Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 35

Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church
With the exception of the last sentance, this edit does not appear to be about ID. In addition, the Schönborn statement has been addressed elsewhere. I don' think this addition is particularly useful. Guettarda 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is related. It might find a better home on some other articles. So I might be inclined to steal it and you can put a shorter summary here.--Filll 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already an article about Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. This section is about that, and links to that article.  I could see a link from Creation-evolution controversy, maybe even a sentance or two there, but I see it as too tangential for this article (especially since this one is already so long).  Guettarda 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll I would cation you in that the issue is not as black and white as the article portrays it. Both sides of the issue hotly debate what the Pope (and the other Catholics mentioned) actually meant and believe.  Both sides of the debate claim them as siding with their respective positions.  The DI claims the Pope and so do many ID critics.  That section could use a crticism section all unto itself.  Mr Christopher 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is a balancing act, and the RC Church does not want to repeat the performance with Galileo etc.--Filll 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy that you like this. I believe since the Catholic position wasn't there, it should be, because it adds a very interesting dimension to this. Personally I believe the right now the RCC has no actual position on the ID we see here in the article but has its position firmly in the original sin of first man, i.e - the 1st homo sapien, not sola scriptura which is the Protestant literal interpretation of the Bible. On this point it is important to cover that the RCC teach secular evolution in Catholic schools and that if ID contradicts it then by reason of deduction it can not support ID. By the way Galileo was wrong about the sun being the centre of the universe and Newton pretty much proved that Galilieo couldn't prove Jack without Newton's brains :)... although kudos he got the general idea right, but then again so did the Catholic Priest Copernicus. I don't see how anyone can think the Church rejects evolution because it does not and again by implication of association anything in ID that condtradicts evolution is inherently wrong to them. (CptKirk 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I removed the section and will do so again if it is restored. It adds nothing to the article, and is essentially sectarian.  Shall we, in order to be fair, also have ID and Shia Islam, ID and Sikhism, ID and Pentacostalism, ID and Sunni Islam, ID and Buddhism, ID and Lutheranism, ID and Hassidic Jews, ID and the Anabaptists, ID and Orthodox Jews, ID and Shintoism, ID and Animist religions of Zimbabwe, etc?  And if so, to what end?  I fail to see the relevance of a long dissertation on any religion's views of ID.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel that way and I am sorry that you do not want to debate it. Your opinion of it being "sectarian" means potentially that you have implied that all the references I used in that section are "sectarian". Remember this is not my opinion. It is the due weight of the facts cited using WP:CITE style. Sectarian? Unless you can WP:CITE in order to not violate WP:NOR then I think that opinion might not rub. For this reason you need to establish that opinion using sources to back up your claims which you have not done. I do not understand your end statement on ID. The Catholic Church does not believe in ID and subscribes to evolution. That article implies that all theists subscribe to ID and that is absolutely wrong. I will not revert the section but I will debate this here rationally and come to a conclusion wheither to keep it or not but the onus is on you to show where I failed to meet wikipolicy. Otherwise all you got is some subjective input that isn't wiki quality. And remember use WP:CITE style pls. (CptKirk 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Excellent point Jim. I still don't think that the section has anything to do with ID, but that misses a far more fundamental point of undue weight.  A lengthy discussion of the RC position on ID doesn't belong in this article - not unless the article also dealt with the positions of other religious groups.  We have a pretty solid consensus that Raelian ID, for example, doesn't belong here.  There's nothing with an article about religious views about ID, but it needs to be (a) about ID (this section is about evolution), (b) well sourced, and (c) have an encyclopaedic scope (ie, cover every religion whose scholars have expressed an opinion on ID).  Guettarda 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too sure what this means, "And remember use WP:CITE style pls", or to whom or what it refers. I prefer specifics when one adds snarky little comments. So, pls provide them.
 * Next, "that opinion might not rub"? Rub what?  Also, your assumption that it is an opinion is incorrect: I am adhering to sound Wikipedia principles.  Perhaps, before attempting to lecture, you might want to get a few more than 48 edits under your belt.  This is a time for you to be learning, not for you to be preaching.
 * Finally, the basic argument, as amplified by Guettarda holds: unless we are to provide the views of all religions, the long discursion into the might-be views of the Catholic church are utterly irrelevant and a textbook example of undue weight. Additionally, there is absolutely nothing in that section of the article that implies, or from which can be inferred using due diligence, that ID is supported by all religions, all religious sects or even any specific religions or religious sects.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to note that CptKirk put a significant amount of good faith effort into what he believes was a improvement to the article. Sometimes those little details get overlooked.  I think the consensus is that it might be better couched in the Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church article, and that it makes this article appear lopsided.  I'm not sure if you were aware of that article, CK.  Don't feel bad about your contribution not getting a warm welcome, it happens to all of us.  Mr Christopher 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The material just added, then deleted, is potentially relevant as topic fork or link from the creation-evolution debate, but not to this article. Cardinal Schonborn's view is already mentioned in the intelligent design article.  Note that the Pope was not referring to "intelligent design", a term carefully chosen as an end-run around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States. The Church's official view on evolution, whether regarding it as fact, fiction, or theory, is irrelevant to this article.  So too is the Pope's view on whether God "tweaks the works" or otherwise decides whether, when, to what extent, and/or how speciation will occur.  These are matters for articles such as theistic evolution and old earth creationism. The position put forward by George Coyne S.J. is fairly typical of serious theologians and belongs, if anywhere, in a article on, for example, Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church.  And as someone else pointed out above, there's already an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church ... Kenosis 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't particularly relevant here, the RCC has not played a notable role in the debate over design. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My main reason for the article section is because … It is precisely the issue of “Undue Weight” that I have addressed, which is occurring by omission. I believe that exclusion of official Catholic teachings is a little more than akin to "not telling the whole truth" or only giving "one side" to the story, an inherent bias the article has without the RCC section. Remember we are looking at a potential 1.3 Billion Catholics who may have to reject ID that contradicts evolution. That is what I mean by undue weight. I also want to see the Catholic Church position covered in here because many Catholics actually don't know it. I feel it is unfair not to present it because as you can see even Cardinals of the Church may be misunderstood (and they do because they are not the Magisterium entire) when voicing person opinions, and get quoted on here, with statements that conflict with the official position without including their subsequent clarification. Again this is about undue weight and potential bias. Right now I know my article meets Wikipedia standards and that issues of undue weight are resolved by it. The bullet points are above. Would welcome feedback but if I feel the article does not currently give due weight to theists who are supposed to reject the type of ID that contradicts evolution then I will include it somehow. It would be unethical not too... after all we are looking at 1.3 Billion people in the RCC alone. (CptKirk 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * The article does not cover theists who do not believe in ID.
 * …or any important (owed their due weight) church groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, that reject ID.
 * As it stands the removal of the article by Jim appears to be for reasons that he claims I am giving undue weight to the RCC if we mention them without all the other denominations. I feel this orientation is not how articles become better. If undue weight is properly corrected by citation, which includes the RCC, then due weight is formed. I do not understand what undue weight this section forms (when it does the opposite, it gives due weight) unless one of the major ones of the 33,000 Protestant denominations (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm) also rejects ID and accepts evolution. If this is the case then we may be giving undue weight to the RCC, but as it stands right now, it corrects the undue weight issue raised in the first point.
 * Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church was not introduced into the article. I introduced it. It has been removed again. Thus any claims that this article addresses the issue, omits that there is absolutely no reference to it here on ID.
 * Kenosis correctly identified (I bet he is an intelligent designer, like all you too, and me) that Cardinal Schonborn's personal views are mentioned. However they need to be understood in their complete context (which is actually only half referenced here, and biased (maybe not on purpose because Schonborn's article was updated but bias here none-the-less!), as Schonborn later added he believed in theistic evolution) which in the case of the RCC is secular evolution minus any claims that it disproves God (atheistic evolution which is evolution that attempts to debunk God). This is just one of the many problems I have with undue weight in this article. A Catholic may come across Cardinal Schonborn's position in this ID article and then through his article potentially finding Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church once you get past his personal views. The problem is Schonborn is not the Magisterium and this gives undue weight to his personal views. Due Weight needs to go the Magisterium as the official Roman Catholic position which I referenced in my article citing with WP:CITE style in order not to violate WP:NOR.
 * I feel certain all the editors here already presumed that the proposed new section is well intentioned. But the recently inserted coverage of the RCC's position is extremely off-point for this article.  As mentioned above, it's far more relevant as a topic fork (i.e. a separate article or external link) from the creation-evolution debate. In the intelligent design article, Cardinal Schonborn's view is already mentioned.  The Pope, in the subsection advocated by User:CptKirk, was not referring to "intelligent design", a term carefully chosen as an end-run around the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States. The Church's official view on evolution, whether regarding it as fact, fiction, or theory, is irrelevant to this article.  Also irrelevant is the Pope's view on whether God "tweaks the works" or otherwise decides whether, when, to what extent, and/or how speciation will occur.  These are matters for articles such as theistic evolution and old earth creationism. The position put forward by George Coyne S.J. is fairly typical of serious theologians and may well merit, if there is adequate material specifically on the issue of "intelligent design" beyond what was just provided, a separate article on, for example, Intelligent design and the Roman Catholic Church.  And even then, there's already an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which can readily accommodate the Schonborn/Coyne "debate" about intelligent design per se (unless there's a great deal more to describe about that "debate" that is notable, in which case by all means create a separate article about it, citing sources of course).  But this material simply doesn't belong here in the article on intelligent design because it's not adequately relevant and would force the editors of this article to afford equal coverage to the other 5.7 billion persons who are not Roman Catholic (plus perhaps to need to give additional coverage to any notable views among many hundreds of millions who are Catholic in name only insofar as they're on the RCC's list; and then there are the independently minded American Catholics, who frequently give the Pope agita by vocally choosing not to subscribe to the Pope's position, some of whose views may be notable, etc., etc., etc.).
 * The current article is already over 50kB (32kB is recommended), and there are many other far more directly relevant issues that have already needed to be spun off by the editors into separate articles. Even the links from this article often need additional editorial help because the list often gots too long.  And all of this is primarily because of only one thing, which is the attention or notoriety or fame that ID has gotten in the course of the debate about the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States and this unique attempt to bypass it by conflating science with religion.
 * In sum, this issue of the Roman Catholic Church's positioning in the creation-evolution debate simply is way too far off topic for this article. ... Kenosis 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is about the frame that ID fits in.
 * Is it a religion vs science question? If so, then the POV of other religions is certainly relevant, so that the proper weight can be attributed to proponents of DI.
 * Is it a purely science issue? If so, then no other religious opinion is needed, and the article ought to be really small, because ID is not science by any reasonable current definition.
 * Is it a purely religious question? If so, then all discussion of science should be left right out of it, including mention of scientific claims by the DI.
 * Until we get a handle on what the framework is, our discussions are going to be like trying to hold a slippery fish.Trishm 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trishm, you may like to know (if you do already, then excuse me) that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (referenced in my edit) is a science body and advisor to the Pope.
 * Since ID is not scientific the Academy doesn’t even know what it is, except it contradicts evolution and thus is probably not scientific. So the Pope, who actually held chief positions in important RCC Vatican committees on evolution, will probably never get a conclusive report from that Academy if ID is not a proven science to begin with. In many ways the term ID, once described by Saint Thomas Aquinas (note not the Magisterium) has been seized by a pseudo-scientific crowd (remember Aquinas or the RCC do not directly claim to be scientific on theological matters unless they say so; obviously asking their own scientists on these matters and quoting them) and or refuted scientists, who just happen to please sola scriptura believers (i.e nearly 100% of Christian Protestants, a big sum).
 * The Catholic Church would obviously be very receptive to a scientific theory of God, especially if it turns out to be their one. It just so happens that this articles version of ID just isn’t it and that is the bottom line. 1.3 Billion Catholics need to be weighed in. (CptKirk 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Don't forget billions? of Protestants – the Kirk and the CofE are explicitly against ID, as are mainstream churches: it might be good to give that a brief mention. Always willing to suggest ideas, here's a proposal on the Catholic position to be added in at the end of "Religion and leading proponents" (with existing sentences either side shown in italics):
 * The vast majority of leading intelligent design proponents are evangelical Protestants. Behe is Roman Catholic, and so is out of line with the position of the Church that evolution and faith are compatible. Intelligent Design proponents have been quick to interpret statements such as a newspaper article by Cardinal Schönborn as heralding a shift in position, but further statements have rejected ID as confusing the scientific plane with philosophical or religious ideas. Jonathan Wells, another principal advocate, is a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Sun-Myung Moon.
 * The proposed section looks like good work, but disproportionate in this article: where appropriate, points should be merged into Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. .. dave souza, talk 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions :) That is all I am asking for anyway.I think the Billions of Protestants and Muslims are not left out of this article. In fact that is the problem. They dominate it... hahaha! I just want to correct you on something though. I am not against ID. In fact my belief might be different but that is not important. I actually might subscribe to some type of ID that can be scientifically varified. On your response, it was kind of shocking to actually find myself reading the article and thinking "that could sound like the RCC position if I didn't know better" because of the "all theists reject evolution" type of orientation that the article has. In short this article has the horrible ability to maybe cause many Catholics to start believing in something that is expressly contrary to what is found in Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which isn't mentioned here. Here is a lesson I have learned from this so far - Not only does ID start with the set up that scientists are divided on evolution, it implies that theists reject evolution. This is a critical flaw. (CptKirk 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Since ID is in fact a religious proposition put forth by religionists, would it be feasible to create a small section that covers some of the varying opinions of ID from within the major religious communities? This would include the Catholic church, Islam, and even criticisms from creationist groups.  I think the Captain has made some important points that are not obvious in the article, one of them being not all theists are fond of or subscribe to ID, in fact some are quite hostile to it.  Raspor had noted one leading Islamic creationist who it turns out is quite opposed to ID.  As it stands now the article may give the appearance that ID is a conflic between science and religion when in fact the conflict is much more narrow and includes a small sample of  religionists.  Anyhow, I think looking at ways to include and broaden the viewpoints of major religious groups on ID could be a worthwhile improvement.  Mr Christopher 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to try and maybe establish something. Lets represent the actual figures... There are 592,915,587 Protestants in the world, a little less than 3 in 10 Christians are Protestants. See Protestants by country. There are 1,018,857,238 Baptized Roman Catholics. See Roman Catholicism by country. My 1.3 figure was wrong, sorry but the due weight issue is now more apparent. (CptKirk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I already knew Catholics outnumber everyone else, so what conclusion are you wanting us to come to? Your point is not obvious to me. Mr Christopher 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it. I wanted first to correct my 1,300,000,000 figure. 1,000,000,000 potential Catholics (theists) can not reject evolution on grounds of Church doctrine. No Bishops seem to be actively telling their congregations to reject it. I also gave the correct Protestant figure. Someone else gave the World population figure. I think if we keep going we can actually get the statistics on this and the divisions in a very small chart if needed. (CptKirk 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * (ri) First, this isn't a popularity contest: I don't care, nor probably does anyone else here, how many Catholics there are in the world. The RCC view holds no more credence than the Zoroastrian view, which has far fewer adherents.  The number of adherents to a particular sect or religion is an utterly inappropriate and misleading measure of value and merely serves as both argumenta ad verecundiam et baculum.
 * Second, the section that is being suggested is irrelevant to this article. If, as Kenosis has suggested, you wish to create a new article, one that focuses on the reactions of all religions to ID, do so.
 * Third, Wikipedia does not serve as a mouthpiece for any religion, so it has no duty to inform Caltholics or Protestants or Muslims or Sikhs what their opinion is "supposed" to be. If you really want to know what your opinion should be, see here.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that we're not here to promote any religion, but if you look at Trish's slippery fish question above, the problem with ID is that it's a theological argument dressed up as science for a political campaign to change the philosophical basis of US education – doesn't fit neatly in boxes. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, promoted by the DI, that antiID=evolution=science=atheism, which is why it's worth pointing out that many different churches oppose ID, partly because it's not science, but also because it doesn't fit their theological beliefs – for example Darwin Goes to Church ... dave souza, talk 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a small single paragraph with sources, one noting that many religions do not support ID, would be OK; but a six paragraph dissertation on what the RCC or any other sect/religion/church believes is utterly out of place here. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You just do not have the room for that. I think it would be very interesting as a spin-off article. I think it should be placed in another article, linked in. Volunteers?--Filll 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1 - Concerning statements that religious bodies should not be mentioned here: 2 – Undue weight can use population numbers to correct orientation of a statement. For example there are 1 million and 2 people in the world. 1 million Catholics who are taught evolution in school and 2 zenewebee God followers are not taught evolution in school. The instance of the 2 zenewebees God followers does mean that theism rejects evolution. 3 – Nobody is saying that Wikipedia should be a mouthpiece for religion. What we are saying is that Wikipedia should not be assigning undue weight to a view in an article. See #2 above. (CptKirk 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * For those who have read the article and have seen the references to religious bodies and their respective representatives who are fronted by name and title (which in certain instances can indicate, and do, the Church body they are affiliated with), this argument is near scandalous because they are being mentioned also with undue weight being assigned either intentionally or due to neglect to update. EXHIBIT 1 “Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." Bottom Line... This is not the Catholic position.


 * And, again, you are missing the point. Your entire argument centers around the number of Roman Catholics, as if that number gives the opinion of the church more solid ground, more caché, more power than the opinion the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Muslim Imam, a Hassidic Rabbi or the Dalai Lama.  This popularity contest of yours is disingenuous, utterly irrelevant and creates a bogus argument regarding validity: a fallacy that appeals both to alleged authority and force as a function of numerical superiority.  That there are a billion Catholics is primarily a function of Spanish, French and Portuguese colonialism, although I note that you neglect to mention that RC's are outnumbered by other Christians at a 1.1:1 ratio (see how nasty reliance on numbers can become).  More impressive, is that Muslims outnumber Catholics at a 1.3:1 ratio, and Islam is the fastest growing religion without colonialism currently being, or having been a driving factor since about 900 CE.  So, should we have a dissertation on the beliefs of Muslims (considering the Sunni, Shi'a and Wahabi sects, of course). What of the Ethiopian Coptic Church?  What of the Orthodox Catholic churches?  What of the Baha'is the Jains, the Sikhs, etc. The beliefs and doxae of those religions/sects are every bit as valid as those of the RCC.
 * Clearly, your function here, as evidenced by your cri de coeur on the Evolution talk page is to promote a specific point of view: that of the RC church, at least as you understand it (with a bit of personal inference thrown in for bad measure). Since, aside from Schornborn, the RC church has remained silent on ID, and since we already cover his comments, enough is already said regarding Roman Catholicism and ID. Barring a specific statement by the Pope, preferably an ex cathedra statement, there is no more to discuss.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ID and the RCC, part II
The discussion seems to have gotten a little off track. It appears to me that the questions being raised are: Should the RCC's position on ID be included, should other religious groups positions be included, and how should this be approached? Please correct me if I'm not distilling this correctly. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is my take on it, yes. And adding to that I think clarifying that not all theists support and/or subscribe to ID.  Mr Christopher 17:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Some Catholics are ID supporters, and I think it should be noted that Behe is RC, but it looks pretty likely that the majority of Christians / theists oppose creationism/ID, certainly worldwide and probably in the US. Taking account of space constraints, a brief mention linked to other articles would be best: the RC position is well covered, theistic evolution mentions Anglicans/Episcopalians, but more research is needed. The kirk is one Presbyterian church opposing ID, as I recall.. dave souza, talk 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah best just restate the appropriate points to stay on topic.
 * The article has an inherent bias that all theists reject evolution and this is a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed throughout the article. It means the entire article needs to be revised on this point.
 * The article does not reference theists and evolution directly. There is a big RCC article called Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church that should be referenced here expressly for Catholics reading about ID. There are other commentators of various other religions that reject ID. They should be referenced here.
 * The Article should reflect the undue weight that some variations of ID propose. For example some ID proponents incorrectly state that scientists are divided over evolution. This has been noted in the article, however it should also note that some ID proponents incorrectly state that all theists reject evolution. (CptKirk 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


 * "The article has an inherent bias that all theists reject evolution...It means the entire article needs to be revised on this point" - can you please point to the parts of the article that give you that impression? It certainly isn't intentional and needs to be fixed.
 * "The article does not reference theists and evolution directly. There is a big RCC article ...that should be referenced here expressly for Catholics reading about ID". No, it shouldn't.  Articles should be written for all readers, not for any specific group.  Our role here isn't advocacy - I'm no fan of ID, but that doesn't mean I think it ok to use Wikipedia articles for advocacy.  I fully support the idea of creating an article about religious perspectives on ID, and linking to it from this article.  I think that the section that deals with religious criticisms (The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds....) needs to be re-written, sharpened a little (or maybe a lot)...I think it would be great if we could link from there to an article specifically dedicated to religious perspectives, both pro and anti.  The problem isn't one of covering this material, the problem is one of maintaining balance in the article, and in preventing bloat.  At 97kb, the article is already more than 3x the recommended length.
 * With regards to "undue weight", please see Neutral point of view. Guettarda 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, it is time for a trimming, or a splitting. --Filll 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really - 3x the recommended length isn't horrible...but we shouldn't get any larger than that. Guettarda 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a need for detailed backup sub-article for an improvement to a not very informative paragraph, see below for some details which I hope will be handy .. dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Presbyterian thoughts..
Just shows what turns up with a bit of searching: American Scientist Online – Being Stalked by Intelligent Design recounts being pestered with "e-mails asking how I explained this or that... I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I  suggested." Sounds familiar, gives a neat summary of ID. More on topic, Johnson is an elder of First Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, but according to AiG the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution by a vote of 353-150 reaffirming its support of evolutionary theory in 2002. A 1998 panel survey found rather mixed results, with most supporting evolution but not believing in humans developing from earlier species of animals. More generally,Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design -20/02/06 had ministers preaching that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution at Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches. Must tidy this up and add some to theistic evolution. A Christian argument against ID: A More Intelligent Design, "At the end of the day, 'intelligent design theory,' fails not because there is no Designer, but because the God implied by such theories is not intelligent enough." ... dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive. Some great stuff there. I hope you dont mind if I use a bit of it for my own purposes on other articles. --Filll 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do: I should really be working on a summary of The Good Book ;) .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On correcting existing theists who reject ID section
Since it appears it is already there it just needs revision and updating. It now includes references to theists who reject ID that contradicts evolution and or contradicts morality/ethics. (CptKirk 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I reverted it for several reasons: the language was unencyclopedic; a "logical" conclusion was reached that was both not supported by the argument and was OR; Wikipedia should never be used to support a claim in Wikipedia; "many" is not supported by any sources. FM has weighed in equally re editorialisation. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the reversion: you have failed to provide any sources which support your edits. This is not acceptable per WP:V. If there are edits you feel are indicated, post on this talk page for discussion. Please be specific; please be concise. You have failed to either make a clear case for any edits here on talk or provide sources. What exactly do you feel is indicated, and why? Do you have reliable sources per WP:V? Is there any support for your changes? Please try to discuss exactly what edits you feel are indicated. thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to change a word from Many to Some then change the word, do not delete the whole section. What kind of rational was that?
 * The link to Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church contains the citations. I can easily mass reproduce them here again if you wish. I think fact tags are a better option for disputed references but since that other guy removed it, you couldn’t have done it, but just so you know. Here are the references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#References so we can easily cite those.
 * The revert to the previous existing section on theists who reject ID section is in error by producing statements that are inconsistent with Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and other theists who reject an ID that contradicts evolution. For example the statement “The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds” not only uses the word ‘Some’ which is like ‘Many’ which the other user has objected to above but omits that many theists reject ID that contradicts evolution because of science. Theists can be scientists. Theists are scientists. Theists teach evolution. Theists are medical doctors and scientists who have gained qualifications through learning and understanding evolution as part of the course work. The article is actually insulting as it exists right now. No offence or anything but I am sure the likes of Gregor Mendel would turn in his grave. (CptKirk 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You wish to change Some to Many; please explain why.
 * What change do you want to make concerning the RCC? Be specific, and provide a source.
 * This is an essay. Please be concise. What change are you suggesting?
 * In these articles, more perhaps than in any others, change is considered to be a bad thing unless it is a good thing. By which I mean that editors must prove to the other editors that the edit they wish to make will improve the article. Generally, editors are invited to suggest edits on the talk page. When one editor suggests a change, and another implements it, there is generally less oposition to it. But unilateral or overzealous change is less than appreciated. CptKirk, perhaps you should consider convincing others to make the changes to propose. -- Ec5618 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Either one doesnt matter to me. Remove them or replace them with something better. To remove a whole section on the bases of a word used is concerning especially when the word is something like 'some' or 'many'.
 * I have made the edit concerning the RCC. The sources are on the Evolution and the RCC section including the full Cardinals statement and other Church officials but more importantly, includes the official RCC teachings on that subject.
 * What changes am I suggesting? Come on! Do I really need to entertain this? You just deleted it from the article.
 * I want to adhere to WP:CIV but come on folks. Deleting stuff like this for these reasons and then making these statements doesn't help.
 * Ec5618, agreed. I just haven't told them about this yet. Just seeing what I can hammer out here first then we will bring it to the attention of people who will want to see this. (CptKirk 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * You seem to be confused. I did not delete anything from the article. You also seem to be confused about Ec's edit - the editors here are who you need to convince your changes are desirable. Why are you not answering my questions? Simply state what changes you want made and why, and provide sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this:
 * Many theists accept evolution. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. [94] This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically.

what we are discussing? What does it even mean? This is sort of vacuous. I think the RCC has not said much, and the article is too long anyway. I would encourage you to take this and the previous material and make a new article or add it to Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church if you can make it comprehensible.--Filll 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the RC has taken aposition on ID directly. []Trishm 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm well that is interesting, but is that an official position? It is just some article by a professor in their newspaper.--Filll 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting aspect of this AP material is how it reinforces the impression of a problem brewing in Rome. The Pope knows exactly what the DI's ID is and still keeps repeating language linked with them without any attempt to distance himself from the DI version. The official position of the RCC is that God is the creator of the universe. I for one do not see any reason for the Pope to go on about it to the degree that some infer he is taking the pro-ID side in an internal conflict. He does not need to push terms like "intelligent xxx" to refer to God. AvB &divide; talk  14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is why Kraus and Miller etc have asked the vatican for an official reaffirmation of their position, or a new position. They want it clarified. I think that the Pope probably leans in that direction, but after 50+ years of supporting evolution, it is a bit difficult to back down in the face of all the evidence, and still remembering the embarassment of the Galileo trial (After all, they had a huge ceremony officially pardoning Galileo less than 20 years ago). If they make a new statement, it will have to be very carefully nuanced to support BOTH evolution and a creator (as their previous statements have done). The wording of the DI makes it difficult, because although I support a kind of "intelligent design"/teleological argument, I do not support the DI's version of intelligent design at all, which is anti-science and anti-evolution. This is truely their "wedge strategy" in action, because they are splitting hairs and redefining terms (an old game that creationists have played for decades).--Filll 14:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be interesting to watch where this is going. (Your personal position on ID sounds much like mine, BTW). AvB &divide; talk  22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Breadown of what the text means
Since some people do not understand my edit or what I means I will elaborate here,

The verse reads...

