have a very VERY biased sample of acquaintances. The average public school teacher in several states is functionally illiterate (that is, unable to read a newspaper). That information tells me something. Here is another example: In the areas close to where I live, the population is maybe 70% African American. Most of these people have never travelled much or had much education. When I talk to them, they believe (based on their own experience) that the whole United States is like this area, and even the whole world. When I talk to them about China or India, they immediately want to know about the black vs. white situation in China or India or Japan. They cannot imagine it as any different than it is where they live. That is their world. They believe that the reason television shows do not have at least 50% black actors and stories is that because television is racist. They believe that the reason the Congress of the US is not more than half black is because of racism. When I point out that having 42 of 435 representatives in the lower house is about what one would expect based on demographics, they do not believe me since that is not what they see around them (granted the Senate is not near as representative of demographic distributions, for obvious reasons). So statistics and polls and surveys are definitely flawed, but they are indicative. I personally cannot imagine that an educated adult would not know that the earth orbits the sun, but a good 1/3 or so of the US does not know this. Many do not know how many states there are in the US. Many cannot find the US on a map of the world. But statistics reveal my personal biases and misconceptions. And help me make better judgements and decisions in trying to understand the world. Which is what an encyclopedia should do.--Filll 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the threat from extremist views
 * the effectiveness of science teaching
 * the mix of extremist views in the community, in each country, society, class, educational level etc


 * I agree with your assessment of polling data. What bothers me is when the Creationists come out and say, "see X% of Americans believe in little green men were responsible for Noah's Ark and the Loch Ness Monster and also believe in Intelligent Design" (please note my sarcasm), put it in these articles as their source that their ideas merit adding to an article, I am concerned.  I don't think that facts are subject to polls--that's the arena of weasel politicians, not an encyclopedia.  If you think of an encyclopedia as being something that is supposed to last a lifetime, what is next year's poll going to say?  Besides all that, it's obvious what people really believe--didn't Santorum and the ID gang in Pennsylvania (including the Dover Board of Education) get tossed out of office?  More than that, I'd rather see a worldwide poll of Creationism--I doubt that 1% of the world thinks these people know what they're talking about, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  Facts and science don't require polls.  That's my humble (well, maybe not so humble) opinion.  Orangemarlin 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indicating the number of a subject's believers/etc is explicitly mentioned in the NPOV policy (as argued by FM, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov#The_neutral_point_of_view). I too would prefer more objective measurements, but I guess in matters of belief polls, however evil they may be, are often all we have. AvB &divide; talk  16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember one thing: truth is not driven by consensus. That no one in 1320 AD believed that the earth went round the sun did not make the simple fact that it did so any less true.  Likewise, that over 90% of the population of the US believe in a deity or deities does not make the existence of a deity true. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's so true. However, one should never forget that we aim to provide verifiable information. If it also happens to be True, we've succeeded beyond our remit. Even so, in cases like these, if we provide information on the number of people who hold a specific belief, and our information is The Truth, it is the truth or reality that specific people hold a specific belief, not the truth of the things they believe. AvB &divide; talk  12:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources as to who is behind ID
The revert of Kenosis' revert was done for two reasons. 1.) It brought back sources claiming that they say things which they do not say 2.) His argument that it was warranted on the grounds that the Federal Court stated the content as true fails because the only source which says cites the Federal Court is the one of the testimony of Barbara Forrest and that source was kept. -Psychohistorian 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying to figure out what you mean by this comment. Are you stating categorically that the Discover Institute is NOT behind ID in the US?  I'm confused.  Orangemarlin 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the point being made is whether all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI, not whether the DI is behind ID in the US. There is an important distinction there.  Second, no, I am not categorically saying that the Discover Institute is NOT behind ID in the US (hey, think we can try for another negative or two in that?).  As I recall, two of the sources which I removed did say that the DI is the leading organization behind ID, but did not say that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI.

The core of my argument here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We have to stick to what we have sources for. The only sources which we have citations for which state that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI are the two sources which are in my edit.-Psychohistorian 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's easy to see what is going on here: You've deleted six significant sources that all say all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, in favor of a single source (the ACLU) that allows for portraying the point as dubious opinion based on ideological slant. In other words, poisoning the well. FeloniousMonk 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the way it looks from here is that you're so afraid that evolution can't stand on its own that you feel like you need to be a guardian for it against anything that might possibly look like a threat. I, on the other hand, believe in the scientific method so much that I want ID to be given a fair chance so that when science knocks it down, noone can cry "foul play".-Psychohistorian 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I've restored the longstanding version which Kenosis reverted to. Your changes injected personal conclusions into the article by way of editiorializing characterizations. The content is supported by the sources, I suggest reading all of the Dover trial testimony and ruling; the judge relied almost exclusively on Forrest's testimony in his ruling on that point. And furthermore, it is not just Forrest who says this but Branch, Myers, Brayton and a host of others. Do we need to cite them all? All, please discuss significant changes to the article before making them, this a controversial topic and we have enough trouble here dealing with the cranks, kooks and partisans without having disputes from reputable editors such as yourself. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Personal conclusions"? The sources you readded do not say what you claim they say.  While the judge may have relied almost exclusvily on Forrest's testimony, you have not provided a citation to the judge's comments where he agrees with Forrest.  While Branch, Myers, Brayton, and a host of others may have said that, there is no cite in the article to that affect.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  You need to provide enough cites to establish that its more than just a handful of people who make the claim.  There were five cites (cites which did -not- claim what they were being used as sources for) listed in the other version (the version I edited from).  I think a total of five cites whiich actually -do- claim what the content says would be sufficient.  With the ACLU, Forrest, Brach, Myers, and Brayton that's five right there.  Now, because I do not want to get into an edit war, I'll leave the content as is for now so that you have a chance to respond.-Psychohistorian 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Barbara Forrest, a leading critic of ID and the DI, and the ACLU have both stated that all of ID's leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute."
 * This sort of characterization is called poisoning the well. The TMLC tried to paint Forrest with the same broad brush (atheist/raving liberal ACLU member) and her testimony as ideologically-driven personal opinion, and the judge denied them then. Why should we allow it here? There are six supporting cites that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. You just happened to choose the one to replace them with the same association and argument that the TMLC used in their attempt to poison the well in trial? Um, no. That will not fly as article content.


 * We have 6 supporting cites showing that all leading ID proponents are affiliated with the DI: Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Jodi Wilgoren's The New York Times article, the American Civil Liberties Union position paper, Joseph Kahn's Boston Globe article, and the Science and Theology News article. If you want to change the article to say something other than this, the burden is on you to show how each of these sources is does not support the content. You'll also need to debunk the other dozen or so sources we can provide that all say the same thing.


 * Oh, and name one leading ID proponent who is not affilated with the DI, while your at it. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know Barbara Forrest. I'm not at all familiar with her work.  However, I went to the Wiki article on her and that's the very first thing it says about her.  I think its a mistake to say that being anti-ID makes you an atheist (I personally know a few creationists who would take objection to being called an atheist on those grounds).  I also think its a mistake to confuse pointing out that she's anti-ID with whether or not she's a raving liberal (for example, I'm a die hard moderate and anti-ID).  The sources which I deleted earlier do not..THEY DO NOT..say that all leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the DI (I know because I read every one of them this morning).
 * Frankly, your accusation that I'm doing this in order to push ID is out of line. I'm doing this because I'm against ID and believe that, when the tighter we present the evidence (accurately, precisely, and completely), the less wiggle room there is for ID.  As for naming one leading proponent that is not a member of the DI, I can't, but then I never made the claim that not all leading proponents of ID aren't members of the DI.-Psychohistorian 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I had two choices: Either you were not up to speed on the current state of literature about the ID movement or you are favoring one of ttheir arguments. I'll go with the former and ask that you read more about the movement before trying to change this important point in the article. As I've said, there are literally dozens of sources available that all point out that the leading ID proponents are all affiliated with the DI and if you read enough of the neutral literature on the movement it is clear that the notion of ID as is being promoted was struck upon by Johnson, Thaxton, Meyers and Chapman and those who called themselves the "Wedge" and went on form the CSRC (CSC now) at the DI, and the DI has been the hub of the movement (got lots of sources for that too, if we need them). FeloniousMonk 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that all the leading proponents of ID are affiliated with the DI. However, the sources I removed DO NOT SAY THAT.  So, provide sources which DO.  Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth.  So provide that verifiability.  Elsewise, you are in no position to cast stonss when the other side chooses to ignore the policies as well (and I want them to be held to the policies).-Psychohistorian 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Others do not argee with your opinion about the six existing sources, this was previously discussed, read the archives.
 * And we can also add this source to our article, Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action, from the Journal of Clinical Investigation which says "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" which also supports the implication of the existing content. It's worth the read and may help you better understand the issue. FeloniousMonk 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the archives before I deleted the content, thanks. My point that they don't say what is claimed for them still stands.
 * Also, the statement "the engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" goes to the point as to whether the DI is the leading institution behind ID. It does not go to the point as to whether all leading propopents of ID are members of the DI.  There's a very important difference between those points.-Psychohistorian 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "that they don't say what is claimed" They don't? The New York Times article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive is wholly dedicated to exposing the DI as the root of the ID movement. Did you even bother to read it?


 * Let's look at the what the sources say about the DI and ID:
 * "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial states all of ID's leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
 * "''Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives who helped Mr. Bush win the White House, the organization's intellectual core is a scattered group of scholars who for nearly a decade have explored the unorthodox explanation of life's origins known as intelligent design. Together, they have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive. Like a well-tooled electoral campaign, the Discovery Institute has a carefully crafted, poll-tested message, lively Web logs - and millions of dollars from foundations run by prominent conservatives like Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, Philip F. Anschutz and Richard Mellon Scaife. The institute opened an office in Washington last fall and in January hired the same Beltway public relations firm that promoted the Contract With America in 1994. ... From its nondescript office suites here, the institute has provided an institutional home for the dissident thinkers, pumping $3.6 million in fellowships of $5,000 to $60,000 per year to 50 researchers since the science center's founding in 1996. Among the fruits are 50 books on intelligent design, many published by religious presses like InterVarsity or Crossway, and two documentaries that were broadcast briefly on public television. But even as the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design, it has staked out safer turf in the public policy sphere, urging states and school boards simply to include criticism in evolution lessons rather than actually teach intelligent design. ... Discovery leaders have been at the heart of the highest-profile developments ... These successes follow a path laid in a 1999 Discovery manifesto known as the Wedge Document ... Detractors dismiss Discovery as a fundamentalist front and intelligent design as a clever rhetorical detour around the 1987 Supreme Court ruling banning creationism from curriculums. But the institute's approach is more nuanced, scholarly and politically adept than its Bible-based predecessors in the century-long battle over biology. A closer look shows a multidimensional organization, financed by missionary and mainstream groups - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman's $141,000 annual salary - and asserting itself on questions on issues as varied as local transportation and foreign affairs. Many of the research fellows, employees and board members are, indeed, devout and determinedly conservative ... But even as intelligent design has helped raise Discovery's profile, the institute is starting to suffer from its success. Lately, it has tried to distance itself from lawsuits and legislation that seek to force schools to add intelligent design to curriculums, placing it in the awkward spot of trying to promote intelligent design as a robust frontier for scientists but not yet ripe for students.''" Jodi Wilgoren's New York Times article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive clearly supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * "Q: Who is behind the ID movement? A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in Seattle, WA." Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" at the American Civil Liberties Union You've already stated above that this supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe Clearly this supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * "''Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" by the DI's own Science and Theology News (PDF) lists nothing but its own affilliates as the notable ID leaders, so even the DI clearly supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * "...the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (DI/CSC), the primary institutional advocate of ID." The American Association for the Advancement of Science's Intelligent Design and Peer Review  is consonant with and supports the statement "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * ""The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute..." The American Society for Clinical Investigation's Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action which also is consonant with and supports "(ID's) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..."
 * "that they don't say what is claimed" I'm sorry, but they do and I think you are simply mistaken. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While you point out that I already agreed that the ACLU cite points out that all of the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI, you failed to do the same for the Barbara Forrest quote. In case you missed it, I already agreed that the Barbara Forrest quote points out that allof the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI (its why I kept her quote in my edit).

Now, your other cites 2.) "Together..propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages" "the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design" Supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

"Discovery leaders have been at the heart of the highest profile developments" Supports the claim that members of the DI are leading proponents of ID, not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

4.) "The institute..had occupied a lead role in the ID movement" Again, supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI "boasts a number of leading ID proponents" Supports the claim that members of the DI are leading proponents of ID, not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI (note also, the use of "boasts a number" which means something quite different from "whose membership includes all the leading ID proponents")

5.) I never removed this - its a new source

6.) "the primary institutional advocate of ID" Again, supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI

7.) "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute" Supports the claim that the DI is the leading institution, but not that all leading proponets of ID are members of the DI.-Psychohistorian 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement that "[i]ts leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." is an extremely legitimate and well sourced editorial decision arrived at by strong consensus and which has been discussed repeatedly at extreme length. Several times, offers were made on the talk page to cite any persons who are leading proponents who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute or its arms, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and/or the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID).  No persons were cited who could reasonably be said to be leading proponents that were not directly affiliated with the DI or its arms.  See, for just one of the more recent discussions about this, the long thread in the most recent archive, which began in what is now the second-most-recent archive, involving Bagginator and in which Psychohistorian was a participant.  The participating editors of this article are thus already familiar with Psychohistorian's position on this issue as a result of those discussions.  There is absolutely no need to rehash the detailed analysis of this issue, which is fully supported by the citations currently in the article, and also supported by numerous additional citations that are, as a matter of reasonable editorial decision, not currently included in the article. ... Kenosis 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Its that way because that's the way its always been" is not a valid reason not to edit content and, in fact, is a piss poor statement that no good scientist worth his salt would ever make in any context.-Psychohistorian 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychohistorian is at best deliberately misreading the following "Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." or else he is trying to make an implied argument that the terms "leaders" and "leading proponents" are not equivalent. Obviously, if the first possibility is true, there is nothing that can be done regarding his disingenuous arguments; if it is a matter of the latter, then psycho has failed to show how these terms fail the test of equivalency.
 * Additionally, Psychohistorian has noted that he knows nothing of Barbara Forrest's work. This is as irrelevant as as denying the existence of the warping of space because one does not know of Einstein's weork.  Ignorance of facts is no excuse for dismissing those facts.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, you've posed that I'm "at best deliberately misreading" a quote which I already agreed (and have since the very beginning of this dispute) does support the claim that all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI. In what way do you think I'm misreading it?-Psychohistorian 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Psychohistorian is neither disputing the assertion in the article nor arguing that the reverted cites invalidate the assertion. All I see is Ph's repeated claim that some of the cites do not support the assertion, plus the full intention to keep cites that do. A point that has not been addressed by those wishing to keep the cites. If it has been addressed in the past, a link to the relevant part of the archives would do. (Not having checked all of these sources recently I'm not defending or disputing them myself; I'm simply flagging up what to me looks like a simple misunderstanding.) AvB &divide; talk  20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself do not dispute Psychohistorian's good faith in the least. I am, though, somewhat upset about his latest series of edits which (1) substantially rewrote the article lead, and (2) gutted four important citations in support of the previously consensused language relating to who the leading proponents of ID are. I thought that was taking on a bit much, considering how much work has gone into this article by many, many WP editors. ... Kenosis 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That PH may be editing in good faith speaks to intentions, but does not speak to the validity of the edits. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see at the start of this section, Ph is only disputing the re-addition of deleted cites. Why not address that point? I'll make a start. I have just read the first cite once again, both the abstract and the entire NYT article. It's a good and rather neutral article, but it neither supports nor contradicts "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" and is therefore not a source for this specific assertion. AvB &divide; talk  23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It did not appear to me to be the case that Psychohistorian was only disputing the four particular citations, as indicated by (a ) his repeated advocacy of removing from the lead implications that ID is a product of the DI, and (b ) by his rewrite of the article lead in a way that implied it was only critics associated with the political "left wing" in the US who've asserted and/or demonstrated with evidence that ID is a product of the DI and its arms, the CSC and ISCID, evidenced by the language of the lead after Psychohistorian's recent edits such as here. ... Kenosis 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry FM, I completely overlooked your earlier list. I don't agree with your verdict on "Politicized scholars" but I've now also read the FAQ at ACLU - which IMO qualifies as a source. AvB &divide; talk  23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case this gets overlooked, I don't dispute the ACLU cite either. Its one of the cites I left in my edit.-Psychohistorian 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Next one. "The Evolution of George Gilder": "The institute... boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers.": that does not support the assertion; in fact it makes it sound as if there are other leading ID proponents who are NOT among the fellows and advisers. AvB &divide; talk  23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Intelligent Design and Peer Review" neither supports nor contradicts "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" and is therefore not a source for this specific assertion. AvB &divide; talk  00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to avoid changing this as we discuss it. Raspor regretably is doing that now. Mr Christopher 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the AAAS peer-review article is not sufficiently central to the assertion about "all of whom are affiliated". What that article does is provide sourcing for the fact that both Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg are affiliated with the DI through two different arms, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID).  This is relevant only insofar as it lays bare an important affiliation in the context of the Sternberg peer review controversy, and also lays bare in concise form one of the tactics employed by the Discovery Institute (attempting to set up its own "peer review" avenues for its affiliates to publish "peer reviewed" articles).  So I'd support the removal of this citation from this positioning in the article. ... Kenosis 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Finished reading the last one - "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Not a source for this assertion. I now fully agree with Psychohistorian's deletion of these four cites. However, the logical next step is not to make changes to the intro. One could leave it at that, add better sources (as FM did), or come up with contradictory sources if they exist (unlikely). I fully support points made to that effect earlier. AvB ÷ talk  00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a comment about one of the four citations in question just above. I am compelled to disagree with the conclusion that the other three are not relevant to the statement in the WP article that says "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute...".
 * "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive", By JODI WILGOREN, published August 21, 2005. This is highly relevant to the statement in the WP article by merit of the very first sentence, whether or not it makes the specific assertion "all of the leading proponents", which can be seen even without logging in with a NYTimes username and password.  This introduction reads: "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country."   As a secondary benefit in giving readers insight into the subject, the article also closely relates to the politicization of the issue, a key insight into the nature of intelligent design.


 * "The Evolution of George Gilder" by Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, published July 27, 2005, supports the WP article's statement in the following passage: "The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers."  This passage, far from contradicting the statement "all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute", makes clear to readers unfamiliar with ID that (a) it's politicized, (b) the DI occupies a lead role, and (c) the DI has an arm called the CSC that boasts a number of the leading proponents.  Recall that many of the leading proponents are affiliated through one of its two arms rather than the DI proper.  This is important information.


 * The "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" by the DI's publication Science and Theology News supports the assertion that the DI is behind ID, in the DI's own words. This too is highly important and relevant, because it also is a laundry list of many of the names that have occasionally been questioned by WP users unfamiliar with the fact that all of the leading proponents are affiliated with the DI.
 * I believe it would be prudent to leave these three citations in their current placement (which would be a total of six if the AAAS cite were removed) at least unless and until they can be replaced with citations that are agreed by the WP editors to be yet more pertinent. At this stage in the history of the article, I'd be more inclined to advocate increasing the number of citations with additional improved ones rather than replacing these three or four.  Best, I think, to be put forward as many relevant citations as possible in the initial footnotes accessible to the reader directly from the article lead.  ... Kenosis 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, "it should be that way because that's the way it's always been" is not..NOT.. a valid argument for not changing the article. Therefore, your comment "at this stage in the history of the article" is absolutely not relevant.  Second, I don't think you see the distinction between "the DI is the leading institution" and "all the leading proponents are members of the DI".  Those two statements are not equivalent.  If you do understand this, please let me know that I'm confused on that point because if you aren't confused, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  Third, I want to make clear that the "who's who of intelligent design proponents" article is not one I've examined (it was added after my disputed edit), so I'm not prepared to discuss it at this point in time and haven't discussed it in the past.-Psychohistorian 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Psychohistorian, you made your position on the basic issue clear, now as before. The language "leading institution", however, makes it sound like the affiliates of the DI and its arms are somehow one among many independent people and/or organizations, or that they rose to the top in what is otherwise a "grass roots" movement, when in fact the affiliates of the DI and its arms, are alone as a driving and organizing force behind the remarkable modern phenomenon of theological/ideological/socio-political advocacy that casts itself as as form of science, and which has been presented to us as "intelligent design".
 * As to the suggested equivalency of "it should be that way because that's the way it's always been" (Psychohistorian's statement) with "at this stage in the history of the article" (Kenosis' statement): Of course the history of this article does not merit casting it in stone, but it does raise the ante when presenting arguments for substantial rewrites that would require a re-consensus of issues that have involved 7000 namespace edits, over two megabytes of extremely detailed talk, and thousands of person-hours by many participating editors. My statement that "at this stage of the article's history" above, though, is even narrower in intent than that-- I'm suggesting only that at this stage of the article's history a bit more of the massive research effort that went into this article by numerous editors (many of whom now bother to check into this talk page only occasionally), more of that massive amount of research should be made available to the reader in footnotes accessible directly from the lead.  ... Kenosis 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several sources that say that a significant number of the leading proponents are members of the DI, and a handful of sources that say that, in fact, all the leading proponents are in the DI. Your statement '"it should be that way because that's the way it's always been" is not..NOT.. a valid argument for not changing the article' is simply a misinterpretation of the fact that you haven't brought any evidence that contradicts the sentence in the intro.  None of the sources contradict it, most vaguely affirm it, and a few specifically state it.  This issue has been addressed before in the archives.  If there is a leading ID proponent who isn't affiliated with the DI, finding evidence for the fact should be straightforward. Tez 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "There are several sources that say that a significant number of the leading proponents are members of the DI". Noone has disputed that.  The discussion concerns whether all of the sources used as support for the claim "All of the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI" actually state as such.  In order to avoid having to repeat myself yet again, it would help if you actually familiarized yourself with the discussion before commenting on it.  " simply a misinterpretation of the fact that you haven't brought any evidence".  Refamiliarize yourself with WP:Verifiability.  It specifically states that it is up to the editor/s who want content to remain to provide support for it.  That means I don't have to provide a source for saying its wrong.  You need to provide sources saying its right.  Further, this is beside the point because I'm not even debating whether certain sources do, in fact, do that.  I'm only pointing out that some of the sources which are claimed to do so don't.  "If there is a leading ID proponent who isn't affiliated with the DI, finding evidence for the fact should be straightforward."  This is evidence that you didn't bother to read the discussion before commenting on it.  I've not claimed that there are leading proponents who aren't members of the DI.-Psychohistorian 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "the affiliates of the DI and its arms, are alone as a driving and organizing force behind the remarkable modern phenomenon of theological/ideological/socio-political advocacy"

Then two things need to be done; 1.) Since these sources do not support the claim that "all leading proponents of ID are members of the DI", they need to be removed from this statement. 2.) Many of these  sources may be used as support for the claim that "the DI is the leading institution behind ID" since this is what these sources do say. 3.) The claim "the affiliates of the DI and its arms, are alone" may be added if it is properly sourced. Further, "more of that massive amount of research should be made available to the reader in footnotes" sounds like a wonderful idea, but only if all of that research links to proper sources rather than improper sources (as the content I am currently disputing does).-Psychohistorian 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All in all we can, I think, conclude that, with only two editors wishing to delete these four cites even after extensive discussion, there is a broad consensus that the cites should stay. Even if there had been a consensus to remove them, there would still not be a consensus to change the related text as Psychohistorian did.

Nevertheless, this was an interesting discussion about an interesting grey area. As Wikipedia is moving away from its rather undercited past, such situations will be seen more frequently. I expect we will see, at some point, policies extended with some guidance on such quotes (whose support of or relevance to the immediately preceding encyclopedic content is disputed). I think the current consensus regarding these four cites will in the long run prove to be a tad too liberal. Time will tell. In addition to points already made: We should not expect our readers to go through dozens of pages only to conclude that the proof they seek there (and may well be repeating elsewhere) is not there. And the reality of the matter is that most readers will never check up on these things. We are now creating our own urban legends: that publication X says Y where it doesn't. AvB ÷ talk  12:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, its agreed that the sources don't say what is claimed for them, but they are going to be used anyway because the majority of editors want them to continue to be used as such? That is just too piss poor for words to describe.-Psychohistorian 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You and I agree on that point. However, in this content dispute we have not been able to convince any other editors. As anyone can see, the previous version is still the WP:Consensus version. To me it seems clear that the time is not ripe for the deletion of cites for the reasons we gave. So I concede to consensus (although my opinion on the cites has not changed). If you think there is a chance to reach a different consensus, you may e.g. want to (1) try to convince more editors currently participating here (2) try to bring in more editors using the relevant instruments such as WP:RfC. Please realize that consensus is the wiki way. Far from being piss poor, the combination of NPOV and consensus is what makes this thing work. AvB &divide; talk  18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not agreed. Psychohistorian and Avb appear to have agreed that the sources do not support the words in the article.  I strongly disagree, as do other editors, and maintain that they are both supportive of the statement and very informative to the previously uninformed reader.  And, the editors here have been over this multiple times.  I trust it will not be necessary to discuss this entire issue again from the very beginning; but if it is, I'll be willing to participate.  ... 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is at least a step forward. Now we've gone from the idiotic (ranging from "he's doing this because he's pro-ID" to "you need to provide a source that identifies some leading proponent of ID who isn't a member of the DI") to something actually productive - whether or not these sources state that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI.  Having said that, the quotes that FM pointed to above do not make that claim.  As I said elsewhere, I read these articles and they don't make that claim.  AvB read these articles and they don't make that claim.  So, quote the parts of these articles which state "all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI".-Psychohistorian 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see two made-up quotations in one paragraph just above: 1)"he's doing this because he's pro-ID", which can be found only in Psychohistorian's writing, and 2)"all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI", which can be found only in Psychohistorian's writing.
 * The intensively discussed and consensused decision was to present it to the reader of WP as "It's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." The sources back this statement up properly without necessitating that the article start out with a lengthy analysis of that fact for the reader.  The interested reader may then actually read the article, because all of the important info is there in the article.  The issue of the Di having two arms called the CSC and the ISCID is also presented in the article.    In my estimation, it would be more productive to discuss how to better present to the reader the real issue of the close interaction (some might perhaps say "shell game") between the DI and its arms that share the same funding sources and are part of the same kit-n-kaboodle, the CSC and the ISCID. If there is anything that needs more accurate and effective communication in the article, it would be this issue of the interrelationship of the DI with the CSC and the ISCID.  But, lacking a clearer and more informative presentation of this matter to the reader, the current statement "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." is accurate and well supported by the current citations, each of which use slightly different words in either directly expressing that fact or in support of that fact. ... Kenosis 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the parts of these sources (the sources I disputed, not the sources which I didn't) which supports the claim, "It's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." -Psychohistorian 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Included section on why supernatural should not be part of science
Merging two sections

A big part of this controversy is the definition of science that exlucdes the supernatural. When talking to laypeople I have noticed that this issue is completely confused in their minds. It sounds unfair not to include the supernatural right? So I just wrote this tiny bit to try to explain why it is not a good idea. And pure poison to science. This is the main reason why ID is not a good idea for science classes. --Filll 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Sir, but how can such an accusation even be entertained when the foundations of modern science were built on, as a matter of fact, specifically inspired by theistic beliefs. Did the modern resergence in scientific inquiry begin with Darwin - no way! ID never said it came to its conclusions based on "we can't explain this; therefore, God did it." It bases its conclusions from our possitive knowlege of what Inteligence produces and what chemicals and chance can and can't produce. It is very clearly a deduction about possitive knowlege - such that as scientists research the qualitative distinguishing characteristics of Intelligently design products and investigate the structures and information systems in biology - a growing number of deductions can be made. What a cannard to have folks like Scott say ID is not based on possitive evidence, makes no predictions or hypothesis, is not falsifiable. The next minute they will turn around and try to refute (falsify) Behe's research conclusions which derive from hypotheses, support ID predictions based on the charactoristics of designed systems, are emperically observable. Behe continues to be employed at his University because everyone secretely acknowleges that he is engaged in the work of real science there. Right now, someone explain to me how they say ID is not science one minute and the next confirm that it is science by debating its findings. >>> Adlac 06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am moving the section here, from the article. The section provides argumentation, not facts, and reads like an editorial, not an encyclopedia article.
 * Perhaps we should write a section to explain why adding a supernatural dimension to science is an unneccessary complication. But this is not the way to do it, nor even necessarily the article in which to do it. Perhaps science could be expanded. -- Ec5618 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you've made a valid point. We should write a section in Science which builds upon the keeping Supernatural or myth out of science.  Then every time pseudoscience attempts to bring the supernatural into the discussion, we can put in a wikilink to the original article, or we'll be writing the same argument over and over again.  I like those quotes you found too.  Orangemarlin 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes were Filll's. They're not bad quotes, certainly, but quotes are hardly the stuff to explain the facts. -- Ec5618 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad addition, but duplicates much of what is already dealt with in the "Defining intelligent design as science" section. FeloniousMonk 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok here is another attempt, putting some stuff into footnotes:

I do not claim this is perfect, but I merged some of that information from my addition with the existing section. If we can find better ways to bring out the information describing why the supernatural is poisonous to science, then lets replace the quotes with that. Otherwise, I do not know how to explain it except with examples. Let's try to find more and better references. I am also interested in the history of the avoidance of the supernatural in science.--Filll 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Scott's opinion is bunk. You appeal to authority, but I don't accept your authority.  You need to address ID's assertion that their ideas are made from POSSITIVE knowledge not the lack thereof (I assume you know the details of this argument - oh yeah maybe not, it is no where to be found on this thorogh Wiki article on ID).  Unless you address this head on you have nothing but sound bites.  Here is Scott standing on the vast foundation of modern science a foundation that before the 1800 was largely built by scientists who inferred Design (look no farther than the ID article itself to verify this).  He perches on a branch while pruning it from the tree.Adlac 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quotes constitute little more than an appeal to authority. Please note that your attitude is unhelpful. Please address points, instead of accusing other editors of bias. Insulting others is not the way to convince people. -- Ec5618 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to insult others. Honestly please forgive me if I have, I appologize. I am servierly outnumbered here. Thanks for cautioning me in my enthusiasm.Adlac 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Scott is notable. She has a PhD and was a tenured biology professor. She is the head of the NCSE. So her quotes are not pure junk, particularly when they are in accord with the NAS statements, and the statements of the US supreme court and other US courts like the Dover decision, and those of over 100 worldwide scientific societies and 72 nobel prize winners in one case, and 32 in another. What the Scott quotes do is explain PRECISELY why the supernatural is poison to science. If you can find other references which express the same thing, like other encyclopedias or NAS publications etc, then lets have them. The point is not whether you agree with the opinion or not, but it is a way to try to source this fact of how the science community feels and why they do not want the supernatural in science. If you look at the history of naturalism (exclusion of the supernatural), it has roots that go back to the Greeks or even earlier. By the 1500s it was even more solidly expressed by Galileo etc. Yes it is true that many people like Newton and Leibnitz spent huge amounts of energy trying to prove the scriptures etc. But those efforts were mostly a failure, like Newton's work in Alchemy, so this material did not become part of science. It was weeded out, which is the scientific method. Science moves on. ID did not. And I do not know the details of the positive argument, I am sorry. Put it here.--Filll 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said Design "poison" built the foundation of modern science. Calling it poison is sawing off the branch you are sitting on. It is certainly not detrimental to science. Do you know how many extremely productive things are learned by reverse engeneering living systems. We learn how to engeneer wings from studying birds. Accepting the fact that bird wings were engeneered leads to critical discoveries it does not distract from them. Scott is a committed phylosophical materialist - that is the source of her statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlac (talk • contribs)
 * Dear unsigned, your breadth of understanding of theology seems to be rather limited. See below. .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As does his knowledge of orthography. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Accepting the fact that bird wings were engeneered..." I love facts and must admit I am now curious. Before I can accept this "fact" I'll need to know who engineered the wings of birds and also how he/she/they went about it.  Mr Christopher 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point! Here we have airplane wings and bird wings, bird wings being stageringly more complex - every cell having a city full of smart nanomachines and libraries of information data. Mr. Chris says (I regret and retract this - too personal) Darwin says: "Only a fool would not see that the airplane wings were inteligently designed and the bird wings were not, duh - nothing could be more plain than that.  Wait a second, the airplane wings were produced by unintiligently designed brains in uninteligently designed human engeneers.  So it follows, Adlac, that even the plane wings can't be said to be intelligently designed, right?  Our unitelligently designed minds just keep coming up with these incredibly intelligent proofs that Adlac is full of bullhockey." (toung in cheek of course, no offence intended, just a little irony)>>>Adlac 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to struggle with answering a simple question. Who engineered bird wings?  You said it was a fact that they were engineered.  Well, the burden of proof is on you.  Who engineered them? And I don't expect an answer from you, we both know where you are coming from.  Mr Christopher 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You first, your mind or your computer, which one is Intelligently Designed - this is not a joke. If not your mind then can your thoughts be said to be Intelligently Designed or are they more akin to the chemical processes that decide the particular weather on a given day.  Do you choose your thoughts (human will) or are they secretions determined by an unalterable chain of cause and effect(homo sapien chemical machine output)?  And why do you challenge me to make a phylosophical deduction reguarding the nature of the world.  Would it be a disgrace for me to say who I think the designer is?  Is this a public science education setting where mention of philosophical beliefs is not appropriate?  Don't you hold your own philosophical opinion based on scientific Darwinism (atheism...agnostisism...deism?)  Are you ashamed of your opinion on this matter just because it is not a lab finding?   But since you know my answer already...cheers!  ...Ok, ok I'll give you another hint...the designer is the one who designed your mind which gives me reason to suppose that the thoughts that your intelligent brain produces, actually are intelligent. Friends, I recognize that these discussions are not well related to the purpose of this forum.  I am new here and don't have a good feel for the boundries of what questions it is appropriate to answer when asked.  Be easy on me if you object to these rabbit trails. >>> Adlac 05:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick reminder- this page is for discussion of how to improve the article, not to debate intelligent design or to engage in original research. JoshuaZ 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting theological

 * I appreciate Filll's well-thought comment about the issue. One thing though: previous efforts centuries ago by such persons as Newton and Leibnitz were not termed "intelligent design".  "Intelligent design" was attached to the particular theological slants being developed by the Discovery Institute affiliates starting in 1989 with the publication of Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People, with the Discovery Institute itself being formed in 1990 (though the thread can be traced back to the mid-1980s with the publication of Thaxton's Mystery of Life's Origin).  Previous religious apologetics and speculations, including some by highly competent scientists, have generally been classified under the accepted philosophical/theological term teleological arguments.  ... Kenosis 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Kenosis's pointer to the venerable teleological argument. However, what I was attempting to do (and perhaps you can help me), was to try to indicate why, after centuries of use, this sort of argument is no longer part of science, and why science is loathe to put it back in.--Filll 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course; understood. Ahh, for the good old days when there was a science consonant with theistic convictions, and the Church could weed out "scientists" who proposed that there was empirical evidence for ideas not thusly consonant. ... Kenosis 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a theological argument: to cite, trimmed for size:
 * "with regard to the material world,... we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." W. WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise.
 * "let no man... think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." BACON: Advancement of Learning.
 * James Moore has an interesting take on it. Essentially, the creationist ID argument is as much against other versions of Christianity as it is against science. ... dave souza, talk 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to the question whether supernatural should be part of science
Ok, so I have 3 main arguments here: Adlac, or anyone else, what other arguments exist on this point? what am I missing?--Filll 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * allowing the supernatural in science is bad for science because it cuts off the motivation to pursue naturalistic options
 * allowing the supernatural in science will not harm science since it used to be like this centuries ago
 * this second point is potentially countered by pointing out that part of the reason it is no longer part of science is that the supernatural components were discarded because they were unsuccessful.

f I put on my devil's advocate hat, I can see that not allowing supernatural hypotheses in some instances might miss some substantial event by dismissing it too early. For example, if I state that Bigfoot does not exist since the evidence for Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot is so poor, then I might miss some incredible information because I did not look for it. Kennewick man appears to be caucasian, which goes against all our preconceptions. If we went with our preconceptions only, we might miss some evidence of much more drastic human migration and earlier mixing than we had suspected previously. I do know of very subtle physics experiments which look for evidence of a diety, however that is defined. If this hypothesis was not allowed, something startling might be missed because it was not looked for. Comments? (there is probably another fancy philosophy of science name for this argument)--Filll 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This falls under the category of abductive reasoning, which includes the process by which intuitive hunches become crystallized (recalling, for one instance, Kekule's famous dream of the snake eating its tail which led to his breakthrough in describing the structure of the benzene molecule). Abductive reasoning, before it is eligible for consideration as scientific method, must be accomanied by inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, operational definitions, observation, testing, disclosure of methodology and accumulated data, etc.  These additional attributes allow others to test independently, and to the extent such testing and double-checking is verified and subject to a growing body of statistical analysis of the accumulated data, go beyond the status of an intuitive hunch and more into the realm of scientific investigation. ... Kenosis 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess is why I am not a philosopher; induction, deduction, transduction, abduction, and probably a few more, all used as part of the scientific method and all subject to various disputes. Scientists do not worry about that; they just do it.--Filll 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Main point being only that there's not a sharp distinction between strictly empirical and what some would term supernatural. There is a broad realm of events and consciousness, however you might choose to define consciousness, which is not quite strictly empirical (observed or at least observable) on the one hand, and not necessarily supernatural (beyond nature) on the other. (Enter, perhaps, Rod Serling with his cigarette--music goes dunt-dunt-dah-dah, dunt-dunt-dah-dah... ;-) . I personally prefer to put such things in the category of "that for which there is insufficient empirical evidence" or at least "that which we don't know yet".  ... Kenosis 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could rephrase this into 'what kind of seemingly supernatural hypotheses should be given the benefit of doubt?' When it comes to ID, one of the major criticsm, as is noted above, is that it efficiently brings further inquiry to a halt. Suppose that convincing proof of the Yeti were presented, this discovery would lead to attempts gain more knowledge about it. These efforts would in time perhaps culiminate into the Yeti Genome, complete with genes coding for cold-adapted proteins. ID have no potential for creating new relevant knowledge, insight or predictions, as opposed to the Yeti hypothesis. Dismissing ID as a hypothesis carries no risk of missing out on anything important. --EthicsGradient 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice point, except, you know, Yeti is a great example of pseudoscience itself. But if it does show up, I promise to say two nice things about Creationists.  Orangemarlin 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And there I was, hoping that it would be clear from the context that I didn't believe in Yetis. Ah well. My point was that a Yeti would be a tangible thing that you could, for instance, take a blood sample from. I think neither of us, Orangemarlin, would fund a Yeti-searching expedition ;) --EthicsGradient 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I could buy that argument. It sounds plausible to me, for sure. However, let me continue to play devil's advocate here (I better be careful that I do not sound like a creationist/ID supporter, but I think that people who know me know there is little danger of that). Suppose this universe was created by a race of superbeings, maybe living in some other dimension, etc (This sounds like science fiction crap, but bear with me, I am not really channelling Carl Sagan). Suppose that by looking for evidence of these superbeings, we do prove their existence, and make contact even (where is Jodie Foster right now?). It would be momentous (I put this probability at about 10**-30....but we would insert stirring music here). I do agree that looking for the supernatural in the way and places that ID proposes will probably not be particularly useful; it will lead to few new insights and in fact probably a shrinking of knowledge and opportunity. I think that there are other vistas for exploration that would be far more promising, but somehow this evolution-creationism/biblical inerrancy/biblical literalism paradigm just dominates the thinking for some reason. Comments?--Filll 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks I have a question--since Science (at least, natural science) is already defined as the investigation of "natural phenomena," why are we debating the inclusion of the supernatural? As Wikipedia editors, we are not empowered to change the definition of science: we are only empowered to report on the facts as they are presented by the various (reliable) sources in an unbiased and verifiable manner. Now, if I missed something that would entail looking into the question of "whether supernatural should be part of science" that is relevant to this article, then cool--but as things stand, I think we're really drifting off of Wikipedia's stated purpose to actually consider such a decision. Justin Eiler 17:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Justin, you might not have followed this from the beginning. Part of the argument of the DI, and the ID supporters here, is that the supernatural should be part of science, and that it used to be. I am trying to come up with a nonoffensive method of saying conclusively WHY the supernatural should not be part of science; why we claim that and define it that way.--Filll 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a section describing why, with quotes and cites from a leading figure in the debate. I also provided a leading figure on the other side with quotes and cites stating the DI position. Then the ID supporters here objected strenuously to it. Then we were informed that this area has a long history in philosophy of science blah blah blah (stuff scientists never pay attention to). I would like to include in this article and/or others a succinct understandable statement of WHY the supernatural is not part of science. Just getting into the history of "methodological materialistic naturalism and teleology" is worthless to the average encyclopedia reader. We need something READABLE.--Filll 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had missed that, Filll, and I thank you for the explanation. However, as science is defined now, ID is not science, because (TTBOMU)ID is not a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena that it proposes to examine.