'Many theists accept evolution. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. [94] This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically.'


 * Many theists accept evolution. The article has the orientation in the very definition of modern pop culture Intelligent Design that it rejects evolution and thus scientists who do not considered themselves illogical think ID a load of bunk. The problem is that scientists are not fully defined here. We are not revealing also that many of these scientists are theists. It has the orientation of creating a sort of Atheist Scientist versus Religious Pseudo-Scientist.
 * Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is an example. This is an example of the argument established. It is not a reference as some here have suggested. It says it is an example. The references for this position are in that article though.
 * This means that some theists believe that an intelligent design hypothesis that contradicts evolution is unscientific and unacceptable to them. It appears that Intelligent Design that contradicts evolution is a hypothetisis that some theist scientists can not accept because it rejects evolution.
 * Many theists have even rejected intelligent design on moral grounds. This is not my work but previously existed in the problematic statement and appears valid in that ID can be rejected by some theists on moral or ethetical grounds.
 * This does not mean that some theists will reject all forms of intelligent design. Obviously there many be a case for ID that does not contradict science. The next statement just elaborates on this again.
 * They just believe that an intelligent design that contradicts evolution is non-viable scientifically. I believe this is self-explanatory. (CptKirk 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

As note... it is stuff like this In a leaked memo, commonly known as The Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. 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. in the article that creates the bias. Just read it. (CptKirk 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * So I guess what the verse should say is: Most religious bodies do not deny evolution, but a small fraction of extremist groups do. Most scientists do not deny evolution, but a small fraction of scientists holding extremist views do. I could even make it quantitative, with sources: Roughly 90% of the 12 largest Christian religious bodies in the US support evolution, and roughly 95% of all scientists support evolution, and more than 99.9% of all biologists support evolution. It says the same thing and it gives more information.--Filll 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than to suggest you reread WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOR I shall be ignoring the point-by-point as it is not worthy of comment.
 * The Wedge Document is the work of the IDists, and is self-explanatory. If there is a bias, it is within the Wedge Document itself.
 * What, pray tell, is "modern pop culture Intelligent Design"? Apparentyly, this means that you "think" there is another Intelligent Design, but what would it be?  Is it something you wish to invent?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual references for the Roman Catholic Church and Evolution
For citations on theists who subscribe to evolution and theists who "reject ID that contradicts evolution" let them be repeated here so that no one can say this is not a fact not covered appropriately by the article which shows undue weight in the area of the theisism and ID that contradicts evolution. As a note I referenced some of these in my original contribution which was removed by Jim who is now asking for them.

(CptKirk 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Vatican Council I (1869-70), the full documents.
 * From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Catholics and Evolution and Evolution, History and Scientific Foundation of
 * Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 1950 encyclical
 * Roberto Masi, "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" (L'Osservatore Romano, 17 April 1969).
 * Pope John Paul II, general audience of 10 July 1985. "Proofs for God's Existence are Many and Convergent."
 * Cardinal Ratzinger's Commentary on Genesis Excerpts from In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
 * Pope John Paul II, 22 October 1996. "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution."
 * Jimmy Akin, "Evolution and the Magisterium" from This Rock, January 2004.
 * International Theological Commission (2004). "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God."
 * Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, "Finding Design in Nature," published in the New York Times, July 7, 2005.
 * Cardinal Paul Poupard, "Vatican Cardinal: Listen to What Modern Science has to Offer," November 3, 2005.
 * Mark Brumley, "Evolution and the Pope, of Ignatius Insight


 * These are excellent references provided by CptKirk on the issue of the RCC's present and recent historical position on the relationship of the concepts of creation and evolution.
 * Unfortunately, as has been pointed out many times on this talk page, the term "intelligent design" is formulated specifically as an attempt to bypass the constitutional separation of church and state in the United States (the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment). More specifically, 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, having already become involved with Stephen Meyer (co-founder of the DI) and other DI affiliates, published Darwin on Trial.  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.  It is this issue that made the words "intelligent design" famous within the past decade-- the use of a secular-sounding term for a set of teleological arguments for the existence of God, asserted to be science, the attempts to teach it as science, along with the ideological, socio-political agenda that accompanied it under the umbrella of "intelligent design". This is the primary focus of the intelligent design article, a focus that is very much in keeping with the vast amount of recent public discussion on the issue.  In other words, the theological issue presented by the creation-evolution debate is not adequately central or relevant to the article on intelligent design.
 * Thus, a more appropriate place to discuss the matters presented by CptKirk would be the articles on old earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, and other similar fora. ... Kenosis 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is going off-topic again here. I dont think there is a need to restate what ID is here. There is a need to correct the bias and undue weight violations of wikipolicy WP:NOR that exist in the article by inference that all theists believe in the supernatural (see natural theology to understand why this is flawed) and that theists who are scientists also reject forms of ID. I already outlined these and corrected then with citations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Breadown_of_what_the_text_means which was subsequentially removed for reasons I have yet to clearly understand other than the people representing the current model believe it is best. It isn't. My edit met wikipedia standards. That one violates all sorts of logic and new original research issues of undue weight. (CptKirk 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm already tired of this. At this point the problem obviously is the way CptKirk chooses to self-define the words "intelligent design". Have a nice day. ... Kenosis 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again off-topic. I use WP:NOR guidelines by using WP:CITE. Please don't ignore the references put down before your face. I can't do the reading for you. Intelligent design is defined in the article not by men. If ID contradicts evolution in the article then the reference for it is there. I never came up with my own definition of it. I reject any assertion that I did as spurious. That artice section is wrong. (CptKirk 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, I think it's safe to say that there's zero consensus that any of this is central enough to the topic to be included in the article. In fact, some consensus seems to be building that this stuff about the RCC is better suited to the RCC articles since the RCC has not been a major player on this topic. Time for this to wrap up and Kirk to beam over to the RCC articles and add it there, I think. Anyone else? FeloniousMonk 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that kirk should consider a separate article on religious views on ID,--Filll 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion over what a consensus on wikipedia does and wikipolicy. Undue weight and bias is expressed condemned by WP:NOR. A consensus can not violate wikipolicy. This article is in violation of WP:NOR by giving undue weight including unfounded statements like theists subscribe to the supernatural realm which is wrong in light of natural theology. The debate is far from over. We have not yet even begun to explore the possibility of a dispute tag with my proposed content which then is binding until the dispute is over with. Hopefully rationale and logic will prevail... and wikipedia policy... and we won't have to do this. (CptKirk 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * You are correct that consensus cannot override wikipedia policy. However, I do not believe that you have demonstrated that this article demonstrates undue weight to any one belief- particularly considering that natural theology is not a widespread belief and is certainly not the most common form of theology. In that sense it would violate undue weight to imply that belief in the supernatural is not the most prevalent view in ID, at least in the area in which the idea of ID (as such) holds greatest traction- that is, in American religious circles. Natural theology may be an idea of some standing, and as such I think you should mention it in a paragraph in the article if you feel strongly about it. --HassourZain 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * CptKirk, please read my response to you here carefully: natural theology as properly described on that page is not what you seem to think it is. Although it's lost the favour it enjoyed in the 19th century, the current attempts to revive it by Snoke make clear its association with ID in opposition to modern theistic evolution which takes religion and science as separate realms. For examples see Roman Catholic criticisms of ID and reconciliation with evolution. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Natural theology just shows that some statements like "theists believe in a supernatural realm where their God resides" is contradicted by natural theology. To say that natural theology is given more weight by theists than supernatural theology requires facts using WP:CITE style. It is not a debate for here but it an example of how definitions on this article are used without much consideration. The fact that the article covers church clergy and other church leaders making comments only suggests to me that somebody has a problem with the term RCC appearing here. Thiests who believe in evolution are not covered in the article. There are plenty of mistakes in it. It is certainly an article that comes nowhere near meriting a wikiaward for even coverage or accuracy either. (CptKirk 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC))


 * (ri) Are you truly as obtuse as you appear?  You simply fail to get the point: your attempted inclusion of the alleged RC stance on ID is utterly irrelevant.  How many times and in how many ways does this need to be stated to you?  Are there words/phrase/concepts within the paragdigm of "irrelevance" of which you are noncognizant and that thus preclude you from apprehending the paradigm?  As Kenosis has noted, I tire of this.
 * Finally, precisely whom do you think you are lecturing? Between myself, Kenosis, FM, Guettarda, Dave Sousa and Killer Chihuahua are nearly 100,000 edits (I note this as numbers seem so very important to you).  Three of us are admins.  All of us are well-versed in Wikipedia policy.  All you seem to be able to spout is "WP:CITE style" and pseudosyllogisms that are bereft of logic.  Quite frankly, I've had more than enough of you, a statement that I believe is echoic of the feelings of most of us on this page.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have got your point well across a long time ago that the RC on stance on ID is utterly irrelevant. However your point is not supported by 'your own reverts to include already content of the names of individuals who are affiliated with Church groups.' So to deny the religious church positions appear in the article already is obviously in error. Run a search for Exhibit on this discussion and you will see some I have noted at example of this here. This claim was refuted right at the top fo the article. You are pretending that content is not there. Look at the heading of the next discussion topic for example. How can you fail to miss it? (CptKirk 07:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC))


 * And yet, you  still  miss the point. The affiliation of IDists, while crucial to explaining the teleological nature of ID, is not relevant to the specific stances of any church, religion or sect.  As such, then, the specific stances of any church, religion or sect is not, as we appear to agree, relevant to the article.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We are all trying to improve the article. The question of relevance to the topic is difficult, and the application of policies is actually quite difficult. We can agree that the article should establish whether the ideas that the DI are promoting are mainstream or fringe.  NPOV specifically addresses that a position that is held by an extreme minority should not be presented as anything more substantial.


 * I support the CptKirk, Kenosis and others who feel that the opinion of the RC church is relevant. The DI promotes as a core theme that evolution, and by extension science, is godless because it excludes God from the explanation of how people came to be. It also advocates the idea that Christian faith is incompatible with evolution.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians, of which RC's are a majority, do not see evolution as being inherently godless is directly relevant to correcting the idea that science and religion are incompatible.  Pope Pius XII stated the churche's position on evolution quite clearly: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)

Perhaps it is time for a top-down approach. We are all well-versed in the topic and its implications. What we could do is produce a dot-point list of ID ideas as presented in the article, together with their implications. Then we will be in a much better position to sort out what is needed to provide a balance in line with POV, instead of getting bogged down with every edit. What do people think?Trishm 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the point really that hard to see? Whatever the Discovery Institutes pronouncements are about evolution, they are their own pronouncements and opinions and that is what we are reporting.  Any discussion re evolution being in some way atheistic (which it isn't) or materialistic (which it is) that goes beyond si9mply reporting what the DI has avered to be true, belongs on the evolution page.
 * Also, what you suggest with your "top-down" approach will likely be OR -- implications, or really inferences, lead us into the realm of assumption, and thus we begin to lose sight of our task as writers of an encyclopedia. If we were writing a scholarly essay/book/professional paper fgor publishing in a journal of some sort, you would be correct in your proposal -- that, however, is not what we are doing.
 * Finally, this article is about ID, not about evolution. Looking over the sources provided by CptKirk, the RCC appears to habve issued no direct statements regarding ID.  Even Schonborn's statements do not directly address ID, but rather theistic evolution.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion and leading proponents
I hit the "save" button before I quite meant to, and thus missed out on adding a decription of my edit. Sorry. Anyway, what I did was simply tighten up the argument and the language - no major change so far as I know. (Although I did change the reference to a "Book of John" to the "Gospel of John", which is the more common title). PiCo 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This introduced the erroneous impression that Behe is Protestant, so I've reorganised the wording a bit. Evangelicalism isn't exclusively Protestant according to the lead to that article, and all the leading proponents fit the general description so I've changed it to "evangelical Christian" rather than being more specific, and separated the religion of proponents section from the first part of the sentence. Hope that's clearer, .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An intelligent designer in 'Concept' section needs to be revised
This needs to be revised in order to see that the hypothesis of an intelligent designer is explained that this part is within the presentation of modern ID opinion that contradicts evolution. It has nothing to do with the concept that God permiates existance which some theologians state clearly can not proved scientifically as of yet. It is not that intelligent designers have been disproved (they are factual, I am an intelligent designer), but the modern ID that contradicts evolition model that promotes an intelligent designer is scienticially flawed. (CptKirk 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Huh? Well if you want to add material to teleological argument about some other kind of ID you can consider it. However, this article is about the ID that DI is pushing.--Filll 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't subscribe any ID to the unmoved mover. The theory of the beginning of the universe is virtually the same. The universe has an age for example which means it had a beginning. Big Bang contains the fact of this singularity instance although it unlikely that the singularity is the unmoved mover (as singularities no longer exist after the big bang in Einstein's General Relativity). I just interested in adding the content to this article that not all theists reject evolution and that many theists reject ID that refutes evolution on scientific NOT MORAL AND ETHICAL GROUNDS. The article makes a distinction between God Believers and Scientists. The problem is God Believers can be Scientists (CptKirk 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
 * How do you believe the article makes that claim? The article, to my knowledge, does not make that claim, nor do any of the editors here ascribe to that belief. Many scientists are religious. Some are even literalists.
 * In any case, the article deals with intelligent design, not religion per se. -- Ec5618 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As discussed earlier, there's widespread theistic opposition to ID, primarily on the grounds that ID isn't science. Perhaps you've noticed this chappie Ken Miller, for example. From quickly reading the article, the last paragraph of the Controversy section gives this inadequate and misleading coverage: the links on this talk page can provide useful references for a rewrite, where they refer specifically to ID. However Catholic theological discussions about evolution aren't specific enough for this article. .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "The article makes a distinction between..." where does it say that? PatriotBible 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. CptKirk is drawing an erroneous inference.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on theological counteraguments not balanced (Undue Weight Problems)

 * The article remains in error because of WP:NOR undue weight problems when it says... The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds.[94] Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory.
 * This doesn't cover that religious groups have objected to ID on scientific grounds (it just states moral grounds).
 * It says that many religious people support theistic evolition, however this is not a science. The article does not include that many religious people support evolution, a science.
 * The Cardinal's quote is a prime example of (1)Religious group affiliation already mentioned on this article. (2)undue weight to his views. His affiliated group spokesperson on this matter should be given the due weight, not Cardinal Schonborn's personal opinion. (3)The Cardinal has since updates his position. (CptKirk 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Sources, sources, sources. You are arguing from a vacuum.  Ands remember, none of us here need to even respond to your silly nattering as you have proven nothing, and it is upon you that the burden of proof lies.  Memento: Ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

. The burden is on you to remember what you have read. (CptKirk 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
 * ...y tambien lo mismo para usted, mi amigo. Pienso que el discusion de todo nuestro es mejor que suficiente para solucionar lo que fue publicado y presentados originalmente. ... Kenosis 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Credo que tú haces razón, amigo. El niño había hablado como un perro loco que raspa en la luna.  Es muy triste.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Schon gut. Na, bitte, zurück zum Thema. -- Ec5618 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Het is leven, Jaap - maar niet zoals wij het kennen. [EN: It's life, Jim - but not as we know it]. In short, WP:NPA applies to all languages. At any rate, those understood by present company. FWIW, even though I do not claim to be able to use Spanish to write encyclopedic material, I have no trouble whatsoever understanding it. From the looks of it, CptKirk hasn't either. IMO Kenosis is right. Jim62sch may want to reconsider. AvB &divide; talk  02:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I support "Zurück zum Thema".  AvB &divide; talk  02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll reconsider nothing. My observation stands: CK is talking like a crazy dog barking at the moon.  Note, that I did not call him a crazy dog, I commented on his writing: it is, as others have noted, unclear.  I might add that much of the reasoning evidenced by the witing is circular and chock-full of various fallacies.  By the way, I can read Dutch (although not extremely well, but well enough to not have needed the translation).
 * Ja meine Freunde, ließen uns zurück zum Thema erhalten. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing links
A user is removing links critical of The Genesis Flood, removing a list of unaccredited schools from Name It and Frame It?, and removing the table of contents from Why People Believe Weird Things. Can some give advice or help? PatriotBible 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What the heck is that monstrosity? Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian' Degree Mills. Definately worthy of prod or AfD. -- Ec5618 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually a notable book. To PatriotBible, if you have a dispute with one other editor, you may want to describe it on Third opinion for resolution. Personally I don't agree that the links you want (to usenet articles, forums, and what not) are appropriate. And why are you asking on this talk page?? -Amatulic 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PatriotBible is fairly new - explain don't yell at new users. And Talk.origins archive is a reliable source.  Guettarda 06:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I'd suggest a link to the main list of unaccredited schools as well as amending that list to include all the ones mentioned in the book, and highlight or identify them in some way. The list of chapter headings seemed quite useful to me, anyone else got comments on that? .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph on religious opposition to ID

 * Since I'm struggling for time at the moment, here's a rough draft done from memory rather than properly cited. The intention is that this should replace the paragraph in the Controversy section which begins "The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community.":
 * ''Although ID proponents portray themselves as battling against "atheistic" science, several of the most prominent critics of ID are Christians, including Coyne and Miller. As a result of the controversy mainstream churches, including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and the Roman Catholic church, have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming their understanding that their religious faith is compatible with science and with evolution, a position known as theistic evolution. While their objection to ID is commonly that it is not science, they also cite theological reasons for rejecting it. ID has also been sharply criticised by Creationists, who found their funding dwindling as donations were transferred to the DI.
 * The theological reasons, and the Schönborn muddled article and subsequent drawing back, could be dealt with in footnotes, or in a separate article going into more detail. Any comments? .. dave souza, talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need to qualify "Creationists" in some way; as it stands, the text implies that ID and creationism are entirely separate. I'm not sure that it should have a capital "C", either.  "Other creationsts" might be too controversial, accurate though it may be; perhaps "some creationists" or "some creationist organizations"?  We'll need specific quotes from anti-ID creationists, of course; Harun Yahya might be a start. Tevildo 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This section has the references for the RCC for your suggestion which is ace work. Make sure to give theists believing in [evolution] (a science) not just [theistic evolution] (not a science), equal coverage.(CptKirk 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Speaking as just one editor, I would support a very brief expansion of the treatment of this dimension of the controversy (optimally one paragraph, or a couple brief ones) such as preliminarily proposed by Dave Souza to replace the existing one (the "Schonborn paragraph"). My preference would be to see the existing first sentence of that paragraph remain more-or-less intact, with a suitable version of the proposed summary added to it. Perhaps a sentence such as the following would introduce the thread proposed by Dave_Souza with reasonable effectiveness, coming as it does at the end of that section intro and leading into "defining ID as science". "Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community; many religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, based on theological or moral grounds. " (end of proposed first sentence of paragraph) ... Kenosis 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda odd that none of the sources reference by Kirk specifically mention ID. The closest they get is a version of theological evolution.  Wonder what's up with that.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ID doesn't even have a clear definition because of the variations of ideas to prove that a God exists because of some ID hypothesis. Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion. The references show subscription to the science of [evolution] by the scientists referenced, not [Theoligical evolution] which is not a science. While there might be some talk of theological evolution it is never presented as a science but a theology that also incorporates the science of evolution. These people are being asked if they believe in a science not a theology. (CptKirk 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I have no idea what CK just wrote there. These sentances don't make any sense.  Guettarda 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. So much for the theory that we invented language in order to communicate.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I can see what he's trying to say: (a) It's wrong to make an explicit contrast between "science" and "theistic evolution", and (b) The Roman Catholic Church objects to ID both on religious and scientific grounds. However, I don't see anywhere in the article that the first distinction is made, and I think the proposed revision makes the second point clear.  I'd like to ask CK - if this is a correct summary of your position, what is it specifically about the current article and/or the proposed revision that you don't think adequately covers it? Tevildo 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. I just can't wait to read the good Captain's response. Having said that, I'd like to ask Jim  to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well. Beam me up, Scotty! (It feels so good to be able to say that again after ten years on a planet that is clearly not the one where I belong.) AvB &divide; talk  03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see there is not a major mystery here because Tevildo could grasp the concept without a problem. (CptKirk 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

[reduce indent]I'm glad that Tevildo can understand what you are saying, but in future why not spare your fellow editors the need to guess at what you are saying and try writing in English? As for Tevildo getting from this "It's wrong to make an explicit contrast between "science" and "theistic evolution""...surely that must come from the two latter sentances, but I can't see how. In addition, it doesn't seem to me that either Kenosis or Dave is making any such contract. So truly, I am in awe of Tevildo getting something from the statement that, looking at what was written, I see in neither CK's, not Kenosis', nor Dave's posting. As for the second point, that The Roman Catholic Church objects to ID both on religious and scientific grounds - now I am truly amazed, since CK never used to the words "Roman" nor "Catholic". Truly, they must have a powerful psychic link. Guettarda 09:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "ID doesn't even have a clear definition because of the variations of ideas to prove that a God exists because of some ID hypothesis"... this isn't a sentance, it has two "becauses"...
 * "Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion"...again, huh? I even tried that out loud - what "ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion"?  That's just gibberish.
 * "The references show subscription to the science of [evolution] by the scientists referenced, not [Theoligical evolution] which is not a science. While there might be some talk of theological evolution it is never presented as a science but a theology that also incorporates the science of evolution" - creative spelling and odd word choice aside, at least its readable.

Intelligent Designer
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. and
 * Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific
 * irrespective of its status in the world of science.

I was jarred by these two phrases in the same sentence twice referring to the same idea which was not central to the sentence. I also have misgivings over using the word "debate" over the notion that intelligent design is scientific. Since there is no reasonable way of describing ID as scientific, it really isn't a debate.

My first attempt to improve this (that I thought would be uncontroversial, but I was mistaken - sorry) was to simply remove the first phrase, to let the sentence read:
 * A number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science.

If I read Kenosis' reversion comment correctly, this version downplays the centrality of Intelligent Design not being a science. Looking at it more closely "go so far as to" is editorial rather than informational, so I would remove that too.

Another possibility is
 * Apart from the fact that intelligent design is not a science, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely.

Anticipating that some would see the use of the word "fact" as POV pushing, it is no more POV than saying "the fact that English is a language". There is no reasonable way to call ID a science. Any comments or suggestions?Trishm 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just edited out the gaps in your reply to make it neater to read. I hope you dont mind (CptKirk 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Not at all. Thanks.Trishm


 * The whole article is very poor quality overall and has a whole bag of problems associated with it (see previous discussion and references). People worked to make it good but it is just the net result of lots of misunderstandings. As a note some people here just need to get over that the article is going to be edited. Once you get enough people who know enough about both science and theology you will see a better change.
 * *The biggest problem is just outright error in confusing scientific terms like evolution with non-scientific ones like theistic evolution. I am not sure if ‘atheistic evolution’ (where evolution is used to combination with something else to attempt to debunk God) exists in the article, but if it does, that is not scientific either. I must take a look again.
 * *Systemic bias has occurred because we have scientists who know little to nothing about theology making theological statements and maybe even worse theologians who know little to nothing about science making very poor scienctic statements through ID. While the later has been debunked by scientific counterarguments the former is presented in error and in undue weight with bias here.
 * As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who ‘get lost’ or ‘don’t understand’ a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined. This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position, and yet they comment on it in error. (CptKirk 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

CK, you have been making straw man arguments here all along. I asked you before to show where the article said the things you said it says, but you made no reply. Now you are doing it again:
 * "The biggest problem is just outright error in confusing scientific terms like evolution with non-scientific ones like theistic evolution - where in the article are the terms confused? Who is confusing the terms?  Please, show us where this is going on.
 * "I am not sure if ‘atheistic evolution’ ... exists in the article" - it isn't, and [Control-F] could have told you that, "but if it does, that is not scientific either". Well, it isn't.  So why, after saying you don't know if it is or isn't, do you carry on about it?
 * "Systemic bias has occurred because we have scientists who know little to nothing about theology making theological statements and maybe even worse theologians who know little to nothing about science making very poor scienctic statements through ID" - where, pray tell, is this happening? Are you calling us "scientists who know nothing about theology", or "theologians who know nothing about science"?  Who are you calling "know-nothings"?  And please read our policy on personal attacks before calling people ignorant.
 * "While the later has been debunked by scientific counterarguments the former is presented in error and in undue weight with bias here" - again, as I asked before, where in the article is "science ignorant of theology" being presented? And how is it undue to weight to present the scientific opinion on something that is purported to be scientific?
 * "As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who ‘get lost’ or ‘don’t understand’ a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined" - no, people "get lost" when you write something that doesn't resemble English.
 * "This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position" - really? I find that very interesting.  Presumably you theologians understand "the intent of the writer" even when it bears little likeness to what was written.  Well, I suppose that would explain a lot.  But most people have not attended seminary, and expect that other people use English to communicate here.  I don't care what language you use - English, Spanish or German, just write what you mean.  And assume that other people are also writing what they mean.  Guettarda 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda you have made quite a few assumptions there that I would not agree with and do not believe I have said some of things you claim. Basically theistic evolution is not a science like evolution. Some people here get this, others do not. I have never mentioned being a theist or a atheist but I have taken positions to argue their context. I do not like things that are illogical or not well represented with due weight. As you can see some people are getting this so you have to explain why they are and you are not. That would be a rational place to start. (CptKirk 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC))


 * That some people have bothered to decrypt sentences such as "Like we say, we are treating the ID that contradictions evolution in the discussion." does not mean everyone should be expected to do so. In future, please formulate your comments so that they are easy to understand, as it would greatly facilitate discussion. Tevildo specifically asked you to confirm that he had correctly interpreted your comments. Does that suggest to you that your comments are easily decipherable? -- Ec5618 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "As you can see from the previous topic it becomes apparent that there are those who 'get lost' or 'don't understand' a statement that includes theological and scientific statements combined. This is because they simply have no formal theological training to be competent enough to understand the theistic position, and yet they comment on it in error. (CptKirk 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))" -- No, I think it is you who's making the assumptions here, and obviously not many here agree with them. With statements like these, it's no wonder your proposals and objections are not finding any traction. The truly rational place to start is to ask yourself what are the possible reasons why no one finds your reasoning compelling, not to jump to the conclusion that editors here are ignorant. I know for a fact that contributors here understand claims that include combined theological and scientific statements, your personal opinion on the relevance and their state of formal theological training and competence aside. Reading all the previous comments, it's clear people here understand you, they just don't find your arguments very compelling or even relevant. FeloniousMonk 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may get back to the topic, and I am obtuse enough to not see the application of the above discussion to this: Replace

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. with
 * Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely.