 * To the ID proponents: I realize that the supernatural used to be part of the definition of science--however, ad antiquitatem is still a logical fallacy, so the argument that "The supernatural used to be part of science" is invalid. Science is defined as the examination of natural phenomena--is ID a natural phenomenon? Justin Eiler 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe any ID proponents are around right now, but I am sure they will visit presently, such as adlac. I at least feel like adlac is someone intelligent that one can have a meaningful dialogue with. When I run into a rational reasonable creationist or ID supporter, it is such a breath of fresh air compared to those that do not seem how to learn or cope with this environment, whic is not particularly easy for any of us. I think if I can hammer out something acceptable to adlac that still gets the main points across, then it can be profitably used in this article and several others. It is important to address it because it IS a major part of the ID argument, at least up to this point. Their alternative from what I read is to try to convince us that evolution is NOT a science, which does not strike me as too savory. So just pointing to the definition is not helpful. I also think that it is not helpful when we get laypeople looking in on the dispute/controversy/discussion. I have been asked by lay people very often, What is wrong with including the supernatural. It sounds more open. It sounds more open minded. It sounds more fair. It sounds more reasonable. Only when I explain it to them do they get it. If we leave it to ID to explain this, we will lose and lose big, I promise you. We have to explain WHY the supernatural is not part of the definition (without a bunch of mumbo jumbo about realism and naturalism and methodological materialistic teological epistemological subductive and transductive ontologies and semiotics) and make it so the average person can get it. And you dont need 3 PhDs to decipher the reason.--Filll 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again Evolution and Philosophy comes to the rescue: may I recommend reading Naturalism: Is it necessary? as the basis for a brief explanation, and then using it as a citation. By the way, Justin, if I recall my reading correctly, around the time that supernatural was ruled out of science, the term science changed from meaning general information, natural history, to referring to scientific methodology. .. dave souza, talk 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a nice reference, just not useful for average schmo consumption. The average dufus just wants to know what bad things will happen if you allow it? That is why I like my homework example of jumping 17 steps to cheat. That is why I like Eugenia Scott's quotes because she puts it so nicely. However, The ID and creationists HATE her because she and her people help with the court cases against them and give speaches about evolution and are gainst creationism and ID in school science classrooms. So...if we can find some SIMPLE reference that does not have Eugenia involved, that would be great. However, I suspect they will hate that too. I dont think we can make them happy but I am hoping if we at least tell their side of the story, they will not do more than grumble under their breaths a little. --Filll 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I dont think we can make them happy but I am hoping if we at least tell their side of the story, they will not do more than grumble under their breaths a little" Fill, what exactly are you talking about? I'm not following you.  Mr Christopher 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasnt being clear enough. Let me try to explain. There are at least two groups writing; (1) those committed to protect their fringe beliefs at all costs no matter what (sometimes from other groups with other fringe beliefs; it is hilarious to read the YE Creationists and the OE Creationists tearing each other to shreds on their websites. Hey wait guys, I thought you had one divine truth. Now there is more than one?) and (2) those trying to view it somewhat objectively and present mainstream views as mainstream while allowing for other views but not advocating for them. Now I am in group 2, or at least I like to think that I am. And I am trying to get text that is (a) simple and easy to read and (b) does not make the people from group 1 too upset and (c) has reasonbly good sources. I am hoping (probably in vain) that if I somehow allow those in group 1 to tell their side of the story a bit (obviously in Support for evolution I did not do it enough) that the group 1 people will bless the text as marginally acceptable and we can move on with a clear conscience. Clear?--Filll 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting undigested quotes, but using that and other sources as the basis for a very_simple_explanation, linked to the more technical articles about philosophy of science. While I admire your optimism about taming the wild creationists, the evidence is otherwise: our entertaining friend has just demolished Darwinist whale ancestry, with the aid of the worthy Popper who's explained pretty well here. Read and enjoy the former, if you enjoy the triumph of blind ignorance over reason. ... dave souza, talk 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not enough of us to protect these things. I have just had quite a conversation about Hindu creationism with someone as well. Amazing. You are probably correct. Having just been badly burned at Support for evolution as well for being too supportive of evolution which I guess is a big no no here on wikipedia (why is that? no other encyclopedia would have trouble with coming out for science and the law...but here...we are terrified of the creationists). I probably have to completely rewrite Support for evolution to include a huge amount of material supporting creationism or ID so it appears more NPOV. That is a bunch of nonsense, frankly...--Filll 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta for the reminder. It should be a statement of who's supporting creationism/ID/evolution, and in my opinion renamed as suggested will make a good sub-page helping to improve the NPOV of the main Creation-evolution controversy article. .. dave souza, talk 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To as the question of whether or not the supernatural should be part of science is to ask the wrong question. I'm unconvinced by the assertion that the supernatural was part of science. Even if you accept it, bleeding was part of medicine and washing hands before surgery was rejected by most doctors. Science has improved as a tool. Popper's ideas dominate science today, and even the people who hate Popper still see science influenced by him. You can never rule out the supernatural, you cannot put odds on divine intervention. Supernatural can never be part of science unless you can assign probabilities to divine intervention. Dembski tries to say that if the probability of something is less than [some very small amount], then a miracle is more probable, but that is nothing more than a statement of faith.

Apart from being bad science, it's also poor theology, since it constrains God. If you constrain God to working within some set of probabilities you have definitely stepped outside of canonical Christianity. Guettarda 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One does have the phenomenon of Newton, perhaps the great scientist who ever lived, devoting years to trying to find evidence for Alchemy (and failing) and devoting years to trying to "prove" the sciptures (and again more or less failing I gather, although I have not investigated this extensively).--Filll 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about it and it's at the dawn of modern science - as I said before, bleeding was the core of medicine as well, but that doesn't mean that it "should" be considered part of medicine. The point is that the only "scientific" way to look for miracles requires the ability to assign probabilities to them. If you can do that, then ID can be science.  Of course, I think it's impossible to assign a probability to miracles.  Guettarda 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV = "it suffices to present views in a way that is acceptable to their adherents"
Statement of the relevance of this NPOV policy to the content of this Wiki article:

I charge that the sections of this ID article that purport to present ID are...

(Example): did you know that ID theory includes a central claim that it is based on Positive evidence not lack of evidence as widely reported?
 * 1) Riddled with uncited assertions that the leading proponents of ID would never affirm. (Example): [ID] Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.
 * 2) Suffers from selective reporting that doesn't represent the perspective of ID.
 * (Example): giving prominence to a decision of a judge in Dover, while there is no mention of relevant Supreme Court decisions, relevant Presidencial statements, relevant national laws (no child left behind", relevant documents such as the constition (did you know that I am a HS teacher and I can still under free speech rights step into a public HS classroom and mention that some hold ID as an explanation of origins?), relevant directives by congress (did you know that they just blasted Smithsonian scientists for demoting and harrassing a fellow scientist for promoting "pseudoscience ;)" while on the job.
 * 1) Lacks key data about ID and omits their most robust arguements.

There is a simple reason for all of this. It is plain that no ID proponent shared equal collaberation on the original development of the article. When did the idea start that the best way to find out about ID's views is to consult Darwinian activists?

Wikipedia's NPOV policy states, To write from a neutral point of view...it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents. I want to see this relevant issue out to the bitter end. Already some attempts to nulify Wiki policy have been made. These are...


 * 1) ID proponents lie about their true views (No cigar; "good faith" still applies here)
 * 2) The guidlines for "Pseudoscientific" articles allows misrepresentation of ID views (Not!)
 * 3) "Undue weight" comes into play. (No; that only applies to ID being presented within another related article not its own article!)
 * 4) Reported views are subject to "verifiability" therefore we cannot report certain ID views. (nah, "verifiablity" refers to sourcing edits not verifing in a science lab.)

Please send me some more pitches - I positively love batting practice. +++Adlac 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Adlac, calm down. The best way to fix this is to WORK. Not complain. I would love to see a list (with cites) of:
 * incorrect assertions in the article and those you would replace them with (such as the one you mentioned). I am a supporter of evolution. Do not expect me to be able to know the correct position. If you know it and can find it and cite it, do it. Do not expect me to do your work for you.
 * relevant supreme court decisions, presidential statements, laws, etc. Do not expect a Darwinian scientist to find these for you. You find them. Dont make me do your work for you, and then complain about the result !!!
 * the positive argument that you say is their strongest argument. I dont know it, so I ask you for a second time produce it !!!

You are at least partially correct about verifiability, although I would say not completely. I wait for your lists of the relevant material so we can look at them and include them. Dont complain... WORK!--Filll 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes some fair points. I wanted to get some basis of credibility first - to meet objections first.  And of course like you say I do need to bring this data to the table myself and not expect you or others who disagree with ID - this is my point precisely.Adlac 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We should describe intelligent design in a way that is acceptable to its adherents, true. But just as the article on homeopathy doesn't state that homeopathy works, this article should never state that intelligent design is not pseudoscience. Criticism is most certainly called for. -- Ec5618 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems there mate. The onus is on us to describe why leading supporters (600 and growing current scientists from an array of phylosophical backgrounds) believe that ID is just as valid as any other scientific inference about phenomena of a historical nature that can never stand the test of repeatablity. Just as free as you are to report criticisms of ID positions we are free to give our reasoning and happily let the readers decide.

Adlac 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first set of three personal opinions set forth above by Adlac:
 * 1)It is not WP's job to write an article that ID proponents would agree is "fair and balanced". Nor is there any illusion within WP that an article on a controversial, socio-politically charged subject such as this will result in universal approval of its content.  The position of ID is put forward in the article (in summary form, of course) in keeping with the statements of its primary proponents, as are the positions of its critics.
 * 2)Relevant Supreme Court decisions are as follows: The Supreme Court and other court decisions are quite adequately analyzed in the Kitzmiller decision. I do not know why the respondents decided not to appeal; I would have thought the Abramson family, having provided some $10,000,000 US for the Discovery Institute, would have funded such a pursuit if it were thought to be potentially fruitful.
 * 3)Intelligent design's emphasis on affirmation of itself and structure which prevents refutation by independent sources is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, one of several reasons that the scientific community regards it as A)unscientific, B)pseudoscience, and/or C)junk science
 * Regarding the second set of four assertions by Adlac:
 * Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 plainly do not merit a response, and no justification should be needed in support of the assertion that they do not merit a response, because the response desired by Adlac was already in those statements. It should perhaps be said, though, that WP:Assume good faith does not apply to the whole world, particularly when the weight of verifiable commentary and reporting runs counter to the way a particular person or group of persons would like to be seen in a WP article written about them or their published views. Rather, WP:AGF applies merely to WP users, and there are even limits to the expectation that we assume good faith of fellow WP users. ... Kenosis 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kenosis, you ol' softy. I knew you would extend the hand of friendship some time or another.>>>Adlac 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Very true.  I don't seek universal approval, I seek a report about ID that is just "more or less" acceptable to adherents.  After all not all adherents agree on all the issues, so a balance must be reached from among adherent's views.
 * 2. Quite adequately analysed?  What kind of analysis do you think can come from a Judge who instead of coming up with his own resoning copied 90% of his decision verbatim from the documents of the politically radical ACLU.  Excellent question about why it was not appealed to a higher court!  It was because the question became moot sence the defendants lost there seats in an election.  Also a good question as to why the DI did not continue the case.  It was because the DI was not supportive of the school board's position which was to mandate the teaching of ID.  This is yet another reason why Kitzmiller is of poor relevance to ID.  I repeat, the DI discouraged the stance held by the school board but the board would not be dissuaded - thus the predicted setback (at least popularly) for ID science. School boards are have still been adopting language to ALLOW the teaching of compeating origins theories since the Kitzmiller decision (in my own state in fact)
 * 3. Should we appologize for affirming ourselves?  Also, if either nature or designer is responsible for the diversity of life then appologies may be in order as well.  Neither position regarding historical phenomenon can be reproduced in a lab - can't be helped.  What we can do is analyze these historical phenomena by the artifacts that have been produced.  We can compare the artifacts with what we already know about cause and effect relationships to make an inference about how they were produced.
 * Adlac 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note regarding #2 there. It's pretty much standard practice for judges to request a proposed decision from all parties, and also standard for parties to submit one even if the judge doesn't specifically request it.  The judge ordinarily will pick the proposals that best represent the judge's decision, so (s)he doesn't need to write the whole darn thing from scratch.  And, 90% would indicate Judge Jones did substantial editing and rewriting to reflect the decision he made. You may already know that Jones is a Republican who was a Bush appointee known to be generally conservative in his decisions. Thus, even if it's true that the ACLU can be properly characterized as politically radical, evidently the judge agreed with 90% of their proposed decision and used it in his published decision. ... Kenosis 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the lack of appeal from Kitzmiller, that was effectively ruled out by the voters throwing out ID proponents. As for court decisions, perhaps the answer is a Lemon? .. dave souza, talk 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression, having heard some radio documentaries and interviews with DI members, from before, during and after the trial, is that they were more than slightly unhappy when Dover and other school districts jumped the gun to push the intelligent design policy in their own schools before the DI had completed more background work. I heard more than one DI representative say this was a bad idea and could only make DI and ID look bad by exposing this material to public and legal scrutiny prematurely. For example, they are working on building up a portfolio of science publications in peer-reviewed journals. They also want to fine tune their sales pitch and approach and teaching materials. They felt that Dover was also too heavy handed, in their enthusiasm and it was sure to meet with defeat. They were slightly optimistic that a right wing Republican judge would rule in their favor, but their initial misgivings were borne out, in fact. So I think that is why the DI did not appeal. This case was never part of their strategy and they were loathe to even support it or fight it in the first place. I think that some of their well-meaning supporters like the Dover school board just did not want to wait and wanted to kick butt. And instead, they had their heads handed to them. --Filll 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I said with out all the smear and editorialising. The DI and the 600 scientist and centuries of scientists of history believe that the inference to design is scientific and the DI wants to present the strongest possible case for their theory so that it will find more acceptance. The weasles then want people to learn about their theory - man you just can't trust these guys.>>>Adlac 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for info, the DI apparently started by encouraging the move, then once the action started they did their best to pull out, with the result that they have no standing to appeal the case. .. dave souza, talk 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes as I said the board insisted on contradicting DI policy. The real secret is... the DI is encouraging boards all over the country to include language that further protects the free speech rights of teachers to teach both the case for chemicals producing the diversity of life and the growing case against it in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Remember, you heard it here first from an inside source ;)Adlac 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure that as discovery progressed, it was apparent to them that things were going very very badly and that the other side was prepared to throw a tremendous number of resources at this first real legal test of a new strategy, cooked up to slip in past the Supreme Court's firm stance. I think that the other side wanted to send a very strong message that they did not want to be tied up with endless ridiculous cases all over the US on this same issue over and over and over.--Filll 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, this was initiated locally as it is all over the country. That is why the DI has no control over the positions of the board. The DI has a consulting role. These steps to include the scientific debate on origins are initiated locally because the idea that everything comes from nothing is both illogical and repugnant to most of citizenry.Adlac 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time adlac has brought the same "issue" to the talk page. We have continued to point out his mistaken interpretation of policy and have continued to steer him to policy articles to help his understanding yet he appears to simply ignore those efforts while clinging to his mistaken notions.  Adlac, it's time to give these issues a rest.  Mr Christopher 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite correct, I'm not giving up. No one here has contested my view of NPOV policy yet on this thread as you'll notice.  I did however rebut your argument(see #2) are you conceeding? You rest I'll take up the issues.Adlac 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

which state was it that was considering ID or creation science and backed down
when the corporations made it clear that they would pull out of the state if the state passed the law. I think it was someplace in the midwest in the last couple of years. I wanted to write something about it in my other article.--Filll 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kansas Orangemarlin 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually called the NCSE and talked to them, and it is Kansas and Missouri and one other as well I think. They are sending the references.--Filll 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Encouragement to teach the controversy is the national law ("No child left behind") The states are weighing in but still under the jurisdiction of the national law. Thank goodness blackmail is still effective.Adlac 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Got any evidence of that adlac? You're not talking about the Rick Santorum bit that was not adopted into law are you?  Mr Christopher 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were in the Act, it would have been contested in Federal court as unconstitutional. And given the courts absolutist view on the separation of Church and State, it would have been found unconstitutional.  The Rick Santorum amendment (and Senator Santorum himself) are now part of history.  Very few Boards of education are teaching the controversy, because they don't have funds to fight the inevitable backlash.  And Boards don't want to defeated in elections, which has been the trend! Orangemarlin 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * and, keep in mind, there is no scientific controversy regarding basic evolution for any board of education to teach. r b-j 07:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Adlac is mistaken on this one. It is NOT law.  He'd do well to read the article and click on a few links and try and educate himself.  Mr Christopher 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Adlac has been mature and nice as opposed to certain others on here. I'm willing to cut him some slack.  Orangemarlin 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, that language was originally drafted by Santorum. Correct, it was part of the report not the act.  However...


 * John West, Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University: “Only someone who doesn’t know how the federal lawmaking process works would imply that report language doesn’t matter.  Far from being irrelevant or meaningless, report language often contains detailed instructions on how a bill is supposed to be applied. While report language does not have the ‘force of law’ (to mandate the teaching of ID - which was never the intention BTW) it might be said that it has the ‘effect of law,’ because Congress expects it to be obeyed, and federal agencies know this fact and act accordingly.”


 * Steve Meyer: “…report language typically articulates Congress’s interpretation of law and guides its implementation. As such, report language expresses federal policy and has the effect of law.”


 * DI press release: "Through the Santorum language, a bipartisan majority of Congress has made clear its intent that the science assessment provisions of the new education act should not be used to promote one-sided curricula on controversial scientific topics such as evolution."


 * I wasn't familier with all the details of this so thank you for encouraging me to clairify.>>>Adlac 02:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anytime (and thanks for the funny DI quotes)! Mr Christopher 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice arguement.

Adlac 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont you think this is notable enough to put in some article? like the one on creationism and politics, or creationism in education? and maybe this one?--Filll 05:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is noteable enough to put in some article? You mean the Santorum ammendment, specifically the "teach the controversy" nonsense that the Discovery Institute continues to lie about?  We have an article about it already and it is mentioned in numerous other articles.  Mr Christopher 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not aware of these basic articles (and the subjects they cover) yet you intend to contribute here meaningfully, much less alter this article in the fundemental ways you've proposed? I think you need to get more up to speed on both the subject and our coverage of it first. FeloniousMonk 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC: Raspor
For interested parties, FYI: Requests for comment/Raspor

Anyone who has tried to resolve his issues through policy and reason will need to endorse the RFC here if you agree with the summary I've provided... Or write your own. FeloniousMonk 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

felon,

i saw what you wrote about me. you have that much time on your hands?

i have seen that you are immune to reason here so i see no reasons really to discuss anything with you. you only know mob rule

raspor 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved most comments and especially sections by raspor to Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections, where they should probably stay until this user grasps the a basics of science. Anyone arguing that astrology is a scientific theory shouldn't be surprised when other editors disagree. -- Ec5618 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I move that we put any new comments from raspor to that section while his RFC is pending. He is clearly out of line and unable to control himself.  Mr Christopher 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Of course, I couldn't figure out what he was writing, since it is poorly formatted, has no punctuation or capitalization, and is just plain belligerent.  When does this RFC get going?  Orangemarlin 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, reviewing your contributions to Intelligent design, it's glaringly obvious that you have little or no interest in this page other than to share your own views. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

From What Wikipedia is not:

Based on what I have seen, you have violated all three of these guidelines. Therefore, I suggest that if you want your opinions known, find a suitable place on your own user space, or a blog of some sort. Whatever you decide to do, keep in mind that the sole purpose of a Talk Page should be to improve the article or its related pages in some way. Posting comments like:

From Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections:

...is not going to help in any way. This is what you have been doing, and I find it hard to believe you truly have the best interests of the encyclopedia or the article in mind. In that case, you do fit the description of a troll. Sorry to take up such a large chunk of space, but I feel it is necessary to get through to you. And I'm not trying to get personal, this goes for any one who does not obey simple rules of talk page etiquette. -- Wiki wøw  19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * for those who may want to discuss this RFC and other possible routes of administrative action, you can do so on the RFC talk page - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Raspor Mr Christopher 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I've put this article up for Peer review: Want to try and push for FA again. Adam Cuerden talk 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FA attempts for articles on controversial topics in which one side is running a wide disinformation campaign (as is ID) are almost invariably scuttled by bad faith, baseless objections raised by ideological ax-grinders. That was the cause of the failure on last attempt for this article. For this FA to succeed, there will need to be in place an ad hoc process for discounting baseless objections; moving them off of the FA page and onto the talk page and limiting participation to established editors in good standing, perhaps. For example, an objection to the article that ignores the fact that WP:NPOV requires both sides to be presented should not count against the article gaining FA status, and should be removed from consideration. I've suggested something like this before, and there was strong support for doing this then. FeloniousMonk 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ervin Laszlo
To what extent can Laszlo be considered an IDer?-Psychohistorian 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't found anything linking him to ID so far but I haven't finished searching. What do you have on him?  Mr Christopher 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with his work, but I found this on the Wikipedia article about him, "László describes how such an informational field can explain why our universe is so improbably fine-tuned as to form galaxies and conscious lifeforms; and why evolution is an informed, not random, process."

If the information field he posits may be considered as an immanent god (ala pantheism) rather than the transcendent type of god that many of the editors here are probably more familiar with, then he might be an IDer.-Psychohistorian 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See also: panentheism... Kenosis 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he describe his hypothesis as ID? .. dave souza, talk 09:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the German Wikipedia, some of Laszlo's books draw intensively on the argumentation of the intelligent design movement when criticizing the Darwinian evolution theory as "insufficient explanation" ("Darüberhinaus kritisiert Ervin László in den genannten Büchern auch die darwinistische Evolutionstheorie als "unzureichende Erklärung" und greift dabei intensiv auf die Argumentation der Intelligent Design Bewegung (z.B. Michael Behe) zurück."). See also Ervin Laszlo and Ervin Laszlo. His work seems well accepted in the field of philosophy. To me it looks as if he is doing what the ID people said they were doing: looking for alternate explanations for the facts without equating their theoretical designing process with the God of the Bible. As has been said before, ID would be acceptable as philosophy; the problem is its claim to be science without proposing testable hypotheses. The claim also seems hard to reconcile with the religious agenda of most of its proponents and leaders. They are not (only) working to review and promote research into fields like abiogenesis and speciation but mainly towards forcing their beliefs on others, fully relying on their a priori/dogmatic assumption of the existence and characteristics of the Christian God. AvB &divide; talk  12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Laszlo is the author of, among other things, Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything (2004). In rough terms I'd say that he's putting ideas forward that would be generally inconsistent with most deistic and theistic views, and leaning towards a view more-or-less consistent with pantheistic and/or panentheistic views. ... Kenosis 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pantheists believe in an immanent god and, therefore, are theists. They just don't believe in a transcendent god.  But more to the point, since IDers never identify who the designer is, a designer who is an immanent god can fit within ID.-Psychohistorian 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I hesitate to get too far off subject, but yes, broadly speaking, theists, especially in the Abrahamic traditions, who most often see God as transcendent (occasionally "reaching down" into the world to "tweak" things here and there), have tended to explicitly reject pantheism, and also had a strong tendency to resist panentheistic notions. So I stand corrected as to the scope of theism generally. ... Kenosis 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a guy who grew up in a holy roller church only to end up being a pantheist for the past 15 years, I can't agree with you enough - although there are some interesting divergent thoughts on the subject within the history of Catholocism, but now I'm getting off topic again.-Psychohistorian 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Flirting with being way too far off-topic here, Catholicism has shown willingness to tolerate, indeed advocate at the theological level, a panentheistic view. Problem is, once one sees the divine as immanent (imbedded, if you will), advances in empirical inquiry continue to show that nature behaves according to predictable laws, rather than in accordance with an arbitrary Decisionmaker.  So one ends up pretty much back where one started after factoring this in. (How's that for a slant-- "Intelligent Decisionmaker"-- anyway, I agree this is interesting and way beyond the scope of this talk page I think).  ... Kenosis 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you're pulling it back on topic. "Nature behaves according to predictable laws, rather than in accordance with an arbitrary Decisionmaker" isn't a problem in pantheism, though it is in panentheism (I'm taking as a given that "arbitrary" implies "transcendent" since "arbitrary" means escaping from those predictable laws, whereas in pantheism there's no reason to escape (which is nice since we can't escape them, in pantheism)).  The study of those predictable laws, in pantheism, is the direct study of god him/her/itself - the intelligent designer.  Historically, many scientists have at least a passing flirtation with this idea, but the line between whether this discussion belongs in this discussion page is becoming blurry for me (which is an improvement since just a few posts back it clearly did not belong here).-Psychohistorian 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RE "The study of those predictable laws, in pantheism, is the direct study of god him/her/itself - the intelligent designer." Yes, not only pantheism, but it's consistent with panentheism, natural theology, and interestingly, among others, Bishop Berkeley dealt with this in his peculiar form of empiricism (a reference to Berkeley's variant of this approach be seen in Teleological argument) ... Kenosis 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Drawing on an earlier comment, previous efforts by such persons as Newton and Leibnitz and numerous others were not termed "intelligent design". "Intelligent design" was attached to the particular theological slants being developed by the Discovery Institute affiliates starting in 1989 with the publication of Charles Thaxton's Of Pandas and People, with the Discovery Institute itself being formed in 1990 (though the thread can be traced back to the mid-1980s with the publication of Thaxton's Mystery of Life's Origin).  Previous religious apologetics and speculations, including some by highly competent scientists, have generally been classified under the accepted philosophical/theological term teleological arguments. Kenosis 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My memory of Newton's efforts are that they did not focus on a design argument. Rather, he became obsessed with trying to prove the veracity of the scriptures, and so initiated and immense study of what they claimed, inconsistencies, etc. It was like some sort of epexegesis I think. Scientists generally regard it as a waste, but I see it as a natural consequence of his drive to try to put everything on a rational basis and investigate it, like he did with gravity and with alchemy and then theology. He was not operating from the viewpoint that "theology is true and I am going to assume its truth" but to investigate it to try to find holes in it in a critical and analytic manner. I think in many ways he found it wanting, and I am sure that this sort of study would not be particularly welcome by the DI, at least in my opinion.--Filll 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maimonides famously tried to identify the laws of science with angels, and thereby reconcile religion and science. But I am clearly out of my depth here, when dealing with people far more learned than I am in this area. I am a mere scientist, and not even a biologist.--Filll 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Laszlo is irrelevant to the article
Starting anew here, I have no problems, for my part of the decisionmaking around here (which is small), with reviewing the various theologies and more specifically the teleological arguments on the talk page. We're not, though, going to be able to pick our own definition of ID for the WP article and reframe the words "intelligent design" as if it were just another theological argument, since its primary notability is limited to its widespread meaning in today's culture. That widespread meaning, perhaps unfortunately, is roughly "trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms". I made a more extended comment about this issue here, directed to issues that Raspor raised. The most relevant parts of what I said are: Recall from having read the intelligent design article thoroughly (which I presume everyone has by now) that only a very small number of people had used the term "intelligent design" or "intelligent designer" in a very fleeting way prior to the 1990s, several in the mid-1800s, one around the turn of the 1900s, and there's a 1967 use of the term in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the author of the article on "Teleological argument for the Existence of God". Never did these words receive any significant attention, until the handle was put onto a particular set of teleological arguments as an "end-run" around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States by those who organized the Discovery Institute and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, attaching to the term a "conservative" socio-political agenda that called for, among other things, getting "God" into the public schools and calling it a form of science, starting around 1990. ...Ever since the Discovery Institute affiliates attached the term "intelligent design" to their particular brand of religion/philosophy/speculative-theology/pseudoscience with a socio-political (I'm tellin' the truth here) agenda, the words "intelligent design" have taken on a particular meaning to the general public, which is roughly "trying to get religion into the science classroom". That general widespread meaning is the primary notability of ID, and thus is what we're obliged to report in Wikipedia. There is reference in the article to the teleological argument for those who wish to pursue a strictly theological view, and indeed many of the historical approaches used by the intelligent design movement may be seen in that article. Perhaps if history had taken a different course, the words "intelligent design" could today be much more easily applied, without a whole lot of controversy, in thinking about how the universe must have been designed, how it couldn't all be totally by accident, etc. Those kinds of speculations and/or beliefs should, if a WP user wishes to put them forward to the public, be put forward in a blog or other publication, and maybe, just maybe, we can then refer to your writing in some article in Wikipedia at some time in the future. But it is not our job to put them forward in WP, nor do we have permission to impose these kinds of speculations upon those pages. Our job is to report the facts as best as possible in keeping with WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and to do it via WP:CON. ... Kenosis 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable to me. Given that DI appropriated the term "ID" for itself, much as many fundamentalist Christians want to appropriate the name "Christian" for themselves, the article should probably focus on ID as the public understands it, with appropriate links to its longer and richer history so that a reader who is interested can explore further and put it in context.--Filll 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have three issues with that. One, if ID is defined as "trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms", then it is clear that ID has been around since long before the 1960s.  In fact, I was going to mention the Scopes Monkey Trial, but immediately realized that there has been a movement to get religion into the public school classroom which predates that.  Ever since we kicked religion out of the public school science class room, it has been fighting like mad to get back in.  Two, if ID is defined as "trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms", then it is clear that the article, as currently written, is wrong.  The reason is that the article defines ID as 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."  Since there is no excuse to maintain content which is wrong, the article needs to be changed IF ID truly means "trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms".  Third, the claim that ID is "trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms" has been made without support and is most probably not NPOV.

In the end, if we are going to retain the statement that 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", then we must stick to that. If that is what we're going to stick to, then people like Laszlo who appear to hold as true 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" are IDers (assuming the appearance that he does so conforms with evidence).-Psychohistorian 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd have no problem with placing Laszlo in, despite that Google currently shows only 970 hits on Google under "Ervin Laszlo" + "intelligent design". ... Kenosis 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm..well there is a lot to be said for that. Do we have any good sources for "trying to get religion back into the science classroom"? If one says that, there is a long long history to ID then, ever since the term or the phrase was first used. However, I believe that the public normally associates it with the current movement. I could be wrong however. And to me, it appears they focus almost exclusively on biological design, that is, they are against evolution. I hear some rustling from other creationists about how they are not like regular creationists; and sometimes are YEC and sometimes OEC but probably mainly OEC. --Filll 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, as I wasn't suggesting that "trying to get religion into public school science classes" or any similar characterization be used as a definition in the article. Appropriately, the article uses the definition originally given, and currently still given, by the Discovery Institute, in keeping with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Trying to get religion into the public school science classrooms is, however, obviously part of the agenda, and is what brought it into national and worldwide prominence. Recall also that according to the wedge strategy, part of the agenda is to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". ... Kenosis 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it may be argued that the wedge strategy is part of the Discovery Institute right beside (rather than part of) ID. If Laszlo is an IDer (a point which seems to still be unresolved), then he can be so without embracing the wedge strategy (being as he's not part of the DI).-Psychohistorian 03:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) The wedge strategy is not besides ID; rather, the wedge document discloses the wedge strategy, and helps verify in writing the agenda that made the words "intelligent design" part of the modern vernacular, which was manifested in the socio-political campaign of the intelligent design movement. That is, the "wedge strategy" concisely states the reality behind the words "intelligent design", in the Discovery Institute's own words. (2) Anyone can be an ID advocate who wishes to be, including Ervin Laszlo; and anyone can even assert that they are an ID advocate who doesn't subscribe to the wedge strategy; and/or anyone can completely redefine what they intend to mean by "intelligent design".  But that is not what's notable about ID, and not what this article is about.  The notability of the words "intelligent design" is a result only of the Discovery Institute affiliates' campaign.  Other than that, such a position is just a form of teleological argument. ... Kenosis 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your source for the claim that the wedge document is a part of ID? All I see is that the leading institution behind  ID is the same institution that created the wedge document.  Further, while you say that anyone can be an advocate of ID if they want to be, you earlier claimed (and, in fact, insist on using sources which don't support it) that all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI.  So, apparently, a man who published 75 books on the subject and leads an international organization which takes the idea as a central tenet can be an advocate of it, but can't be a leading proponent?  It kinda begs the question of what defines a "leading proponent".  I'm becoming more and more convinced that your own position is based on nothing more than bull headed solipsism or, as I said elsewhere, religious fanatacism.-Psychohistorian 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's because you're either not sufficiently well read on the subject or ignoring reliable sources. Read the Wedge Document. Then tell us how these excerpts do not show an underlying method for promoting ID that is any different from what is seen reported in the press today: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ... "We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture." ... Governing Goals: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." ... Five Year Goals: "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory." ... Twenty Year Goals: "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science." ... "To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts" ... "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." Johnson in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds tells of how he and others started their "wedge strategy" as well as ID. And in it you'll find he says "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge." (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds pp. 91-92) The Dover trial ruling lays out the evolution of creationism from creation science to ID,  There is no shortage of significant, notable sources; it's up to you whether you chose to accept them or not. Just don't expect others to join you in ignoring them. FeloniousMonk 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently Psychohistorian did not read what I wrote, or alternately, is insisting on presenting a different version of it despite my having called the error to his attention once prior to this. I did not say, and the article does not say, that "all the leading proponents of ID are members of the DI".  The article has used the language "its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute", which was recently changed to "Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute."  Currently seven citations are provided with various language confirming this reality.  This reality includes the fact (also discussed farther below in the WP article) that the Discovery Institute, and its arms currently consisting of the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID, are all part of the same kit-n-kaboodle, sharing the same funding sources and comprising the backbone of, and the impetus behind, the Intelligent design movement. In the citations currently provided in the article it is variously stated as "all the leaders are [affiliated with the Discovery Institute]", "the ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at [the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture]", "[the Discovery Institute is] the engine behind the ID movement...", ""the primary institutional advocate", "Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country", etc. If the next problem is that only East Coast US newspapers (NYTimes and Boston Globe) are cited as mainstream media, we can add an article from the Seattle Times, and probably a few from midwestern US newspapers and perhaps from other nations as well (though frankly I don't see the need).
 * The language used in the WP article and in my writing above ("Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discover Institute" or "... all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"), is a perfectly correct way of expressing it consistently with all of these citations and many more, and it is language that despite periodic vociferous objections has had stable consensus for its use in the article. The current language is brief, accurate, quite well verified, and quite to the point of how it came to pass that the words "intelligent design" became part of the modern vernacular. That is to say, one coordinated group of persons was behind all the unique phenomenon of ideological/theological/socio-political advocacy casting itself as science.  Thus, there is only one ID that is worthy of the very discussion in which we are currently engaging, and that is the DI's ID.  The sources currently provided in the article are quite consistent with this assertion, and also quite consistent with the language of the WP article. ... Kenosis 06:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Exactly. FeloniousMonk 06:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Laszlo is not a notable proponent of ID. He has not written any books or published any articles that are commonly cited by the press or notable ID proponents or opponents as being notable or influential; those are the criteria for inclusion as a notable ID proponent. 2) Anyone who thinks that ID is separate from, or existed in any meaningful way before Johnson, Chapman, Meyers, et al started promoting it through the DI is poorly read on the subject, and I suggest they start by reading the Dover ruling. Specifically, the section on Context,, which starts with "An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism" FeloniousMonk 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FM states "Anyone who thinks that ID is seperate from, or existed in any meaningful way before Johnson, Chapman Meyers, et al..start by reading the Dover ruling". The reply to that is simple and it is to quote the Dover ruling, "We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005)."  This is a claim just as strong as evidence as the Forrester quote which has been accepted 100% by the majority of editors here.  And that leaves a proposition which, I guess, we are to take on faith (assuming FM is correct)- that Johnson, Chapman, Meyers, et al have been around since the 13th century.-Psychohistorian 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the matter. The types of arguments used by ID have been around earlier (hence the phrasing "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God") but ID has itself not been around to any signficant extent. JoshuaZ 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's semantics or, to put it another way, sophistry.=Psychohistorian 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychohistorian, or should we call you HariSeldon, your sophistry is noted. However the old argument is called the teleological argument, and the article covering it has that title as required by WP:NAME. The modern usage of ID is what this article's about, though it fully covers the ancient history. Any further evidence for us? ... dave souza, talk 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states, "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." The quote that I referenced above shows that this concept has been around since the 13th century (its been around a lot longer than that, but for reasons that are clear above, I'm restricting my sources to that part of the trial transcript).  Unless someone is going to edit the definition in the article, you and FM are wrong.  That's really very simple.-Psychohistorian 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying the words it's "really very simple", translates into "That's my judgment, period". So what, really. If you like the underlying concept that much, this particular teleological argument, or set of them, or some part of the underlying set of them, by all means find another name for it, publish it, and see where it goes.  For WP purposes, we can only go with what's notable.  And what's notable and verifiable here, in keeping with the WP:NPOV undue-weight policy and the verifiability policy and WP:RS, etc., is that the words "intelligent design" came into prominence only after about 1990 when they were used as an end-run around the constitutional separation of church and state in the US, attaching these nice secular-sounding words to the particular set of teleological slants put forward by the Discovery Institute affiliates.  That's what got all the public attention, and nothing else. While psychohistorian and anyone else (Ervin Laszlo included) is welcome to say "I think intelligent design should mean X or Y, the only ID that is notable is the DI's ID, the one that got nearly everybody's attention when the attempt was made to frame the teleological arguments as science.  The article explains that and all the other relevant issues, linking to the necessary main articles and related topics as necessary. ... Kenosis 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're simply back to front, Hari. The term is modern, with uncommon antecedents which are fully set out in the article. The term's meaning is what its proponents say it means. That meaning is a particular variation by the DI on what is more generally called the teleological argument, all of which is set out in the article. So what you're saying is you want something in the lead along the lines of "This is a modern variation on the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument." Interesting thought, but not what you've been adding to the article. ... dave souza, talk 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What I've been "putting into the article" is the statement that this article focuses on ID as presented by the DI. You, Dave, seem to be agreeing with that statement when you state "that meaning is a particular variation by the DI".-Psychohistorian 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you seem to be suggesting or hinting that there is ID ouwith that presented by the DI. Care must be taken not to imply that. ..dave souza, talk 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I would appreciate it if you used my name rather than "Hari". Thanks.  Second, a rose by any other name is still a rose.  ID by any other name is still ID.  The argument has been around since the 13th century, so obviously there is ID without the DI.  But I don't see hammering that fact as a means towards a productive compromise, so I'm going to put that aside for now.  I believe that it is possible to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID and identify the DI's role in promoting ID (which I believe would address the concerns each of us has).  Towards that end, how about replacing the intro with this, "Intelligent design is a modern version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument.  It is distinguished from creation science (its most recent antecedent in the United States) by its close association with the Discovery Institute (its leading institutional proponent)."?-Psychohistorian 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no ID without the DI. The DI created the name ID, and uses it to refer to a very specific concept. Certainly, the words 'intelligent design' may be used to refer to other concepts. Certain designers might call their clothing 'intelligent design'. That's not the issue.
 * There are, it seems, people who believe that life shows signs of design. Hearing the term 'intelligent design' in the media, they come to believe that that term applies to their beliefs. It doesn't.
 * It doesn't because the term intelligent design was created by the Discovery Institute, to refer to their own specific beliefs. -- Ec5618 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it so that means it will never be published. It is too unbiased for the rulers here raspor 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Raspor, I maintain that if it's articulate enough, explains enough and/or is interesting enough to enough people, you could readily publish successfully under the name Raspor if you wish to do so. ... Kenosis 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for start of the lead
I like it too, so that makes three editors in favor of "Intelligent design is a modern version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument. It is distinguished from creation science (its most recent antecedent in the United States) by its close association with the Discovery Institute (its leading institutional proponent)". AvB ÷ talk  01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That contains several inaccuracies and is a POV unsupported by any notable sources. ID is distinguished from creation science by a lot more than just it's association with the DI, something that prose implies. BTW, keep in mind that consensus never trumps WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out the other accuracies you see in this edit?