It also occurs to me that this statement is not cited, nor are the critics identified, which leaves very little of substance, really. Should it even be there at all?Trishm 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Finding sources should not be difficult, as it is a common objection to ID. The real question is, at well over 100 sources presented already, do we really need to source every common viewpoint that is summarized? FeloniousMonk 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading the article, you'll see that the passage introduces an example, Coyne, so it is already sourced. FeloniousMonk 13:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Coyne citation is an adequate source. I personally think that Trishm's original version - "A number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science." - is better than the proposed revision, but if that's unacceptable, this one will do. Tevildo 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trishm, I only put it back in tentatively until we can sort out the relevant concerns about that clause at the beginning of the sentence (Beyond the debate over whether ID is scientific,"). It was originally intended to make a clear demarcation for the reader about the range of debate that would be presented--i.e., that the succeeding paragraph is referring to a broader debate wherein the teleological argument, anthropic principle, etc. involve notable criticisms even when viewed from a merely philosophical standpoint.  Whatever method is chosen for making that clear to the reader, I'm OK with it.  I apologize if it appeared like I was necessarily disagreeing with you--I agree that sentence can be better written and support the effort to do so. ... Kenosis 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at least it is good that a few here are seeing through all the smoke and fireworks. I can leave any time I want and come back under anything I please. I don't care about having my image and personality plastered in fancy writing to score brownie points with the local librarian. To be honest I simply don't care about wikipublic image. I just like pointing out that [evolution] is not [theistic evolution] and referencing up the due weight and plastering it across the page. Let's face it, if you cared about the article, just check the way you have handled a 'new' member here? Anyway this place is not a soap box. It is just good for making comments like natural theology to throw a monkey in the works of whoever is going around citing that God must be supernatural. (CptKirk 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * You know, I wish I really understood what CptKirk is trying to say. I look at what he writes. And I read it again and again. And I never quite get it. Something tells me that under the loads of verbiage, there might be a thought or an idea in there, but I just can't find it. I am glad to know I am not alone in this. It looks like English (sort of). But something is not quite right. He vehemently argues points that I do not quite grasp. Like writing two or three pages of stuff about how "dogs elephant green. I swear it is true, as always it will has been. I can tortoise it, underwood Jackson proof applies in this instance." They are all English words, but somehow the meaning just does not quite come across. And when you think you have guessed the meaning, that makes no sense. Ugh. --Filll 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science. The section which is in question (the one I edited in the history) makes reference to the varified fact that theists reject any types of ID hypothesis (such as the refuted concepts in the article) that contradict evolution, not just theistic evolution as the article only states. The article currently suggests that theists only reject it because of moral/ethetical problems with ID that contradicts evolution. Theistic evolution should not be the only type of evolution covered there. The science of evolution should be mentioned also. (CptKirk 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * The term 'theistic evolution' appears twice in the body of the article.
 * "Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer."
 * "Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories."
 * I don't see how any of these instances suggests that theistic evolution is a scientific theory. CptKirk, what are you saying? To which instance are you referring? -- Ec5618 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer." Is it fully compatible?(CptKirk 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * They consider it to be. Believers in theistic evolution believe that the theory of evolution needn't proclude the existence of a supernatural deity. I'm afraid I don't see an issue. -- Ec5618 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

CK:
 * Guettarda you have made quite a few assumptions there that I would not agree with and do not believe I have said some of things you claim

Care to explain what parts? After all, I was quoting your words.
 * Basically theistic evolution is not a science like evolution. Some people here get this, others do not and What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science

I really don't know where you get that impression from. Who, other than you has even raised the idea that TE is (may be) a science? As I said above - why are you arguing about issues that are not in the article, that no one has raised, and that no one is trying to insert into the article?
 * As you can see some people are getting this so you have to explain why they are and you are not

How is someone supposed to "get" that you are talking about things that you have not said in your post? It's a simple courtesy to explain what you mean when someone asks. You keep making assertions...but you don't support any of what you say. Why not? Guettarda 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that it is because whatever ideas may lurk in his meandering and enigmatic pseudo-English expositions are unsupportable. Filll's above example is quite close to the "style" of writing inflicted upon us by CK save one thing: Filll's parody shows at least some Lewis Carrol-type creativity.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at CptKirk's Changes
And frankly, it was far easier to read BEFORE than it is now, after CptKirk has changed it. It was easier to read before and it made sense. Now it does not make any sense to me. Maybe someone else can make sense of it, but I cannot. It is irrelevant whether a "theist" (not a good word to use at all, frankly) agrees with the science or not. They are not qualified to judge the quality of the science. We have plenty of scientists weighing in on the science. We do not have scientists weighing in on religious or moral or ethical aspects. So we do not need a muddled confused mess about theists and evolutionary theists and science and intelligent design and who rejects what and for what reason. Some reject this and some reject that. No one ever claimed theistic evolution was evolution or a type of evolution or a science. It does not belong here. Frankly I am at odds to see where you might put it on Wikipedia at all. It seems like a sort of pointless discussion. Like wanting to put in an article about dogs endless discussion about "But dogs are not cats!" and then debate it endlessly on the talk page. And all of Cptkirk's changes come with no sources mind you. All a big mess. And impossible to read. Sorry. That is how I see it. I am in favor of reverting the changes that Cptkirk made back to what they were before. He can maybe try to explain himself here, but I doubt if he can make much headway since I and others do not seem to grasp whatever important point it is that he believes he is trying to make.--Filll 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to Analyze a CptKirk post
''What do you not understand about this... evolution is a science. Theistic evolution is not a science.''

True---so what?--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section which is in question (the one I edited in the history) makes reference to the varified fact that theists reject any types of ID hypothesis

The previous version of that section did not mention any "theists". I disagree vehemently with the word theists. This is supposed to be English, after all. I do not know what CptKirk's native language is, and it might be a reasonable thing to say in his language, but it is stilted and awkward and difficult in English.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any "varified fact" (it is verified fact, and again this is not proper English) that theists reject "any types of ID hypothesis" (hypotheses would be more accurate in English) in the article's previous version. I do not understand what you are talking about. Before it made sense. Now it is just meaningless drivel.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(such as the refuted concepts in the article)

They are not refuted in the article. We have to maintain NPOV. Some refute them. Some support them. Again this is totally stilted language and makes very little sense. We have a several thousand year history of teleology and many other instances of "intelligent design" and then this more modern incarnation which is being proposed by the Discovery Institute. This article is about the modern incarnation. When you start talking in grandiose flowery terms, I cannot tell what version if any you are talking about, or are you talking about all of them.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

that contradict evolution, not just theistic evolution as the article only states.

Again this sentence makes no sense. ID does not really contradict evolution, as I understand it. ID proposes that certain structures in biology could not be produced using evolutionary processes alone. And what on earth are you talking about with theistic evolution? It says no such thing in the article and did not before CptKirk turned that section into a disaster that is unreadable and only suitable for the waste basket.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article currently suggests that theists only reject it because of moral/ethetical problems with ID that contradicts evolution.

Even if it DID say that, there would be no problem with the implication as I stated earlier because they were judging it on a moral or ethical basis, or did not perceive a conflict between evolution and faith. And the article currently is an embarassment of nonEnglish nonsense in this area. It is unreadable. Sorry.

However, it did NOT say that. And decidedly did not. I think you did not understand it before, and now have turned the section into something that no one else can understand. And still are not happy. And I do not know about what. You were permitted the mess up the article. And now you are arguing that you want to mess it up even more. --Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Theistic evolution should not be the only type of evolution covered there.

As you said above, theistic evolution is not really evolution or science, so this is a nonsense statement. However, the article did not claim this. I think you have misunderstood the article and the writing, perhaps because of your background in English. Sorry. --Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The science of evolution should be mentioned also.

The science of evolution is mentioned throughout. And it was before. And I have no idea what your objection is. And the more I try to understand it, the more frustrating it is because it makes no sense.--Filll 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us take one of Filll's points at random and explore them. Say the last one... The science of evolution should be mentioned also. Your reply is to simply break away from my context of my edit to other stuff in the article and pretend it is all over it. I was talking about the edit and nothing more. If you talked about an edit you made I think you would expect me to stay focused on your edit until you mentioned something outside of your edit. If you still don't understand then have a look at the reverts and tell me where [evolution] is in the section my edit was reverted too. Where does it say 'theists reject an ID that rejects evolution'? in whole article for that matter either? [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda ]. (CptKirk 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I am very sorry. I sure wish you could write in English. When I read something that is so disorganized and rambling that my eyes glaze over, and I have to read it over and over and over, it is not a good sign. And this is what I see above. Ugh. It makes me cringe. I think you might have some important point you want to make, but it just does not make it out through your writing. I wish it did. --Filll 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Guettarda thinks I have made a personal attack. I guess since I said 'I hope everyone here is over 18' was taken to mean an attack I better say I am very sorry if someone took it as a personal attack. I was not meant to be. However I think some people here believe maybe that I have another agenda other than trying to ask valid questions and so I think we are going to see lots of things like this on here whenever I make a comment. I will switch name and just continue on elsewhere and maybe back here later and try it all again. It doesn't matter if I am dead or alive. Facts are fact. WP:CITE. WP:NOR. For a 'new' member I was certainly treated very badly by most of the 'admin' people here. Bye.''' (CptKirk 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Even his somewhat testy fairwell message I do not quite understand. I do not mean any disrespect to CptKirk. He just is unclear. I feel bad for him since I am sure he means well and has something to say. But what is it? It just comes out so garbled I cannot quite grasp his issue that is so ultra important to him. As I said before, it is like going to the articles on cats, making some incomprehensible edits, and then proceeding to the talk page to have belligerent fights about "But Dogs are not Cats! Yes but what about Dog-cats! Are you all stupid? Catdogs dog cats cat cat dog cat! What is wrong with you people?" and so on. It just starts to sound like static after a while 8( --Filll 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I have checked, and I am glad to see that CptKirk's suggestions were reverted. I am not claiming what was there before CptKirk was perfect, but at least it could be parsed and understood as simple declarative English sentences. I speak a little French, but I would not dream of going in and arguing in French WP how they should construct their arguments. And that is what I think was going on here. I do feel bad for him. I wish I knew what he wanted, but I am not sure he even understood the article well enough to be able to come out with a coherent suggestion. Oh dear...--Filll 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would like to help, but I can't see through the words to the point.  AvB gave some great advice earlier on: "I'd like to ask Jim  to realize warp 10 is too fast. If you slow down to one thing at a time, and listen to experienced editors, all will be well."   CptKirk, if he is watching, should try to understand that there is no personal animosity, it's just that to contribute effectively, you need to be clear so that others can hear you.Trishm 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've unbolded the farewell. Might I suggest all editors here make an effort to patiently help any new editor understand that and why the long term editors are fed up? I get the feeling that new editors are rather put off by the sudden (from their point of view) frustration over seemingly trivial matters. In future, we might also consider approaching such editors on their own talk pages, to ease them into the pool, as it were. -- Ec5618 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I hypothesize that a reasonably objective set of observers, upon taking sufficient time to review and analyze the recent discussions, would conclude differently than CaptKirk has asserted regarding his treatment here. Hopefully we'll not need to waste further time verifying or falsifying this hypothesis. ... Kenosis 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing for sure: If and when CptKirk returns with or without a new name, I for one will sure recognize the writing style.--Filll 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel bad. I am sure it is frustrating if a person is new, and using a foreign language to boot. I would be very frustrated trying to communicate. I think you are right, it is far better to go slow, try small short sentences, and try to make sure people understand. I do not want to put up a barrier to new editors. It is difficult enough to learn the ways of Wikipedia without the social barriers too. Then we have the clear language problem on top of it all in this situation, and it became an impossible situation and frustrating for everyone; us "old timers" and CptKirk too. I guess it might have seemed like a trivial matter to CptKirk, and I think whatever his point was, it probably was something that could be easily cleared up with a sentence or two from someone with some insight on both sides. But such a person did not exist in this situation, unfortunately. It is not trivial to me when someone comes in and writes gibberish text I cannot understand however, and insists on it being in the article for some unknown reason. It is annoying. I am sure he meant well. I suspect he did not understand some subtlety in English and thought he was correcting some huge hole in our argument (which I do not comprehend even now). And could not believe it when we did not appreciate it. My uneducated guess would be that he saw "theistic evolution" and immediately thought we were trying to say it was a type of evolution like NeoDarwinian evolution or Darwinian Evolution or Punctuated Equilibrium. I on the other hand, read the description a few weeks ago and after a sentence or two said to myself, oh yes that is the viewpoint or philosophy that I have and most people have. It is just reasonable  and accommodating, and is not evolution at all. However, the name is confusing or potentially confusing. All theistic evolution means (at least to me) is that there is no reason God could not operate through evolution if he chose to. And it is not up to us puny humans to dictate to God how he does whatever he does, if he exists. So the conflict evaporates. For people who make their living by trying to push for a conflict like assorted creationist groups and a few atheists, this is bad, because it is competition. So I think that in the US, like most other things, it just boils down to one thing: MONEY. --Filll 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Filll, if what you say is correct, then the problem is his hubris in thinking that he and only he had the correct perspective. And then to turn around and blame the messengers, while repeatedly obfuscating rational points in favor of pursuing his agenda?  Please, gimme a break already, y'know? ... Kenosis 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Template
I must say I think this theory is crazy - BUT I also must say - is it really fair to put a creationism template on it? I mean from the arguments I've heard from ID supporters i've gotten the impression that it's not creationism. Any thoughts?-- DanielFolsom T|C|U 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fair for two reasons: if you check out the Kitzmiller links you'll find that under searching and objective examination it's been found to be thinly disguised creationism in the sense of opposing evolution on the basis of religious beliefs, and in the wider sense of belief in a creator the template also includes theistic evolution which has that belief while also having no problem with science and evolution dealing with the natural world, and no need to create a new "theistic science" mixing science with religion as is proposed by ID proponents. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Proclaiming it as "thinly disguised creationism" - npov much? -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What else do you call it when they start with an overtly creationist textbook and use a word processor to change "creationism" to "intelligent design", then tout it as an ideal ID textbook for schools? ... dave souza, talk 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Naturally they are continually given the benefit of the doubt in the article, as well they should, but you've got to admit that the above example is pretty damning. (See Of Pandas and People for more information.) Add to that that every proponent of intelligent design is first and foremost a creationist, and there's really little anyone can say in their defense. -- Ec5618 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been quite well established that ID is creationist. Guettarda 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: FeloniousMonk 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For more detail, see Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context –
 * "By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards."
 * and so on to page Page 35 of 139 –
 * "there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism... Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood" :.. dave souza, talk 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to basics
While there's obviously much misunderstanding or disagreement about wording which in my opinion isn't central, the following paragraph seems to me to give the misleading impression that there's only some criticism outside the scientific community, and fails to convey the extent of opposition from mainstream religion:
 * The criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Some religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well, often on theological or moral grounds. Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and they support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn, who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."

Since Schönborn is a poster boy of the DI despite his subsequent back-pedalling, he seems a poor choice to represent the mainstream position. Here's another proposal for a replacement paragraph:
 * The scientific community includes many religious people who strongly oppose intelligent design, most prominently the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller. There is also widespread opposition to intelligent design amongst mainstream churches, and the leaders of several denominations including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). The commonest objection they have is that intelligent design is not science, and there also several philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it. From the opposite viewpoint, there is criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.

In my opinion that's rather clearer. citations can be sought on request. ... dave souza, talk 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Handy resources rather than necessarily links for this proposal, but these  are of interest, and this Methodist site makes useful points as well as having handy Suggested Resources links at the foot of the page ;) .. dave souza, talk 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These links were really worth reading.Trishm 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the new version is an improvement - a couple of minor corrections I'd suggest. Firstly (and most importantly) there isn't a denomination called "Episcopalian", and it's debatable whether or not Roman Catholicism is a denomination in the strict sense.  I think "...mainstream churches; several religious leaders, including Episcopalians..." would be better.  Incidentally, is the "Episcopalian" a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury?  If so, "Anglican" would be better - the relationship between the ECUSA and the greater Anglican Communion is decidedly shaky at the moment.  On the other hand, leave it as "Episcopalian" if we're getting a quote from an ECUSA bishop.  Secondly, I think "most common" would be better than "commonest", and we don't need the "several" - "The most common objection they have is that intelligent design is not science; there are also philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it." Tevildo 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another draft, working from the above, that I think is consistent with the intent under discussion ... Kenosis 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Numerous religious individuals and groups have objected to intelligent design as well. Many such individuals and groups do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, yet support theistic evolution that does not conflict with scientific theories. Cardinal Schönborn, for instance, sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."  Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church), and Presbyterian churches, which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). Though the most frequent objection from within churches is that intelligent design is not science, there also are philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it. Also, there has been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.  As well, a number of prominent scientists who are intensely religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have expressed strong opposition to intelligent design. (end of draft) 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think it might be better to give a papal quote for the RC, as in the third quote below, rather than a statement from a Cardinal, which was prompted from the DI, and got him into a bit of hot water? The speech I have in mind is [here].  The speech refers mainly to evolution, and distances the church from literal creationism:
 * In the context of "We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth":
 * "It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say."
 * "[there is] no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith" as long as evolution does not preclude the divine creation of the soul.Trishm 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer to see any specific summaries of theology in a footnote, if anywhere. This is because the issue is (1) quite secondary to the issues regarding ID, and (2) vary from one faith to another, thereby potentially creating a nearly endless set of summaries of the various positions, including but not limited to theistic (which overarches numerous variations of theological view concerning actual or potential involvement of God in the development of things in the world), pantheistic, panentheistic (roughly the RCC's position at the upper levels of theological discourse), plus deistic (whereby God sets it all in motion then essentially gets out of the way), and so forth. It's just too much to present the various apologetics of the many faiths here in this article, in my opinion. ... Kenosis 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.Trishm 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's my take on Kenosis' version. I've rearranged things, removed the duplicate definition of theistic evolution, and made a couple of slight wording changes (removed "intensely" (religious) and added another "mainstream").  Tevildo 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism of intelligent design has not been limited to the scientific community. Numerous religious individuals and groups have also objected to intelligent design, as they do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material.  Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church), and Presbyterian churches, which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution.  Cardinal Schönborn, for instance, sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."  The term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world; a number of prominent scientists who are religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have expressed strong opposition to intelligent design.  Though the most frequent objection from within mainstream churches is that intelligent design is not science, there also are philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting it.  Also, there has been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.   (end of draft)


 * I think if the interested editors work with these variations of Dave_souza's proposal a bit more and assemble appropriate citations, a summary of this kind would be an improvement to this part of the article. It would explain more to the interested reader, and if kept in the form of a brief summary of this dimension of the controversy, of this same approximate length as what's being proposed here, would be germane to the subject of the article. ... Kenosis 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive discussion possibility?
Archive before 'back to basics'? Yes/No? (CptKirk 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I have archived the oldest discussions. -- Ec5618 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious opposition to ID Mark III
Taking into account the above comments at, and leaving out parts which in my opinion simply duplicate points, here's another version, with cites for most positions, though not the creationists against ID – will try to add them later. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church gives cites both for and against. The search turned up some fun links – in particular Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science is interesting, especially for Kenosis.. It's amusing that Conservatives Against Intelligent Design exists, but the badly designed site seems useless. Resources for Evolution Sunday provides handy links. .. dave souza, talk 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposition to intelligent design has been expressed by numerous clergy and by mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Presbyterian and other churches,  which have issued statements distancing themselves from ID and reaffirming that their religious faith is fully compatible with evolution (the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world). Others making such statements include the Central Conference of American Rabbis. A number of prominent scientists who are intensely religious, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. Though the most frequent objection from religious people is that intelligent design is not science, most also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons. There has also been criticism of intelligent design from overt creationists who object to its failure to openly support their religious beliefs, or who see it as a rival.


 * Where are the cites for the RCC? Also, what is up with this, "(the term theistic evolution has been coined to describe such beliefs, where science is accepted within its limitations of dealing only with the natural world)"?  For one, "coined" makes it sound like a recent neologism, second it's not really accurate.  Also the last sentence needs a cite.
 * Additionally, this section cries out for a balancing section on religions/sects that have embraced ID. Do we really want to go there within this article?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cites are work in progress (as stated), TO Archive cite Eugenie C. Scott 1999 for The Creation/Evolution Continuum which uses and defines the term Theistic evolution – changes to improve accuracy welcome. Since it's in the Controversy section it would be good to briefly mention the main denominations explicitly endorsing ID (if any), and it should really be mentioned that ID has had numerous supporters in faiths which have officially endorsed evolution. Rephrasing the paragraph to be more general while including the same links might be one way of avoiding the "lists" problem. In my opinion the revision's worthwhile to clarify the extent of opposition to ID outwith the scientific community.. dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the "theistic evolution" sentence, how about "Such beliefs are described as theistic evolution; science, with its limitations of dealing only with the natural world, is fully accepted."? I think, whatever we decide on for the text, we should lose the parentheses.  I'm still not sure about "intensely religious", as well.  If "religous" without qualification is unacceptable, how about "who have strong religious faith"?  On Jim62's point, I can't think off-hand of any churches who embrace ID, per se, rather than one of the more explicitly religious forms of creationism. If they exist, though, I agree we should mention them. Tevildo 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

POV issues
I'm shocked and disappointed that this article espouses an incredibly anti-Intelligent Design position. Almost ever paragraph is interwoven with an undocumented opinion regarding the "unpopularity" of ID. Even it was true that the scientific community does not accept Intelligent Design, this is not proof that Intelligent Design isn't a valid theory. Rather, this is proof that ID is not taught or studied in mainstream academia. In this article, it says that many of the concepts of ID are based upon ignorance of science. This is an example of the mildly inaccurate and biased statements that riddle this article. The truth is many of the people who espouse ID don't know anything about science and for many of them their beliefs may be based in faith or in ignorance. However, serious scholars of ID are fully aware of the modern science. The problem with this article is that it appears to have been crafted from essentially two types of minds.

Type One is an establishment educated science or biology expert who can recite the Theory of Evolution. I will call this type the "Biologist" Type Two is a non-scientist who believes intelligent design on faith. I will call this type the "Evangelist". The Biologists have used this as a forum to explain their limited understanding of ID, while at the same time undermining the basis for ID in nearly every paragraph. This is done by propping up strawmen and knocking them down, as well as using good old-fashioned peer-pressure to make their point. The Evangelist is unequipped to make a scientific arguement and thus ID is not given a fair shake. What this article desperately needs is a Type Three, a scientist who understands ID.

The reason that position is not filled, is because writing this article would become a full-time job for that scientist. He would be disbarred from presenting a rough over-view of the scientific basis for ID. As he would have to research and substantiate every claim. Then his research would be challenged, and experts would nit-pick the fringes of his argument just to get the camel's nose under the tent.

By comparing the Evolution article and the ID articles and then comparing the safeguards in place to prevent editting these pieces, it becomes apparent that Wikipedia in fact has a POV. This is pretty sad to me. What it ultimately means is that it's just a matter of time before there are new Wiki's with more conservative POV's. Which means that people who believe in Evolution will never see a thoughtful article about ID and those who believe ID on faith will never see a good article on Evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.89.17 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Comments:
 * Register
 * Sign your posts
 * It is not clear to me what a more "conservative" POV is
 * For better or worse, WP tries to report what exists. However, if the community at large has a bias, then by reporting it, WP will appear to have a bias because it is not blocking information. So as a result, the WP article has roughly the same attitude as the US federal courts, the vast majority of the science community and a very large fraction of the religious community (maybe 90% or more in the US. Now this might be a bias or a POV. But it comes by this bias honestly, through documenting the views of these groups. Could they be wrong? Sure. But for us to include contrary views that you claim are not addressed here, we need good quality sources. Bring them and we will include them. We cannot include what we do not have.--Filll 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 70.108.89.17, I concur with Filll. You seem to assume that while scientists don't understand intelligent design, it does have merit. What if it doesn't? What if the reason scientists reject intelligent design is not ignorance but understanding of the principles of science? -- Ec5618 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "What this article desperately needs is a Type Three, a scientist who understands ID." I had to chuckle when I read this. Um, ID is not science.  Mr Christopher 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mr. C., I surmise it was somewhat the other way around from what was fantasized as the ideal here. (There is a brief summary of part of this in Teleological argument.)  Scientists and others who actually understood some of the new developments in cosmology and physics, especially quantum mechanics and astrophysics, saw implications that appeared to bolster the teleological argument. And some brilliant minds were excited enough and kind enough to publish some of their speculations based on the empirical evidence they saw, especially though the 1980s, though they didn't generally call these speculations science because they knew better. Then along came the hucksters who atttempted to apply similar methods to evolution, but did it backwards, starting from creationist predispositions, networking with others who were similarly predisposed, attaching to a pre-existing socio-political agenda and some fiduciary backing, and off it went.  The best part was finding the great hook line--"intelligent design"-- to wit, something like "Aha! that's it! That's the angle we need...!"  The words were so smooth and a delight to the senses that you could caress them; safe from the Edwards v. Aguilard decision; very impressive and modern and secular sounding and, gol'dang, YES, it's scientific.  Eureka. (or something like that). .Unfortunately they did not understand it; they were most assuredly not in the same league as some of the brilliant minds that publicized the implications of the developing cosmology just a few years earlier. Though I guess they did feel like they were on the leading edge of something; it just didn't turn out to be what they thought. Great thing about it is it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; Heck that part's easy--just blame it on the bias of the materialistic world-view and the athiestic methodological naturalism that science has become in the last hundred-fifty years, ever since those evolutionists muddled up the works (a perfectly endless tautology of self-justification). But I digress somewhat-- sorry, I'm a little testy right now about some of the purported "insights" that've been put by us here recently, presuming on our kindness, and frankly, abusing it just a bit. ... ... Kenosis 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:71.166.165.104
Comment removed. From banned user Raspor. FeloniousMonk 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}
 * As to your last paragraph, User:71.166.165.104, two things: (1) A "more conservative" POV or a "more progressive" POV is not relevant, and would be putting the socio-political cart before the conceptual horse in this or any Wikipedia article. (2) This article, if you read the text and follow the footnotes, will lead you anywhere you wish to branch out in discovering the various theological, scientific, ideological, and socio-political issues that intersect with this subject of "intelligent design".  It's a unique, complex and interesting phenomenon of contemporary life in these United States (and to some extent elsewhere too), and such an investment of your time and learning capability might prove fruitful in understanding more about modern science,more about modern theology, and perhaps even more about modern politics and socio-political dynamics.  There are over a hundred footnotes to scan, and numerous links leading to a wide variety of related topics.
 * But make no mistake please, when I described (in a sardonic way) the manner in which the words "intelligent design" were chosen by its leading proponents, it was a reasonable representation of the verified truth of the matter. Specifically, 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, having already become involved with Stephen Meyer (co-founder of the DI) and other DI affiliates, published Darwin on Trial.  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.  It is this issue that made the words "intelligent design" famous within the past decade-- the use of a secular-sounding term for a set of teleological arguments for the existence of God, asserted to be science, the attempts to teach it as science, along with the ideological, socio-political agenda that accompanied it under the umbrella of "intelligent design". This is the primary focus of the intelligent design article, a focus that is very much in keeping with the vast amount of recent public discussion on the issue.
 * I hope this helps. ... Kenosis 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kenosis has explained the issue very well. The essential point is that ID is not, and never can be, a scientific theory - and anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science (which, I agree, is not something that everyone possesses) can demonstrate that.  There isn't, and never can be, anyone in your "Type 3", because anyone who accepts ID - as formulated by the DI - has, by definition, rejected science.  As is very common on this page, you seem to be confusing ID with the teleological argument, when you say "It's possible to be pro-Evolution and pro-ID."  It's certainly possible to accept the teleological argument for God's existence and accept the scientific theory of evolution; however, it's not possible to accept both ID and the theory of evolution, as ID is in direct contradiction to the basic assumptions of science.  If there were any scientific evidence for ID, we'd be delighted to put it here - but, there isn't. We can't provide citations for material that doesn't exist. Tevildo 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly User:71.166.165.104 skipped over the part of WP:NPOV which says "The neutral point of view is 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." and that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized ... background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular ... [and] contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint." Until he demonstates that presenting both viewpoints is necessary, there's no pointing in engaging him on specific points in the article. Once he does understand that, then he can work on graspingWP:NPOVFAQ. And after that, then he'll be able to level valid appraisals of the article's tone. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit about attacking Galileo is great, considering it was both the Catholic and the Protestant Church leaders that were doing the attacking on science. Just as we see again here in the case of intelligent design: Religious extremists attacking science. It is a hilariously stupid analogy, and one that the DI uses (or misuses) a lot.--Filll 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is clear that 71.166.165.104 does not understand that we have to try to be neutral. We cannot present Evolution without discussing its detractors. And we do discuss its detractors. We cannot present ID without mentioning the other side. And we do. There are articles on here which are completely biased because there are not enough scientists or rational thinkers to counter every religious extremist that exists. We just cannot keep up frankly. But WP is not supposed to be a soap box for you to try to entice people into your warped view of religion. There are millions of other sites devoted to that, and in fact we even provide the links to some of them on WP if you want. But do not expect us to not present the other side. This is not a recruiting tool for religious extremists, fundamentalists etc.--Filll 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And there might or might not be ppl here qualified to prove ID right or wrong. But there is a literature trail and that is what we describe, with links and references. If you do not like the literature? Go out and produce some ID literature that is peer reviewed that people can reference.--Filll 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed evident that User:71.166.165.104 will not find his preferred rendering of the subject here. ... Kenosis 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would prefer to seperate the debate from the presentation of the theory itself. But the facists will shout down any opposition. But what did you win? Now I have to go look at the ID sites to figure out what ID is all about. I can't read about ID objectively here. That's a waste of my time. My "preferred rendering" is not a specific POV, but rather a seperation of the presentation of the theory from the presentation of the debate about the theory.  I editted the outline about to reflect my opinion of what I'm reading.