Consensus discussion: Although I do not agree - pending convincing arguments - that this prose implies what you say it implies, I'm all for a compromise that neutralizes this specific aspect, for example: "Intelligent design is a modern version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument. It was originally proposed by the Discovery Institute."

Some related policy/process/trias politica information for less experienced editors: If a (proposed) edit contains inaccuracies, they should be pointed out and the edit improved, which is part of the WP:Consensus process. If editors do not provide notable sources in support of their edit, anyone may revert it for that reason alone. In addition, a consensus should exist or be developed that the provided cites show that the edit is neutral or in balance with the rest of the article (or, in this case, its lead). Consensus does not trump NPOV but as far as I know, both in practice and according to policy, the only processes we have in place to protect Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and to make sure our policies and guidelines are kept, are WP:Consensus and Foundation level rules and decisions. In order to prevent the monopolizing of article content, we have a dispute resolution process anyone can use, for example to enlarge the pool by attracting more editors. ArbCom does not handle content disputes. Admins do not get the final say about any specific content dispute if they do not have community support. Some leeway here lies in the fact that a Wikipedia consensus should not be decided by a simple tally of votes but also requires that the involved editors provide good arguments. When all's been said and done and the process has run its full course, and an editor or group of editors still find themselves pretty much alone with a specific opinion, the consensus is confirmed. However, in time, a different consensus may arise so it can be interesting to raise points decided previously once again, ideally providing arguments from the earlier consensus, in order to test whether or not things have changed. This should not be done frivolously, since it can cause endlessly repeated discussion and eat up lots of time that could have been spent editing other parts of Wikipedia. AvB ÷ talk  09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good morning everyone, nice to see a courteous discussion going on. Unfortunately Psychohistorian's proposed intro has a few problems and fails to fairly represent the opinions of ID proponents. Firstly, we have to give fair representation of their definition of ID, which is best done by citing the definition they publish. While they're happy enough to point to the teleological argument as an antecedent, they place much more emphasis on the claim that it's a new scientific theory, so that has to be given priority. They've been much more reticent about their relationship to creation science. Also, strangely enough, it seems to have left out the well attested point that all the leading proponents are affiliated to the DI: it's my understanding that part of the evidence for this is their published list of affiliates, so although some editors here seem to find it problematic, I've not seen any published disclaimer by notable proponents of ID. It may be worth noting that the last name suggested as an unaffiliated leader is someone notable for distributing to some British schools DVDs produced in America featuring the usual DI crew.
 * As for Psychohistorian's "rose by any other name is still a rose" analogy, this rose is notable because it's being presented as a flying pink elephant. Detailed examination by reliable sources has found that it's no elephant, and it won't fly...dave souza, talk 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Already looking forward to Ph's response which should be interesting, or Raspor's for that matter. I think these are fair arguments for keeping what's there already. Now, the reason why I liked Psychohistorian's proposal is that it aims "to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID and identify the DI's role in promoting ID"). Another way to accomplish this might be: "All its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute (DI), which has been promoting the concept since 1990. They assert that intelligent design is...". AvB &divide; talk  12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A longstanding consensus about the structure of the article's intro has existed since the Fall of 2005. It was hashed out in lengthy discussion among proponents, critics and some apparently neutral parties too. The consensus was that the lead will consist of three short paragraphs; the first consisting of a brief statement of what ID is as put forward by its proponents and who are the proponents; the second would summarize the position of the scientific community; and the third would synopsize ID's current legal standing.  Since then, many dozens of editors have discussed this and found it reasonable, with, of course, some vociferous objections along the way too. Of course, a consensus can always be revisited and re-consensused given an equivalent or overriding impetus to do so.  At the present time, though, when viewing the various concerns and issues that went into deciding the basic structure of the article lead, I don't see either strong reasons to take a different approach or sufficient support for taking one piece out of this previously consensused balance. I think it would be akin to taking a keystone out of an arch; yes it can be rebuilt, but it'd probably be an editorial and organizational mess for awhile and need to be signigicantly reconstructed as a result of the attempt to create a new balance of presentation.  Right now the article says everything that need be said to thoroughly introduce this topic to a previously unfamiliar reader, linking to related topics as necessary. In the very first section, after a brief synopsis, the origins of both the term and of the concept are effectively summarized, along with material about how this term was joined to the concept, and also how it was used in a way that ultimately made it famous and quite controversial in the public forum, all presented in a way such that it can be understood by any reasonably intelligent person willing to actually read it. And, for the reader who wishes to look further into related topics, there also are over a hundred external references to allow such a reader to branch out in any of a variety of ways that they may wish to pursue for their further edification.  ... Kenosis 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am one of the editors who found it reasonable. I am also aware of many of the arguments put forward over the years. And I accept the "longstanding consensus argument" to the degree I've outlined above. But an old consensus certainly can't be used to reject new proposals that have not been part of that consensus. As a corollary, editors who do not want to repeat earlier arguments should at the very least be prepared to point out where in the archives a specific point has been discussed before. BTW, my latest version of Ph's proposal does not take away anything, it just adds a couple of words that may well prevent a lot of time going to waste over repeats of this exact same discussion in the future (as you can see, the "longstanding consensus argument" cuts both ways). Also, I think Ph really has a point here and so far no one has even tried to explain why wishing "to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID and identify the DI's role in promoting ID") is not reasonable. AvB &divide; talk  18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not unreasonable at all "to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID and identify the DI's role in promoting ID". The article already says: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,      assert 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. " So it already meets the criterion of identifying ID as the DI's ID.  At the opening paragraph of the article, how much more needs to be said? What? that others may say "well, that's not what I think intelligent design is"?  That it's the DI's ID is already said in the article, right there in the first two sentences. ... Kenosis 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, well made, even though you didn't quite convince me. I'd be interested in other editors' views. The way this is going I'd better throw my towel into the ring - even Raspor and Psychohistorian seem to disagree with the changes I made to Ph's proposal based on our discussion here. AvB &divide; talk  22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not find consensus compelling but anyone who wants to contribute will not be able deny or misrepresent facts, sources, and policy with the high visibility of this article and the number of long term contributors here. And all three, facts, sources and policy are what has shaped the longstanding intro. The project's goal is to create accurate, stable articles. So we aren't changing them for the sake of change. If you have specific changes or proposals you'd like to make, please make them here. So far I've seen none that to not run afoul of either evidence or policy. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk, please indicate which editor(s) you're addressing here. AvB &divide; talk  20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was addressing you and anyone else who thinks that the intro is inaccurate. It is not, and it is extremely well supported by a multitude of credible and notable sources. If you want to alter it, you'll need to make your case, and start by showing how the sources are inaccurate. FeloniousMonk 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This in no way describes my edits above. It would be better to tell me why you do not agree with my latest proposal. AvB &divide; talk  20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems completely accurate. One cannot shove ALL the information into the lead, or else it becomes unreadable. It produces an outside view of ID, and an internal view of ID. It is short and pithy and concise. It has tons of sources. What is wrong with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

--Filll 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding:
 * "Intelligent design is a modern version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument. It is distinguished from creation science (its most recent antecedent in the United States) by its close association with the Discovery Institute (its leading institutional proponent)".

I have reservations about that assertion. To being with, I am not at all sure that this is the most accurate way to characterise ID. ID was born out of the post-Edwards idea that creation science could not be taught as science because it was religious. Thus, the idea that ID could be presented as "science" was a fundamental element of it, and a major reason why it existed. It isn't just a renewal of the teleological argument, and it isn't just the DI's version of creation science. It is creationist, but unlike creation science it seeks to define itself independent of scripture. Unlike CS, which makes testable predictions (the Grand Canyon was a product of the flood, etc.) ID does not make testable predictions. ID exists to circumvent the Edwards decision.

While I have no special attachment to the current wording of the lead, it's certainly "good enough". Any change should be an improvement - either in terms of style or substance, hopefully in terms of both. The proposed change does not appear to be well-supported by sources and is sorely incomplete in its conception of ID. I oppose the change. Guettarda 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's inaccurate, as well as poorly written. It ignores the many notable sources, not least of which is the ruling in the Dover trial, that show ID arose in response to the court defeats of creation science in the 1980's, and it conflates the teleological argument with ID while ignoring completely the majority viewpoint, that of the scientific community. The proposed prose ignores both policy and facts, and thus will never fly. An accuate and complete article on the subject will call a spade a spade. FeloniousMonk 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose change I have to agree with Guettarda - this suggested rewrite is not an improvement, which any change should be. In addition, the intro must be a concise yet accurate synopsis or summary of the article - and this intro is woefully incomplete and the proposed definition runs contrary to that provided by sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weakly oppose change Although it is interesting to send people to the teleological arguments, this can easily be done with italics over the lead and a link, and more discussion further down. The thing is, the average reader is going to be thinking about DI, and isnt really interested in the history of ID. So to immediately introduce this is not that helpful.--Filll 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have clearly missed my latest proposal, the one before that and the discussion which led me to change my proposal twice. I'm pasting the latest one in below. AvB &divide; talk  20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Already looking forward to Ph's response which should be interesting, or Raspor's for that matter. I think these are fair arguments for keeping what's there already. Now, the reason why I liked Psychohistorian's proposal is that it aims "to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID and identify the DI's role in promoting ID"). Another way to accomplish this might be: "All its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute (DI), which has been promoting the concept since 1990. They assert that intelligent design is...". AvB &divide; talk  12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "to identify the article as focusing on the DI's ID" Again, what other "intelligent design" is there other than the one that is found in ID books, the news and the courts? Please provide a source that shows there is some "other" form of ID that we are missing, because it looks like you are simply conflating the teleogical argument here. Your proposal remains inaccurate: Intelligent design as a concept recognizable to its current form simply did not exist as it is prior to 1990, read the article: Intelligent_design
 * "and identify the DI's role in promoting ID" The article already sufficiently does this by pointing out that all of the ID proponents are affiliated with the institute. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Again, what other" -> this has already been argued by Psychohistorian to my satisfaction, and was the reason why I supported his proposal. Please see above for the arguments to refute.
 * According to this section of the article ID originated in 1989 before the DI was founded. However, if you expect that this edit might give readers the impression that ID did exist as it is prior to 1990 (and I don't believe it will), I have no problem whatsoever to e.g. leave out the year and slightly rewrite to keep the flow: "All its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute (DI), the concept's main promoter. They assert that intelligent design is..." AvB &divide; talk  21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "According to this section of the article ID originated in 1989 before the DI was founded." You need to read the Dover trial ruling and the evidence presented that lead to it apparently. Both the notion and term ID as they are currently used are the product of Charles Thraxton and Phillip Johnson, who went on to form what the called "The Wedge" the core ID group, that itself went on to form the CRSC (now CSC) at the DI. Really, if you and Psycohistorian don't know these things and aren't up to speed on the current state of the relevant literature, you have no business trying to rewrite the article's intro. I'd start reading here,, then read all of the sources in the article were I you and hoping to significantly alter the article. FeloniousMonk 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, this in no way describes the preceding discussion, my knowledge, skills, personality or intentions. If you think the article incorrectly tells the reader "He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book." you should be addressing that, not suggesting I haven't read what it says. We are dealing with the lead which summarizes the article. It would be better if you'd discuss the proposal instead of the editor. AvB &divide; talk  22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There have definitely been prior uses of the term ID and the concepts of ID before DI, and this is quite interesting and should be in the article, but not necessarily in the lead. The average reader is going to be thinking ONLY about the ID that DI has proposed. If they want more, they will find it later in the article.--Filll 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No no no! - I really don't think that the average person is thinking only about the ID the DI has proposed - and its very foolhardy for us to assume that's the case. ID is a hugely famous historical concept, and the DI's agenda isn't really being pushed outside the US (at least successfully) - see my arbritary new section below for my thoughts.... Petesmiles 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And so it is: Intelligent_design If there are any notable, verifiable glaring ommissions, please mention there here and they can be added there. FeloniousMonk 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any editors who would like to comment on the proposal above? AvB &divide; talk  22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm getting a little lost. Would I be correct in assuming that you are proposing the lead to the article would be:
 * "Intelligent design is a modern version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument. It is distinguished from creation science (its most recent antecedent in the United States) by its close association with the Discovery Institute (its leading institutional proponent)".
 * The opening lines are really important for setting the stage. The first lines have to be very clear and informative in their own right, on the assumption that the reader may not even read further.  The proposal has the drawback of introducing an obscure term without actually telling the average reader what ID is. If I understand the proposal correctly, I  oppose the change. Trishm 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But no, that's Psychohistorian's original proposal aiming to show more of the link between ID and DI in the article lead. I changed it twice, incorporating (or rather pruning it after) input from other editors. AvB ÷ talk  09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for start of the lead (cont'd)
The current proposal is to insert "the concept's main promoter" or "its main promoter" after "the Discovery Institute, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]".

This summarizes information from the article body ("Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign."). The words "main promoter (of ID)" are abundantly sourcable in pro-ID, neutral and anti-ID sources such as these links from the first page of a Google search for "intelligent design" "main promoter":, , and. AvB ÷ talk  09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with ID as DI tries to frame it
Scientists including Einstein see evidence of some sort of order in the universe. Some might even try to make analogies between it and some sort of Deity, as Maimonides did when he made the identification of scientific laws with angels. However, this of course might be just the Anthropic principle in action. However, the difficulty arises, as I see it, when this evidence for mathematical structure and balance (see The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences for example) is extrapolated to use to attack evolution. As near as I can tell, evolution is just a continuation of the same physical laws and order that others are using to justify the existence of Design. The DI argument however, tries to take reasoning and facts that SUPPORT evolution as part of design, given that they follow or seem to follow from the order and laws in the universe, and try to ATTACK evolution. So they have


 * evidence of order, which they claim is evidence of a designer in the laws of nature.
 * evolution follows directly from these laws of nature by standard scientific methods, so might be taken as evidence of a designer
 * want to claim that evolution is not correct since it violates evidence of a designer.

So I can produce one set of reasoning that argues evolution is evidence of Design. And another set of reasoning (DI reasoning) that argues evolution is not compatible with Design.

Seems to me they are in a bit of a logical quandry.--Filll 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. The primary issue remains that the scientific community has overwhelmingly disagreed that it is scientific, and, as Judge Jones said in Kitzmiller, "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". ... Kenosis 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What this does, at least to me, is reveal a "semi secret" agenda: to lobby for biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy by corrupting science. And look at Hinduism and Creationism. It is even more obvious when you can look at something from arms length without our internal cultural bias and view it from the outside. It is clear what difficulty the mixing of religion and science produces. Do you want to use cow piss to cure AIDS ? (of course, this might work, but I want to see the evidence first, not some sort of semi-religious justification).--Filll 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cow piss, peach pits, or the laying on of hands to cure AIDS are all perfect examples of pseudoscience IMHO. Evidence is what we need.  Orangemarlin 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "So I can produce one set of reasoning that argues evolution is evidence of Design. And another set of reasoning (DI reasoning) that argues evolution is not compatible with Design. Seems to me they are in a bit of a logical quandry." The history of science is full of logical quandries - can anyone say "wavicle"?  In fact, I tend to get nervous when we don't see logical quandries - but then maybe I'm just too much of a cynic.  Whatever some judge has to say about science really isn't relevant to me.  To me, science is about the scientific method, not some guy in a black robe making fiats - we kinda got past that stage a couple of centuries ago (if Socrates could interject a few words before he quaffed his cup of poison, I think he'd agree with me).  But then, on the other hand, the way most IDers that I've met approach science, they couldn't find it if it was attached to their ass and they had both hands free and it doesn't help their cause that they have no evidence.-Psychohistorian 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What "other" ID is there that that is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute? ID, that which been the subject of all the articles, books and lawsuits since the early 1990's, is a product wholly of those who call themselves the "wedge", Johnson, Meyers, Chapman, Thraxton, Wells, and their promotional machine: the Discovery Institute. There is no "other" ID in the news. And you're talking about the teleological argument, BTW, not ID. And Einstein was not a believer in either. FeloniousMonk 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would not object to a sentence directing people interested in the history of the concept someplace else.--Filll 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Intelligent_design is already full of them. FeloniousMonk 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it certainly seems to have been adequately covered. I do not know what people are objecting to. They want that all shoved into the LEAD? that is a bad idea. I cannot stand when people try to shove so much into the lead that it becomes unreadable, even if it is more accurate than a general statement.--Filll 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph of the overview in order to clarify what it is that both biological evolution and ID explain. Also, the sentence in that paragraph about what biology does and how seemed clumsy to me to the point of inaccuracy, so I revised that sentence as well.

I notice that the article contains inconsistencies in the capitalization of Intelligent Design. Any reason it's not consistently lower case? Eperotao 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, there was only one and I fixed it. Eperotao 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The limits of Wikipedia for ID as Science
It must seem to Raspor and Adlac as if they are banging their heads against a brick wall, and that the anti-id-ers are just out to get them. It would appear to them as if there is a clash of beliefs, and they are just outnumbered. And then it starts to get personal.

I want to point out that this is not an ID vs anti-ID issue. It's not a POV thing, although I know that it seems so. The brick wall, unfortunately, is real. But it isn't made up of anti-id-ers. It is in the constraints of wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, and rests with the guidelines for reliability of sources. Let me explain.

There is no problem with describing the ID position until you get to the point where ID is described as a science, where ID does not meet the current definition of a science. The ID position is that the definition of science should be changed.

The Wikipedia position is that we can only report on what is, not on what the situation might be if things were differently defined. The moment ID gets described as a science, the [on reliable sources"] kicks in.

"Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" applies directly here.

ID may be perfectly true, but no matter how much discussion takes place on these pages, we are precluded from calling ID science. Trishm 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary new section for proposed new lead discussion above
I don't think the proposed change was an improvement.

My problem is defining ID as a concept (lucidly explained in the article as dating back centuries), then tying everyone to the DI - there is an implication there that the DI has been involved throughout time!