 * Your preferred method for presenting the topic simply flies in the face of our core policies and guidelines. Any criticisms or suggestions that do know take into account Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will not make any headway, and ultimately be ignored. FeloniousMonk 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is only one "intelligent design" worth discussing, which is quite political by design. If User:71.166.165.104 would like to discuss the teleological argument (a class of argument to which "intelligent design" belongs) that is another matter. The words "intelligent design" are part of the modern lingo for only one reason, which is the attempt to call it science and to teach it as science.  The scientific community, the academic community, and the only US Federal court to hear the issue all agree that it is not.  Worse,  most of the theological community from most of the mainstream faiths agree it is not even effective theology, irrespective of its political overtones-- add in the political issues and the pretense of being science and it's not being touched with even ten-foot poles.  Unfortunately, from here, there's no going back to some longed-for theoretical purity about what the words "intelligent design" might have meant had it not been for the socio-political and pseudoscientific dimensions of the words. ... Kenosis 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely said, Kenosis. In order to promote a socio-political agenda, the proponents of ID have misrepresented both science and religion.  The strong sense of suppression that you sense is not aimed at the quite well accepted religious idea that a supernatural entity is responsible for creation.  It is aimed at the misrepresentations that have been made, that even the mainstream churches fear hurt the religious movement more than help it.  Part of the policy of wikipedia is to make sure that misrepresentations or other misleading material are not endorsed.Trishm 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 71.166.165.104, You should read about wikipedia. Try the help link on the main page.  You don't need to be a scientist that agrees with ID to write this article.  You can be a layperson who agrees or disagrees with it.  To the extent that you can remove your personal biases, the better.  Citing references will help your cause.  Your ideas about a different presentation are not bad, in my personal opinion, but that does not matter.  As others have pointed out, they may (and I say may because I don't know) not line up with wikipedia policies.  You can go to the policy pages and argue for your ideas there.  You may make some headway there.  You cannot expect others to write or reformat on command.  You are welcome to do so yourself, but be prepared to have your writing "edited mercilessly".  Contributors are spending a good deal of time writing these articles, and while constructive criticism is appreciated, you should recognize the hard work people are putting into these articles, as well as the fact that controversial articles end up being compromises and less than perfectly presented.  Also, due to the controversy, you have actions and reactions, which also make some articles less than perfect.  This article is not frozen, and you can edit it.  If you don't like what you see, do some research, assume good faith, and start writing.  The more you contribute the more others will take you seriously.  Other contributors are not here to do as you command, even if what you command is reasonable.  If all you're going to do is complain, people will begin to think you're here to debate, and not contribute.  If you want to debate, there are plenty of forums on the internet available for that.  If you want to limit your contributions to what you believe to be constructive criticism, try to do so with tact and diplomacy.  A little honey will go a long way. But you are clearly intelligent and have a capacity to write.  I enjoyed your Abe Lincoln spoof, and think you have a point, and made it.  Why not re-direct your energy toward making the article (or wikipedia policies) better by registering, researching, and contributing? StudyAndBeWise 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More for "will"
Well will why not log in? What are you hiding from? If you really are will that is. Not too smart to put your personal info on the internet you know.


 * To quote Cornholio, Do you threaten?


 * Is the pro-Evolution crowd that dangerous? Should I fear that they will strike at me for breaking the code of silence?  This is typical internet debate tactics.  Turn the argument against me personally and shift the work load onto me.

So this section:

Does not tell you what ID is, give you references to check? And it is not more than one sentence huh? My goodness.--Filll 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this section:

Not more than one sentence? All negative? Does not tell you anything about ID?--Filll 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that is sentence 3. And it is an introduction. We have to have introductions. And the introductions have to be balanced, and have to represent the material in brief. Sorry if that bothers you but those are the rules. --Filll 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Separating the scientific communities view of ID (what you call "debunking") from the theory itself contrary to policy. Doing so creates a hierarchy of fact - the views of the ID proponents are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the view of the scientific community is "controversial", held by "critics" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is both inaccurate and inappropriate, getting WP:NPOVFAQ exactly backward. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, if the POV isn't separated from the debate, I will have a much diminished opinion of Wikipedia" Well cry me river.  Hey here is an idea, how about you first learn about Wiki editing polices and then do your incoherant whining/bitching? Mr Christopher 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I get it, the Evo-Nazi's run the show
 FeloniousMonk 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}


 * We are not Nazis. We are just trying to balance a lot of complicated competing demands as best we can.--Filll 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plainly User:71.166.165.104 has either (1) chosen not to actually read the subject, or (2) does not find the facts to his/her liking and chooses to play the victim angle. See, incidentally, this recent treatment of the subject of victim-bullies, which is the direction in which User:71.166.165.104 has already taken this discussion. Unfortunate. ... Kenosis 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ID is dangerous because it is an attempt to force others to adhere to a particular narrow set of religious beliefs; I would even say a dishonest attempt in that its proponets, who should as christians adhere to honesty, are not honest: rather then saying they want to force everyone to do what they wnat, they come up with a non sensical theory no more scientific then green cheese on the moon. signed cinnamon colbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.137.141 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


 * If I had a dollar for every whiner who has never read a single Wikidepia editorial policy, considers themselves an expert on Wiki policies, and who accuses the editors here of being bullies, nazis, bias, pov, I'd retire. Hey anon IP dude, cry me a river will ya?  Mr Christopher 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering how all the above, this strikes me more as a bit of street theater meant to portray regular contributors here as unyielding and hidebound, I think. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't surprise me if the exchange didn't show up on a blog somewhere, with Mr Nemo Oudes portayed as a victim of rabid left-wing neo-Nazi pseudo-intellectual bikers-for-Atheism or some such. Oh, btw, Nemo, the Romans never pretended Apollo was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Will
... and sorry you seem to be getting a hard time here - everyone's actually ok, but if you click on the of the old discussion links at the top of this page, you'll see that various wacky folk have been through here, testing the patience of most - and it's hard to see the wood from the trees sometimes...

I think your point about the seperation of the theory and the debunking is a good one - the trouble comes when you try to do that without promoting a point of view - this is a highly strung topic, so the article is delicately balanced to reflect the bodies of opinion out there - try and submit some re-written proposals, which will definitely let people know where you're coming from, and avoid the nasty poLarity that crept in so far (against you mainly!) - cheers, Petesmiles 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so Will, but that is not the rules we live with here. I have had many articles in trouble of deletion for doing exactly what you suggest. This is VERY hard to do. No one person can dictate what they want because other editors will tear him or her to shreds.--Filll 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will I mean no disrespect, but do you have any idea how hard it is to write any of this and get it in Wikipedia? And keep it from being destroyed? And obey the rules? Obviously not. Try writing something and then lets see what you feel. Or go to look at Jesus as mythology if you want to see something balanced teh opposite way. Or Noah's Ark. The article on Jesus as mythology is written as though he was not mythology, in spite of there being at least 2 other articles with the same theme. Noah's Ark is written as a scientific fact in places. We cannot fix these. Look at Religious perspective on dinosaurs and tell me it is biased towards evolution. It is very very difficult.--Filll 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear where you are coming from. I argue all the time to keep creationist articles from being deleted, because I want to know what the other side is thinking. So I understand. That is just not how they laid down the rules for Wikipedia. It takes a while to get used to it, believe me.--Filll 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. But in my article level of support for evolution, I have to bend over backwards to show the other side, right from the start. I cannot write ONLY about support for evolution in level of support for evolution, I have to write about support for creationism in my article level of support for evolution, even though I do not want to. Get it?--Filll 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will if you want to see a nightmare, try black people. It is awful. I gave up editing there because the fighting was so awful and we could not agree. And the article stinks. Even the English is unreadable. Oh well.--Filll 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: having a brain. Sometimes editors go overboard, like in mutation and it becomes too technical. So in evolution when it became too awful, I proposed and managed to get introduction to evolution which you can see is much easier to read. I want something for everyone. Something for the people who are sort of clueless, and something for people who are pretty advanced like yourself.--Filll 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 71.166.165.104. Over the years, many people have come here to claim that intelligent design is science. In response to that, we have tried to clarify in the article why it is not, since obviously these people don't understand. Perhaps the article is a bit too forceful in that respect, but the number of people who still come here to state that intelligent design is a theory (yourself included) suggests that the main point is still not getting through to readers. -- Ec5618 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

EASY. if you want an uncritical exposition of ID, the Discovery Institute's various websites are linked in the article – just go there. If you want a careful critical balance of various opinions complying with WP:NPOV, this is the right place – but that's not what you seem to want. These blanket accusations are not constructively helping to improve the article, and have the appearance if not the intent of trolling. Suggest these threads be archived. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The ID wiki, researchintelligentdesign.org, would be a great place for 71.166.165.104 to add his views on the topic. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey anon IP dude, the truth is out there...  You might start with the Discovery Institute web site...In between crying me a river that is....Mr Christopher 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too! Hey anon IP dude, go here (the DI web site) http://www.discovery.org/ to learn what ID is really about (this Wiki article is a front by secular devil worshippers designed to fool the masses). Mr Christopher 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And of course you agree with him, Thomas Morgan, you're using Raspor's IP address :-) Mr Christopher 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Figures. I'm so suprised. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I wish I had the professionalism and patience that guys like Dave and kenosis deomonstrate, and I wish I had the enthusiasm and technical know how that Filll has, and I know "biting" the newbies is against the spirit (and policy) of Wiki. But when you have "newbies" coming in and acting like complete assholes as they hurl insults and demonstrate how completely ignorant they are of Wiki policy and have no use for those who rely on policy and they demand we re-write the article to suit their POV, I tend to get short and quite franbkly could care less about them or their opinions. I'm sick of the assholes on the talk page is what I'm trying to say. Thanks for letting me share :-) Mr Christopher 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree MC. It is hard enough to write stuff here, even stuff I am REALLY interested in. I try to write a bit for my friends here and there to help out. It is a bit much for a total stranger who is acting unpleasant and obnoxious and insulting, a newbie who might not even sign in, to come and expect us to write FOR THEM. As I said to adlac, write it yourself. I cannot write for you. Then we can discuss your work AFTER it is written. Do not expect me to guess what will make someone else happy. I am NOT going to write a religious tract. I just am not. I often get a bit carried away and I rip them a new one, as I am sure everyone has seen. I try not to do that, but I get annoyed at the bullying. So I hear where you are coming from.--Filll 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oudes, the Romans Greeks never pretended Apollo Zeus was science, so your analogy, to be polite, is like so much elephantine fecal matter trodden under foot. Pick a new argument. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous theory
We link like crazy to the discovery institute websites and ID material. So you can see it in its most positive light if you want. However, we are not allowed to do that here on WP. The article would be deleted immediately. I cannot even write about level of support for evolution without putting in support for creationism. But you are starting to make me wonder if you are not a troll. Sorry.--Filll 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another example: We cannot put only positive material or only negative material on about Scientology or even the Flat Earth Society. We have to have both sides.--Filll 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not let the supernatural into science?
It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper."

Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."

The introduction of the supernatural into science would make it very difficult to do drug testing. How could the scientists know how to evaluate the outcome of a drug study? It is possible that the people were not cured by the drug, but by a miracle instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by filll (talk • contribs)


 * What the fuck has this to do with the article? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. This is from another article in the sandbox. I think we got fooled into a discussion with a raspor sockpuppet.--Filll 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too well written. Couldn't possibly be the person whom I won't mention by name.  Orangemarlin 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls
Please do not feed the trolls dave souza, talk 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to be mistaken for common Wikipedia sockpuppet trolls, here's a tip: read the talk archives before posting, and say something that hasn't been shot down a thousand times before.  Some originality will go a long way towards convincing others that you're not one of WP's more egregious serial malcontents under a new IP address.  Cheers, Kasreyn 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My view of the situation
The IP crowd (and the creationist crowd before it) have taken a very narrow religious view, and then tried to claim they have a huge following, when they are just a handful of radical extremists. They want to define Christianity, and religion for everyone else. And interpret the bible for everyone else. And define science for everyone else. And their real agenda, is attacking evolution, in some sort of vague idea that is stopping people from believing or causing social ills. But the evidence is not there. And when this is pointed out to them, they are FURIOUS; livid, with all kinds of charges of unfairness. They are really not much different than Scientology.--Filll 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What irritates me most is they want to dictate to God how he did his work. And then if anyone disagrees, they throw a tantrum.--Filll 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to be a crowd of any kind. I'm an individual who would like to read about Intelligent Design---Wikipedia is worthless in this endeavor because of the POV that permeates every sentence of the article. I've been told on this talk page that "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.  Can any one here point to a resource that explores the origins of the universe from both a scientific and intelligent design stand-point? Better yet, since that is not called "Intelligent Design Theory", can someone please tell me what that theory is called so I can research that theory?.


 * BTW, at fill's suggestion I checked out the Scientology page. It seems like Scientology is treated more fairly than Intelligent Design. Here's my favorite quote from the discussion page:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology


 * POV = Bad
 * Just a heads-up for people wanting to edit this page to show their dislike for Scientology: we don't need to vandalize this page or insert our own POV into the article. The madnesses of Scientology will be made quite clear by an unbiased article.203.131.167.26 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew someone else that used to say the same thing. I fear that your point may fly over the heads of more extreme editors though. --Justanother 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of any neutral party who may read this: (a) the teleological argument, (b) such a theory can't be scientific, by definition. My last comment on this particular issue.  Can we get back to finalizing the wording for the "Religious Critisisms" section?  Ta. Tevildo 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I also don't want to disprove Evolution. I have no agenda. I don't want to talk religion. I'd like to read about the scientific possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent design. Don't lump me in with the religious dudes. Religion is fine if that's your cup of tea. But that ain't me.

--Filll 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm feeding a troll, especially since it's a non-registered user, but there is not one single scientific theory that explores Intelligent Design, since by it's very nature, it is not science. It is assuming a supernatural being having the power to create the universe.  I'm not buying into it.  Now it's time to drive home, and read some atheist literature of some sort.  Orangemarlin 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't usually respond to unregistered users, because it takes all of 2 minutes to register. However, no good comment should go unnoticed.  First, Not sure where the ad hominem attacks are.  It always amuses me that people resort to accusations without proof.  Whatever.  My opinion is only unsubstantiated if you don't include the hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists who subscribe to the point that if you rely upon a supernatural being, who cannot be proved or disproved, you now move from science to something else.  Evangelism.  Whatever.  Not so much here, just a believer in fact based observations.  Orangemarlin 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea of intelligent design relies on a supernatural entity to explain a physical phenomenon. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, and by definition not science. Do you honestly think that this is unsubstantiated? Do honestly even think that it is opinion?  Trishm 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Harris poll is flawed
I've removed the brief paragraph with the reference to the 2005 Harris Poll. Here it is:
 * According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design. Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws.

The footnote to the Harris Poll is "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005." The footnote for the DI "polls" is: Polling for ID ... Kenosis 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to answer? I dont get it.--Filll 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Filll, I should change the Talk-section title, which I'll do now. ... Kenosis 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but what specifically is the issue with it? I've read up on almost every poll that touches on ID and the Harris poll is one of the better. I'm re-adding to the article unless you've got something specific and concrete. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the relevant Harris Poll format and summary:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! - !! % - June, 2005
 * + TABLE 5. WHERE HUMANS COME FROM
 * Human beings evolved from earlier species.
 * 22%
 * Human beings were created directly by God.
 * 64%
 * Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
 * 10%
 * Not sure/Decline to answer
 * 4%
 * }
 * Not sure/Decline to answer
 * 4%
 * }
 * }


 * Primary problems with this poll include, but are not limited to:
 * (1) It presents mutually exclusive options to the respondent for possible answers that are not mutually exclusive of each other.
 * (2) It fails to provide options such as "more than one of the above" and "none of the above"
 * (3) The manner of phrasing the alternatives for the respondent are not exhaustive, that is, they do not include all the reasonably possible answers to the question presented.
 * To which I would also immediately add that the term "intelligent design" was added by the Harris Group in its summary without consulting the respondents. And that's just for starters.


 * ... Kenosis 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes well in that sense I agree with Kenosis. Some of those poll questions are obviously created by morons. But to be fair, I have yet to see any reasonable polls in this area. They all are confused, because the people writing the poll questions do not understand the issues. Mind you, neither do the respondants. Some polls indicate that only a few people can pick the right definition of evolution out of a list. I personally could happily choose any of these options listed above. For example: So now that I understand what you meant Kenosis, I agree completely.--Filll 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Humans evolved from earlier species Yes, absolutely, the evidence is overwhelming.
 * Humans created directly by God Quite possibly,and I choose to believe this (based on no proof however), and the manner he did it was through evolutionary processes (by the way this is what most Americans would choose; both from earlier species and by God)
 * Humans are so complex they required an intelligent being or powerful force to help create them Again I agree with this. In my opinion, the "powerful force" creating humans is revealed in the scientific laws in the universe and principles like natural selection. So I agree with this too, in a way.
 * unsure Of course, I am unsure in several ways. I am unsure that there is a God, even though I have chosen to believe for my own personal reasons. I am unsure that this poll makes any sense, so I am unsure of my choices. And I am unsure about the process that resulted in man since I am confused about a lot of things; the nature of consciousness, the nature of thought, man's disctinctiveness, the nature of the universe and role of its laws, etc.

Yes, it's flawed. But how flawed is it? In the US, Christians who are familiar with ID and think is not science will probably end up as part of the 64% or 22%. People who are familiar with ID and believe it is science will tend to select the DI-type response and become part of the 10%. Christians who are not familiar with ID will generally end up in the 64% group even if they would have selected the ID group if they had been fully aware of what it means. People who do not believe in a creator will probably select the evolution group. Only 4% had problems answering the questions so it's not all that flawed. If anything, it underestimates rather dan overestimates the number of people who believe that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".

One reason to include information on the number of ID adherents in the article is from WP:NPOV: We need to say who believes what - if we can source it. I think the Harris poll shows the figure is at least 10%. IOW it could be higher. We may want to tell our readers the direction of the error. And quite obviously the text "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" should be cited instead of "ID".

(Including information on the number of ID adherents may also dampen the stream of often intelligent but grossly misinformed newbies arriving at this talk page. Apparently we are not making this point clear enough in the article. Or its intro - some newbies never read beyond it.)

AvB &divide; talk  15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I support including the Harris poll results, but including the caveats as we have discussed them. It is better than nothing, but the caveats tell everyone to be cautious about interpreting the results. Which is also valuable information. I have included the poll results with caveats in my article at level of support for evolution.--Filll 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Which I'm about to read. I've already changed the ID article to the exact wording of the poll instead of "ID". Let's see if it sticks. AvB &divide; talk  15:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really hate polls for so many reasons, not the least of which was that I received a election day poll from the Democratic Party that John Kerry was going to win the election. I was partying.  He lost.  I was crying.  Never mind.  Here's what troubles me about polls:


 * It's US based. Who cares?
 * Wording matters.
 * Science isn't decided by polls.
 * Statistics can lie.
 * If you throw up that Harris Poll, then we'll have to put up the poll that shows Americans believe in little green men, astrology, ghosts, and a whole bunch of other hooey (scientific term for unprovable stuff). All this will prove is that Americans lack, well, something, and it's not good.
 * I suggest we refer to the poll obliquely through a fork of some sort. Orangemarlin 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...
 * the whole ID fake controversy brouhaha is pretty much a US affair. Only in the US do we have the right level of luxury and sure instinct for melodramatics to waste our public servants' time on such a nonessential issue.
 * Agreed. This poll is severely flawed.  It shouldn't be included without caveats; however, I worry that those caveats might get removed as original research.
 * Also true; but note that the overwhelming numerical majority of evolution-supporters among scientists is itself a kind of "poll", and is a frequent mainstay of pro-evolution arguments (ie., "we have the scientists on our side").
 * No, they don't - but they can be misrepresented and distorted. Polls which overly simplify the issue, introduce false dichotomies, or otherwise prevent the true opinions of the respondents from being recorded (why no write-in option?), are a prime example of how to manipulate statistics.
 * The term you're looking for, which Americans lack, is critical thinking. You can thank our laughable public education system, which for some inexplicable reason thinks its only goal is to crank out engineers and programmers.
 * I would say that a better course of action is to simply not use the poll. What use is it?  We know damned well that the poll is flawed, as it makes no option available to believers in theistic evolution, which I would personally guess to be at least 30% of the adult population (whether they know the words "theistic evolution" or not).  Any poll which is so seriously flawed that it doesn't allow a whacking great chunk of respondents to choose a representative option, has no place in an encyclopedia.  Kasreyn 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Polls definitely are problematic. However, some people put a lot of stock in them. We might not be able to discuss all the caveats clearly in this article like I did in level of support for evolution]. So maybe it should be a short statement with a referral to a longer article for the caveats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)


 * Orange, considering that ID is mainly a US-based matter citing a US poll is not unreasonable. Second, given the highly political nature of the subject the statement that science isn't decided by polls while true is not a reason to make the poll not relevant. JoshuaZ 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Still don't like it, but it seems like most of you don't mind using them.  Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One point that seems to be getting lost is that Harris highlight the figure of 10% as support for ID in their introduction: I share the caveats about the unreliability of polls, but Harris is one of the more reputable organisations and it might be expected that they would frame the questions with care using their expertise. So it's possible that the questions aren't as daft as we think they are. .. dave souza, talk 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Harris is a very reputable firm. But the poll means nothing to me.  I'm just worried that someone comes here and thinks that science is decided by polls. Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose one could use the poll to indicate that America lags far behind other countries in science because its populace is made up predominately of pitiful beings subscribing to blinkered Philistine pig-ignorance.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but short of using some of your creative language, I've written that point. Science education in the US is bad, partially because school districts waste millions of dollars defending themselves in lawsuits either from creationists or from civil libertarians, because students are getting filled with pseudoscience malarky, or because science teachers just give up.  Orangemarlin 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was sarcasm there, but also sadness -- our being so far behind is utterly embarassing. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Flawed or not, the poll was verifyably taken, with that wording, and those results. There being flaws in it doesn't mean that we can't include it or shouldn't include it. WP standards are verifyability (yes) not absolute truth (which nobody ever agrees to anyways). Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, GWH. This particular discussion was about an editorial decision whether or not to include it in the article. (I'm trusting here that the assertion is not that all verifiable polls regarding ID should be automatically included.) These kinds of discussions of the merits of article content happen all the time in WP, else the article would be many megabytes long and explain nothing that would not be explained by a thorough reading of all the results of the nearly two million hits one gets from a Google search of "intelligent-design". ... Kenosis 08:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Random comment
This page should be a fair critique of the nitpicking, evidence-less mumbo-jumbo and should not be a Biblical recruiting page. The "protection" is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to spew religion on wikipedia? What, 24 or so pages aren't enough? too bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.151.5 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your input. We'll ponder it. Justin Eiler 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I"m one of infrequent editors of this article, and since I don't subscribe to ID, I hardly consider this article to be a Biblical recruiting page. It is about as balanced as possible, and it clearly states that ID is pseudoscience.  Did I just feed another troll?  I can't help myself!!!!  Orangemarlin 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This IP address, 63.204.151.5, is registered to Bellarmine College Preparatory, California, USA and is shared by multiple users. From talk page:
 * This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to vandalism. Further acts of vandalism from this IP may result in another immediate block without warning.

--Filll 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

first line of second paragraph
I think that

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14][15][16] or as junk science.[17][18]

would be better as The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13], and therefore a pseudoscience[14][15][16].

Having the three terms, unscientific, pseudoscience and junk science had the feeling of stamping a foot in frustration (no, no and again no!). I am also uncomfortable with the nuances of junk science, since the term has been used to refer to perfectly legitimate science that is politically undesirable. (e.g. greenhouse effect). Any thoughts?Trishm 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support that - perhaps "unscientific or a pseudoscience"? The two terms are similar, but not identical, and I don't think that we can equate them as strongly as the "therefore" might imply.  Getting rid of "junk science" seems like a good idea, though.  The citations we have for "junk science" are from journalists rather than scientists, and I agree with your reservations about the term; ID isn't misapplied, biased, or distorted science - it's not science in the first place. Tevildo 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have thought pseudoscience covers it, in that it describes something that claims to be science but isn't. Unscientific to me is something that is done without scientific method, like I guess how much flour to add to a recipe, while junk science is science that is done badly. Just my opinion. --Michael Johnson 03:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these terms are identical, and all of them are sourced. The sentance doesn't say it is X, Y and Z, it says that it is considered X, Y and Z.  Guettarda 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed change creates a non sequitur. Not all unscientific notions are pseudoscience. Each of the sources presents its own objections, and there's not a lot of overlap between them; in fact, the only commonality is that they all reject ID as valid science, just for different reasons. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "The feeling of stamping a foot in frustration (no, no and again no!)" - I suggest we drop "unscientific" since the word appears only twice in a long list of sources, one of which is a wikipedia article. Dropping the most lenient qualifier is warranted since it is drowned out in the sources by "pseudoscience". The cite can be moved to "pseudoscience". This change seems uncontroversial and supported by most editors responding in this section. We could also consider dropping "junk science" since it appears in the sources only twice (three times if you count Pennock's book but I'm sure the book isn't primarily calling ID unscientific). Both are newspaper soundbites trying to capture the scientific consensus, not scientists giving their scientific opinion. I didn't really count "pseudoscience" but if you want to prove me wrong, fill your boots and do so. Something tells me you would be wasting your time though; the scientific consensus term here is "pseudoscience". AvB &divide; talk  08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I might have initially agreed that ID arguably is not junk science, though only on first glance, because the characterization "junk science" usually presumes that its purveyors are already reasonably familiar with scientific method, and are abusing it for personal gain of some kind (beyond merely wishing to get credit for their contributions to the progress of knowledge). Somewhat more specifically, the application of the term "junk science" generally presumes that the proponents of the particular "scientific" assertion have an understanding of scientific method (or at least an understanding of what kind of published material might publicly pass for "scientific") and have abused the method in some manner for some kind of selfish gain that is not consistent with an honest competition to contribute to the evolution of scientific progress, in a way that is available to be tested under well-defined conditions by all who are familiar with the particular arena of scientific inquiry.
 * In this case it may be irrelevant whether the leading ID advocates are familiar with scientific methodology because they presume to completely redefine science to allow the metaphysical to be included in their research methodology. The proponents of intelligent design have approached the subject very differently than would normally be characteristic of scientific inquiry, attempting to redefine science and arguing that science is wrong in setting its limits by working within what is empirically verifiable, testable by independent researchers under the same conditions, progressive in the accumulation of further understanding of the dynamics of the natural world, etc.
 * I argue that the inclusion of this characterization of ID in the article as "junk science", in addition to "pseudoscience" and "unscientific", is legitimate. The cited sources in the WP article say that ID has, in addition to being considered unscientific and pseudoscientific, also been considered "junk science" by notable participants in the widely published debate about "intelligent design". Given that it is impossible to conclusively establish the degree to which the proponents of "intelligent design" have a thorough awareness of scientific method, and given that it is impossible to reasonably conclude that there has been legitimate participation in the process of the scientific communtiy by the proponents of intelligent design, the three alternative assessments by competent scientists are, it seems to me, certainly appropriate for inclusion in the WP article on intelligent design.  ... Kenosis 09:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the proposed elimination of "unscientific", this, among the three characterizations put forward in the article with citations, is the most germane of the three, because it reflects official positions of scientific organizations who've put their foot down and stated unequivocably that ID is not in any way reflective of the business of science. Still, several scientific organizations and a number of prominent scientists have gone the extra step and verifiably called it "pseudoscience", and some have verifiably called it "junk science". ... Kenosis 09:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As argued by Tevildo and me, according to the many cites, "junk science" has been used by two journalists - I would not call them "notable participants in the widely published debate". I also argued that "unscientific" has only two sources. One of them was a letter by/from 38 Nobel Prize winners, cited indirectly via an entire Wikipedia article otherwise dominated by "scientific organizations". That leaves only one that may arguably be an official position of a scientific organization: Australian leaders representing scientific organizations who indirectly call ID unscientific ("similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions"). I ignored the remaining instances since they are about "creation science" or "creationism", not ID, and can't be applied to ID by WP editors. And "several" have gone the extra step? Do you know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall?
 * Ceterum censeo SPLAT! is better than NO! *STOMP* I SAID NO! AvB &divide; talk  12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AvB: "ceterum censeo esse delendam?" ;-) . ... Kenosis 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One has to pretend one does not belong to hoi polloi from time to time. Carthago iam deleta est and my VandalProof is broken so I'm looking for other stuff to delete. I've recently switched priorities and am now three parts deletionist and one part inclusionist. And rapidly warming to the use of WP:IAR. WP:Consensus allowing, of course. AvB &divide; talk  11:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I would think that the opinion of 38 nobel prize winners might would be fairly relevant. Also, I'm puzzled by the claim that journalists statements aren't as relevant which doesn't seem to have any basis in Wikipedia policy that I can find. However, the junk science claim is rare enough that it might make sense not to have simply because it isn't as common as the other two. JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read more closely. I only addressed Kenosis' reasoning there, which looks quite elegant to me but (unfortunately) isn't borne out by the cites. In addition, we can't cite newspaper headline type material that's not a direct quote as if it were. Also, we don't really have to quote journalists here; we have many direct quotes from the scientists themselves to choose from. AvB &divide; talk  15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing that we could do is actually explain each term, and why it is applied.Trishm 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To lessen the sting, I would suggest putting the three supposedly pejorative terms in quotes ("junk" science, or "junk science", "pseudoscience" and "unscientific") and then maybe a footnote added to each one explaining what they are.--Filll 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, what would this accomplish? JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" is unscientific - Johnson is a lawyer, and works it like a lawyer. In other words, he seeks to support ID by discrediting Darwin. The process is unscientific. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", on the other hand, feels like junk science - Behe sells his work "as a scientist", delves into the literature...and comes to a conclusion that supports his agenda, rather than reflects the literature fairly. Well's centriole stuff is pseudoscience, plain and simple. So I'd say that all three claims are accurate. I couldn't pick just one term that accurately characterises the whole endeavour. Guettarda 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to echo what I think FM was suggesting. The initial proposed sentence is


 * "The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[13], and therefore a pseudoscience[14][15][16]."
 * Just because something is not scientific does not make it pseudoscience. So I think we should avoid the "therefore" conclusion and instead just say science regards ID as pseudoscience.  As it stands now the reader is to assume all things not scientific are "therefore" pseudoscience which is incorrect.  I hope this makes sense. Mr Christopher 15:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to that I proposed to drop "unscientific" since it's the most lenient qualifier from a scientific community that really doesn't mince words when it comes to ID. On reflection I think I have stronger arguments for dropping "junk science". I'd like to drop both. I'd be OK with (in order of preference):
 * The scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience.
 * The scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience and junk science.
 * The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific and pseudoscience.
 * AvB &divide; talk  16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My preference is for 3, with 1 as my second choice. Filll's suggestion shows how inappropriate junk science is, as he (very reasonably) proposed "junk" science as an option - the statement The scientific community views Intelligent Design as ... "junk" science. carries the very strong implication that the community views it as science, albeit science that can be critisised.  To me, junk science is the term appropriate for things like The Bell Curve or Árpád Pusztai - situations where scientific metholodogy is followed, or, at least, played lip-service to, by people who seek to advance a particular agenda rather than the progress of human knowledge.  We need to make it clear that ID is not scientific in any way - it explicitly disclames scientific methodology.  I support the retention of unscientific, if only because it's a less judgemental term than pseudoscience, but I don't think it's an essential word to use.  (NB - bolding used to enforce use/mention distinction as quotation marks are siginifcant.) Tevildo 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of debates have happened several times before, though generally not all at once. The purpose of the use of the three (unscientific, pseudoscience and junk science) is to cover all the bases of characterizations that have been verifiably used by the scientific community. Drop "unscientific" and along comes some folks who say "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are not official positions that scientific organizations use. (Indeed for a long time it read "An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6]", then "unscientific" was added in_September,_2006 for just this reason.) Try to drop "pseudoscience" and we get arguments that "unscientific" fails to adequately capture the nature of ID and represent those contingents of the scientific community that have called it as such. (Moreover, "pseudoscience" is not synonymous with "unscientific".) Try to drop "junk science" and it fails to capture the assertion by some members of the scientific community that ID is driven by the kind of hidden motives generally assumed to be characteristic of "junk science". That's why all three characterizations are used in the article at present. ... Kenosis 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We've got three distinct very well-sourced viewpoints critical of ID: Those that view it as unscientific, those that view it as pseudoscience, and those that view it as junk science. Each is distinct with it's own reasoning behind the view, and each is sourced, meaning the passage in the article is accurate and correct and should not be changed to lump all three together. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1st Line 2nd paragraph arbitrary break
I think that junk science, pseudoscience and unscientific are all accurate. I also think "not science" and "not even wrong" and a few other epithets are appropriate as well. The question I have is, how can we put some of those in there, and not ruffle too many feathers and stay somewhat NPOV. People did say that. And more. And we can source it. Ok so that is accurate. But can we soften the blow somewhat? With quotes etc?--Filll 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a slight rewording? How about


 * Members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as unscientific,[13] as pseudoscience[14][15][16] or as junk science.[17][18--Filll 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had previously thought about someting like "The scientific community has variously described ID as ...", in order to account for the "ant-colony behavior" that's involved with a term like "scientific community", but I decided not to pursue it. ... Kenosis 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, I do really like the characterization "not even wrong" and recall seeing sourcing for this view. But most readers will say "huh?" ... Kenosis 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I was making a joke.--Filll 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. --Albert Einstein --Filll 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ROFL. ... Kenosis 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as" - this would, even more than the current language, need other cites for junk science. The current cites don't contain an answer to the question: Which members of the scientific community have described intelligent design as junk science? AvB &divide; talk  20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have not looked at the current cites. Maybe we need a blizzard of sources? Should not be too difficult.--Filll 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need a source for the specific phrase "junk science" (if we're keeping it in) from someone other than a journalist. A scientist would be ideal, but someone like Forrest or Haught would be equally acceptable - someone who understands the nuances, at least. Tevildo 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. Given that "junk science" is mainly a locker-room term that serious scientists don't often use in their writing, that may be difficult.  The New Yorker article (the magazine, while not infallible, is legendary for its background research) refers to biologists having characterized ID as junk science.  Robert J. Pennock, also refers to it as "junk science" in Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.  Perhaps Pennock should be split off from the combined footnote and put into a separate footnote. ... Kenosis 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you're kidding right? H. Allen Orr is hardly a journalist: Orr is one of the most respected academics in his field. I mean really, if you guys don't know this stuff already editing here is not the proper way to learn. FeloniousMonk 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I hadn't known that Orr is a biologist, FM; thanks for pointing it out. Yes indeed, I now see he's the author of "Complex epistasis and the genetic basis of hybrid sterility in the Drosophila pseudoobscura Bogota-USA hybridization" in Genetics 158:1089-1100. Sounds like interesting reading ;-) . Kenosis 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FM, what took you so long? You're usually much quicker to educate the uninformed. AvB &divide; talk  11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to keep the three terms, but soften the stance. There are implications that follow from how it is softened. For example, the first paragraph takes the form:
 * ID is this idea, and is claimed to be a science.

I think the second paragraph needs to present a fact (with due explanation): rather than as a POV: "ID is not science" is no more POV than the statement "Astrology is not a science", or "The earth is flat". We start running into the territory of unintentionally endorsing a fringe theory if we treat "ID is not science" as a POV.Trishm 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ID is not a science. ...
 * Some people (i.e. scientific bodies) say that ID is not science. 


 * Um, what consensus is that? I've seen nothing compelling so far that the current phrasing is in anyway inadequate or inaccurate, and a lot of informed confusion over the notability of the sources. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That, unfortunately, is what the POV guidelines require us to do. However, I wouldn't object to splitting the "unscientific" part of the sentence off:


 * The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Some within the scientific community(*) have described intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science.
 * (*) I'd like to say "Some scientists", but we can't do that if we're using Pennock as a source for the "junk science" quote. "Some scientists and philosophers" is muddying the waters a bit too much, I think. Tevildo 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trishm, Filll and Tevildo, if you look back through the history far enough, you'll see that for a long time that sentence said "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community regards intelligent design as...", or words to that essential effect. Then it was changed to simply "The scientific community views intelligent design as...". ... Kenosis 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, we're certainly not dropping Orr as a source on the junk science passage. Please take the time to actually check the credentials of the sources you so blithely dismiss next time. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked Orr out in Wikipedia. My bad. At any rate, this was my argument against the proposed edit, not a support vote for it or a proposal to drop anything. And it still stands; one scientist is not enough. AvB &divide; talk  10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While checking out an anon edit to Project Steve which has added a link to an unusual looking but apparently official teddy, I noticed the petition helpfully says creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design,". Certainly a well supported citation, with 784 scientists as well as the NCSE.. ;) ...dave souza, talk 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look carefully, I think that teddy is a fake. Plus it is sort of sleezy looking. I have removed that link a couple of times already. Next time I talk to NCSE I might ask them about it. I think it is phoney.--Filll 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the issue originally presented, the words "The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[multiple refs combined as one note] as psuedoscience[multiple footnotes] or as junk science[three sources combined into two footnotes]" constitute a most reasonable and parsimonious way that the WP editors have thus far found to synopsize the response of the scientific community to the assertion that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory competitive with evolution. Note the use of the word "or" in the sentence of the article, in order to account for all three possiblilities in a concise way. It would be more accurate if it said "and/or", except that the next virtually inevitable complaint would be that the Wikipedia Linguistic Police (WPLP) has asserted an intolerance for the use of "and/or". ... Kenosis 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The responses to the criticism on "junk science" all failed to produce new cites so far, indicating that there are no acceptable sources that say "the scientific community views ID as junk science" or "members of the scientific community view ID as junk science". One scientist is not sufficient to make this inference ourselves. Unless I see sufficient evidence to the contrary, I remain convinced that the overwhelming majority of scientists think of ID as pseudoscience but would not call it "junk science".
 * A longstanding consensus does not mean there are no policy violations in an article.
 * Once again: this line makes Wikipedia sound like a parent whose kid isn't listening. That's why I would reduce it to one or two qualifiers. I would prefer to drop "unscientific" but I think there are better arguments for removing "junk science". AvB &divide; talk  10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Pennock fits into the "scientific community"; he as appointements in (1) the Lyman Briggs School of Science, (2) the Dept. of Philosophy, (3), the Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering and (4) the Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior programme, is coauthor on a Nature paper, and a review article (about ID) in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (scroll up one from the last link). On the same page, there's Kin-Selection: The Rise and Fall of Kin-Cheaters which reports on experiments that test hypotheses about the evolution of altruism.  Given all this I'd say it's safe to consider Pennock part of the scientific community, despite the fact that his primary training is in philosophy.  Guettarda 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Always ready to confuse the issue by suggesting another alternative, how about "In the considered view of the scientific community, ID is not science, but rather is pseudoscience which some describe as junk science." That seems to me to indicate the proportions holding each opinion. .. dave souza, talk 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree with FM, I am not sure we need to soften the blow, but if we do, we might think of:

"The scientific community has charged ID with being unscientificRef or junk scienceRef or pseudoscienceRef"

OR

"The scientific community has stated that ID is unscientificRef or junk scienceRef or pseudoscienceRef"

OR

"The scientific community has opined that ID is unscientificRef or junk scienceRef or pseudoscienceRef"

OR something similar. --Filll 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional cite for junk science appears to be Dan Agin's book Junk Science. I don't have a copy of it (though I suppose I need to track one down), but Michael Pillinger's (NYU School of Medicine) review of the book refers to intelligent design; Pillinger appears to be calling ID "junk science" on his own as well. Agin's book also has "intelligent design theory" as a keyword at Amazon. Agin is described as "PhD, Emeritus Assoc. Professor of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago". This all needs to be verified, but Agin's (apparent) use of the term, and Pillinger's ready acceptance of it, support the assertion the article makes. Guettarda 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure we could get 10 or 100 cites for the use of each of those words to describe ID. The problem is, ID supporters come to this article, and they are stunned and hurt to see this description in the 3rd sentence. They do not want to be told it isnt science, and it hurts even more to be told that in the 3rd sentence. They go to evolution, and there is no whisper of controversy until the very end. In their own closed-in little worlds, in their churches etc, they look around and no one seems to disagree with ID. Their pastor says ID is science. Their member of congress says ID should be taught in schools. Their president says ID should be taught in schools. Their neighbors all agree with it. They do not know any scientists but they might have seen one on TV or in the movies. They do not know what scientists do, but they have a vague idea that scientists are (1) powerful and (2) atheists, except for the scientists they read about on their creationist web site or in a creationist book they bought at the church book store. So it is a shock to see something like this up front. It seems very NPOV, because everyone they know believes otherwise. It just seems like those disgusting judges are "legislating from the bench" and misinterpreting the laws and constitution, and what seems to them like a small minority of discontented obnoxious atheists are attacking religion and God and the bible and Christianity and mocking them. They do not know anyone who is not a Christian. They barely even know any Catholics. They do not know any Jews. They only see Muslims on TV. They really have no idea what a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a Jainist etc is. So from their perspective, it is a bit of a shock to be hit and hit so hard in the first 3 sentences of this article.--Filll 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While this is probably true, we aren't supposed to write from a sympathetic point of view, we are supposed to write from a neutral point of view. There is very little controversy among scientists and philosophers of science that ID is rubbish.  None of these terms describe the full scope of ID, and while there is overlap in their meaning/usage, they aren't synonyms.  We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not satisfy popular misconceptions.  Lots of people think that "ecology" means environmentalism, but we can either ignore it, or quickly dismiss it (the ecology article has done both at different times in its history)...what we shouldn't do is give equal validity to the misconception.  Likewise here.  That ID is science is either a misconception or deliberate misinformation.  We should be honest in our description of it.  Guettarda 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to add that comparing the evolution article to intelligent design doesn't make much sense and is unproductive. One is science, the other is a creationist 3 card monty scam.  We don't need to lose much sleep over people getting their feelings hurt because we rightly quote the scientific community who aggree that science considers ID to be wacky.  And ID is PURE 100% unadulterated controversy.  Evolution is only "controversial" amongst creationist and their dupes and supporters.  To compare the two concepts or the two Wiki articles is not comparing apples to apples.  Mr Christopher 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thus far I don't see any one proposal that causes most of us to say "aha, that's it". Without getting into great detail at the moment, it seems to me the complaints are mostly valid in that a close parsing of precisely what's meant by the language tends to cause one to ask further questions about it.  But the complaints are all over the map, so to speak.  One says the refs to "junk science" are insufficient; others disagree.  Another complaint says it should be "unscientific, and therefore pseudoscience", when in fact pseudoscience is a subset of unscientific.  Another proposes to drop unscientific; though in fact, that's the official characterization of most of the official statements of the professional organizations, most of which opt not to use terms such as "pseudoscience" and "junk science" in their official statements.  And so on and so forth, from about a dozen different angles of criticism.
 * Here's another possibility: "The scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is quite unscientific;citations> many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,citations> and some have termed it junk sciencecitations>." ... Kenosis 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice start, may I suggest "unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science" as more accurate and unequivocal. .. dave souza, talk 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll try it and see if it sticks, per WP:Be bold--if it's that far off-base it'll probably just get reverted. Hopefully it doesn't open up a can of worms.  ... Kenosis 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I like it :)Trishm 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good here. I prefer "not science" to "quite unscientific", as "quite" is one of the many English words that changes meaning radically as it crosses the Atlantic.  In any case, "unequivocally" expresses the point well enough without needing reinforcement. Tevildo 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Agin's book - Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, 2006. ISBN 0-312-35241-7. He devotes 16 chapters of his book to specific examples of junk science. More than half of chapter 14 ("Creationism: The World as an Egg") is devoted to intelligent design. Specifically, in a section entitled "Why Intelligent Design Fails" he says To invoke supernatural entities, "intelligent designers", or whatever becayuse we have not yet elucidated the details of a complex evolutionary process or have not yet understood the details of a complex system is blatant junk science (p. 209). Guettarda 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Debates
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory. --Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.--Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny. But not all of the Creationists are like that.  Homestarmy seems to be a good guy in this process.  Orangemarlin 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some are more reasonable than others. But then the more reasonable creationists do not really debate.--Filll 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Reasonable creationists feel no need to debate; they're happy with their beliefs and feel no need to force them down others' throats.  More power to them!  Kasreyn 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my beliefs. They are not identical to those of others, like Catholics or atheists or Mormons or Muslims or Hindus. But I feel no desire to get in their faces and tell them they are wrong, damned, ignorant, cursed, stupid, headed to hell, etc. I am perfectly fine letting them continue down their path, UNTIL they decide to force their beliefs on others. Then we have a problem.--Filll 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And as much as I like Dawkins and believe that a good fraction of what he says about the creationism and the nonexistence of God is true, he makes me uncomfortable with his desire to "rally the atheists" and essentially recruit for a cause. Or maybe just to sell books. I think it is sort of unseemly and questionable.--Filll 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Teleological in the first sentence
As true as this is, isnt it a bit much to throw at the casual reader? Cant we hide the world teleoligical away in a link as we did before and/or a ? --Filll 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did think it was being just a tad overly specific in using that clause in the first sentence. I would not at all disagree if it read: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] stated in allegedly secular terms, based on the premise 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]  But I don't mind either way. ... Kenosis 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first line of that article, "A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator", wouldn't it be better to use "argument for the existence of a creator" – that complies with their definition that it needn't be God, and similarly it's pretty obvious who the "creator" is. ... dave souza, talk 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's more to the point to say "argument for the existence of God". That's what it is; after that, they'all can debate elsewhere about the "nature" (or, pardon me, "supernature") of God all they wish. ... Kenosis 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok since some people previously didnt like the word "argument" and wanted the word "concept" or something else, why do we not figure out what phrase we want that includes the word teleology or teological etc, and then make a new article, and use that to link in. That is surely easier than this wrangling. So suppose we want to use ID is a principle and want to link principle to teleological principle so people are not surprised when they click on principle. Then we craft an article at teleological principle that is cross linked to teleology and teleological argument, taking care to make sure it is not a fork. And then, we are ok. Teleology is there, but hidden for the average reader who we do not want to scare away with big words. Comments?--Filll 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about teleological proposition? And link that to the word proposition in the first sentence?--Filll 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion that doesn't describe ID as an argument but does refer to the teleological argument, how about:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This, although stated in [allegedly?] secular terms, is [a version of?] the teleological argument [for the existence of God?].  However, 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 not sure about the "allegedly", especially where it is now (or in my proposed draft). The term (intelligent cause) is undeniably secular - the allegation is that the argument is secular.  If we insist on "allegedly" somewhere in the first paragraph, how about "Although this is [an] allegedly secular [concept], it {is considered to be/has been ruled by the courts to be/is} a version of the teleological argument"? Tevildo 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's an argument for the existence of God, then the use of the qualifier "allegedly secular" is appropriate. The words "allegedly secular" get the reader right down to the heart of the matter in the very first sentence.  The second sentence specifies what class of secular argument it is alleged to be.  The third and fourth sentences (the second paragraph) show the response of the scientific community.  In the third paragraph, the federal court's response to this quandary is readily visible, which is (A) don't teach it in science classrooms, and (B) it's "essentially religious in nature". ... Kenosis 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that, I just don't feel that "allegedly secular terms" is the right way of expressing it. How about:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This, although allegedly secular, is a version of the ancient religious "argument from design" for the existence of God.  However, 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. Tevildo 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to hide the teleology completely in the lead, either in a footnote and/or a hidden link.--Filll 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. How about "the ancientref to Aquinas, Plato, etc argument from design for the existence of God"?
 * Definitely better.--Filll 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I am now convinced that this article is a joke
All comments from Everwill have been removed since he has admitted to being a sockpuppet of permanently banned editor Raspor. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use the Talk page to discuss changes to the article. This rant is irrelevant. -- Ec5618 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So what specific changes are you suggesting? I seem to have missed them. Guettarda 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He wants a long discussion of Intelligent design, with no mention that anyone disagrees with it being a science, or the lawsuit or anything. And then at the very end, all the criticism. But if you look at bigfoot we are doing exactly what was done at bigfoot. This is just trolling so we should ignore him and maybe delete his comments and block him if he gets worse again.--Filll 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the various editors probably agree the article's a joke. Heck, so's the topic on which it's written, which may explain why the article is arguably a joke. In fact, there are probably at least a hundred different reasons why it's a joke, all different, depending on who you ask. Move it in one direction, complaints come from the opposite side of some particular nuance of the subject; move that specific nuance in another direction, complaints come from the first side. Find a middle ground?, then complaints come from a third, fourth and fifth angle. And it's not just this way on one clearly identifiable issue either. Virtually every word of the article has been hotly debated at some point in its development. It's in the nature (or is it supernature?) of the topic. ... Kenosis 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While a total re-write is a bit extreme, I actually agree with his point about article readability. The constant "They claim ... but experts say ..." throughout the article make it pretty hard to follow a complete thought through a section. It's not hard to see how the article develops that way--the debates over a particular word or phrase tend to ADD clarifiers and cavaots, instead of taking them away. While more technically accurate, overall readability of the article suffers. BradC 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * grins* The constant "they claim ... but experts say" is because it would not conform to encyclopedic style for the entire article to consist of only the sentence "A skein of pseudoscience and distortions designed to provide creationism the scientific patina needed to further erode the separation of church and state", despite the fact that it would be far more concise without sacrificing any factual accuracy that I can see.  ;)  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, getting this right is terribly difficult to do, that's why so many people are putting in such an incredible effort. The difference between the articles that he mentioned and ID is that ID is the only one of those which is part of a current political and religious campaign, deliberately misusing language (e.g. "only a theory") aimed at undermining scientific theory, and changing what is taught in the classrooms around the world.  This highly-charged situation shifts the balance between readability and accuracy toward accuracy.  The basic reason for the difficulty in getting it readable is that so many of the ID claims have been carefully crafted to use ambigous terms to mislead. Trishm 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Everwill, it's not as simple as Zeus. For one thing, Zeus doesn't have a buttload of supporters who regularly vandalize the article on Zeus with "Zeus is a real god, and he is angry at the LIE-berals for claiming he is not!!"  It's easy to say Zeus is a myth, because no one's going to come along five minutes later and revert it and demand five reliable sources calling Zeus a myth!  Here, the partisan warfare is too bitter for simple solutions.  Individual adjectives are fought over like trenches at the Somme.  And apparently it makes too many peoples' fingers twitch over their keyboards to see their opponents' words in one long block, undisturbed.  When it's just a matter of organization of information, I agree with you and I think it would make the article more readable.  But it will probably only last a short while before the article again dissolves into point-by-point rebuttals.  Cheers, Kasreyn 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my job as an editor not to mislead people.Trishm 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you explain to us why bigfoot is not written the way you want, even though you claimed IT WAS????????????????????????????????--Filll 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that you are free to write your own articles on Wikipedia, then try to defend them from being deleted, instead of trying to get in the way. Just because you make a claim, does not mean that we have to listen to it or agree or do what you asked.--Filll 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, it's tragic. Please remember to sign using four tildes. ... Kenosis 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one am fine with the article as is. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus against ID, to describe this any other way wouldn't be neutral but would be "balanced" in that idiotic way that some journalists use the term. Neutral does not mean we need to give equal time. Neutral does not mean that we need to deemphasize critics when the critics are almost all of the relevant experts. Most importantly for these purposes. neutral does not mean that we need to put criticism in separate sections when almost every single claim made by the proponents has largescale criticism from the scientific community. Simply put, given how much criticism there is (and that criticism is necessary, neutrality doesn't mean "equal time") there's no other reasonable way of organizing this. JoshuaZ 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why I am now convinced that this article is a joke" What a fantastic way of getting the editors here to stop what they've been doing for the last few years to hear your points. Comparing this article to bigfoot and thus demonstrating in vivid technicolor your lack of understanding for the subject is yet another really smart approach on your part.  Thank you for your meaningful and well thought out contribution!  Another effective apoproach is to describe how sad this article makes you and how you can no longer have any faith in Wikipedia.  That always brings about positive change.  Best of luck!  Mr Christopher 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the problem here is that ID proponents make numerous claims that are false and/or misleading, and it is much easier to present the rebuttals to those claims as they come up. The alternative is to present the article devoid of criticisms, then present the whole thing all over again in the "criticism" section, with the appropriate rebuttals inserted this time around: which would be, shall we say, inefficient. --Robert Stevens 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that I think the author of this section (whichever blocked user he happens to be) needs to realize is that articles about controversial subjects (especially subjects in academic fields) can and must portray without re-enacting a subject's controversy. Bigfoot does not have as a significant theme in the article the subject's nonexistence because of the fact that in the academic world or world of thought, Bigfoot's existence is a nonissue to nearly everyone. No one talks about it except for a handful who, as the saying goes, "want to believe". ID is a much more particular issue because there is a devoted, not-insignificant movement to put it forward as a scientific theory, in addition to the fact that there is a very large part of the academic community that asserts that there is no scientific basis to it. Being that these are both well-documented voices, and that one is far more prevalent than the other, the article, in tone, reflects this controversy as it is, and the article for example at Bigfoot is not a useful comparison except in some specific details. --HassourZain 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Version
All comments from Everwill have been removed since he has admitted to being a sockpuppet of permanently banned editor Raspor. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There might be value to some of these comments. But the obnoxious way that this editor introduced himself really did not build good will.--Filll 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should the article say "Intelligent Design is founded upon evidence of intelligence in nature" when this is not true? Similarly, why should it say that "The theory is that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected" when ID is not a "theory" at all, in the scientific sense of the word?  Similarly with your comment "Does the theory purport that the “Christian god” is the one true god or not? If not, then this reads like a petty cheap shot on so many levels" - basically, the answer to that question is yes: ID is not a scientific theory at all, but essentially a Christian religious denomination.  Your wording seems to assume that what the ID-proponents say publicly about ID is correct, and proceeds on that basis: whereas the view of its opponents (backed by evidence of what ID-proponents say in sources not intended for the public, such as the Wedge document) is that this is not the case. --Robert Stevens 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think these are some valuable ideas, Everwill, and you will definitely find that these types of suggestions will be more well-received than your prior postings. That doesn't mean, of course, that these edits will ultimately get approved by the community here--I happen to agree with your assessment of the user climate on these pages. Anyway, enough meta-comments. I'll take a look at the substance of your suggestions if I get some time later today. BradC 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. Glad I saved a copy. If I can distill some constructive ideas out of his original posting, can I re-post portions for consideration? Just want to make sure I won't be accused of being sock-puppet #2 BradC 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Recycling some of his ideas and presenting them is fine. Stepping into his shoes by either posting in his stead or continuing his neverending tendentous and fruitless arguments would likely be viewed as meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FM's exactly right. Raspor wasn't blocked because of the ideas that he had, but rather the hostile, disruptive way in which he insisted on presenting them. I did my absolute best to try to get him to understand that but evidently his wall was too high or he had no intention to contribute constructively. --HassourZain 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely true. This is a community enterprise. And he did not seem to be able to work well with others, and seemed unwilling to roll up his sleeves and write something of his own, or at least not very often. What he mainly wanted to do was to dictate how the articles should read and get into fights. --Filll 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage trolls and banned users
Posts from banned editors should not be responded to, but removed. Period. Responding to trolls is discouraged as well. FeloniousMonk 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was suspicious that it was Raspor, but the English was too good. Oh well.   Orangemarlin 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Banned editors completely lose the right to contribute under any account, and new accounts set up by them are considered sock puppets used to avoid a ban. Now that he's established for us that he's willing to evade his block using sock puppets, any comments in a similar vein from new accounts need to be scrutinized first, and if they are indeed suspicious they should have added to the bottom of the user page and we'll add a checkuser request to confirm or discount the suspicions. FeloniousMonk 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record raspor often used perfect english. His "Borat" style english was probably just a part of his game.  I pointed this out on one of the raspor related pages.  And I'm sure he'll be back.  Mr Christopher 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is why I think he was a troll. He could be coherent and make reasonable suggestions, and then just engage other editors in endless stupid nasty fights.--Filll 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly ignored anything he wrote, so I honestly did not analyze his writing skills. On the RfC page, his writing skills were atrocious.  Orangemarlin 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well- his edits as Everwill seemed to be perfectly well-typed, but his edits as Raspor and one of the two similar IP addresses used broken english with numerous misspellings. If it was an act and he was trolling, it was a very convincing act- so much so that I cannot decide if I was correct in my original estimation of his intent. --HassourZain 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My suspicion is that Raspor was several different people, just pulling our chains from the same account.--Filll 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we try breaking the first sentence in two?
I will try it. If you do not like it, revert it. I am not a big fan of long run-on sentences however.--Filll 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, geez, Filll, I just took the restrained risk of eliminating "teleological" from the text (linking "argument" to teleological argument, based on only your assertions on this particular bit). Now you're following up by turning the opening sentence into two? ... Kenosis 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)  My previous edit (subsuming "teleological argument" into a link from "argument") was ventured with only the feedback by Filll to the effect that "teleological" was too much to present in the opening sentence, with only my response (farther above on this talk page) to the effect that I didn't care; though I took the slight risk anyway. ... hardly a consensus, but then again, we're being bold I suppose. On the other hand, it reads fine to me as two sentences too; maybe I'm just too much in a "bunker mentality" on this. I suppose the various editors will weigh in presently enough. ... Kenosis 03:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Come to think of it, Filll, I reverted it for now (this is important, I think) because the first sentence should define what the subject of the article is about; which it has done for about the last year. This I wouldn't want to change this very significant aspect of it without clear consensus on this issue. ... Kenosis 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal worry about all these articles is readability and accessibility. More even than bias (which I do not think is a big concern, in spite of our trolling friend's claims). I feel much better if it is clean understandable English. Breaking the sentence in two is for accessibility. Hiding teleological is for accessibility. Even some of the troll's suggestions looked like he had found some poor grammar in the body (which is not too surprising, really). That is my main goal on most of these articles: accessibility and clarity. That is what I push for evolution. That is what I am pushing for at physics. That is why we have an introduction to evolution. That is why I want an introduction to genetics. That is why I have worked on Simple Wikipedia. And so on. Let's make these articles easy to read and clear. That is why I tried the change. But if people do not like it, they can revert it. --Filll 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which part of your (Filll's) submission to which to respond. But as to the first sentence of this particular article, I recognize I took some incentive here in the last day or so, and am hesitant about moving the Discovery Instutute's definition of ID into the second sentence of the article, at least not without a strong consensus to do so. Subsuming "teleological argument" into "argument" with link to "teleological argument" seemed to me to be within current consensus, though admittedly prompted by your (Filll's) suggestion above.  ... Kenosis 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly how does saying "argument" when you mean "teleological argument" improve "readability and accessibility"? Your changes made the intro less specific and clear, not more. Factual accuracy and explicitness always trumps grammatical correctness. And whatever grammatical errors there are are generally due to the attempts over the years to accomodate all the various editors and additions; there's simply been too many cooks in the kitchen, and of course all the usual that comes with Raul's Fifth Law. FeloniousMonk 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the blow is softened somewhat in the 3rd sentence. So that I agree with. I am not sure you mean by the first and 2nd sentences, but that is ok. I am sure it will get thrashed out in the end.--Filll 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've returned it back to the original phrasing: if it is a teleological argument (and it is) then that needs to stated up front, and not subsumed. Encyclopedic writing requires being explicit, not oblique, presenting ideas clearly; not substituting them with ciphers like saying "argument" when we mean "teleological argument."  FeloniousMonk 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from. I still just mourn accessibility.--Filll 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm open to being swayed that saying "argument" when we mean "teleological argument" improves accessibility, I just haven't been convinced yet. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All I mean is that the average 12 year old or Joe Six Pack will look at the word "teleological" and think, "Damn this is too hard to read".--Filll 06:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that perhaps we have been drawn into using the DI's words about one or two sentences too early. Part of the difficulty we are having is that we are trying to say too much too fast, with "natural selection" being mentioned in the first sentence, when really it is not part of the definition as such, it is a comparison.  Central to the political campaign as they are, the science claims are not all that central to the idea itself. We can talk quite neutrally without getting backs up for at least a sentence, I think, without straying from the core.