I think we should call a spade a spade at the start and say 'Intelligent Design is a teleological argument that......' - this defines DI ownership of the argument (true) but not the concept (what everyone seems to have a problem with.....)

cheers - Petesmiles 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with this, is that it is a bit much to shove at the casual reader. Many educated readers might have heard of William Paley and arguments similar to his. But the average reader will not have heard of him. They will have heard of ID through the DI's efforts. And teleological is too complicated for them. I would compromise with a sentence in italics above the lead linking to teleology however. Also, I do object to trying to shove too much into the LEAD so it becomes unreadable or uninformative. This is a common problem on WP. --Filll 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll (and apologies if you intended the above section to be bolded - i removed it as a typo...) - I think you're making too big an assumption here that people have heard of ID through the DI's efforts. I think that's wrong. Also - it's not really pertinent to the concept vs. argument debate. I don't think changing 'concept' to 'argument' is complicating the article at all - do you? - cheers, Petesmiles 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always felt that the current lead paragraph is misleading by omission of certain key facts to set the stage. The lead paragraph should do the following things, and currently doesn't:
 * Mention that the term "Intelligent Design" pre-dates the Discovery Institute, although the DI has co-opted the term to their own ends.
 * Mention the teleological argument context.
 * I know many people who have heard of ID before the DI ever got hold of the term. It's been in use since before the DI existed. The article lead should address this fact to those readers who come here because they heard about ID in the news, but think of ID in the context that predates the DI. -Amatulic 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I know many people who have heard of ID before the DI ever got hold of the term. It's been in use since before the DI existed." Have any sources that support your claim?
 * I've been very closely following creationism since the 1970's and the term was not in use until the 1980s, and then by those who would go on to be involved in the DI, so you'll need to back up your claim with some reputable sources.
 * As the article and the sources it relies upon states the earliest known version of the particular line of reasoning that would come to be called "intelligent design" beganin the early 1980s with the publication of Charles Thaxton's The Mystery of Life's Origin (he'd go on to publish the controversial ID textbook Of Pandas and People). As for the term, its current use began after the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism in public school science curricula is unconstitutional. Thraxton's FTE began "finding and replacing" all instances of "creation science" with "intelligent design" in early drafts of Of Pandas and People.  DI VP Stephen C. Meyer credits Thraxton with the term that he first heard in 1988 at an early ID conference in Tacoma, Washington. Thaxton would go on to become a DI fellow, BTW:
 * How do you account for the discrepencies between your account of ID's early use and that found in the sources given? FeloniousMonk 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had certainly heard of the argument, but not by that name. I also have followed the field for at least 30 years. I realize that the term might have a long history, but when I heard it used first was after the DI started promoting it as something new. I think that it was an old name that had not been used heavily, and they groped around for something after the 87 Supreme Court decision. And we now suspect they will try "sudden emergence" as a new term. Or make up something else.--Filll 05:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FeloniusMonk, what discrepancy? See the sections "Origins of the term" in this very article. All I'm saying is:
 * The lead should summarize the article in accordance with WP:LEAD.
 * This article does contain a rather lengthy section on the origins of the term "Intelligent Design".
 * Therefore, the fact deserves to be mentioned in the lead that the term pre-dates the Discovery Institute's co-opting it.
 * Why is that so hard to understand? -Amatulic 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Filll on this one. "Teleological" is not a term in common use, which means that you would need to explain it. That is not something that should happen in the introduction. The overview is the first place that you could reasonably do this. Trishm 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I promise you, if I go out on the street right now and ask 100 people about ID, 99 of them will discuss ID from the DI perspective (although few will have heard of DI), because ID is visible and in the news right now through DI's efforts. --Filll 00:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll is correct, today if you ask 100 people to define ID about 99% are going to parrot something close to the DI definition. If we go back in time, say 30 years, and ask 100 people what is intelligent design about 99% would have no idea what you were talking about.  If you ask 100 people (now or 30 years ago) what is a teleological argument about 98% would have no idea what you're talking about.  The DI and their affiliates put ID on the cultural/social map.  Yeah the term has been around a long time, we mention that in the article but obviously not in the lead.  If we put ID is a teleological argument then we'll have a zillion IDers claiming ID is NOT a teleological argument and accuse of of bias/POV and I think they'd be right.  I would not have an issue with us having a little blub such as "for intelligent design as a teleological argument see teleological argument" that preceeds the lead like we see on articles with similar names/subjects.  Mr Christopher 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design disambiguation page

 * Have you guys/gals seen what is on the Intelligent design (disambiguation) page?

'Intelligent design (ID) is the modern concept, presented by the Discovery Institute, 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." It is a version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument, reframed with the assertion that it is a scientific theory finding signs of design by an unidentifiable intelligent being.


 * Mr Christopher 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) original formatting shown – dave souza, talk 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Interesting. Haha...a way for them to sneak in the backdoor. --Filll 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am especially flummoxed by the link of Theistic evolution: intelligent design to theistic evolution.--Filll 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that's a reference to Theistic evolution ...dave souza, talk 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell a lie, it seemed to me a better brief summation than this version which left it wide open for the ancient greek ID advocates argument. If you don't like it, edit it. .. dave souza, talk 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THAT is the sort of sentence that should be in the lead paragraph to THIS article! Well done.
 * As I stated above in reply to FeloniousMonk, the current lead paragraph should comply with WP:LEAD by summarizing the main points of this article — and one of those points made, in a rather lengthy section on origins of the term "intelligent design", is that the term was in use long before the DI's co-opted it. Your sentence above does the job adequately, and is appropriate for THIS article. -Amatulic 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine at first glance (and quite good for a disambig summary), but is not sufficiently accurate for purposes of the main article that involves a high level of controversy. The verified fact of the matter is that the tripartite approach of the DI, the CSC and the ISCID comprises the method of operation in forming, collating and disseminating the concept on the mantle of the words "intelligent design", which is why the words "It's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, assert that it is..." are used in the article.  So, for sake of argument, how about something like:
 *  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 evolution by natural selection."[1][2][3] It is a version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument,[5][6] reframed with the assertion that it is a scientific theory finding signs of design by an unidentifiable intelligent being.[7][8]  It is presented by three closely affiliated organizations, the Discovery Institute, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC, formerly the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), all of which share closely similar or identical funding sources and many of whose affiliates belong to at least two of these three organizations.[9][10][11][12][13][14]"
 * ... Kenosis 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very cautious about that proposal: other points need to be incorporated, not least the "all leading proponents" issue, and I'm not sure how comfortable ID proponents are with the emphasis in a paragraph that's essentially giving their viewpoint before the rebuttals in the second paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that though the history is interesting, it does not belong in the first 2 or 3 paragraphs. That is not why someone at the moment is coming to this page on Wikipedia. In 10 or 20 years, when DI is dead and buried, or has moved on to a new term instead of ID because ID has taken on horrific connotations in the public mind (pejoration), maybe then. But now, no.--Filll 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An important question/distinction - who other than us is claiming ID is a version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument? I know it is, you know it is, but using our opinions represents original research or POV.  That is what makes this such a sticky subject.  That's why this same heated discussion continues every few months or so.  I think there is a tension between putting what is the truth in the article (ala Amatulic) and putting what is verifiable in the article (Felonious Monk).  The bit that Dave wrote is true, but lacks verifiable sources to support it.  IDers claim ID is not a teleological argument, they claim it is not "god of the gaps", they claim it is science.  So for us to say "ID is a version of the ancient argument for God called the teleological argument"'' puts us out on a POV/OResearch limb.  I hope a solution can be found that satisfies Wiki policies.  Mr Christopher 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Update - well dang I did not see Kenosis' edit that includes some cites, so what I wrote above may not be accurate. I'll check them out.  Mr Christopher 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was for sake of argument for the moment. Cites are the same as at present, with the presumption that perhaps two or three will be added to verify the assertion that it's a modern version of the ancient teleological argument and that it's been presented as scientific. ... Kenosis 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to caution everyone to avoid confusing verifiable truth with obvious fact. You don't need a citation to claim that $$2+2=4$$. Similarly, you don't need a citation to note that the ID arguments are a form of teleological argument. We have sources explaining what the teleological argument is, and what the ID arguments are.  That is sufficient. -Amatulic 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, understood. And when the gets put up for the particular sentence or clause, generally the most expedient thing is to just throw another citation or two in there.  If it's a reasonable supportive citation in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and such, one more argument becomes a bit less likely to need to be revisited. We have, after all, seen this article parsed and microparsed, reparsed,, drawn and quartered to the Nth degree, as much as nearly any article on the wiki-- it comes with the territory, so to speak. ... Kenosis 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context .. dave souza, talk 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And for those continuing claims that ID's not religion, Pages 27 - 31 of 139 give some interesting cites. .. dave souza, talk 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Long history
The discussion of the long history of the concept of "intelligent design" and the term "intelligent design" reminds me of some other strange things that I realize as I get up to speed in this area. Lots of stuff never dies and just comes back around and around. There are many different flavors of creationism, and none of them are happy with each other particularly (and this was true historically too!) I read some of the nasty things they say about each other on their websites; for example, on AIG, Ken Ham lets the OEC have it good. When I was researching Harry Rimmer I found out that there were some famous creationist debates in the 1920s and 1930s, but they were between creationists of different kinds. There are 8 major debates listed in this book from Harvard University Press. Also, Hovind is not the first to make a cash offer for proof of evolution; Rimmer did it decades earlier, and got sued when he would not pay up and it was a big big trial with a lot of public interest, although we no longer remember it like the Scopes trial. Interestingly, according to this Harvard University Press book, creationists and intelligent design types have become MORE radical and more conservative over the last 100+ years. In 1900, it was pretty rare to find clergy, even evangelists, who believed in biblical literalism or biblical inerrancy, believe it or not. But somehow, that is how the pendulum has swung...--Filll 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the name/author(s) of the book? Prior to the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, scientific challenges to biblical orthodoxy (Galileo and the Copernican revolution, for example) were initially resisted but were eventually accepted.  While early "palaeontologists" and geologists tried to square their findings with the bible, they didn't see the need to square them with a "literal" interpretation ofthe bible...in part because there was no such thing as literalism.  It's only some time after Darwin that there was backlash.  Evolution was set up as an alternative to religion by people like Galton, who were trying to break the hold of the ruling class on the minds of the people.  Their objective was to provide things like sewerage and education for the poor, but change required that the elites loosen their grip on the minds of the poor.  The tool of the elites to keep the poor in check was the church, so to the extent that evolution could be seen as a challenge to the strangehold of the church, it was a good tool for social progress.  Of course, eventually the ideas were corrupted into social darwinism and used as a reason to oppress the poor.  After all, Bryan was a liberal, not a conservative, and his opposition to evolution was based on opposition to social darwinism, not the science of evolution (which really came about with the modern synthesis in the 1920s and 30s).
 * Out of the backlash against "modernity" came the fundamentalist movement. The idea of the "rapture", largely credited to Darby, is a thoroughly modern idea.  SO is literalism, of course.  Expecting an author to give an exact literal report of events is a modern journalistic/historical idea.  Looking at it in terms of a "swing of the pendulum" over the last hundred years misses the point - two points of view have diverged.  There has been a pendulum swing over the last 20 years or so - we do live in a time of rising fundamentalism and anti-sciencism.  But it isn't right to look at the rise of fundamentalism without looking at the rise of secularism.  Guettarda 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2006 ISBN-10: 0-674-02339-0. There have been periods of religious revival and ferment in the US, like the Great awakening etc. I read something about this from a historian, where there have been sort of waves of belief that grow, crest and retreat for a while, only to be repeated. You are correct about the secularism; the number of overall believers appears to be dropping in the US while radical believers appears to be growing. Related somehow?--Filll 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guettarda. while I take your point about Galton and Darwinism, the impression I get is that by that time in the late 19th century, evolution was taken up by an enfranchised middle class and a new working class seeking reform against the orthodox conservative wing of the Church of England. Secular or indeed atheistic promotion of evolution against the church had already been very active amongst early 19th century Radicals. Darwin came across them when at University and on his return from the Beagle voyage as he began to put together his theory. In the late 19th century promoters of a newly professional science freed from dominance by the clergy created much of the myth of science and religion being in conflict – which in a way backfired in the early 20th century with the redevelopment of Protestant biblical literalism into evangelical anti-evolution... dave souza, talk 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure - one of my main sources is Ruse. Guettarda 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the Ronald L. Numbers pdf, Filll. My intention is to read it carefully sometime, but at first glance the historical section starts with an inaccuracy: "Within twenty years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species... on both sides of the Atlantic liberal churchmen were beginning to follow their scientiﬁc colleagues into the evolutionist camp." Eh, within six months of publication Essays and Reviews supported that camp, and well before publication Baden Powell had been promoting evolution, to the admiration of the more timid Darwin and Hooker. Guettarda, my main source is Desmond & Moore's Darwin, Moore gives some interesting comments here. It doesn't cover the early Radicals/evolutionists, but towards the end has a bit about "Wallace... went to the United States for a lecture tour in 1886, and ...  he lectured on Darwinism, but there was no problem. He was welcomed, and he got his lantern and slides out and explained Darwinism. That's what he called it, Darwinism. It shows that between 1886-87, when Wallace was trumpeting Darwin's cause in America, and 1926-27, 40 years later, a remarkable change took place in the way that ordinary Americans were prepared to look at evolution". .. dave souza, talk 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we were warned.
We were warned - over and over again by multiple sources - not to get into debates that are intellectual and/or superfluous in nature. I didn't even bother to read through all the arguments posted - the length of the article was enough to convince me of one thing:

 You are never going to come to a resolution 

There is a simple answer to all of this. But blind ignorance is fighting flawed knowledge. The only way to win this debate, is to -end- it. Until mankind's dying day, there will -never- be an answer to this struggle.

Give it up. Both you IDs and AIDs. You're wasting your time. Rather go and create better articles, than spend all your intellectual energy on fighting a pointless war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ins-dragonclaw (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The "debates" though are useful in sharpening the issues for the article, and creating ideas for new articles, indentifying points of misunderstanding, etc.--Filll 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A good point which is probably implicit and doesn't need stating. However Wikipedia is not aiming to "come to a resolution". The policy of verifiability requires us to present all sides of the argument fairly and proportionately, without giving undue weight to positions which are a minority in the relevant discipline. This knowledge here is about describing the "struggle", not finding The Answer. ... dave souza, talk 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Filll and dave souza- the debates are almost always useful and more importantly, help refine consensus. I think that (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. the user Raspor wanting to argue specifics) that the discussion here has stayed mostly on the topic of portraying the debate as opposed to re-enacting the debate. --HassourZain 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave's right about WP:V, and ideologically-driven fruitless debates, whether raised by clueless newbies or established but biased editors, are almost always never useful and have resulted in a number arbitrations, blocks, bans and hard feelings. Read WP:NOT. Such debates are discouraged at WP, not encouraged. In the 2+ years I've been here the only positive substantive contributions to the article I've seen come of the multitude of tiresome pov-driven attacks on it have been the addition of the sources. And the cost has been at least 3 RFCs, 1 RFAR and at least 2 editors being permanently banned and a lot of wasted time and goodwill. We're here to write encyclopedia, not debate. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses.
 * If this endless debate results in better-researched and higher quality articles on Wikipedia, so be it. I'm not complaining - Wikipedia is an awesome resource.
 * So keep at it. At least you're not waving AK-47s at eachother :)
 * Oh and for the record - there is 'an answer' to the whole creation/evolution flusteration. Most of it was conveniently edited out of the bible, however. There shouldn't even be a "struggle" lol.
 * Have a nice day. - 196.207.47.60 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "If this endless debate results in better-researched and higher quality articles on Wikipedia, so be it." Read WP:NOT, debates are discouraged. This page is provided for us to discuss improving the article, which by necessity (due to policy) means discussion is pretty much limited to issues over grammar, word choice, article structure and sources. Discussions that wander into debating the relative merits of the subject are not appropriate here. FeloniousMonk 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So some of the books that were removed have a better description of creation? That is not in disagreement with evolution? Do tell. Come on, don't tease us!!--Filll 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, 196.207, don't be such a tease :( --HassourZain 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this small change to the opening......
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument 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.

Would anyone revert this small change?

cheers, Petesmiles 09:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I preferred "controversial assertion", which was changed to "concept" sometime in the past year (with a brief appearance of "notion" at some point). However, it is a version of Teleological argument, and linking that in the first sentence refers to that nicely without overly verbose explanation and/or hair-splitting. I would not object. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. Get the teological argument in that way. Wow. Well it is clever I guess. I also would prefer to put the word controversial in there, but the word controversial can go in the 2nd or 3rd sentence. It looks ok to me, provisionally.--Filll 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a (slight) improvement. AvB &divide; talk  13:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worth putting a reference link immediately after the word, on the lines of Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context At the Kitzmiller trial the argument for ID was described as "an old religious argument for the existence of God" (usually called the teleological argument) .. dave souza, talk 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I ponder this and try to decide how I like it, I wonder if it might be better to replace the word "argument" with the word "concept" but still have the word "concept" linked to teleological argument. Comments?--Filll 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to stand...someone will object per the "principle of least surprises" (or whatever the piping rule is actually called). Guettarda 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Filll, the main point this small change is intended to address is that the concept does not solely belong to the DI, but the argument now clearly does., cheers Petesmiles 21:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete, I know WHY you did it, and I still think it is a clever solution as I said above, I just wonder if I like using the word "argument". Ok how about this. Suppose I use redirect to connect teleological concept to telology, and then link the word "concept" in the first sentence to teleology, using the same clever method that we are currently trying?--Filll 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at how this issue is dealt with at Watchmaker analogy: "The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy the argument states that design implies a designer." These two sentences are as informative as they are accurate and concise.
 * For this article's intro to be as neatly phrased it would read: "Intelligent design (ID) is a teleological argument for the existence of God. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute say 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" and 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."
 * Unfortunately, that is more wordy than the existing prose, though it is more clear. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ID is not science
I added the word "falsely" in the introduction, because there is no way, under the reliability of sources guidelines, that ID can be described as a science. The first paragraph must be able to be read in isolation, without containing any falsehoods. Trishm 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you add it?--Filll 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please learn to check diffs in history - if you don't know how, ask me on my talk page and I'll walk you through it. For now, the change is here - scroll down a little. Left side is old, right side is the changed text, which will appear red. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. If you check the times carefully, you will note that he made the note here before he did the change. I also posted my question above before he did the change. I should have acknowledged it when he did the change but I didnt think there was a reason. I thought the time stamps would be self-explanatory. Sorry.--Filll 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This edit has several problems: All the para says is that proponents assert it's science, which they do. And even if it somehow conveys that the assertion itself is true, this is corrected in the next paragraph - I do not think a single paragraph should be able to be read in isolation. It's also superfluous - just try adding "correctly" to "the scientific community has declared" to see what I mean. It is not covered by the quoted source. Elsewhere on this talk page the point has been made that the first paragraph of the intro by longstanding consensus describes ID according to its proponents, and they don't call this assertion false or incorrect. AvB &divide; talk  14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it seems heavy handed, and it could probably be better phrased. The rule of good writing, in any field, is to never mislead your reader, even for a single sentence, especially in the opening paragraph. If the assertion is false, then that must be clear as the reader is reading it. It is not wise to assume that your reader is going to read any further. If you're wondering where I'm coming from, I've written some serious documents in my time where life and limb depended on not misleading the reader, as well as politically sensitive, nce" should qualify). The relevant academic community is the science community. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

... <i>* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people. </i>

For guidance related to the creation of entire articles about said topics, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

So now we look at Fringe theories: "While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement."

So there is the dilemma: we want to present a point of view, neutrally of course, while needing to make sure that we don't mislead anyone into thinking ID is science. Trishm 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to change the lead in this respect, but if there's a consensus to do so, I would prefer "incorrectly" in order to not suggest that they're lying (which then, in turn, would need to be attributed). "Controversially" also prevents that impression, but it is not as precise as "falsely" or "incorrectly". AvB &divide; talk  23:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Incorrectly" is fine by me. Trishm 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of this discussion makes me uncomfortable. My $0.02 -> if you read what the experts say, it is pretty freaking obvious ID is not scientific, and that is what we are here to do, put forth what the experts on both side of the debate have to say. It seems like we are going out of our way to make sure our readers come to a predetermined conclusion by using terms like "mistakenly" and "wrongly" and other variations.  It reeks of POV/bias pushing to me.  I think we should give our readers more credit and avoid trying to steer their conclusions by qualifying with "mistakenly" and "wrongly" and what not.  On the other hand there is discussions of how we can creatively pipe terms to different definitions and such that for the most part the reader would find surprising.  I don't think it is our responsibility to make sure no one thinks ID is science nor is it our responsibility to convert Iders to a more scientific viewpoint.  I think we're here to write an article and not try and sway people's conclusions but there seems to be alot of talk on this page lately that reads an awful lot liek we're trying to sway opinions and make sure the reader comes to the correct conclusion.  Why? That sets us up to fail and invites warranted accusations of BIAS and POV pushing.  Alot of the moaning about BIAS and POV here are the whinings of creo-bots who are upset that they cannot change the rules of science or Wiki.  Some of those complaints are legit.  Cheers Mr Christopher 00:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is pretty freaking obvious that ID is not scientific. It is not only freaking obvious, it is categorically denied by the scientific and legal community.  But it is not obvious to those inclined to believe what they are told without reading or thinking critically.  That is why the assertion should not be made, even as a quote, in the lead, as if it might be true, before it is categorically denied.  That is what the guidelines say: that fringe ideas, not supported by appropriate community, should not be given undue weight by positioning them in the lead or by other means.


 * Perhaps a better solution is to talk a little more about the positive ideas of ID - what they are trying to do in terms of establishing the the hand of God in creation scientifically, before doing the "ID is science" assertion. That way, the article gets a chance to establish the ID philosophy, before getting completely stomped on. Basically, the ideas are not ridiculous, trying to establish Creation by God scientifically is quite laudable.  It's only when ID is declared science, and then when other sciences are discredited in an attempt to make ID look better that things get nasty.