 * What if the paragraph starts off with an explanation, as to a student, rather than get caught up by the politically crafted words? Something that wouldn't jar anybody, and perhaps be more accessible? I'm sure we can improve it, but something along these lines:
 * Intelligent Design(ID) is an argument for the existence of God based on the apparent complexity of life on earth. This is a modern version of the ancient teleological argument.   Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] 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." They also 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.


 * By separating the definition of Intelligent Design from the DI for long enough to let the definition be separated from evolution, I'm hoping to ameliorate the sense that the article can't breathe for evolutionists.   I am also wanting to make it clearer that ID as an idea is much less controversial than the scientific claims.


 * Does this make sense?Trishm 11:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's better than the current version. Perhaps if we change the attribution of the quote to make it more accurate?
 * Intelligent Design(ID) is an argument for the existence of God, based on the apparent complexity of life on Earth. This is a modern version of the ancient teleological argument.  According to the Discovery Institute, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."  ID's 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.
 * We can change "teleological argument" to "argument from design" if it's just the word "teleological" that's causing problems. Tevildo 11:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a good idea I think. Just arguing for the common man here.--Filll 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's less clear than simply saying precisely what it is, the "teleological argument" which links to the "teleological argument" article for those who do not know what that means. That's what the wikilinks are for. FeloniousMonk 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to be overly influential here. But I should immediately assert that numerous discussions, debates and arguments by many editors conducted over many months on the talk page resulted in an ongoing consensus to use the DI's definition right in the first sentence. This is the only reason I resisted Filll's last edit. And as you may see already, FeloniousMonk reverted my subsumption of the link to teleological argument into the word "argument".  So the current discussion revolves around how to augment that first sentence with a more explicit statement of what ID is in addition to the quoted definition, citing as necessary, without deviating from that longstanding consensus I just mentioned.  If anything, the statement "... is a teleological argument, stated in allegedly secular terms", would properly be placed in a second sentence to remain consistent with that much-discussed consensus.  But the inclusion of the additional clarifiers in the first sentence puts forward as many sourced, descriptive characteristics of what ID "is" as can reasonably be fit in the opening sentence without excess.  Filll's point, of course, was that it was a bit excessive to have "teleological argument" as opposed to "argument" in the first sentence.  FM's point was that it wasn't.  I certainly can live with it as it currently is written.   ... Kenosis 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a big deal to me, except I want the first 3 or 4 sentences to be readable and understandable by a 14 year old who comes across the article when doing a homework assignment. Also, to quiet the critics, it is probably a good idea to have a direct quote from DI up front and obvious. Although the quote was there, some people (including some semi-trolls) seemed to think we were trying to pull a fast one.--Filll 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting an encyclopedia article shouldn't describe the actual sort of argument ID is in its intro? That seems counter to the project's goal of educating the reader, and flies in the face of both WP:IA and WP:LEAD. FeloniousMonk 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, I really don't understand why the direct quote can't be in the second sentence, unmuddied by references to evolution. What is the objection?Trishm 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is what I am suggesting. It sounds like a reasonable thing to try, at least to me.--Filll 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to repeat my version from yesterday (with a slight modification), in that case.
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This, although expressed in secular terms, is a version of the ancient religious "argument from design" for the existence of God. However, 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.


 * Can I ask what the objections, if any, to this version are? If it should be "argument" rather than "concept", I'll defer to the majority.  If people want "allegedly" back, ditto, although I think that's a very contentious word to use in the first paragraph. Tevildo 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think teleological argument is fine, but allegedly should go, as it does state it in secular terms. --h2g2bob 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your proposed version,
 * is more wordy and less clear than the current version,
 * And the current version needs to lose "allegedly"; it is stated in secular terms.
 * All this futzing with the intro is making it less clear, not more. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfotunately, without "allegedly secular", may as well lose "secular"; the "allegedly secular" is what the whole damn Kitzmiller trial was about, and the judge ruled accordingly. ... Kenosis 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I can cut the length down a bit. I don't think that opening with a run-on sentence that contains two technical philosophical terms ("teleological" and "premise") is an improvement in clarity, but my opinion is just one among many. :)
 * Keeping "secular" but losing "allegedly":
 * Losing both:
 * Tevildo 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Losing both:
 * Tevildo 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tevildo 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tevildo 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that you're putting the premise before the definition. Say what it is, then say why people think it is so and so on: ID is W. People believe it because of X. Those people are Y. They say Z. makes a lot more sense than saying "People believe ID because of X. It is W.  Those people are Y. They say Z..." The logical flow there is wrong. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, Trishm's version seems to satisfy your model. However, it doesn't have the DI statement - am I right in thinking that you don't consider this to be the definition? - in the first sentence. Are we prepared to compromise on this one point?  I don't see any reason not to. Tevildo 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see Trishm's version as being better than what we already have in the article. Where's the improvement? Since accurate, stable articles are our goal, edits, particularly significant ones, need to be justified, and not done just for the sake of making a change. FeloniousMonk 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view, readability has been improved regardless of what a readers position on the topic is. It is about convincing the reader at the very first glance that the article may be worth reading. The current version does not have anything in the first line that your average uninformed person can latch on to:
 * "Intelligent design (ID) is a teleological argument for the existence of God[1] stated in secular terms, based on the premise that"
 * compared with:
 * Intelligent Design(ID) is an argument for the existence of God based on the apparent complexity of life on earth.
 * The first sentence is that way because if the definition that the DI uses is upfront, then the article needs to make clear that it is a religious argument that isn't presented in that way, and that although it attempts to present itself as a science, it isn't, and we haven't even got to the comparison with natural selection. Note the discussion above about secular and allegedly secular: all to balance a perspective that hasn't been presented yet.  It needn't be so convoluted if we present the idea in its pure form, before we let the politics intrude.Trishm 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, the idea in its "pure form". I'd say this is a primary point of argument about "intelligent design", both as to what is "pure" and as to what is "form". ... Kenosis 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  ... Kenosis 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that your version is more readable. For starters "This is a modern version of the ancient teleological argument." is awkward and unencyclopedic. Furthermore your proposed version has some obvious policy issues: "Intelligent Design(ID) is an argument for the existence of God based on the apparent complexity of life on earth" would only pass the WP:ATTRIBUTE sniff test for WP:V were the DI presenting ID as an argument for the existence of God, which they aren't. They claim it is a scientific argument that has nothing to do with religious belief. That its an argument for the existence of God is supported by the Dover Trial ruling. Your attempt at a synthesis between the two would be unattributed, and so never pass WP:V.
 * Rereading it, I don't see the current opening para as unduly convoluted or difficult to grasp; when viewed in totality ID is indeed a complex issue, and the intro does a very fair job of presenting the relevant views without the "howevers" and "whereas" that's been proposed lately and is completely compliant with both the verifiability and attribution rules.
 * Most simply put, ID is a teleological argument for the existence of God. ID is stated in secular terms. ID is based on the premise 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." IDs leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute. They 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. Again, ID is W. People believe it because of X. Those people are Y. They say Z. Not only is this the most clear description, it is also more informative than those proposed here with no fewer than 11 wikilinks to relevant and necessary articles. FeloniousMonk 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I nonetheless maintain the article lead should read "...allegedly secular". But c'est la vie. ... Kenosis 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That version is probably the best we're going to get. I've made the appropriate changes to the article. Tevildo 10:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new introduction. "Allegedly" would just add unnecessary confusion. Well done all, .. dave souza, talk 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so for those of us who have only been paying some attention what are the proposed different versions? JoshuaZ 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate is basically over the inclusion of "teleological" (accepted) and "allegedly" (rejected). I really don't think we're going to make any more progress over this issue, but finding an alternative that everyone's happy with is our ultimate goal. :) Tevildo 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy within religion
Right, returning to the last paragraph in the Controversy section before the first subsection, at present it reads as follows:

My opinion is that this gives the mistaken belief that there is only "some" religious opposition, and I've reframed a proposed alternative more broadly, with cites:

This version leaves out the positions of individual denominations – these can be explained in a footnote and/or set out in a subsection about ID in Level of support for evolution. If preferred this question could form a new article, giving the faiths of ID proponents and the position of various religious groups. Note that the creationist critique has been referenced and refined. .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) – amended as discussed below, citation left out at it seems to mess up the quotation formatting. .. dave souza, talk 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good here. Perhaps "opposed to religion" rather than "atheistic"?  "Materialistic" might be a possibility, too, because that's the word used in the Wedge Document itself, but science can legitimately be described as "materialistic", and we want to avoid too much technical philosophy jargon.  Comma needed after "science" in the second sentence - "...is fully compatible with science, which is limited...".  Apart from that, I wouldn't change anything. Tevildo 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a major creationist charge that people who support evolution are atheists; is the same true of intelligent design? If we can find references (which I am sure we can because Phillip E. Johnson has such a big mouth and can get pretty offensive sometimes), then we can keep it. It is an example of how inflammatory anti-evolution forces (like creationist, creation scientist and intelligent design supporters) get when they start talking beyond a very narrow set of "talking points" that they have agreed on beforehand. This claim is as old as the hills; if you look at the history of creationism, it dates back about a century at least, and maybe considerably more.--Filll 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, from the Firing Line debate :

--Filll 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these pointers: in attempting to paraphrase earlier points in the article as "intelligent design arguments are framed to portray science as atheisic and attract widespread support from religious people" I've strayed beyond the sources at hand, so have had a look for a source and found that Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator which is already cited (no. 81 at present) gives a useful basis for "intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world–Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in a creator–in challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory". Hope that's a fair summary of points from that article and is generally acceptable: I'll try to amend the proposal to incorporate it. .. dave souza, talk 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As intended but hadn't got around to, a link to Harun Yahya – The "Intelligent Design" Distraction is now added to the creationist objections line. I've left it as "creationist organisations", since just saying "creationists" might imply the DI aren't. An alternative formulation considered was "overt creationists". Any further suggestions or comments before I add this to the article? ... dave souza, talk 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tautology at the opening
Apologies that the opening is the subject of yet another post, but we now have the double whammy of 'a teleological argument for the existence of God' - which seems to me to be a tautology (or is it tautologous? who knows....) This is Kenosis' suggestion from above - and seems to help with the accessibility Filll is after....

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, stated in secular terms and based on the premise.......

whaddya reckon?

cheers, Petesmiles 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete I would agree. If a person wants to still sneak teleology in there, the clever idea of a link like that will do it. It just should be remembered that this is an encyclopedia for the general public, not scholars or philosophers.--Filll 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool - well, i've been bold and done it... Petesmiles 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Best of luck to you both. :) I agree that Pete's version is good.  I've split the first sentence into two, which was the arrangement that FM preferred and which I think is another slight improvement. Tevildo 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. I like it too.Trishm 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Filll has provided a heads-up for a discussion at Talk:Level of support for evolution: I've trimmed out the discussion from this page to avoid duplication. .. dave souza, talk 08:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest to editors of this page:


 * Level of support for evolution → Endorsement and rejection of evolution —(Discuss) ......... (duplicate of comment from --ScienceApologist 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) trimmed out)
 * I believe we have the makings of a disagreement on this issue.--Filll 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(duplicate of response from -Silence 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) trimmed out)

Brilliant intelligent design video
If you see this and are not a true believer, there is something wrong with you : --Filll 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the following two interesting as well (Scholastic_Films_Presents_Intelligent_Design and the musical presentation Origin_of_Species) ... Kenosis 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another good one: --Filll 18:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah even better: --Filll 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design
Some of the hostility between the various camps might stem from confusion over how various parties define their opponents' views. Sometimes, for example, "creationism" is defined narrowly as the view that God created all living things in the present form (denying common descent as well as the fossil record). This can cause confusion because proponents of ID generally accept the fossil record and make no bones about common descent.

Another problem area is the debate over whether ID is "hiding" its purpose of advancing religious ideas such as (1) there is a God and (2) He created the universe and brought life into being. It seems to many writers that ID is motivated by a desire to support these theological beliefs. In politics, many are suspicious of their opponents' motives: "You want to build a bridge to this island? Isn't that just to get federal pork for your constituents?" (Bridge to Nowhere). --Uncle Ed 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * RE " ... generally accept the fossil record and make no bones ...": I liked that particular use of the language. The rest of the above is very difficult to understand, as far as what point(s) is or are intended to be made. ... Kenosis 00:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, do you think that the ID people are misunderstood? I would say the "hostility" you mention goes way beyond misunderstanding terms, or political suspicion.   Let's look at a paragraph from an ID press release [], and you will see that the ID proponents misrepresent evolution as making a religious statement, which it does not, and also as being scientfically controversial, which it is not, and omits to mention that it is an incredibly useful, well-tested and well-defined framework for explaining the diversity of life.  It also presents ID as an equal alternative, with "significant evidence", which it does not have.


 * *...there are essentially only two hypotheses regarding biological origins (the origin of life and its diversity). One hypothesis is that all phenomena, including living systems, result only from chance and necessity (natural law) and not by design. This is the Naturalistic Hypothesis. The other hypothesis, the Design Hypothesis, is that life and its diversity result from a combination of chance, necessity and design.  A significant amount of evidence supports the Design Hypothesis, including increasing scientific criticism of Darwinian evolution. 


 * The reader is given two alternatives, which are given equal weight. Then comes the message that evolution is godless.  There is nothing about evolution that says that God did not create the world.  It just doesn't rely on supernatural forces to explain the unknown.  The reader is then told about the Design Hypotheses, as if there is evidence (always mentioned, specifics rarely given, nothing scientifically accepted), and then the phrase "increasing scientific criticism of ... evolution", again no specifics, perhaps because the ID message is all innuendo and suggestion, without anything solid to back it up.
 * The only confusion I see is deliberately crafted by the ID camp. By the way, if you feel that I have missed all the evidence, and the solid backing, please point me to it.  I have never seen anything scientifically valid. Trishm 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Trishm. Before ID people start crying too much about how they are misunderstood, they should take a good look at what some of the ID supporters claim. It does not inspire a lot of confidence. I do not like being called an atheist, having science called a religion, being told I am cursed and damned for doing science, being cursed and threatened for accepting evolution provisonally as the most reasonable solution that explains the data, having them lie about all kinds of material. This is not a way to make friends and influence people. They act just like the same old creationist bumpkins they sometimes look down their noses at. So what do they expect?--Filll 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the same old prolem as it's always been, almost from the beginning of human discussion and analysis as far as can be told and reasonably understood to date. The presently unexplained is frequently regarded as supernatural, until an explanation is found that is satisfactory to enough people that it comes to be regarded as natural.
 * Paraphrasing from the Twilight Zone: (first four measures quickly in staccato ) Dant-dunt-dant-dit, dant-dunt-dant-dit, dant-dunt-dant-dit, dant-dunt-dant-dit .... ... ... Duhh-dah-di-right!!! - -  dahduhdawhhhhh! ...  ...  ,,, Dant-dunt-dant-dit, dant-dunt-dant-dit ... ...  ,,,  Duhh-daa-di-RIGHT!!! .- -  Dahduhdawhhhhh! ... ... etc., etc. ... Kenosis 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this last statement explains either little, or nothing, or perhaps even less than nothing ... so, thanks for letting me rant briefly ... Kenosis 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We like to believe we live in an age of science and reason, but that is unfortunately complete and utter BS for the following reason: The average person has NO idea why his world works, how technology works, what it is, how to fix it, how science works or even what science is. The average person cannot tell you how his car moves and why. The average person cannot explain how his flashlight works or an electric razor. The average person does not know what a TV really is or how it works, or a radio or a wrist watch or a microwave oven. And this is nothing compared to their depth of misunderstanding and ignorance of computers and the internet and satellites and lasers and airplanes. Even the simplest things, like fire and or a pair of glasses complete baffle the average person who is basically as dumb as a stump and could not find the US on a map of the world, or tell you how many square feet are in a square yard. The average person has no idea where diseases come from or where they went. The average person has no idea of what life is like in other countries. The average person has no idea what other religious faiths are, or even the history of his or her own faith, or even what the core beliefs of his or her own faith are. So is it any wonder they cling to superstitions? Is it any wonder they are aggressively stupid and belligerent? The average person, particularly the average creationist, is nothing more than a troglodyte who has been trained to mindlessly push a button or two, and has been told by the friendly witch doctor/evangelical pastor that "oooga booga...evolution bad...baaaahd...oooga booga" and the dufus believes it. And why not? These are the same characters that buy "OOoga booga...Jews killed Jesus....Jews bad...ooga booga..." or nonsense about a rapture or speaking in tongues or saints or a cheese sandwich being imprinted with a picture of the Virgin Mary, or a piece of dog excrement being miraculously shaped like the baby Jesus.--Filll 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, leading ID proponents are on record saying that they have problems with common descent as well. ID is a big tent with no published research that means many things to many different people. Dembski and Meyers come out against common descent, but Behe accepts it, so saying ID is pro common descent isn't exactly true. JPotter 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Common descent or uncommon descent, it's the same ol' god-o'-the-gaps [in human understanding of the workings of the world]. Once we think we have a handle on it, guess, what?, there's always more, at least thus far.  Why would any thoughtful person think this trend would stop now? ... Kenosis 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think ID is somewhat misunderstood, but its place in the battle between "godless" Evolution and "God-directed" Design is fairly well laid out, at least here at Wikipedia.

What gets short shrift is the conflict over the place of the supernatural in science. ID supporters object that biology goes beyond just not relying on supernatural forces to explain the unknown and veers off into refusing to consider supernatural forces at all.

ID's public relations problem is that it dreams of beating physical science at its own game. It fails to underscore the point that physical science by definition excludes any consideration of supernatural forces. It thus underplays its hope that scientists will expand the scope of their research to explore supernatural phenomena.

I don't know why they do this, but I speculate that they don't want their own religious views examined too closely. What if someone like Raymond Moody starts investigating the spiritual world and finds that "believing in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" is not enough to get one into Heaven?

Anyway, I'm planning to make a chart comparing and contrasting ID's assertions with those of the mainstream concepts of evolution and Creationism. It'll be in my userspace, but I welcome participation. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And it will be original research. Why bother? FeloniousMonk 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds difficult to me, given the range of beliefs and claims.--Filll 15:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RE "refusing to consider supernatural forces at all": Agreed. Science doesn't specialize in the supernatural, period.  That and the methodology is what defines science, and there is no legitimate controversy over this. What was controversial was the public's understanding of the issues involved. In the WP article, the position of the scientific community is put forward quite well in the second paragraph, and in two long sections farther down in the article, with additional insights scattered in various places throughout the article. ... Kenosis 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, tell me exactly what the short shrift over the place of the supernatural in science is. Is there a similar conflict in mathematics? Is the conflict the fact that science organisations are not religious organisations, but a small minority of religious organisations would like them to be? And in particular, tell me this: do you think that a scientific explanation that included a supernatural component of the form "and a supernatural entitity must have done this bit" could still be called scientific?  Or would it then be a religious explanation?Trishm 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If science is defined as "the search for material causes of physical phenomena", then clearly by definition any statement that X had, or did not have, a supernatural cause, would not be scientific.


 * I think that's what ID supporters complain of. Some of them feel that Evolution gets away with a double standard on making statements about the supernatural. Famous scientists and science education advocates are allowed to say, "...and God had no part in this" (like the 2004 Gallup Poll). But when ID says, "Wait, maybe God did have a part in it" they are roundly dismissed.


 * Some ID advocates (although this might be out of the scope of the current article) are hoping that evolution educators would scrupulously avoid making any comment at all about the supernatural. Something like, "Sure, there might be a God, and of course it's possible He intervened and made some special designs. But we don't know how to determine that, so we just don't consider supernatural causes."


 * (If anyone thinks this is veering off topic, then (1) recall that I was asked and (2) please be so kind as to suggest a better page. Is there anything like a Politics of evolution article? --Uncle Ed 01:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'll make one shortly, and it will be just as quickly identified as a POV fork and AFD'd. FeloniousMonk 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Science would have to include astrology and alchemy and witchcraft and homeopathy and fortune-telling and magic and fire breathing dragons and elves and fairies and pixie dust and magic wands and flying carpets and all sorts of similar things. And it would basically ruin science.--Filll 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More subtly, science deals with the testable and repeatable, producing hypotheses that can be verified. The supernatural is inherently beyond such testing, and saying a miracle done it does not produce a testable hypothesis. The whole ID idea is about changing science from such "materialism" to a default position where if we don't understand something, that means God done it. Johnson sneakily says that shouldn't stop scientific enquiry, but of course that then means that enquiry becomes a search to disprove God. Which is why mainstream churches don't go along with it. dave souza, talk 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a semi-secret agenda for people that want to push creationism or intelligent design. It has been claimed for a long time that science and evolution etc are responsible for war, or genocides like the Holocaust or Cambodia's Killing Fields, for teenage pregnancy, for drug use, for gun crimes, etc. This is basically the standard technique that any group, including a totalitarian regime uses; define some outside group or principle or agency or individual as the enemy to rally your forces. It does not matter if the outside group is real or not, or if the threat is real-it will be invented if necessary to justify the strident tocsins of alarm. So as long as evolution is viewed as responsible for negative things, and evil in the world, and people are dumb enough to buy into it, then evolution and science will be attacked. Also it makes it seem like there is a nice easy answer to these very different and intractable problems. People are also ignorant enough that they will buy into a claim that before science, everything was good, because no one was alive then to compare the current world with what existed before, and dispute this claim. Also, another clever plan that the anti-evolutionists have is to use science itself as a recruiting tool for a narrow extreme form of Christianity (or for some, Islam). Again, just a strategy built on lies to trap the unwary and the gullible. When a person is not carefully armed against their arguments, their claims can sound beguiling. This is insidious and it is dangerous, and it is the promotion of igorance and basically pushing the US towards a theocracy.--Filll 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Filll, though "science" also has gotten a great deal of credit for progress in the last century, and with increased credit comes a tendency for increased blame. I'd also like very much to think that the tendency to blame is a result of the increased responsibility that comes with increased knowledge. But I think history tells a slightly different story about blame. Historically the blame for what people are uncomfortable with has most often fallen on the unarmed.  Score one for "Darwin", I suppose. In keeping with the current social contract, however, it appears scientists are not yet being sent to re-education camps, at least not thus far. I hope I haven't unduly oversimplified the issues.  ... Kenosis 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery
Um... talk pages should be used for discussions about improving the article, and not discussions about content or concepts, per WP:TALK as well as the infobox at the top of this page. A bunch of conversations that have been posted on this talk page shouldn't really have taken place here. I'm pointing this out because I notice the discussion above hasn't moved in the direction of article improvements. -Amatulic 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, Amatulic. Filll is a science educator who came in here recently trying to get a handle on the issues. I've been pleased to try to assist, within reasonable limits.  In my opinion, it's been less disconcerting than dealing with many of the incessant complainers and a few outright verbal tyrants we've encountered on this talk page at far greater length, and Filll has been a productive contributor to the discussion about the article itself. But the observation about relevance is duly noted nonetheless. ... Kenosis 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In this context I would like to discourage the evident assumption that it is all right to ridicule and denounce other people and their convictions on Wikipedia. AvB &divide; talk  00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind reading the conversations; they are interesting, just sometimes not relevant to improving the article, so I'm trying to hold myself back lest I swell the conversation. You're right, things are a lot better now than when raspor was fulminating on this page. And Avb, I confess I've been guilty of denouncing people who have offended my scientific sensibilities, and I agree that behavior is inappropriate. -Amatulic 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about interesting conversations. I'm mainly responding to Kenosis' educational use of talk pages as my cue to say something I've been hesitating to point out to people who are shaping up to be pretty good editors. Example of the type of talk page contributions I'm discouraging: Lumping together supposedly antisemitic "young Earth" creationists and supposedly creationist Catholics to set the stage for ridiculing both groups and Catholic devotions, the love for Mary and other Saints in Heaven and the belief in the power of intercessory prayer by those Saints. I do not see how this helps anyone build a neutral encyclopedia. I know it damages Wikipedia's reputation. It also creates an atmosphere of "us against them" that does not exactly invite "them" to participate. And those who do so anyway may well gather the impression that "anything goes" on Wikipedia. AvB &divide; talk  09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken.--Filll 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading up a bit in two different places, I think Filll is dead right about the utter BS thing:
 * The average person has NO idea why his world works, how technology works, what it is, how to fix it, how science works or even what science is.
 * I'm a highly educated layman, and I've barely scratched the surface of science and technology. I do understand the internal combustion engine and how a computer works, and I'm in the 99% percentile in math understanding. But the average literate American or Brit or Aussie does not and is not.
 * Thus religious people tend to be suspicious of science. There is, as several Wikipedian contributors lose no chance to point out, a strong tendency to "dismiss any findings that disagree with one's theology or church teachings".
 * This is compounding by the tendency for the religious to be politically conservative, and for the politically liberal to be irreligious or anti-religous. On numerous hot-button political issues, liberals claim the science is on their side. There's a sharp liberal-conservative split on DDT, gun control, global warming, you name it.
 * I don't think religious people are wise to dismiss science, merely because there's so much scientific fraud and junk science. They are throwing out the baby with the bathwather, which is always a fatal mistake. But I understand their impatience.
 * Given that science has been blamed for war and genocide, it's natural for religious people to want to tar all of science with the same brush, and to regard evolution as a sneaky attack on religious faith: "All creatures, including people could very well have evolved without God's intervention. So there's no logical reason to believe in God."


 * How this relates to the article is this: the battle over ID is in many respects a proxy battle over the main points of conflict between (1) Science & Religion, as well as between (1) US Liberalism and Conservatism. Should we just say that science dismisses ID, and put all the "conflict stuff" in a new Political of Intelligent Design article? We'd have Politics of global warming as a precedent. --Uncle Ed 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a POV fork, and you're already on arbcom probation for that, so I don't think this suggestion is a wise move on your part. FeloniousMonk 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you put in point (1) above, US, because I do think these are primarily US political and social issues, and where they do spill over to countries like Australia it is largely by proxy (ie with creationism in general promoted by churches originating in the US, as against those originating in Europe). You mention gun control - as an off-topic point of contrast, it was the most conservative Prime Minister we have had in recent decades (John Howard, also a good buddy of GWB) who introduced the tightest gun control legislation we have ever had. --Michael Johnson 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Still more relevant to the intelligent design movement article than this one. And nearly all of the discussion here is off-point and not relevant to either article as it is limited to personal opinions, not sources, and the ersatz consensus that develops is how editors promoting a particular pov become emboldened to insert personal opinion rather than verifiable views. So I suggest this is not the place for this sort of discussion. FeloniousMonk 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

info box placement
Is there anyone out there who can somehow place the two infoboxes so the lower one (ID) doesn't appear to the left of the upper one (creationism)? On my screen the ID box starts near the bottom of the SC one, but is overlapped slightly, so it is pushed to the left and seriously narrows the text area beside it. Thanks! Maury 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On all my available browsers and settings, there's a very significant vertical space between the two infoboxes, and they are well out of each other's way. May I inquire, on what browser is this overlap occurring on? Is your screen a particularly wide one? Do you know what the screen resolution is? ... Kenosis 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firefox 2, 1280x1024. Nothing magical here. Maury 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With similar horizontal resolution and Firefox, it appears that if you hide the article table of contents, the second infobox gets pushed to the left a bit; if you show the contents, they fall one above the other with a space in between. I trust the text is readable either way? ... Kenosis 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is due to the TOC. I have this turned off, so the vertical space is less. Isn't there any way to fix this so it will work with the TOC on or off? It works with images... Maury 14:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

requesting Ed's input
I think Uncle Ed, who is a very long-standing Wikipedean, is raising some issues commonly held by the ID supporters, and I would really like to get a solid handle on what he is getting at, because it isn't clear to me. Reading the ID sources hasn't helped me either, because I find the rhetoric and lack of detail too confusing.

It is important for the ID proponents to have a voice in this talk page, and we need to be sure that their views are given proper expression and weight so that the end result is an accurate reflection of human knowledge. That's my understanding of the policies. I am hoping that Ed can help by answering these two questions. The first is aimed at understanding Ed's comments above. The second is addressing a primary concern about the scientific support for ID.


 * Is it the position of the ID proponents that the definition of science should be broadened to include supernatural intervention? Or is it that science should seek to discover evidence of supernatural intervention?


 * My understanding is that there is no scientific evidence for supernatural intervention that has been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal or similar. My primary source for this belief is Behe's testimony under oath at the Dover trial.  Is this understanding correct?Trishm 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first point is the subject of hostile questioning at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:
 * For intelligent design to be considered science, the definition of science or the rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural causes can be considered, correct?


 * I'm not sure whether ID advocates would agree with the word "broadened" here. Some seem to think science not only should include the supernatural in its studies, but already does. (This may be a legally motivated quibble, however.)


 * As for the second point, it stands to reason that if science restricts itself to the natural world and natural causes, then by definition it would exclude any consideration of supernatural forces. Ther could not logically be "scientific" evidence for the supernatural world or a supernatural force, if the logic of science forbids any such consideration.


 * On the other hand, some researchers since around the beginning of the 20th century have studied the "paranormal". And there's the work of Raymond Moody, M.D.


 * The real question is whether it's "scientific" to study anything beyond the natural world.


 * Then Dembski writes, "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins." (his blog)


 * Of course there's nervousness and hesitation about studying the paranormal or supernatural. The usual assumption is that, if it's supernatural then it doesn't have to follow any laws. And who in his right mind would apply himself to studying anything like that? --Uncle Ed 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But I'm reminded of the logical process used in an early detective story by Edgar Allen Poe, where by process of elimination his hero deduces that the "murderer" is a non-human being (an orangutan, if memory serves). This was considered an astonishing leap, because everyone knows that murder is crime only commited by people. Poe's detective engaged in some "out of the box" thinking.


 * Apparently some religious people wish that scientists would think out of the box, too. But to claim that ID *is* scientific without addressing the question of scope seems a bit naive, at best. And considering the legal stakes, I can see why ID opponents would regard it as nothing more than a strategem.


 * I'm going to do some offline reading and some googling, and see if I can find any sources who address this point head on. --Uncle Ed 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall having read several leading people from the DI advocating that science include the supernatural. I think I have heard it in radio interviews as well. Although there are occasional forays by scientists into study of the supernatural, like ESP, ouija boards, seances, ghosts, astrology, homeopathy, remote viewing, etc, mainly to try to establish proof that it exists and the result is that they have ALL failed. We are talking about 3 or 4 hundred years of failure here. Literally thousands of attempts or more by the best and the brightest (including Newton who tried very hard for decades to prove the truth of the bible and came up empty). It is on this basis that mainstream scientists veer away from the supernatural. Pseudoscientists, and occasional debunkers and skeptics address it, but it has long been looked down on, given its incredibly bad track record. Normally, if a theory fails repeated tests for 10 or 20 years, it is discarded. In the case of the supernatural, we are talking about several centuries of effort that has resulted in nothing but failure. Abject, embarassing, miserable, career-ending, money-wasting failure and disappointment. So the door has slowly closed on the supernatural. And who could blame science for closing it? It is not a useful investment of time or effort or money, and other scarce resources. If you are a professor and you claim you want to study witchcraft, your career is over. Even though you have tenure, fellow scientists will avoid you. Science cannot afford to encourage extremely radical views, and it does not. It might be unfair, but that is reality. And industrial science is much much much worse, let me tell you. The people that invented the computer mouse? Fired. The people who invented the flat panel display? Fired. The people who invented the cell phone? Fired. The people who invented the ethernet? Fired. The people who invented the laser printer? Fired. The people who invented the digital wrist watch? Fired. The people who invented VOIP? Fired. I could give hundreds of examples. So in the face of this, you expect science to entertain something that has been shown to be a crock of crap over and over for several hundred years? Good luck. You are not much of a realist and not much of a capitalist if you think that you can do that. Market forces alone will not allow it, nor should they. We do not have the money to pay for nonsense. And creation science and intelligent design, as near as we can tell, is nonsense.--Filll 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible to have scientific experiments to study the supernatural. Most recenty there was a scientific study of the effect of prayer on heart patients - results published some time last year (result - no effect). The down side for scientists studying the supernatural, is whatever the result, there will be someone who claims the study wasn't broad enough, or narrow enough, or didn't study the right effect, or the right people, or something. In other words people will believe what they want to believe, whatever science says. --Michael Johnson 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fill, you make a sheaf of good points here. Based on its track record, research into the supernatural has nothing going for it. In fact, a lot of research and development seems pointless; funders are constantly pulling the plug. The man who introduced the Macintosh was also fired (Steve Jobs); a couple of decades later they hired him back, but only after permanently losing their market share to a no-talent imitator with much better business sense.


 * Pioneers who say "I've already made progress" will never convince anybody: the proof is in the pudding. If someone can show a reliable way of, say, curing cancer or asthma via spiritual means - and get FDA approval via double-blind or triple-blind studies, then and only then will they have made their point. Whining about how everyone ignores them is, frankly, undignified. I mean, I do sympathize, but a lot of them are as embarrassing to the cause as Rush Limbaugh is to conservatism. And would someone puh-leeze tell Anne Coulter that she doesn't look attractive in a skirt?


 * But what I want to do here at Wikipedia is simply to describe their views. A one-paragraph summary of the complaints of some leading ID proponents that "science shouldn't exclude the supernatural", and be done with it. Maybe Dembski is a good start, he's got a blog full of quotes. --Uncle Ed 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure you can find quotations. I think Meyer or Johnson might also be good candidates for quotations that make this point.--Filll 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The aim of ID advocates to expand the scope of science to include the supernatural is already mentioned in the article in several places. As far as the underlying conceptual problem of "scientific study of the supernatural", I'd urge a bit more caution in throwing the term "supernatural" around, for the same reason I mentioned a bit farther above.  ("The presently unexplained is frequently regarded as supernatural, until an explanation is found that is satisfactory to enough people that it comes to be regarded as natural.")  If, as Ed Poor said above, "someone can show a reliable way of, say, curing cancer or asthma via spiritual means ... ," what happens in such a case is that it acquires a set of parameters within which it is judged to be reliable (or not reliable, or reliable to within a verifiable degree of statistical confidence), and is then regarded as "natural" (as opposed to "supernatural").  Again, science doesn't specialize in the supernatural.  It doesn't even specialize in studying "things in themselves" (noumena).  Science specializes in investigating and describing observable phenomena in ways that can be reported to other persons, such that those who are familiar or can become familiar with the relevant methodology and technology of investigation can replicate (i.e. duplicate) the reported results. Operational definitions among a cummunity of scientists are expected to be adequately specific that even a skeptic can duplicate it.  This is not the case with such things as placebo effects, grotto miracles, and other "spiritually caused" cures. ... Kenosis 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is off topic, stop reading now, but Kenosis made a very interesting statement about the scope of science:
 * Science specializes in investigating and describing observable phenomena in ways that can be reported to other persons, such that those who are familiar or can become familiar with the relevant methodology and technology of investigation can replicate (i.e. duplicate) the reported results.
 * I think this is a definition that people on both sides of the ID fence would agree with. And I think it's in that sense that Dembski, et al., are probably maintaining that ID *is* scientific. But when Eugenic Scott and friends flatly deny that ID is scientific, it looks like they are using a different definition. They seem to be dismissing ID out of hand, on the grounds that science should not, must not and can not ever consider a non-physical cause.


 * ID advocates are fools for not acknowledging this, and are likely to be caught up in the legal battles of evolution education. They are trying to get too much, too soon. They would be better off in the long run if they pursued scientific study of religion and/or scientific study of all sorts of spiritual, occult and supernatural phenomena. But they are doubly foolish to expect science, which has barely come out of its infancy in even such a crucial field as medical science in the last 120 years, to undergo a paradigm shift so quickly. I mean, scientists can't even agree on whether global warming is caused by natural cycles (Milankovitch cycles, solar variation) - a controversy which has huge monetary implications. Why would scientists do anything that might endorse religion with all that implies? --Uncle Ed 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading this and pondering it a bit, I realize that kenosis is right. There are several different ways in which science and scientists can interact with the supernatural:


 * 1) to investigate something with a supernatural cause with conventional scientific tools and then reach a conclusion
 * 2) to not find an answer to a scientific puzzle, and ascribe its explanation to supernatural means
 * 3) to assume a priori that a given supernatural cause is correct, and to refuse to accept any other explanation no matter what the evidence
 * 4) for scientists to have some respect and awe about nature and a feeling that there might be some driving natural principle or principles
 * 5) for scientists to subscribe to some subset of religious supernatural beliefs, but not in the area of their work
 * 6) for scientists to use their beliefs in the supernatural to influence their scientific work.

What is objectionable in science are interactions 2, 3 and 6. What is not objectionable is interaction 4. What can be objectionable if they use their position of authority to make pronouncements about other fields of science is interaction 5. Interaction 1 can be frowned upon by science as being a waste of resources, but if the work is conducted with proper scientific skepticism and honesty and the conclusions are drawn in a conventional scientific fashion, interaction 1 is still in the scientific realm.--Filll 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This highlights why it is valuable to have these discussions, to sharpen our arguments and shed light on the situation. Creationists have been known to claim that case 1 or case 4 make cases 2, 3 and 6 permissible. If a scientist satisfies case 5, creationists will sometimes claim this justifies cases 2, 3 and 6.--Filll 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the investigation of the "supernatural" is not part of science. If it's investigable by an instrument of some kind, it's "natural".  If by "supernatural" we are referring to "consciousness", that's something else for which appropriate operational definitions must be used.  Many potentially relevant operational definitions and correlates can be found in the literature of experimental psychology, for example.  ... Kenosis 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Ed's past activity at this article was given as evidence in his arbitration, Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2, that resulted in his being placed on permanent POV probation for disruptive editing, I think your idea calling for Ed is problematic to the point of being a Bad Idea. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the probation. Sorry. I was just trying to do the right thing as I saw it.Trishm 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

rhetoric must be backed up with detail.
From the overview, this line "The most commonly cited "signs of intelligence" include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity." needs to have examples of these things.

I don't actually know of any examples that have stood up to any scrutiny. If there are examples, we need to give them. If there are none, we need to say that too.Trishm 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The next section proceeds to explain the concepts in more detail, with examples. That material is merely being introduced at the "Overview" stage of the article. ... Kenosis 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. The words are used twice, in the overview and in "origins of the concept" before any detail is given.  If you don't mind, I will give some thought to how to reduce the distance between rhetoric and substance, without disturbing with the flow of the text.Trishm 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the flagellum and the immune system have been used repeatedly as examples of irreducible complexity (less sure about the immune system; maybe that one is just intelligent design). --Filll 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples are detailed at their sub-articles, this article does not need to include examples of notion supporting ID when there are articles for each of those, unless the argument is be made that the examples are necessary for this article. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article does not need to go into the examples. In that case, the lineline:  "The most commonly cited "signs of intelligence" include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity."  should not be there.  Although it is verifiable according to NPOV policy, it is misleading because it produces a sense of substance without any actual information.  Without detail, it actually doesn't help the reader understand anything, from either the ID or opposing views.


 * A well-meaning busy science teacher with the question: "Should I be teaching ID in my science class?" would get the sense that there is merit to ID. The interested-in-ID-but-uninformed is none the wiser either.  I believe that the phrase violates the Fringe Theory Guidelines, and propose that the phrase be removed.Trishm 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agendas and Stereotypes
Discussion moved to the subpage /Off_topic_discussions since it was not directly related to specific article content and was becoming disruptive with ad hominem attacks of regular editors. FeloniousMonk 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific Suggestions
Thanks for cutting through my baloney, Ken. I think you have distilled the best of what I said. I don't feel that I can write a new draft of this article, because I don't feel qualified enough to write about this subject. However, I know improper English when I read it. For example:


 * The scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science;

Communities do not state anything ever. Representatives of communities can state. Majorities of communities can ascribe to opinions. But, communities can not state.

Here's another transgressor:


 * Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God,[1][2] stated in secular terms, based on the premise 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 would be much more fair to say: "Intelligent design is a theory that purports 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection', thereby implying an argument for the existence of a creator. " (I think ... I'm not an ID expert.)

How about this sentence:


 * Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] 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.

"All"? All is an over-reaching word in almost every sense. This word alone leads to two different arguments. Firstly, what is the definition of "affiliated" and secondly what is "leading"? Does this statement imply that there are other proponents who are not leading and also non-affiliated? The sentence doesn't make sense. It would be simpler and more direct to just say, "This is a wrong-headed theory championed by a fringe group call the Discovery Institute."

Secondly, I think the framers of the article need to agree to an outline before wasting time arguing over verbiage. The prose doesn't matter until you know what you are trying to say. I'm not sure how to do this because I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Here's my outline of the outline:


 * I. Overview
 * A. The concept (presented clearly and without challenge)
 * B. The controversy (state plainly and succinctly that many reject this theory for reasons described below)
 * II. The concept (in summation, with references to other resources)
 * III. The refutation (in summation, with references to other Wikipedia articles)
 * IV. Political ramifications

That's four specific suggestions. I've got 200 more, but I won't waste your time with them. Maybe I should just copy this mess onto my page and present draft, but I think it would be wiser to just walk away ... Everwill 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * RE "the scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science;" Everwill's criticism is: "Communities do not state anything ever."  My response: The language is quite correct.  If you read the footnotes, you will see that all the major organizations of scientists and science teachers have issued unequivocal statements that ID is not science, with some choosing to use the term "pseudoscience" and several prominent scientists using the term "junk science"
 * RE Everwill's statement "It would be much more fair to say: "Intelligent design is a theory that purports 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection', thereby implying an argument for the existence of a creator. " My response: ID is not a theory that thereby implies anything.  It is, as the court in Kitzmiller found, "a teleological argument" that is "essentially religious in nature".  The article cites accordingly. The Kitzmiller decision is consistent with other citations found independently by the editors of this article.
 * RE "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] claim ... " Everwill's criticism is: "All? ... It would be simpler and more direct to just say, "This is a wrong-headed theory championed by a fringe group call the Discovery Institute." My response: The editors have been over this repeatedly; the statement is accurate and cites to multiple sources that say the same thing in different words. Yes, it could be said differently, though the alternative proposed here by Everwill doesn't appear to be an improvement.  Further, we're not within our rights as WP editors to call it "wrong-headed" in the article or to call the DI a "fringe group" in the article, for reasons I shouldn't need to explain here.
 * RE Everwill's statement "I think the framers of the article need to agree to an outline before wasting time arguing over verbiage. The prose doesn't matter until you know what you are trying to say." My response: The numerous editors of the article arrived at the present outline via a long process of consensus. It is a very reasonable approach, given the complexities of this difficult subject.
 * ... Kenosis 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Is there a link to the outline which new editors and readers can see/edit/comment on? Everwill 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The outline developed over the course of two years' discussion, all of which is preserved in the archives. ... Kenosis 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reproducing earlier submission here, so as not to have an unsiged thread broken up, with Everwill's response below. ... Kenosis 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * RE "the scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science;" Everwill's criticism is: "Communities do not state anything ever."  My response: The language is quite correct.  If you read the footnotes, you will see that all the major organizations of scientists and science teachers have issued unequivocal statements that ID is not science, with some choosing to use the term "pseudoscience" and several prominent scientists using the term "junk science" ... Kenosis 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll stick to this one fight and not address the other issues because this is a test case. If I'm "wrong" on this one, then I'm quite convinced that this entire discussion is pointless. Let me clearify. I'm not doubting the references or that the consensus of the community is that the concept of ID is foolishness. I'm trying to tell you that this is improper English.


 * Please understand that it is possible for "major organizations" to issue statements. However, communities are incapable of issuing statements. An organization is organized and thus it can state. A community cannot "state" because it has no organization.  It is possible for "a portion of", "a member of" or "any constituent part of" a community to make a statement. But communities per se cannot state because communities cannot walk, talk, write, say or otherwise communicate.  A community is a group of people. A group of people can agree to a consensus opinion, but a group of people cannot state.  The group of people can elect a representative who can state on their behalf, but the community can never ever state.  I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.  Please help me with the part you're not understanding? Everwill 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what has been said to previous editors who sounded an awful lot like you: If you are not willing to write your own version of an article somewhere else, in a sandbox etc, then you are not serious. Go away please.--Filll 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kenosis, why bother explaining these things to Everwill? Let's digest his argument down to the fundamentals--he thinks that ID is right, we think that there is no verifiable support for it, and in order to maintain NPOV, the editors have written this article in a manner that does not agree with his belief set, so he's angry.  My recommendation, as we did to User:Raspor, ignoring is better than feeding.  He is disrupting this discussion with pontification that is not worthy of reply.  Orangemarlin 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to say it any more plainly. I don't think ID is right. I have no opinion on ID. I came to this article to form an opinion about ID, but I cannot do so from what is presented.  I'm not angry because this article doesn't not agree with my belief set. At times, I get angry becuase I get shouted down each time I try to point out the problems with this article. /end pontification Everwill 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These suggestions completely and totally fly in the face of what WP:NPOV requires. I for one am not able to spend the time educating him on the finer points of our policies; if someone else is that's great, but this talk page is not the place for it. I suggest that Everwill become more familiar with that specific policy before making any further suggestions for significant alterations to this article (which he had agreed to stay away from as a condition of his recent unblocking). FeloniousMonk 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to go into these discussions assuming good faith on every editor. I suspect Everwill of being someone else, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  I got sense knocked into me by FM and others, so maybe I can return the favor.  But Everwill has not educated himself on NPOV, and it is frustrating.  Orangemarlin 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, I'm begging you: back away from the nuclear button. I'm not talking about POV, neutral or otherwise. I'm not challenging your facts. I'm just telling you that it is impossible for a "community" to state. That's an English language usage error. There are many alternatives. For example, the majority of the community can agree that ID is bunk. The representatives of the community can state that ID is bunk. An organization can state the ID is bunk. But: a community can't ever state anything. That has nothing to do with ID, evolution, creation, POV, Raspor, meat puppets or sock puppets. It's just a usage error. If takes this much work to make you understand this teeny tiny criticism, then there is no point in me spending my valuable time writing an article or a sentence. I'm sorry to have bothered you. Please return to discussing this subject with those who will not question your authority. Everwill 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The facts are not wrong. If you are unhappy with the notion that the leaders and rule-makers of a community can't speak for it, then try this:
 * ID has no scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or similar to support it, as Behe testified under oath at the K-D trial.  ID is therefore ineligible to be called a science, as attested to by scientific organizations.Trishm 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I've come to believe that you guys are nuts. I specifically and repeatedly wrote that I'm not challenging the facts. In fact, your characterization of what I think is in direct opposition to what I tried to tell you repeatedly. This is why I feel the need to repeat myself in the next paragraph.


 * I've already written that an organization can make statements. I've already written that any consitutent part of a community can speak. I've also written that a ruler or a leader is a constituent part of a community, that means that rulers or leaders can speak for a community. But a community can't speak anymore than an elephant can fly. Communities don't have mouths. Communities can't write. Communities don't have mechanisms or organization to issue proclamations.  Why get so incredibly bent out of shape over simple and obvious English-usage errors?


 * Your suggested replacement sentence will get annihilated by opponents of your position. I would suggest any of the following options:
 * many members of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * many leaders of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * many representatives of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * many leading organizations of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * most of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * all within the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * a few of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science
 * some members of the scientific community have unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science


 * Take your pick. I'm happy to provide a great many more choices so you can select the option that best represents your perception of reality. Have you ever considered the possibility that those some of those who think this article is broken don't disagree with your "facts"? The actions of the long-time poster's here project something resembling a cult mentality here. Cult leaders don't like cult members to interact with those outside the cult. (Thus the efforts to shut me down before I taint the minds of the gullible or unwary.) But just because I'm not in the cult, doesn't mean I disagree with your assertion that ID is bunk.  For those who may have missed it, please allow me to click my heals, hold my right hand skyward and salute: I'm not challenging any of your research or facts. (That last sentence is intended to be humorous, please don't stone me.) I originally came to this article to read about Intelligent Design, so quite frankly I don't know jack about ID.  I don't think you are a bunch of liars.  I think everything you've written can be substantiated. I still think the approach and the English in this page are out of control. But if I have to write ten pages of justification to correct a single usage error, I'm quite sure my time would be better spent elsewhere. Everwill 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the sentence stated "statement", I might agree. But the sentence in the article states that the community "has unequivocally stated...".  The usage "state" or "stated" has a great deal more flexibility of context than the word "statement".  The current usage of the word in the article is, at least in my estimation, well within bounds of reasonable usage. Perhaps the sentence would more appropriately use the words "... has unequivocally asserted that ...". ... Kenosis 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys can and will write whatever you want, because it's your article. But for the benefit of your personal information, a "statement" is nothing more than the noun form of the verb "state". You may not realize this but it is not possible for communities | in this sense of the word to state, ascribe, assert, say, write, transmit or otherwise communicate. A vocational community such as the scientific community doesn't have a mechanism for communication. Organizations have mechanisms to communicate. Members of the community, including community leaders, have mechanisms for communication. It's also possible for a "science academy" to communicate. It's possible for a "science institute" to "equivocally state" because those organizations have leaders and the means to issue statements. Of course, the European Community can communicate because the European Community is not a community in the same sense of the word. The EC is organized in some fashion. So far as I know the scientific community has no such organization. Everwill 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that in its current form "the community has stated" is basically shorthand for "every entity within this group has stated", which is verbose and (in my opinion) not necessarily needed. I don't think either really has any significant linguistic advantage over the other, and the distinction between the two is very small when the consensus in said group is as strong as it is. --HassourZain 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the choices above was "all of the scientific community" that's not verbose and it's more precise, and it doesn't give people the impression that you're incapable of standard English usage. Everwill 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be equally comfortable with "the scientific community has unequivocally asserted..." as with "the scientific community has unequivocally stated". But, since it seems so important to Everwill (among the 200 complaints (s)hs has, as mentioned above), here are some definitions and contexts that are considered proper usage for the verb "to state", of which "has stated" is the "present perfect" form. Meaning #1: express in words. Synonyms: say, tell. Meaning #2: put before. Synonyms: submit, put forward. Meaning #3: indicate through a symbol, formula, etc. Synonym: express. 1. To put into words: articulate, communicate, convey, declare, express, say, talk, tell, utter1, vent, verbalize, vocalize, voice. Idioms: givetongueventvoiceto. See words. 2. To utter publicly: air, express, put, vent, ventilate. Idioms: come out with. See show/hide, words. 3. To declare by way of a systematic statement: enounce, enunciate. See words. 4. To put into words positively and with conviction: affirm, allege, argue, assert, asseverate, aver, avouch, avow, claim, contend, declare, hold, maintain, say. Idioms: have it. See affirm/deny/argue. ...Kenosis 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * American Heritage Dictionary: "to set forth in words; declare"
 * According to WordNet: The verb state has 3 meanings:
 * Houghton-Mifflin Thesaurus:
 * The Thomson-Gale Legal Encyclopedia uses two senses. The first is explicit, the second more general as follows. "To set down in gross; to mention in general terms, or by way of reference; to refer."


 * Thanks for providing this useful information. Communities still don't state. Communities are incapable of asserting or stating. I don't understand why this is a big deal? Normally, errors are just corrected on other articles. Why is it so difficult to insert one of the following:
 * all of the scientific community
 * some of the scientific community
 * the majority of the scientific community
 * members of the scientific community
 * organizations within the scientific community


 * Why is there is this much resistance to something so simple and obvious? Why is there this much resistance to something which doesn't challenge anyone's POV? Why is there this much resistance to something which doesn't challenge any facts? Don't you think that resisting this type of editorial change is the opposite of what Wikipedia encourages its editors to do on the newbie page? Everwill 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, for a long time that passage in the article read "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as...." That was recently judged by the involved WP editors to be an understatement that did not adequately capture the strength with which that community asserts ID to be unscientific.  But given the line of thinking put forward in this talk section, I suppose the next complaint here would be that communities don't "view".  Everwill, quite possibly it's time to obtain for yourself a thorough update on conteporary systems theory, community interaction, consensus theory and the like. ... Kenosis 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Return of a previous banned editor?
Anyone see some similarities?--Filll 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is User:FeloniousMonk??--Filll 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought he was banned. I went to his user talk section, and somehow he talked an administrator into letting him back in.  I'll presume then it was appropriate.  Orangemarlin 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there was an edit conflict. I of course meant Everwill, not FeloniousMonk.  Orangemarlin 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm around. Everwill is free to edit Wikipedia, but has agreed to stay away from this article due to lingering concerns of others over the Raspor issue. If he is editing here, please let user:SlimVirgin know. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did as you suggested. You should check out the Jesus as myth page where diverse opinions are discussed openly, fairly, and maturely.  It's refreshing.  Orangemarlin 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everwill has not edited the article. The current discussion is contentious and a bit lengthy, but within reasonable bounds of civility and rationality. ... Kenosis 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A condition of his unblocking was that he wouldn't be editing this page as well, and I wouldn't call edit like this: constructive or not disruptive. I've informed SV that he's renegged on his agreement. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, I'm begging you. Take a chill pill. Everwill 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And this comment is civil? I think he's violated the conditions of his parole, if you ask me.  Orangemarlin 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we do not want to fight about the same things with the same themes over and over and over hundreds of times, wasting time and space. And if Everwill is unable or unwilling to write anything himself/herself, then what is this editor doing here? This is about writing an encyclopedia. Period. If you cannot write an article yourself, you do not belong here. Everything else is just nonsense and does not belong here.--Filll 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not unwilling to write anything. I'm unwilling to undertake a complete rewrite of this article because (as evidenced above) it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time because correcting a English language usage error causes you to go into attack mode, therefore I assume that a complete rewrite of the article would put you into total meltdown. I'd rather find some common ground somewhere before investing a lot of time on an entire article that will only cause me to get pilloried.


 * If you don't want to fight about the same things and the same themes over and over hundreds of times, you should stop editting Wikipedia. I'll give up soon, but there will be an endless supply of people who will want to argue the same themes over and over hundreds of times. It's inevitable, because that's the nature of this site. Everwill 12:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everwill is right in that the wiki way is to expect your contributions to be mercilessly edited with only the consensus process to run to for help. Filll is right in that "mature" well-developed Wikipedia articles could do with some extra protection especially since Everwill is right: the consensus process has no end. This dilemma has given rise to the way some regulars here, especially Kenosis and FeloniousMonk, are defending the current balance or "longstanding consensus." I imagine this may develop into policy, and others with more Wikipedia expertise have been thinking along these lines. Two examples that might accomplish this without killing the success of Wikipedia in terms of editor motivation and community: (1) freezing featured articles or versions selected for WP:1.0 on special pages (updating the software to add 1 page per article), and linking to this page from the regular (development version) page, or (2) setting a time-out where an article is protected for a specific period. FWIW... AvB &divide; talk  13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough of religious disagreements
After a startling lack of disagreement at above, I've implemented it. For those struggling to work out what ID is, a brief transcript of the words of the master and a link to the movie at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy provide educational viewing in an entertaining format. Personally, I like the monkey song. .. dave souza, talk 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoints which favor ID
FeloniousMonk reverted a ref I added to the intro, on the grounds that it was advancing a particular point of view.


 * rv Ed's edits, which are promoting a particular view)

Since this is a controversial article, with much to say on both sides, I think we should apply NPOV, which says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Surely one footnote from an Upper West Side museum's magazine - Natural History - is not out of proportion. And didn't the arbcom rule last year that it's not correct to delete material simply because it "advances a point of view"? FM would seem to be admittedly going against the arbcom, on the basis of his edit summary. --Uncle Ed 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, not a very subtle misuse of sources that, Ed. If your footnote stood was meant to support the passage "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God", then why out of all the passages in that article did you choose to include the one that contains the rhetoric of ID proponents ("...who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley's) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics")? It also runs completely counter to the source that preceded it, the Dover trial ruling, which explicitly said that ID proponents version of the idea was not supported by microbiology or mathematics. So please Ed, explain to us how this does not backhandedly promote the ID viewpoint. As far as my going against the arbcom, from what I remember, it is you who is on permanent probation for disruption, Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2, not me. FeloniousMonk 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I might add that the "Natural History" article was from 2002, prior to the full public disclosure and public discussion of the scope of the DI's agenda, and also prior to the showdowns over teaching it as a scientific alternative to evolution in science classes, as well as prior to the completion of analysis, discussion and commentary by the scientific community. ... Kenosis 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has been largely overtaken by more recent events and sources. It reads almost quaint now. FeloniousMonk 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The line implied a scientific argument, where no scientific paper has been published. Definitely misleading, POV aside.Trishm 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * EXACCLTY i agree COMPLEELY iwht what you just said i hope that this silly IDEA of a ID does not get reppresented as as citnetific theory because its not! Smith Jones 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WAIT Also i would like to archive this talk page because it sis gettng HUGE!!! Smith Jones

Good idea about the archiving – will have a go if no-one gets round to it shortly. Anyway, Ed's quaint source does have some value: his selective quotation missed the rest of the paragraph "These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept -- known as intelligent design -- included in the science curriculum of schools." – isn't that what they've been denying seeking as soon as the Dover board got into trouble for doing just that? The start of the next paragraph also adds balance: "Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science."....dave souza, talk 08:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the word selection in the last quote. "Most biologists have concluded" vs. "the biological scientific community has concluded". Everwill 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the quote was from 2002, prior to the full public disclosure and public discussion of the scope of the DI's agenda, and also prior to the showdowns over teaching it as a scientific alternative to evolution in science classes, as well as prior to the completion of analysis, discussion and commentary by the scientific community. Today, "most biologists have concluded" would be an understatement of the strength of the assertions put forward by biologists and by the scientific community in general.  ... Kenosis 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. "All" is perhaps an understandment because it doesn't convey the proper level of conviction? Everwill 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "all" is not accurate either, as shown in the footnotes in the article. But thanks for challenging us to try to come up with a better way of saying it. ... Kenosis 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Everwill's objection
I have avoided commenting on this for a few days. However, this is just a pure nonsense comment. Of course no large body of individuals ever "speaks" or "does" or "believes" anything really. However, as a convention in English, we use this type of expression all the time. For example, is the US in a war in Iraq? Are Sunnis and Shiites fighting in Iraq? Is there a war on terrorism? Are issues debated in Congress? Did the class read the assignment? Did the class take an exam? Did the professor  give the class an exam? Did the class study English grammar? Did the farm sell its produce? Did the corporation announce earnings? Is the stock market going up? Did the stock market crash? In ALL of these cases, which are common types of expressions used all the time, someone fluent in colloquial English will understand exactly what is meant. However, not one of these statements is literally true, depending on how you interpret the statement. It is far more correct to say that some individual congressmen and their aides are debating each other on some issues, for example. Or it is probably far more correct to say that some of the members enrolled in Professor Johnson's class on Classical History meeting on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays from 2 pm to 3 pm Eastern Standard Time in room 112 of the Smith Building this semester read some parts of the assignment for today. However, we use shorthand expressions and figures of speech. If one hears a statement that the "scientific community has done a substantial amount of work on global warming", then obviously the meaning is clear. This is a well known figure of speech, but I do not at the moment recall the name for it. However, if 95%, or 99%, or 99.9%, or 99.99% of the members of a community believe something, then it might be said with no problems of misinterpretation that the community believes it. If the governing body of the organization issues a statement, we will typically describe this as an organization issuing the statement. We are all smart enough to know what this means, arent we Everwill? Or do you not understand English?--Filll 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also quote from Everwill, who stated, among other things: "You guys can and will write whatever you want, because it's your article. You may not realize this but it is not possible for communities in this sense of the word to state, ascribe, assert, say, write, transmit or otherwise communicate." It is clear from this and other comments that he has a conception of group behavior, but plainly uses that conception only selectively, dependent on his preferred outcome of group-based events. ... Kenosis 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Filll. As I said above, intellectual shorthand and use of intuitive symbolic language is much faster than literally saying everything needed to make something factual. "the scientific community has unequivocally stated" is far easier to manage than "every biological researcher within the scientific community that has spent time investigating the matter has stated". The case here is that you can argue the point Everwill brings up ad absurdum- the important part is that what the article is stating is understood, which I think is the essence of the point we're trying to convey. --HassourZain 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. :^) Everwill 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully moving past such things as conspiracy theories about WP editors, mob rule, consensus-based Naziism, etc., are there any other specific substantive issues related to the article on intelligent design? If there are about 200, as stated above, it should keep various participants busy for awhile. But please keep in mind that many points are likely to have been thoroughly discussed before, and are contained in the archives linked to at the top of this page. Please also keep in mind that in general, if a point has already achieved a consensus, the ante is generally increased to provide adequate justification to completely re-discuss and re-consensus such an issue. ... Kenosis 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm done. Keep up the good work, fellas! Everwill 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might look into Wikipedia's guideline articles on consensus- what Kenosis is true in that much of this stuff is improvement off of what was there before or has been talked through thoroughly. I am happy to help look at any parts of the article and make any changes to problem parts of the article you object to. However, if you have only come here to make a point (As in the guideline "state your point, and don't look to prove it experimentally), you may be mistaken in some of your assumptions about what the Wikipedia project is for. --HassourZain 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection to the first line of the article
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God.

What about the argument that life (on Earth at least) was designed by an alien being? I am not a proponent of the theory, but surely it falls under the category of ID? As other users have suggested, "creator" may be a more generic and neutral term than "God". Else we should have a separate article dedicated to Intelligent design (aliens).

Though I agree that the movement has been thouroughly hijacked by religious creationists, it seems slightly POV, and dare I say petulant, to thrust the religious overtones of the subject into the reader's face in the first sentence. I move to change "God" to "creator". What do other users think?

Straussian 13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, Straussian. I don't think you're going to make much headway with this crowd. Everwill 13:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This might have been reasonable at one time, but then the Wedge Document was leaked, and the founders of the DI were caught in repeated lies on the subject, and then we had the Dover decision. So the present view is appropriate in light of all that. The alien option is not the only option by the way. It might also be that humans travelled backwards in time to design life, and create the impression of intelligent design. Or that matter itself is intelligent and can design itself. If I am creative enough, I might even come up with other options. However, there are already lots of articles on panspermia and related topics.--Filll 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Intelligent design is specifically the brainchild of the Discovery Institute, an organisation that has vowed to "affirm the reality of God". Internal documents refer to the designer as being god. And the Kitzmiller trial shows a judge ruling that "we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."
 * Do you believe that the characterisation of the Discovery Institute's 'intelligent design' as a religious construct is unfair? -- Ec5618 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Straussian, what evidence is there than any leading ID proponents actually believes and or seriously proposes a space alien did it? By "seriously" I mean they do not wink when they suggest space aliens done it.  All of the leading and even not very leading ID proponents believe the intelligent designer is god.  The only group proposing space aliens are the Raelians and there brand of "intelligent design" has pretty much nothing in common with this article.  And if you read current history you'll note the DI did not hijack ID, there was no ID movement prior to the DI.  In spite of Straussian's opinion, the opening sentence is well supported by both evidence and reality.  Mr Christopher 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Though I agree that the movement has been thouroughly hijacked by religious creationists..." - this suggests that at some point in time it wasn't dominated by religious creationists. Do you have any references to support this assertion?  Everything I have read about the development of the intelligent design movement points the other way - that it was, in fact, specifically "designed" to circumvent the Edwards decision.  Can you point me in the direction of your sources?  Thanks.  Guettarda 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is a subversive weapon used by those who seek to usurp the host nation's duly elected democracy and replace it with a theocracy. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled argument for the existence of God which sometimes poses as a panspermia argument to increase the likelihood that this insipid argument will ensnare the gullible and unwary. .

Everwill 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everwill, here is a pro tip from yours truly - don't give up the day job anytime soon. Mr Christopher 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everwill, is it verifiable? Remember, verifiability, not truth. -- Ec5618 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Straussian's objection is already discussed in the article, with some sources cited. If the designer(s) are alleged to be "aliens", the question "who designed the designers?" kicks into motion a potentially infinite regression.  The WP article's first sentence is not only verified and cited, it is also factually correct. ... Kenosis 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everwill: What Ec5618 said hit the nail on the head- even if what you asserted is true, information cannot go into the article without being verifiable. It's doubtful that any reliable sources would make any of those specific assertions, and even if the essence of that paragraph were to be used, some serious tone/cleanup would need to be undertaken. --HassourZain 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, especially the issue of "duly elected democracy"...in the Diebold era, that's an unverifiable statement ;) Guettarda 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Everwill, how dare you mischaracterise the DI's intentions and unfairly make them out to be much more modest than they are. Surely a better statement would be "The Darwinian theory of evolution is the grand creation story of our culture. Every culture has a creation story, creation myth if you like, and the creation story is the basis for every kind of knowledge in that culture. And for that reason, the experts who have the authority to tell the creation story to the public have great power. And they always have, or at least want, a monopoly of that power. They don't want to share it to anybody.... We saw an opportunity to change the world, by moving debate away from this bible versus science stereotype, and into the question of whether the scientific evidence,  when examined impartially, really justified and supported the grand claims of Darwinism." .... ;) .. dave souza, talk 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disengage, there. Re-engage here.
BTW, my refusal to engage the angry gibberish some have posted is not meant to imply that communities are capable of stating. The angry invectives hurled at me after I pointed out this usage error proved what I have previously stated: there are some who have staked out this article as a fiefdom. They have a vested interest in the article and they will fight to keep it moving toward whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. The reaction to a usage error is proof enough to me. Wikipedia is about change and editting articles but they are moving toward memorializing their version of the article as some sort of validation of their belief-set. More power to them! Everwill 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you spewed less angry gibberish the amount you see would be reduced? Mr Christopher 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Mr Evervictim, do you consider this heaping pile of garbage to be a productive attempt to improve the article:


 * Intelligent design (ID) is a subversive weapon used by those who seek to usurp the host nation's duly elected democracy and replace it with a theocracy. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled argument for the existence of God which sometimes poses as a panspermia argument to increase the likelihood that this insipid argument will ensnare the gullible and unwary.


 * Well, how is this helping? Oh I see, guys like you get to be sarcastic <  > while claiming victimhood and charging the article is POV and biased because you don't get your whiney way.  Well cry me a fucking river, bro. Mr Christopher 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get-along and go-along. Maybe if I fit in with the crowd you'll quit using profanity and quit calling me names? Everwill 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everwill, if you want to "fit in with the crowd", the only thing that you need to do is try to contribute. If you do want to contribute, then please suggest a modification or a piece of new text that fits the constraints of being verifiable, and accurate and that does not mislead the reader.
 * If you do not want to contribute, then why are you here?
 * So far, all you have done is start arguments, so I am not terribly surprised that some editors' frustrations are beginning to show.Trishm 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think it's misleading to say "all of the scientific community" or "the vast majority of the scientific community" vs. the "scientific community". What are you guys all so angry about? I've never even changed one word of the article? Everwill 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused, are you Raspor or not? Mr Christopher 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everwill, I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked you to PLEASE say something constructive, and, well, you didn't.Trishm 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, while I would never be one to ascribe motives, someone might nevertheless note that Everwill's contribution may one aimed at disrupting the talk page to such an extent that further progress on the article is impeded. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is my inference.--Filll 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Mediation Committee. I would like us to have less heat and more light.

Discussions of other contributors' intentions or behavior are out of place here. Talk should focus on improving the article.

Please avoid saying things like the following:


 * aimed at disrupting the talk page
 * all you have done is start arguments
 * angry gibberish
 * angry invectives hurled
 * claiming victimhood
 * cry me a fucking river
 * guys like you
 * heaping pile of garbage
 * say something constructive
 * staked out this article as a fiefdom
 * validation of their belief-set
 * whatever it is they are trying to accomplish
 * why are you here
 * you do not want to contribute
 * you don't get your whiney way

You might also want to take a glance at Avoid personal remarks. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, you may be a member of the Mediation Committee, but for you to come in here and accuse us of whatever is unfair and, frankly, ridiculous. Everwill is a sockpuppet and currently banned personage on here.  Of the 15 items you listed up there, probably 14 of them applied to him.  I actually treated him respectfully at first, until I was apparently fooled by him and his sockpuppetry.  Why should we have patience with a person who has banned what, 4 times?  And who has been given an inordinate amount of opportunity to be a contributing member of this community?  I hope that your skills in mediation are better than your analysis of what happened herein.  Orangemarlin 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I am working on being less sarcastic so I am unable to respond to Ed's comments. Mr Christopher 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To paraphrase an absolutely inane movie, "it's a bad day to stop being sarcastic." I've taken offense by what Ed has written. I hope he takes more care in analyzing his mediation cases than he did in reading what was written here.  Orangemarlin 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing opening sentence
How do these two work in conjunction:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God,[1]

Which is backed up by this quote:
 * 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

Then you say:
 * Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute

Can someone please tell me what is Thomas Aquinas' affiliation with the Discovery Institute? If this is an "old religious argument" then it would seem to imply that the ID argument is much older than the Discovery Institute. Was the Discovery Institute around in the 13th Century? Or, is Thomas Aquinas only affiliated with Intelligent Design in the opening sentence, but not affiliated with Intelligent Design in the subsequent sentences? Everwill 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kidding, right?  The article on intelligent design, in the second sentence, states the class of argument that ID is asserted to be by its leading advocates, which is that it is asserted to be a scientific argument. ... Kenosis 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Son of Raspor? Mr Christopher 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is it. No real interest as far as I can tell to contribute. Only trying to pick fights. Has agreed to stay away from this page but continues to violate his agreement. I am tempted to drop a dime and get him permanently banned from WP for repeated violations and general irritation.--Filll 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The intellectual pedigree of an idea is not the same as the organisational structure which promotes it in its current form. Guettarda 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that ideas can be said to be "inherited" by people whom the original idea inspired. I updated the wording per Everwill's objection, it now reads "its contemporary leading proponents, all of whom...". I think it now conveys the idea more clearly. --HassourZain 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, "contemporary leading proponents" is misleading - this idea, this intelligent design, dates back to the 80s. It is based on/recycles older teleological arguments, but it is wrong to conflate the intellectual antecedents with the modern movement.  So no.  Guettarda 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose your line of logic is correct, on consideration. The two ideas are indeed different, though subtly. I have no problem with the wording as it is, then. --HassourZain 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In an interview on NPR, I heard a DI representative (I think it was Dembski) claim that ID had absolutely nothing to do with previous versions of teleology, including the Paley arguments and was completely new objections. I think part of what they are basing this on is the idea that previous teleological people did not have access to genetic information, so now a whole range of information theoretic arguments are available to them which were not before.--Filll 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they're just trying to dissociate themselves from previous times creationists were disproven by scientists. Lemme think of an analogy here...  If you were a football team that had never won a major playoff in over 50 years, would you want to advertise the fact?  :P  You'd probably rename your franchise...  Kasreyn 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)