 * By the way, which complaints about the definition of science and wiki do think are legit?Trishm 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unclear, I mean some of the complaints about BIAS and POV pushing here are legit. I guess my point is adding the "mistakenly" and "wrongly" is unnecessary and unwarranted.  The opening paragraph says it is an arguement.  That's true and not dangerous.  I don't think people are going to stop there and conclude it is a true arguement and go back to watching Green Acres.  I think they will stick around long enough to read para 2 where the scientific community weights in.  And speaking of changes I'd feel more comfortable merging para 1 and 2 over using "mistakenly" etc in para 1.


 * I just read the entire article again and I think we do a fantastic job of presenting the DI perspective accurately as well as the scientific side. I think qualifying with "mistakenly" looks like we're dog piling on ID and POV pushing.  The next logical step would be for us to preface any ID quote with "Dembski mistakenly said, yadda yadda yadda"  or "Behe wrongly believes...."  That's POV pushing to me.  To summarize what the experts say is one thing, for us to lead the reader to certain conclusions is another.  And again, I see our responsibility is to inform and not save people or lead them to water.  Who cares what people believe about ID, we're here to write an article about it.  I could care less whether our readers believe in ID or not.  My hope is that they'll think the article is well written and informative and unbiased.  Mr Christopher 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you except to say that the first paragraph MUST be correct in and of itself, without relying on further discussion. That should not be contentious. How we do that is, of course, up for debate. Trishm 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trishm, is this a Wiki policy or a personal belief -> "first paragraph MUST be correct in and of itself". I'd like to read the policy to get a better idea of the task ahead of us if it is.  Thanks. Mr Christopher 02:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I was too emphatic. It has been part of the criteria used for professional technical writing in my field for many years, and is bolstered by the wikipedia guidelines as discussed above. Trishm 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You certainly have a point and I think it's good that you're making it here. However, when writing an encyclopedia article, other requirements should be satisfied first. Guidelines don't trump policy. Our first concern is WP:NPOV as excellently explained by Mr Christopher. AvB &divide; talk  08:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I would like to think we can manage NPOV and guidelines - there is no inherent conflict.Trishm 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it's one of the finer points of NPOV that grow on you with time. Perhaps it's just something to accept for now and review in a couple of months? AvB &divide; talk  10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this makes a good case for "controversially assert" – since their catchphrase is "teach the controversy" it should meet with approval from the ID side, and it indicates in the first paragraph that the claim is not universally accepted: "incorrectly" may be more accurate from a scientific point of view, but they'd disagree so we then get into sourcing the assertion that it's wrong so that it's not us saying it: better dealt with in the second paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Or...How about we start the opening sentence by saying "Intelligent Design is the controversial arguement that...." and avoid the "wrongly" and "mistaken" or "controversially asserted" (an awkward expression to me) types of qualifiers? Trishm, et al, would you find this acceptable? Mr Christopher 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More - I think what I have proposed above keeps us from taking sides (NPOV), let's the reader know a controversy exists, and is respectful of the reader's intelligence. I rest my case :-) Mr Christopher 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It solves the problems I saw with the original edit. AvB &divide; talk  16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so too. I'd like to get Trishm's input.  Mr Christopher 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll surprise you: I don't think that the idea expressed in the first sentence is controversial at all. It stands on its own, as a belief, and doesn't need to be qualified.  The trouble starts in the second sentence, with the assertion that ID is science. Here is another possibility, which avoids all the messy qualifiers: If the first two paragraphs were merged, then the opening paragraph would be balanced and self-contained (which it isn't at the moment).  It wouldn't be too long, as the first paragraph is a bit short anyway. Trishm 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a bit of caution about the presumption that "intelligent design" is uncontroversial in itself. The words "intelligent design" were chosen as an end-run around the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguilard.  In 1989, Charles Thaxton's book Of Pandas and People, prior to being published, had the words "intelligent design" inserted as a replacement for almost every instance of the use of the word "creationism".  In 1990, the Discovery Institute was founded, and fairly quickly became the locus of the intelligent design movement.  In 1991 Phillip E. Johnson published Darwin on Trial, having already become involved with a co-founder of the DI, Stephen Meyer  and other DI affiliates, and in 1996 Johnson became the co-founder and program director of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, under the umbrella of the DI.  Consistent with the original use of "intelligent design" as an attempt to end-run Edwards v. Aguilard, the DI affiliates latched onto the term and proceeded to develop their synthesized variation of the ancient teleological argument. Etc., etc.
 * An additional note: (this drawn from an earlier comment above) A longstanding consensus about the structure of the article's intro has existed since the Fall of 2005.  It was hashed out in lengthy discussion among proponents, critics and some apparently neutral parties too. The consensus was that the lead will consist of three short paragraphs; the first consisting of a brief statement of what ID is as put forward by its proponents and who are the proponents; the second would summarize the position of the scientific community; and the third would synopsize ID's current legal standing.  Since then, many dozens of editors have discussed this and found it reasonable, with, of course, some vociferous objections along the way too. Of course, a consensus can always be revisited and re-consensused given an equivalent or overriding impetus to do so.  But I think it should be kept in mind how it was that the current structure came into being. ... Kenosis 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current structure is fine as long as your reader keeps reading. It is not so good if you want an accuracy when your reader may not read past the first paragraph.  I won't disagree with you about ID being controversial, it's just that it's not in the same league as calling ID science, which is just plain false.
 * Kenosis, I know how much goes into crafting these things. I will say once more that I am reluctant to leave the first paragraph with a false assertion, even indirect, without correction in that same paragraph, but if the consensus is that it should be left alone, then so be it.Trishm 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be an appropriate point in time to refer back to the principle of bivalence. As I attempted to point out in a recent edit summary, the use of "false", or even a word such as "mistaken", is not properly applicable to this situation, which plainly involves an argument here on the talk page that is intended to advocate summarizing the "intelligent design" issue en todo immediately in the first sentence of the article.  The reason that such an approach is unworkable is because it is not a bivalent analysis that is involved in this particular thread, or I would prefer to say "closely related" or "integrally involved" set of threads all falling under the rubrick of "intelligent design" in the current zeitgeist of the modern world, but instead involves a substantial number of isses, a few of which I pointed out just above. ... Kenosis 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for persisting. That was a useful link, because I have a strong background in propositional logic, and I can see that we are not getting hung up on different nuances of "false", which I thought might have been the case.  Let me see if I can restate what we are trying to say to each other, where proposition P = "ID is a science".  I don't think we disagree that P is false, no matter what definition you use, on the proviso that you accept current scientific and legal definitions, and wikipedia more or less demands that.   You are rightly concerned that a statement like "ID-ers assert P; P is false" gives the impression that the article is going to be anti-id, and doesn't reflect the incredible NPOV efforts throughout the article.  My view is that having the statement "ID-ers assert P" on the leading paragraph, with "P is false" on the next, is a separation that we should avoid if we can.  OK.   If my understanding is correct, these are not mutually-exclusive constraints at all.  I will put forth another idea, ever so slightly altering what the first three paragraphs should do:


 * 1. Definition and philosophy of ID, as put forward by the proponents, not including the declaration that ID is a science. No balancing required.
 * 2. Science stuff: ID assertion, "ID as science", with science community position as stands in paragraph 2.
 * 3. Legal stuff: as stands.Trishm 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out what's made clear in the footnote; !. also excludes the claim put forward by the proponents that ID is a "theory" which is used to imply that it's "science", albeit a new theistic science rather than the normal variety. The term "argument" is used by them less often, but was accepted by them at the trial as cited with the caveat that it could be a non-god style being. From memory, Behe has referred to Paley as a predecessor of ID, so if that's correct they have openly acknowledged that they're restating the teleological argument. Anyway, proposed alteration looks good in principle. Look forward to other opinions. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Trishm, some readers will scan only the first paragraph, and a subset of them will come away with the impression that ID is science; the first paragraph should do more to prevent this. No one has seriously contested this, but Trishm's first solution ("falsely assert") has met with - so far - unresolved criticisms and lacks support from other editors. Trishm rejects an alternative for which a consensus seems to exist, "controversial argument", on the basis that ID is not controversial. Trishm proposes another change that, however, would remove one of ID's two defining factors: a major change that would require a major reason for doing so. As I know from experience (and I think this also applies to Trishm) the problem will only affect the opinion of a tiny number of readers. Repairing it is more or less erring on the safe side, but I agree that we should do so if possible. Therefore, the question is: should we perform a major overhaul of the paragraph in order to solve a minor problem? Especially when the problem lies in the careless attitude of some readers who misunderstand the paragraph and fail to read the rest of the lead? I don't think so. It would be interesting to know a percentage or some other objective indication of the number (or type) of readers this will affect but I don't think it's likely we will find something more illuminating than the gut feeling of self-identified professionals (yep, that's me, and Trishm). What we can do is examine in more detail what the first paragraph tells the reader. First, we'll take a look at the structure of the paragraph. It consists of two juxtaposed statements:


 * 1) statement of fact: ID is a notion/concept/argument (ID is better than mutation/natural selection)
 * 2) statement of opinion: ID is asserted to be a scientific theory

In other words, the paragraph already tells the discerning reader that ID is not a scientific theory. It's just an argument. Only its proponents say it's a scientific theory.

But there's more. "Proponents assert" implies that there are also opponents and/or neutral parties. Even the less discerning reader will get the feeling there's more to come. We're now down to the undiscerning/gullible/prejudiced/stupid readers. How far should we go to upset a carefully balanced structure in order to help them? I say: not far at all.

But the small analysis above also illustrates why inserting a qualifier like "controversial" does help; added to the two indicators already warning the reader that ID is in for heavy weather in the rest of the article, "controversial" would adequately inform all readers but the stupid and the very young. Most other cautioning words would do the trick just as well, so I now propose that we simply put in "claim" instead of "assert" or "say" [that intelligent design is a scientific theory]. A bit negative where we want to give the ID view first, but, I think, warranted as a minor fix to definitively resolve a minor problem.

PS On par with Trishm's wish to make sure readers are not misinformed: Although many editors here are able to put their comments on talk pages in an academic format/tone/jargon, I recommend that we all try to keep it to a minimum.

AvB ÷ talk  10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that there is much of a difference between "claim", "assert" and "say". Trishm 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that concludes this particular discussion without a consensus to change anything. AvB &divide; talk  01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FA
Any suggestions on what to add to make this an FA? G e  o. 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want an idea of what is involved, take a look at the process going on right now at evolution. For example, look at Featured article review/Evolution.--Filll 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Evolution was already a FA. What is being discussed now? The quality of proposals going on there now are quite poor compared to previous months; I don't see how any of that would be an improvement. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Avoid having freepers show up here would be a good start, Geo. But as I mentioned here before, we'll need a process to deal with bad faith objections from ideological ax grinders attempting to scuttle the FA bid. FA attempts for articles on controversial topics in which one side is running a wide disinformation campaign (as is ID) are almost invariably scuttled by bad faith, baseless objections raised by ideological ax-grinders. That was the cause of the last attempt for this article. For this FA to succeed, there will need to be in place an ad hoc process for discounting baseless objections; moving them off of the FA page and onto the talk page and limiting participation to established editors in good standing, perhaps. For example, an objection to the article that ignores the fact that WP:NPOV requires both sides to be presented should not count against the article gaining FA status, and should be removed from consideration. I've suggested something like this before, and there was strong support for doing this then. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on the scientific community's view of ID
I believe some further minor editing will need to be done on the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Currently it reads: "The international scientific community has declared intelligent design to be unscientific,[13] pseudoscience[14][15][16] and junk science.[17][18]" Perhaps it should read "The international scientific community has declared intelligent design to be unscientific,[13] pseudoscience[14][15][16] and/or junk science.[17][18]" (Proposed change emphasized in bold.) Although WP:MOS prescribes avoiding "and/or", I believe this would be an exception but would need some degree of consensus to override the MOS guideline in this instance. Or, perhaps there's another accurate way of phrasing that sentence. ... Kenosis 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "unscientific, pseudoscience, and junk science" sounds multiply redundant to me. Pseudoscience and junk science are unscientific. In any case, simply changing the word "and" to "or" doesn't necessarily imply "exclusive or" - it can also mean a combination of things in the list. I think the word "or" is more appropriate in that sentence than and/or. -Amatulic 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The devil in the details is that "unscientific" includes pseudoscience and junk science. Different organizations and prominent individuals within the scientific community have characterized ID in ways that include one or more of "not scientific" or "unscientific", pseudoscientific, and junk science, in varying combinations, though the entire community has not chosen to use all three classifications (or characterizations) in describing ID. ... Kenosis 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I say keep it as it is. What it accurately displays is that this entire hypothesis is viewed as complete crap by the scientific community and worth being thrown in the garbage, from whence it climbed in a desperate attempt to get around the Supreme Court ruling. It is driven by a political bunch, less interested in doing science than doing politics. That is why they had the Templeton Foundation refuse to give them any more money, since they had squandered what they had been given. They refuse to do any science, but just insist on grandstanding and being blowhards in the press. They essentially bought themselves the disasterous Dover situation by being such @#$%^&* and of course, there are people out there stupid enough to buy it. So they were lead like a lamb to the slaughter, and made complete fools of in front of the entire country. And with precedent, another brick was placed in the wall. They are banging their heads on the wall and squandering what good will and credibility they might have had if they had played it smarter. They might have more degrees (or at least degrees that do not come out of Cracker Jacks boxes) than kooks and fruitcakes like Ham and Hovind and Gish, but they are behaving basically like a circus sideshow.--Filll 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, the devil's in the details here, and given the contentious history of this article, I figure it's only a matter of time before someone complains about it, either from the scientific community or from the ID Department of Propaganda (IDDP), or alternately, from the Wikipedia Department of Strict Literal Logical Positivism (WDSLLP). The scientific community generally does not use the term "junk science" in its official statements, and only a few scientific organizations have shown willingness to use the term "pseudoscience".  The previous wording was correct, while the current wording is not correct.  The previous wording was: "The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science.[16][17]"(italics mine)  Someone more recently added the word "international", and changed the verb from "views" to "has declared".  And in fact, the scientific community has not declared that it is "junk science", because that's basically a locker-room term used behind the scenes (and also, of course, used by opposing camps in political and commercial squabbles).  We have citation for the assertion that this is in fact the way it's viewed by the sci community, but that community has in no way declared it to be such.  The use of "pseudoscience" should be seen similarly, except that the scientific organizations are divided about the use of the term; some have used it, and some haven't, yet it plainly is viewed as pseudoscience, and is verified as such by the fact that some sizeable organizations have chosen to take that extra step and call it "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific".  So, perhaps the sentence would be more accurate if it accommodated the request to clarify that the relevant scientific community is to some extent "international" (the issue has consumed US politics but also has been an issue in the UK and Australia to date, with commentary from organizations in both of those nations), but did not use the words "has declared".  Seems to me that the following wording would work: "The scientific community, both in the United States and worldwide, views intelligent design as unscientific,[12] as pseudoscience[13][14][15] or as junk science.[16][17]"(italics mine)... Kenosis 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok--Filll 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, one minor suggestion, we might consider using something less all inclusive than "worldwide", maybe something like "..both in the United States and abroad". I'm thinking of a pre-emptive strike because I think we will have a line of people demanding we prove the world wide bit.   With that in mind we can easily support "abroad" but I'm not sure we could support "world wide".  That's my take on it.  Mr Christopher 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, Mr. Christopher. I don't think we absolutely need specify what countries at that stage of the article, TBH.  It has the unexpected secondary of hinting at where the controversy is primarily located, but that it's also reared its head elsewhere. Actually, in my estimation that whole clause needn't be there; no need to specify because the scientific community is inherently international anyway.  Indeed it should be presumed to be international unless otherwise specified.   ... Kenosis 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement. Mr Christopher 16:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I am totally happy with "United States and worldwide/abroad/etc"...it seems rather US-centric. Although ID is a primarily US topic, we can't write articles from the perspective of any one country.  I suppose I don't understand why we need: "The scientific community, both in the United States and worldwide".  Is there some reason to believe that the scientific community would be more (or less) sympathetic to ID in one part of the world or another?  Guettarda 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may seem that way at first glance, but fact is the US is where it's centered and where it primarily arose in response to Edwards v. Aguilard. Anyway, I will take the affirmative step of eliminating that clause, with the assumption that "scientific community" should be viewed as international unless otherwise specified. ... Kenosis 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First ref
The first ref refers to the removed word "discredited". Adam Cuerden talk 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
Please read this article in its entirety and then comment on if it should be linked under "see also". Struct 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it does or not, we'd need an outside source saying it is per WP:V to get it in the article. FeloniousMonk 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There are of course plenty of "outside sources" that would opine as such, but they don't conform to the standards laid out in WP:V.  Would you agree that what is specifically needed is a source along the lines of a Sociology, Anthropology or Political Science Journal that asserts that ID is, per the article on cults, "a cohesive group of people... devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream... due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful effects on members, or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture?"
 * Struct 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Struct said There are of course plenty of "outside sources" that would opine as such, but they don't conform to the standards laid out in WP:V.  Whether FM or anyone else agrees with you is irrelevant. Those sources that do not conform to WP:V have no basis for being mentioned or considered in an article.  FM gave you a link to policy for a reason, please don't take up space here debating the merits of policy or ways to circumvent them.  Mr Christopher 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a rather sophomoric attempt to undermine my credibility. Would you care to elaborate on how, precisely, my comment debates the merits of policy or outlines means to circumvent it?  Especially when I specifically go out of my way to detail how an addition to the article could, would and should conform to WP:V?!?
 * Struct 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No but I'm sure you'll find someone else who might engage you. And you certainly don't need me to undermine your credibility, your edits do a nice job of that. Mr Christopher 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you have contributed nothing to the conversation, failed to justify your argument and engaged in a baseless ad hominem attack.
 * Struct 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per your talk page directed at me and another editor who complained about your wholesale, unsupported, uncited, POV pushing, "I'm not going to have any spare time until May or June, but as soon as I do, I'm going to bury both of your misguided criticisms in Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science and Psychology citations to the contrary"  I'm looking forward to that burial.  In the meantime please do not make unsupported, uncited edits to this article.  Mr Christopher 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Struct, the cite you now offer does not support your assertion ("On 19 October 2005, Michael Behe testified under oath that his definition of a "theory" is so broad that it would include astrology and other cargo cult sciences"), it makes no mention of cargo cult science. You can attack me all day long on my talk page but this is still original research on your part and does not belong in the article.  Mr Christopher 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Id as a cargo cult science link, er, opinion
User Struct just edited most every intelligent design related article and joined them all to the cargo cult science category. That article is not only suspect, it does not even mention intelligent design nor any related subjects. I reverted his change and he reverted me back and suggested I should discuss it on the talk page. I don't have time to engage in an edit war or even debate the issue. on his his talk page I gave/give my reasons and formally objected to his edits and asked him to self revert. Mr Christopher 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been at this morning on several articles. User:David D. and I have been doing a ton of reverts.  I kind of agree with his ideas, or at least to discuss his ideas, but his tactics are reprehensible.  Orangemarlin 18:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted a few of his edits as well today. I would caution other editors in discussing the so-called cult or cargo cult science "link" to ID on the project page without having some sort of support for it.  I say this because as of yet we have not seen a single reliable source who stated as much so at this juncture the unsupported claim serves only as an inflamatory opinion for which I think we're better off debating elsewhere so as not to needlessly distract/disrupt the project page.  Mr Christopher 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have been reverting. Not agreeing.  Orangemarlin 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. My "cautioning other editors" comment was a pre-emptive strike and not meant to anyone in particular.  And I think my motive for saying so is obvious, it's an inflammatory assertion for which there is currently no basis.  Sorry if my comment seemed to suggest you were out of line or in any way fanning flames.  Mr Christopher 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I've often thought that ID meets the bar for being a cargo cult science, that is just my personal opinion. Without a source that fits WP:RS, it cannot be noted in the article per WP:V. FeloniousMonk 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an acceptable source from the National Review; it's rather good actually: If a few more sources turn up we may want to work this into the article. FeloniousMonk 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks FM, Your search skills are superior to mine. I hadn't come up with anything so far :-)  Although I don't find this singular example compelling it certainly gives us a ground zero for a discussion.  Mr Christopher 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see Denyse O'Leary's blog and book. AvB &divide; talk  21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing search windows I noticed another one where Ann Coulter likens Darwinists to cargo cultists. AvB &divide; talk  21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS O'Leary also writes about one of Raspor's points, in The Catholic Church and ID: What's really happening?. Searching for this book as an e-book I came across related information here and here. In the meantime I'm dipping into the wonderful world of Raelism. AvB &divide; talk  21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's a slippery slope when we start quoting pundits and not social psychologists or sociologists on what constitutes a cult (be it cargo or religious). I'm sure there are zillions of sources who claim "Darwinism" is a religion, cult, brain washing group, etc.  But hey those links to the Islamic IDer are priceless.  Once thing I like about foreign ID folks is they tend to be more honest (on accident) about the purpose and motives behind ID.  I am on a few raelian email lists and I keep meaning to attend one of their local events but so far my schedule hasn't been cooporative.  I have a feeling they're a hoot to drink with :-) They have a social even near me about once a month and always make it clear they'll be enjoying the hot tub and cocktails after the meeting.  I say make mine a double! Mr Christopher 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Teehee, agreed on all counts. AvB &divide; talk  15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait-where was the part about the Islamic IDer? what did I miss???--Filll 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's here and here. AvB &divide; talk  16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks. You have to read this one if you have not already. Absolutely amazing.--Filll 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, haven't been able to get it to load. However, the Catholic article linked to this biog of Ken Miller which struck me as a good read. .. dave souza, talk 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Miller article is quite relevant in this context. AvB &divide; talk  22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll's pitch.com page was certainly interesting. I found it archived at Wayback: http://web.archive.org/web/20060429222421/http://www.pitch.com/issues/2005-05-05/news/feature_print.html
 * AvB &divide; talk  22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I find that pitch.com article so interesting is that I have from time to time encountered Muslims here who claim that there is no creationism problem anywhere in Islam, and Islam is perfectly scientific and rational unlike the stupid Christians. I also have encountered similar attitudes from Hindus, but a little investigation shows that neither Islam nor Hinduism is immune to the same sorts of forces that drive creationism in the US. However, people like to deny this.--Filll 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

misleading use of the word "argument" - proposed change
I propose the following change to the first paragraph:

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument[1] 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."[2][3][4] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] 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.[12]

There is one change: the addition of the word religious. The citation recognises the ambiguity of the word "argument", stating that: "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument...". If the word argument is left unqualified here it is misleading because it implies a scientific argument, since the quotation mentions scientific concepts rather than religious concepts. Trishm 09:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is your second attempt to make the first paragraph stand alone. However, the discussion re the first attempt is still unfinished. I'd like to hear your view on the last proposal, which you can find here. Thanks, AvB &divide; talk  13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems true that the first sentence (as currently written, a close variation of the way it's been written for about a year) leaves open the question of whether "intelligent design" is reasonably categorized as, for example, a religious or philosophical or theological argument, or for that matter as a skeptical argument in reaction to the concept of evolution by natural selection. Fact is, at minimum it's also a philosophical and a theological argument or concept, as distinguished from a specifically and solely religious argument or concept. But it's unnecessary to say all this in the first sentence.  The second sentence then proceeds to introduce to the reader the primary reason why it's controversial, and the following sentences proceed to explain what the current status of the controversy is. The scientific community says, essentially, "no it ain't science", and a federal court has said, essentially, "don't teach this in public school science classes". If y'ask me, the second sentence (of the first paragraph) should be followed by a brief additional sentence stating the most engaging part of the controversy, which is that its advocates have attempted to impose it upon science curricula in the public school system, especially in the US.  But that little dilemma is already solved by telling the reader that in the third short paragraph (I believe that's the fifth and sixth sentences of the article). ... Kenosis 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. Also see item #13 in this talk page's Archives sidebar: discussions & longstanding consensus regarding the article's intro here and here. AvB &divide; talk  15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AvB, I would feel a lot more comfortable if you directly answered my posts. What you are both telling me is that getting accuracy within the first paragraph is not important if you cover the material soon after. Have I got that right?Trishm 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't got that right. I'm saying (1) you haven't responded to my compromise proposal that intends to get something of your previous edit into the article (2) Kenosis said that well in my opinion (3) clicking on the links will give you the arguments that have presumably led to the longstanding consensus regarding the article's lead. AvB &divide; talk  21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did respond. You had "tweaked" your comment yesterday, and I responded today. And I have read the archives.
 * By the time you responded, that proposal had been sitting there unanswered for 4.5 days. The tweak did not change the proposed edit. AvB &divide; talk  01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was obscure to me what the proposal was, exactly.Trishm 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken if you think I am attacking a long-standing consensus. Prior to to Jan 10th, a few days ago, the introduction read "concept" instead of "argument".  That was fine.  This was changed by killerchihuaha to "argument", with justification being the cite that I referred to above.  The problem is that the cite does not justify using the word "argument", as I have explained.  Reverting the recent change back to the previous consensus of "concept" would be fine by me. Trishm 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As explained before, including in the archives you have read, and especially at this link which I gave you, the longstanding consensus is that the first paragraph will give the POV of ID's leading proponents. I am quite sure that leading proponents do not see it as a religious argument. AvB &divide; talk  01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor was the consensus that it was a scientific argument. Why are you happy for killerchihuaha to make the change from concept to argument, but ready to flame me for wanting to either make it internally consistent (i.e. add in "religious" as the cite would indicate), or change it back to the consensus, as if I'm ignoring the consensus?  Am I making a mistake by trying to discuss it first? Trishm 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That change was supported by a new WP:Consensus (which overrides an old one). Please accept my apologies for inadvertently causing you to feel flamed. AvB &divide;  talk  01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry that I hadn't picked up on the previous consensus. It made sense when I followed your link - I hadn't realised that the first paragraph was reflecting that discussion.  Trishm 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the assertion above by Trishm, which read "What you are both telling me is that getting accuracy within the first paragraph is not important if you cover the material soon after.": Actually my point was a bit different. The statement that ID is a "religious argument" is incomplete and quite arguably incorrect once the adjective "religious" is added to it.  The adjective "religious" does not fully reflect what the courts said, nor fully reflect what ID is. It is a philosophical argument and theological argument, which the court in Kitzmiller characterized as "essentially religious in nature".  (That statement by the court is set in the context of parsing out whether it is A) scientific, and B) sufficiently secular so as not to constitute a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.)  Moreover, ID is a philosophical or theological argument whose proponents attempt to cast it as a scientific theory competitive with evolution by natural selection, one which should be taught in the public schools side by side with evolution.
 * The statement in the first sentence of the WP article that it is an "argument" or "concept", on the other hand, is complete and correct in its own right. There's only so much one can say in an opening sentence, and given the complexities of the subject matter, the present opening sentence already says about as much as can be said in one sentence, unless, of course, you're Kenosis on the talk page, who, given to frequent use of run-on sentences, might or might not necessarily be explicitly criticized for the practice, but when, should such run-on sentence(s) be used in the article itself, would, with virtual certainty, be roundly criticized as a run-on sentence and accordingly chopped down by the WP Linguistic Police. ... Kenosis 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take your point that "religious argument" is misleading.  That means that  the citation as it is given is misleading as well.   The word "argument" can be used in several different senses, one of them scientific.  The scientific sense of argument is not the one that we want to use here, yet it is the default sense in this particular sentence because of the reference to the scientific concept of natural selection.


 * What about reverting the recent change back to using "concept"? Trishm 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd make the revert myself back to the longstanding language, except that Petesmiles, KillerChihuahua, Filll, Dave Souza, I think Avb too, and perhaps others, appeared like they may have been advocating the recent change, though it was difficult to tell who exactly was advocating what. I recall Guettarda taking the skeptical side, and I personally didn't mind one way or the other whether it was "concept" or "argument".  The word "argument" is not as widely understood as "concept"; some immediately take it to mean "controversy", but since there indeed is a controversy involved, I was OK with it in the opening sentence of the article.  I would say that discussion (several sectiona above on this page) is still in the preliminary stages at this point.  I wouldn't mind at all seeing the earlier language ("concept") back in the article, though I'd really like to see the link to teleological argument left in place and see if it adequately withstands scrutiny in the near future.  Perhaps that'll be regarded as a suitable outcome on that one issue? ... Kenosis 01:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose change per previous consensus. AvB &divide; talk  01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the word argument to concept(see Avb's link above...). I think to use concept seems to imply a link between the historical concept and the DI. In addition to points i've made previously - i'd add that if we're to keep the link to teleological argument, i don't think it's going to fly to link from the word concept - that would certainly confuse me...... cheers, Petesmiles 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "concept" is accurate, something needs to be done. ID is a proposition (viz. 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. "), and there are several arguments for and against it. There's really no justifiable way to label it an argument, and a judge misusing a word doesn't really count as justification. As it stands, the opening sentence of this article is simply nonsensical. If not "concept," then perhaps "proposition" or "thesis" would be ideal. Please note that "theory" (as raspor has recommended) is not appropriate as there are copious quantities of reliable sources stating that intelligent design is not so. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note how many alternatives have been proposed here in rapid succession, including but not necessarily limited to "argument", "theory", "proposition", "teleological argument", and "religious argument". This is in large part why the word "concept" has been used for most of the article's recent history (at least the past year, I think). It's the most nondescript way of stating what category of thing-in-the-world ID belongs to, roughly equivalent to the word "idea".  I have no personal objection to the use of either "argument" or "proposition" either.  But "argument" is a term of art in law, philosophy and theology, and may also imply the day-to-day use of the word (as in a "household argument"), which I hope is not the intended meaning that anyone's arguing for here.  So I would think it would tend to be a bit less understandable to many readers. And "proposition" is a term of art in logic and philosophy, a word whose exact meaning may escape many readers not familiar with the language used by these disciplines. ... Kenosis 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Goes back to the old saying "never take down a fence until you know why it was put up." And that's why I sat this debate out; look at the archives, it's been discussed dozens of times before and we always come to settle on the compromise "concept." It's imperfect, but accurate, and accuracy is the best you can hope for when one side insists on misrepresenting what it is promoting. FeloniousMonk 05:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think concept is overall a less suitable term than argument because all ID arguments are led by the DI, but not all ID concepts (certainly not historically). Also, the criticism of argument seems to be that it isn't specific enough - and my feeling is that it is when we over specify that we run into trouble. Re-reading the threads above - i actually think Felonious' latest suggestion (a few paras up) is also very strong (better than the status quo? - probably...) - p'raps we should consider it? Cheers, Petesmiles 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, criticism of the word "argument" is not that it isn't specific enough. It is that the word has different very specific meanings in different contexts, ranging from "side of a slanging match, through "idea", to "philosophical argument", "religious argument" and "scientific argument".  In this particular case, the context of the sentence implies that it is a scientific argument, which is not correct.  If there were no mention of a scientific concept as part of the definition of ID, then ambiguity would not be a a problem.  This type of confusion of contexts is often used by political writers, because it allows an impression to be formed without a direct statement which can be quoted and argued against.  Please don't think that I am referring to any wikipedia editors, whom I believe are making valiant efforts to sort this out as clearly and neutrally as possible.  The source of the confusion is not wikipedia. Trishm 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the ID's enthusiasm for philosophy. using a piped link to describe it as a "a philosophical argument" would be clearer than "concept" or "argument". However, taking the point Simões makes, "a philosophical proposition" would appear to be more accurate – presumably that could also link to the teleological argument. Another point to consider relates to the claim that it's a scientific theory: the DI seem to be pretty open about this depending on science being redefined with a basis in "theistic realism" and it would be worthwhile making this clear in the first paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Thesis" is good, but I know some will consider that too technical. "Claim", perhaps? Indeed, this might be rather too radical, but how about "The Intelligent Design movement claims that "certain features...", etc? Tevildo 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Petesmiles' point just above, that one of the problems with the first sentence is that the "concept" or "argument" or "proposition" or whatever it's called, inadvertently conflates the use of the term with the concept, idea, underlying assertion, or whatever it's called. It's a perennial problem of ontology that has to do with what is meant by "is" or by any form of the verb "to be" (even Spanish doesn't solve it with the use of dual forms of "to be", incidentally).  So, given all this good faith argument (pardon my use of that word here) about semantics, how about attempting a slightly more accurate introductory paragraph? such as, for instance?


 * Intelligent design (ID) is an argument, or set of arguments, holding 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. "  It is a version of teleological argument for the existence of God  with the name "intelligent design" applied in an attempt to appear non-religous.  Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,      claim 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.
 * I'm sure we can find at least three or four good references where I put the "citation needed", assuming a consensus can be achieved to deal with the problem of term vs. concept a bit more explicitly in the opening paragraph. (The footnotes are incorrectly numbered due to the placement here on the talk page.) ... Kenosis 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with "argument" is that it requires abuse of the English language. Arguments don't have proponents (well, except in the very rarified sense where a number of arguments are in conflict - a "teleological argument proponent" would be supporting the teleological argument over (say) the ontological argument, not using the argument itself); proponents use arguments to support their positions.  Arguments don't "hold (that)" anything, neither do they "claim" anything - people who deploy arguments hold views and make claims, and arguments attempt to demonstrate those claims, rather than being the claims themselves.  Intelligent Design may use the teleological argument, but it isn't, in itself, the teleolgical argument.  If the choice is between "argument" and "concept", I think "concept" is better.  How about "position" or "viewpoint"? Tevildo 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, how about the following, towards the possibility of a slightly more explicit first paragraph.


 * Intelligent design (ID) refers to 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. "  It is a version of teleological argument for the existence of God  with the name "intelligent design" applied in an attempt to appear non-religous.  Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,      claim 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.
 * Once again, I'm sure we can find at least three or four good references where I put the "citation needed", assuming a consensus can be achieved to deal with the problem of term vs. concept a bit more explicitly in the opening paragraph. (Again, footnotes are incorrectly numbered due to the placement here on the talk page.) ... Kenosis 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent (I think)> Kenosis, I like your proposal. Count me in. Mr Christopher 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, as well. I would probably put just "is the concept" rather than "refers to the concept", but the draft is OK as it stands. Tevildo 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"...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 bit of the lead seems like strong POV pushing, setting the views of a small number of people in the ID movement equal to the huge majority of biological scientists. This may be what they vlaim, but their claims have no basis in reality and the way it's presented is ridiculously Pro-ID. Can we rephrase or cut it? Adam Cuerden talk 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like POV pushing to me - it is what they say! I don't read that sentence as in any way condoning or validating the ID argument. I'd like to reword that awkward ', or is superior to,' clause, but unfortunately it's cited and accurate, and we can't really play around with it too much therefore.... cheers, Petesmiles 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it does not seem too positive for ID. In fact, the ID supporters here all are frantic to change it since they think it is so negative.--Filll 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to figure out the subtleties of NPOV, but since this is an article about ID, shouldn't it state what they claim it is, not what we think it is? The sections refuting the silliness of ID are sufficient to me.  Orangemarlin 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin, it is odd to me too. The problem is what the DI and leading ID proponents definition of ID is not an honest representation of what it actually is (they claim is is a scientific theory, the science community says it is not, they claim it is not religious, the court has found otherwise).  So as editors we're put in an awkward position for which I don't have an immediate suggestion but using the DI and their affiliate's definition sure brings up alot of tension here on the talk page.  I have always thought we should say something like "according to ID proponents, ID is...., according to the science community ID is..., and according to a federal case, ID is..." and cover all the bases. Mr Christopher 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Their claims have to be stated as such. NPOV calls for significant viewpoints to be described and attributed to those that hold them. If that is the viewpoints of proponents of ID, then it should be stated, regardless is that claim is contradictory to established science or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, this is an exceptional point that should also be made in the section that preceeds this one. In fact if we followed what NPOV calls for we'd simpify out task and a ton of the arguments about the lead will diminish.  Mr Christopher 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that ID is a scientific theory with better explanatory power than evolution is not only just what ID proponents say, as the source in the article shows, it is the fulcrum on all their claims turn. If it weren't, ID would just be another run-of-the-mill religious notion and this article would need only be half as long (and we'd all be out work here). FeloniousMonk 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you have an excellent point. However, I'm not clear on your definition of a "significant viewpoint".  For example, no-one can truthfully claim that ID is science.  That claim is not a significant viewpoint, from either a science or religious perspective.  Also, no-one can truthfully claim that ID proponents make up anything other than a tiny minority of religious adherents.  The reason the view of the DI can be considered significant at all, and thus worthy of an article, is that the DI is trying to influence politicians around the world to change the educational curriculum regarding the teaching of evolution, largely by misrepresention, including misrepresenting the very nature of science. Wikipedia NPOV has as a core value that nothing should be misrepresented.


 * From NPOV:
 * None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. ... But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth. Trishm 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I do not understand Jossi's point. I think it does what he wants already. --Filll 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of non-intelligent designers creating intelligent design or designers...
Do these examples exist? The only thing I can think maybe fits this is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but that is not a theory. (CptKirk 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't understand your question. (And how is abiogenesis not a theory?)  Guettarda 16:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See abiogenesis. It is a hypothesis not a theory. To ratify my question. Are there examples of non-intelligent things giving rise/creating/producing something that is intelligent design or produces actual intelligent designers? (CptKirk 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
 * A big problem (as you can doubtless see from this talk page) is defining "intelligent design" - and, indeed, "intelligence" itself. However, if we step outside biology and the DI definition, you might want to take a look at Genetic algorithm. Tevildo 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Abiogenesis is a process, not an hypothesis or a theory, fundamentally. But I still don't understand what you are asking.  Are there examples of non-intelligent things giving rise/creating/producing something that is intelligent design or produces actual intelligent designers just doesn't make sense to me.  What do you mean by something that is intelligent design?  If you want to consider humans "intelligent designers", then yes, of course: humans could be considered "intelligent designers" which were, of course, produced from some ancestor which wasn't intelligent.  But I doubt your question is that trivial.  Can you explain yourself any better?  Guettarda 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may... :) As I understand the question, CptKirk is asking something along the lines of "Is there anything that appears to be "intelligently designed" (either in the DI sense or a more casual meaning of the words) that is demonstrably a result of an unintelligent process?"  Answering "humanity" or "life" is really begging the question - it's assuming that the main thesis of ID is false.  We can't demonstrate that life, or the universe as a whole, isn't designed (we can believe that it isn't, of course); what we can demonstrate is (a) a belief that the universe is designed is religious rather than scientific, (b) all of the DI's examples of "design" (flagella, immune system, etc) can be explained by the theory of evolution without having to invoke God, (c) that apparently "designed" systems can be produced by (demonstrably) unintelligent processes, such as genetic algorithms. Tevildo 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And thus I asked for clarification. The question of whether there [is] anything that appears to be "intelligently designed" depends on one's definitions of "intelligence", "design" and "intelligent design".  Natural selection produces systems which appear "designed".  It is an optimisation algorithm.  So everything appears to be intelligently designed.  ID suggests that some subset of the things that appear intelligently designed (ie, everything) is too unlikely to have originated through the processes which produced all the rest of the things that appear intelligently designed.  And, these things (none of which have been identified) "cannot" be explained by known mechanisms (despite the fact that these known mechanisms are able to produce all the other systems which appear to have been intelligently designed), these (unidentified things) are evidence of an "intelligent designer", as opposed to, say, some other natural process.
 * Inasmuch as there is overwhelming evidence that living things, which appear intelligently designed, are, in fact, the product of natural processes, and there isn't a shred of evidence of anything that is intelligently designed...the answer is yes, every living things appears intelligently designed, all there is overwhelming evidence that it was produced by natural processes. Guettarda 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I agree with the definition, but isn't the definition owned by those who push it. Essentially, they are saying that the universe and life was created by a supernatural being.  Orangemarlin 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I think I might look into Genetic Algorithms as a possibility. I guess fundamentally intelligent design can be explained in more rational ways. The problem is that this appears to be a case of waiting for advances in abiogenesis from hypothesis to theory. We dont even have a factual instance of abiogenesis which I think is interesting. Yes, I believe we are intelligent designers, but saying that we didn't come from intelligent ancestors begs the question "what is intelligence?". I guess anything that has the capacity to learn something. Even single cell organisms seem to be able to do that... and aren't we supposed to have come from one of those according to Darwin? By the way, would any of you consider something like the Miller-Urey experiment a possible avenue here of interest? (CptKirk 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC))