Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 38

I give up
Do what you want. Any attempt to improve things by me is just getting unilaterally reverted without even getting a reason given. (151's last revert directs me to the talk page for his reason - on which he says nothing, so...) Adam Cuerden talk 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No giving up, Adam. Mr Christopher 14:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We're all frustrated by this article. I am frustrated that a Creationist POV was written and placed in the lead and NO ONE reverted it.  The lead had no consensus and is totally wrong.  But I won't revert it unless I know I have support.  There are too many articles to watch, we all have real lives, and we seem to some form ADHD with these articles.  Adam, don't leave.  But we need to revert the lead back to the original version of two weeks ago, then get consensus.  Can I get some support from the NPOV editors here?  Orangemarlin 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you say it's a Creationist POV, but you offer nothing to support that Orange. you say that it had no consesus (even though the previous lead that you like had even less) and that it is "totally wrong", but again offer nothing to support such a claim.  your POV and reasoning is so shallow that it's obvious that nothing but a scathing expose' against all the evils of ID is acceptable to you.  translated that means that WP is Orange's soapbox. r b-j 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I say, but then again, there is 100's of kb's of discussion above where not one single consensus was reached. Then, YOU took it upon yourself to make a change that is totally POV and totally Creationist.  I'm reverting.  You and I can get into a revert war I suppose, but consensus is on the side of a simple statement that ID is an argument for the existence of G_d.  I'm putting it in.  That's the NPOV, not your Creationist interpretation of NPOV, which would be a whitewash of verifiable facts.  Orangemarlin 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "totally POV and totally Creationist." the first one i put in was one where even FM climbed on board (prop. #2) and the other one (which i still think is cleaner) is the proposal of Tomandlu (the "just the facts, ma'am" version) which was eventually reverted back to some variant of prop. #2.  then Adam and Kenosis started fighting over some variant of that, where i was unable to see the salient difference (so i stayed out of that one, dunno whose variant survives in the article now).  you say things, but you don't back them up.  i couldn't figure out how to respond to your dreck several paragraphs up (responding to Gnixon and Morph) because you actually made no argument.  how can i take on a declaration that something is "totally POV and totally Creationist" with utterly nothing offered to support such an opinion other than to simply say "no, it's not."?  you (ignorantly) insist that i'm a Creationist where i am not even a supporter of ID, as portrayed in this article.  i was cheering when the Kitzmiller ruling came down.  so, Orange, you simply do not know what you are talking about. and like 151, you seem to want your ignorance canonized in a Wikipedia article.
 * it's getting clear who the hard-core POV pushers are. it's an amazing oversight of the powers that be (Raul, i mean you, among others) that this became FA when it was obvious that it suffered deficiencies of neutrality that were resulting in glaring factual errors.  and such errors even in the lead. r b-j 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is just about everyone). 151.151.21.105 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have no clue what I was trying to say above. I think I was interrupted by a phone call, then continued to write.  Oh well, I think my point was made.  First to RBJ.  I've read an instance where you claimed you were a pot smoking something.  Now, you claim you were cheering when the Kitzmiller ruling came in.  By your attitude, attacks, and other such evidence indicates that you are pushing a POV.  In the end, I do not care who or what you are, I do believe in holding to an NPOV.  Yes, you think I'm not, and I think you're not.  And until that is resolved, why would you change the status quo.  A consensus is an agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons.  You did not have a consensus to change the lead.  You had one or two people who might have said something (including FM, who wasn't giving an approval, more like benign neglect.  I am going to revert the lead.Orangemarlin 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * since the article is clearly about the merits or evils about the use or legalization (or some other related topic) regarding cannabis, i'm sure the cited claim is relevant to this article. you're groping, Orange.  you're looking more and more like the W administration.  since you have no persuasive content in what you say, you can apply the Rovian technique of distract and mislead.  i'm confident people can (eventually) see through that. r b-j 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
What is all the html and comment garbage in the article? It's making editing a nightmare.Mr Christopher 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of comments about this issue not far above on this talk page. Pursuant to the play-it-as-it-goes, consensus-based method of doing things-in-the-world, this looks like the new way of doing things on the wiki for now.  Text appears to  be separated from references and both are identified as such for the purpose of discerning what's article text and what's a reference.  Hope that helps to figure it out ... Kenosis 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still an editing nightmare in abundantly sourced articles. It should be easy to solve in the software though, by adding a type of named references that are not displayed in the rendered article so that they can be anywhere in the article source (preferably in the references section). Changes of this type have apparently been proposed here. AvB &divide; talk  11:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I use WikEd. It has a great feature for semi-hiding refs.   Morphh   (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, trying it now. AvB &divide; talk  14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * if it were me, i would just take that crap out. r b-j 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An unconventional position
Jan Michl: Without a godlike designer no designerlike God. "Design and Evolution" conference, Delft University of Technology and the Henri Baudet Institute, Delft, Holland, 31 August - 2 September 2006.

I found this paper on David Miller's home page as his "This month's recommendation". The paper tries to bang creationists' and their opponents' heads together. Perhaps it can be considered as an unconventional position to be described in the article. --Rtc 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please point out where he states an "unconventional position." His conclusion, though long and wordy, states, "Let me conclude. I submit that both Paley and ID proponents succeed in making their case for a designer-like G_d only to the extent they succeed in making the human designer look godlike. In other words, without the godlike designer, no designer-like G_d."  Banging heads together?  It reads like any other criticism of ID, it requires some godlike supernatural being, which is outside of the purview of science.  Orangemarlin 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have failed completely to understand what the paper is saying Michl argues that the ID argument is wrong, not that it is outside of the purview of science. --Rtc 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not in the mood to be treated in an uncivil manner. I did read the article.  I made the point that ID requires a godlike supernatural being and IS outside the purview of science, not the article.  Orangemarlin 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, by definition, ID does not require a supernatural being. By defintion. Do you understand that concept? 68.109.234.155 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this is a bit misleading. it is the fact (recognized by the three references i repeatedly quoted weeks ago) that the definition of ID does not include "supernatural" and such a word should not be include in the lead defining sentence.  but the definition of ID does not and cannot exclude the possibility that the designer is supernatural.  that the "intelligent agent" cannot be supernatural is not true by axiom and might even be an inescapable consequence of the premise of ID.  r b-j 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the assertion that ID does not require a supernatural being is misleadiing, and the article already deals with this in a way that's properly attributed. The question "who designed the designers?", something even a ten-year-old child is familiar with, leads to an infinite regress. ... Kenosis 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * but Kenosis, both sides have this same problem with infinite regress. the theists have always had this problem with the notion of God (and who or what created God) and the materialists have the same problem with simply the question of existance.  even if the material explanation is true (unguided natural processes developing everything that exists in the universe), there is still no explanation for why the universe (or multiverse, if you want to step back) should bother to exist.  for every explanation of a causal agent, you then ask what caused that?  the philosophical problem of infinite regress affects both sides and it seems to me to be a little unfair to portray it as a problem for only one side. r b-j 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any position at all from the justificationist metacontext has the problem of the Munchhausen-Trilemma. --Rtc 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's safe to assume the points RBJ raises do not reflect any notable views on the topic since no sources are being given. Again, nothing presented in this section is relevant or notable enough to be included in the article. 151.151.21.103 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The paper has been published at a conference; that already makes it notable. The amount of people that hold a viewpoint is irrelevant. --Rtc 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all" meaning the number of people that hold the viewpoint is absolutely relevant. 151.151.21.103 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So Dembski and Behe are a tiny-minority lesser than Michl and Miller? --Rtc 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what does your point have to do with the paper? --Rtc 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a viewpoint held by substantially more people than Michl and Miller, I can't see how it would be notable enough to warrant adding to the article. 151.151.73.164 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
I'm willing to live with the tag for the section, to avoid an edit war until we reach a broad consensus. Orangemarlin 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, as it amounted to a personal statement that the WP user who placed it disagrees with the article. I also have no complaints with Morphh's last edit.  In my opinion, the two most recent variations that are currently vying for the article lead, both of which are claimed by different participants to have achieved consensus, more-or-less equally tend to express a reasonable summary of the article's content, based as it is on WP:Reliable sources and the basic WP principles of WP:NPOV and proper attribution. ... Kenosis 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure that it is anyones favorite but of all the versions presented for compromise, I believe this one recieved the broadest support, with most agreeing it to be acceptable. Versions of 2 and 8 tried to improve on prose and compromised language but have not yet recieved as much support.  There is certainly no current consensus for the past lead, which was argued by many to be in violation of NPOV policy.  At this time, this lead has the most support and complies with policy.  Ongoing process ...  Morphh   (talk) 2:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah! Sure, until the next go'round of disagreements, I suppose. Well, hopefully you're right and it'll gradually become a more stable situation.  A lot of the verified facts about ID are, upon first encounter, quite counterintuitive and seem to me to have an inherent tendency to draw complaints no matter how they're stated. ... Kenosis 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
This is getting ridiculous. Everybody's revert-happy and claiming consensus. I've protected the page. Adam Cuerden talk 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is one of the most egregious examples of Wikipedia unreliability. I'm a non-religious person who is open to MET and ID and I can see the obvious bias that pervades. The opening synoposis is laughable. This article should be permanantly deleted since the idealogues are incapable of objectivity.

POV discussion
(Sorry. I put this at the top this morning instead of the bottom, leading to someone thinking I added the POV tag without justifying it...)

I believe this article has POV issues. NigelCunningham 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It consistently fails to explain in any depth what proponents of intelligent design believe. Compare it, for example, with the article on evolution. That article is good in that it first explains in depth what evolution teaches, and only then deals with objections to evolution.
 * Apart from in the history sections, virtually every paragraph in the ends with either a point for evolutionism or a negative sounding quotation of an ID proponent. I guess this is a reflection of the previous point. Critique of the concept is good and right, but should be introduced separately.
 * By consistently speaking of the 'scientific community' instead of something like 'opponents of Intelligent Design', it implies that this is a debate between ignorant non-scientists and science. More recognition should be given to the fact that there are scientists who believe that ID best accounts for the state of the world today.
 * Attempts at editing the page to make it more balanced are consistently reversed.


 * I'd partially agree with your second and fourth points, but I'm not sure what you are saying with regard to the 1st point. With regard to your last point, and whilst acknowledging that the phrase "scientific community" has some associated problems (as someone pointed out, you can't really say "the scientific community has stated..."), the notion that there is a significant minority of scientists who support ID is just not supported by the facts. This is well cited in the article. Yes, there are scientists who support ID, but they are an insignificant minority. Tomandlu 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See the top of this page? See the section called "Please read before starting"? I think that after you read the links given there, especially WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPOVFAQ, you'll find the article seems much less biased and that your first and second points evaporate. As for your third point, read WP:ATT and WP:NPOV which says

"Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." This being how the NPOV policy applies to this topic, your fourth point answers itself. 151.151.21.102 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth is "evolutionism"? (used in the second point arguing the article is not NPOV). ... Kenosis 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One strategy of creationists is to claim that evolution is a religion, or at best a philosophical position, that is an "ism". They then claim that it cannot therefore be taught as a science. A bit like "if we can't have it, you can't have it either". --Michael Johnson 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be coy, but I thought it's usage in academia has been obsolete for at least the last half-century, except in circles arguing only for a purely creation-based POV. Please see Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution... Kenosis 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be right in that. --Michael Johnson 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Evolutionism is a belief in evolution as an explanation for how things came to be the way they are. I'm not claiming it's a relgion or a philosophical position. I'm claiming it's a theory that is, by nature, untestable and unprovable because it deals with the issue of origins and therefore can't be tested by hypothesis and experiment. In that sense, belief in it fits with the 'ism' suffix. NigelCunningham 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm claiming it's a theory that is, by nature, untestable and unprovable  - you could not be more wrong. It has been used on innumerably occasions to explain observations and make predictions, at the microscopic level (in virual dynamics, or bacterial resistance to medicine) and macroscopic level (in phylogentic testing of tame versus non-tame populations, etc).
 * In addtion, By consistently speaking of the 'scientific community' instead of something like 'opponents of Intelligent Design', it implies that this is a debate between ignorant non-scientists and science. - yup, that just about sums up the debate. Raul654 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm certainly not taking the side that science does not prefer evolution and natural selection (over ID). that's pretty clear.  i just want to make it clear that even so, this article had in the past gone overboard with making certain everyone more than understood that fact which resulted in a biased tone and even some errors.  this was allowed to go unchecked, even in the very defining lead sentence, contrary to WP:WINAD and WP:NPOV and a bunch of other policies.  it's getting reigned in a little bit now, but before it went way too far.  it literally became blatant POV. r b-j 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you do not understand the notion of a theory. Theories are by nature, provable and tested.  Evolution is the only known model in biology that fits the entire spectrum of our evidence.  It is not an "ism" any more than "newtonism" is a belief in gravity, or "maxwellism" is a belief in electricity and magnetism.  Evolution is as undeniable as geometry to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and Creationist spin tactics will never change that. 63.144.32.43 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i hope someone else will respond to this comment above too. But a theory, from a scientific as opposed to bar-room standpoint, is always regarded as tentative.  As a matter of extra caution, scientists have learned over time to be capable of continuing to accept the word "theory" long after the community involved in study of a particular suggestion (e.g., relativity, evolution, gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) has arrived at a state where the suggestion is sufficiently verified such that it is regarded as fact because application of that suggestion works all the time when used within the defined parameters. In other words, long after a theory is taken as granted by the overwhelming weight of practical evidence within the community responsible for doing the hard work on the subject of investigation within the scope ot the natural world, the word "theory" will still be used quite readily, in deference to the extra sense of caution with which the scientific community submits to the notion that everything is subject to disprovement given greater evidence to the contrary within that particular realm of investigation of the natural world.  ... Kenosis 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the notion of a theory. Theories about what might happen in the future are, by nature, provable and testable (I assume you mean testable and not tested). But this is a theory about what happened in the past. Because it concerns what happened in the past, it cannot, by nature, be proven or tested. We can only, at best, prove that our theories might have been what happened, assuming that things worked then exactly as they generally work today. Part of the ID argument is that it's possible that things didn't work then exactly as they work today, or that things generally worked then as they do today, but with exceptions. The scientific method cannot prove or disprove either assertion, partly because the theories are specifically about what happened in past, partly because of the assumption (necessary as it is) that the current 'laws of nature' are inviolable and static. These issues make evolution as a theory of origins an ism - a statement of faith and not verifiable or provable. NigelCunningham 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the place for a discussion of evolution itself, but there are two (brief) points I'd like to make. Firstly, evolutionary theory does make predictions, particularly about future discoveries in the fields of paeleontology and genetics.  Secondly, the issue isn't whether God might have intervened in the development of the universe and life, it's whether there are "certain features of the universe and of living things" that can only be explained by divine intervention.  If we don't need God to explain something, then we shouldn't introduce God into our theories. Tevildo 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) The ability to make predictions about the future doesn't necessarily prove anything about what happened in the past. It provides one possible explanation that cannot be stated with certainty to be _the_ explanation. (2) Your second sentence in point two is faulty logic. Imagine it stated the other way round (which would be equally faulty): If we don't need the theory of evolution to explain something, then we shouldn't introduce the evolution into our theories. NigelCunningham
 * (1) This is true - no scientific theory can ever be proved or stated with certainty. But evolution isn't an exception; the same can be said of atomic theory or general relativity. (2) Your reasoning here is correct, despite your description of it as "faulty".  A new concept or hypothesis shouldn't be introduced into a scientific theory unless it's necessary to do so.  We need _a_ theory of evolution to explain the observed facts of geology and biology.  Tevildo 07:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Agree. (2) That's faulty logic again. The issue isn't whether we believe we need another theory. Neither is it whether we find one theory more or less palatable than another. There's nothing wrong with having multiple theories accepted as possible at the same time, and good science should be willing to consider multiple theories simultaneously, even if it is happy with the one most currently popular. You're falling into the same trap that Romanists of the past supposedly fell into (I don't know if it's fable or fact) when they were happy with the earth being the centre of the universe and didn't need another theory. [Sorry, forgot to sign my post at first] NigelCunningham 07:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. If there are multiple theories in any field of science, part of the scientific enterprise is to find a way of deciding which of them is better; it's a situation which is tolerable, true, but not ideal, and I would argue that it's unscientific to propose new theories unless the current ones are inadequate.  The Ptolmaic model _had_ proved inadequate, both in terms of predicting the motions of the planets and in terms of its complexity, and therefore required replacement; the theory of evolution is _not_ in the same state.  In any case, ID is not, and never can be, a _scientific_ theory, so wouldn't be a candidate to replace evolution even if such a replacement were required. Tevildo 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that part of the enterprise is seeking the truth, but would disagree with rejecting other ideas just because we don't find the current inadequate. In any case, I do agree that ID is not and can never be a scientific theory, because it deals with what happened in the past and cannot therefore be proven or disproven by hypothesis and experimentation. Evolution, however, needs to be recognised as being in the same boat when it is used as a theory of origins. It can indeed be used to predict what we'll find in excavations and so on (as can ID), but consistency there would only fail to discount the hypothesis, not prove it. NigelCunningham 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful (if I can find the time) if I made my own version of the page that I believe addresses the above concerns (primarily by rearranging material) and then pointed you all to it? NigelCunningham 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Save Wikipedia, update policy
I think that in light of the recent "edit wars" on featured articles Intelligent Design and Global warming we should all think a way to make wikipedia policies more robust to avoid such things in the future. Keeping in mind that, of course, the openness of the project must be preserved, we must also give new policy tools to avoid that an organized minority with an agenda can push its pov and save frustrating time wastes to editors. Maybe something can be done giving more details on how to use sources of different reliability.--BMF81 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I'm very cynical that anything can prevent the kind of problems you're talking about AND preserve the full openness. Policy can be just another tool to POV-pushers.


 * Sacrilege I know, but once an article reaches sufficiently high-quality, I would favour an editor being nominated to take control of the article, who would then review submitted changes and make a decision as to whether they should be included. I sometimes think, for example, that an ID supporter of sufficient integrity would probably maintain a better ID article than a bunch of people constantly fighting each other over every edit. Tomandlu 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, so that is indeed sacrilege. What you are suggesting is the Citizendium model, where authors make suggestions, but editors have the final say. -- Cat Whisperer 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep - I guess for me, I favor the open-edit model only as far as it improves the quality of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. What, in the end, is the priority? A good encyclopedia with restrictions on the open-edit model, or a poor encyclopedia without restrictions? Tomandlu 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * People aren't reading policy as it is. Having more policies won't make them more read. So you'll still have edit wars, but you can add aggravation because now you can smite people with policy. Great! Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Samsara is right, existing policy is sufficient to ensure quality, just under-enforced. Tomandlu makes a point as well (but I doubt we agree on who he's refering to): POV-pushers often insist policy supports their efforts. Fortunately the more they do this, the more obvious their bias becomes. 151.151.21.102 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not referring to anyone, afaik. My pro-ID editor is purely hypothetical. That said, yes, use of policy to support POV can be fairly obvious (and the really devious sods will try and trick others into breaking policy), but it doesn't really help. Why should a casual but knowledgeable editor have to take on the burden of procedure in order to make a valid edit? I hate to think of the number of professionals who have tried to make edits to articles in their domain - tried, sighed, and gone away... Tomandlu 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * and that's the big issue. assuming everyone is intellectually honest (and i am far from convinced of that), POV pushing is in the eye of the beholder.  what is one person's NPOV is another's biased POV.  i suppose Orange thinks he makes strong arguments whereas i can see no argument other than Orange restating his POV. (edits he doesn't like are "Creationist POV" and edits he likes are NPOV. sorta like Fearless Leader saying that A.G. Alberto Gonzales "knocked it out of the park" at the Senate hearings when everyone else, including the Republicans, observes that he was fried.) r b-j 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, calling something biased does not make it so. And just like your example the claims come primarily from one side, weakening the case that POV pushing is in the eye of the beholder. 151.151.21.103 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * your conclusion ("weakening the case...") has nothing to do with your premise. it does not follow from your premise. and, indeed the premise, ("...the claims come primarily from one side...") is not even true.  my, how persuasive you are, 151. r b-j 22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One minor thing
The very recent implementing of complete edit protection unfortunately has caused the article to presently be suffering from a very basic error that would, I think, be difficult to justify in general. A sentence in the lead currently reads: "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] " Note that two sentences are separated by a colon. Perhaps it could be unprotected for long enough to resolve this third-grade-level issue and then return to the natural (or is it supernatural?) business as usual. ... Kenosis 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

an impartial "haven't been around for a while" view about the lead......
....i think it's pretty well balanced generally - but there's a couple of small changes that might improve this version without changing it much;


 * I'd remove the double 'natural' in the first sentence - it reads very poorly - perhaps replace the first one with 'biological?' - if that doesn't stick, then it needs to be reworded another way, i don't the status quo is good enough.


 * the clause 'and of living things' at the very start is unneccessary if we're describing the universe - this is also poor wording in my opinion.


 * The use of the adjective "Abrahamic" is problematic to me, even if we wiki-link - i'd prefer just "God" because i'm yet to really believe that this is genuinely a source of confusion to any reader (i am happy to be shown otherwise, but with evidence, not argument...)

and as a final note, it's a slightly longer intro than might be desirable, but works pretty well i think! - might be unprotected soon? - some of these tweaks would probably soon produce a good compromise....

thanks all, Petesmiles 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "and specifically of living things", because the emphasis of ID is on evolution. -- Cat Whisperer 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * the adjective "Abrahamic" was something i suggested to replace "Christian" for multiple reasons of accuracy. there are believers and advocates of a similar theistic creation cosmologies that are not Christian.  and the "God" that the ID proponents say is the designer, even those who are explicitly Christian, is not the "Christian God".  these guys do not differentiate the identity of their God from those of the other Abrahamic traditions although they may differentiate properties or the nature of such God and they do differentiate the identity of their God from the gods of the Dharmic religions.   having just God is fine.  but "Christian God", stated as unqualified fact without attribution, is not.
 * i also think the clause "and of living things" should continue to be included. this battle of ideas between the IDers and the materialists principally on these two fronts: the sophisitcation and order in the cosmological universe and possible explanations for it and the same regarding biological life.  both should be there. r b-j 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with most of Petesmiles' comments. Cat Whisperer's suggestion ("specifically") is good if we need to keep both "universe" and "living things".  I think we can lose the first "natural" (giving us "rather than processes such as natural selection") without compromising the content - if we need an adjective, would something like "undirected" be too much of a compromise with the creationists?  "Abrahamic" is probably the best word to use - we have "God" (unqualified) already in the second sentence; in the third sentence, we're specifiying the particular god that the DI believes in, not a more general concept.  One other point I'd mention - right at the end of the lead, we have "no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis" (emphasis added).  If ID _is_ an hypothesis, that's the word we should use in the first sentence, rather than "proposition".  However - and I think this is probably the better option - if "hypothesis" is regarded as giving ID too much scientific respect, we should change the last sentence to something like "no scientific evidence in support of intelligent design has been published".  The sentence isn't presented as a verbatim quote, so we don't need to keep the exact word used at the trial. Tevildo 08:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All said changes work for me. Morphh   (talk) 2:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

...And while we'er on the subject, this sentence from the intro is not quite logical: "It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer." If it's arguing that the designer is intelligent, then it does indeed specify the nature of the afore-mentioned designer. PiCo 08:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disillusion anyone. But this information is logical, accurate and concisely stated, as is appropriate for the article lead.  If one reads the article, one encounters several explanations, backed by numerous sources, of why and how the words "intelligent design" avoid positing the identity of the posited designer(s).  The reason is that it is a designed attempt to avoid running afoul of the 1987 US Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguilard, which forbids teaching "creation science" in public schools.  Please see the review of the timeline of the words "intelligent design" posted here, along with the sources provided in the article. ... Kenosis 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it may be appropriate to more closely examine some of the proposed minor changes mentioned above in this section before any decision is made either to implement or abandon the suggestions. For instance, the suggestion that "specifically of living things" is more suitable is not in keeping with the quote provided from the DI's longstanding explanation of what ID argues.  Please note the quote from the DI in the first footnote of the article, which refers only to "certain features of the universe and of living things". I'm not saying that the word "specifically" is not a reasonable editorial suggestion; it's a very reasonable one in my opinion, but it should be more closely examined before a decision is made whether to use editorial discretion to include this additional adverb in the very first sentence of the article which quickly defines ID for the reader. Also note that much of the first sentence was previously in quotations, and remains a nearly verbatim quote of the DI's definition.  This immediately raises the question whether the quotation marks should be replaced and any editorial modifications of the language set in brackets per standard writing convention, ideally along with additional citations justifying any such modifications. Or, perhaps better yet, just replace the quotations and keep that part of the first sentence as a direct quote, as it was earlier. ... Kenosis 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "... but it should be more closely examined before a decision is made whether to use editorial discretion to include this additional adverb in the very first sentence of the article which quickly defines ID for the reader." this is the standard i have been advocating from the beginning (but was applying it to the previous lead "definition" that had no semantics in common with any existing definition of ID at all) and am encouraged to see someone else saying it. if we're gonna scrutinize the addition of an adverb like "specifically" to pre-existing definitions of ID for the lead, we should, all the more, scrutinize replacing the entire text of such definition with one that some WP editor just composed. i've always been for the least modified (from some pre-existing definition in a reputable reference) lead sentence as possible.  even though "Intelligent design" is two words, it is a single term that has a definition.  the definition describing most simply what the concept is should be used neary verbatim, whether or not that concept is wrong (we don't say it's a fact, it's a belief or a proposition or a hypothesis).  if the concept is wrong, we get to spell out who says so and what they say.  r b-j 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I recall r-b-j advocating from the beginning is for the WP editors to follow the DI's propoganda machine step-by-step wherever possible. In the interim, r-b-j has gained a much more intimate knowledge of the topic, whatever his personal POV may be about it.  Here, the WP editors have already elected to use the DI quote to present the basic definition of intelligent design.  Presently it lacks the quotation marks, and has been modified by the words "better explained" rather than the original "best explained by an intelligent cause".  Other than that, it's a quote without quotation marks.  I think it is better or best to closely examine what exactly is going on in that first sentence, so it is once again presented properly in accordance with basic English writing conventions.  That's all I was saying here.  When changes are proposed, they should be closely examined for how they fit into the editorial approach of the article. ... Kenosis 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (resisting interspering this comment with the above.) your recollection (first sentence) is fundamentally flawed (has no factual basis) and your second second sentence, presented as unqualified fact also has no factual basis.  it's not surprizing to me, since from the beginning you (among others) would repeatedly mischaracterize the concern i brought regarding NPOV (literally misrepresenting what i was saying) and multiple times have identified me as some kind of DI or ID apologist and even a Creationist (which i am absolutely not).  you have zero, zip, nil, na-da, nothing in terms of any evidence whatsoever that i had ever advocated putting in the DI party line except as an attributed statement.  i don't like the DI.  i don't like Christian conservatives (for the most part, anyway, i may need to qualify that).  i don't like teaching God in public schools.  i don't like religion masquerading as science or vice versa.
 * what's been happening rather, is the hard-core ID-haters (any of us get to decide if we're one of those) researching and editing this article with nearly carte-blanche, could not step back from their text and view it from the POV of the devil's advocate and were (and still are) just too blinded by their own self-assessment of their own neutrality and wrote a scathingly negative article, biased at least in tone but also in some factual or definitive statements. then what happened is that eventually enough other editors (incl. at least one admin, CBD) noticed and started complaining and only then were you guys forced to be a little more honest about it.  but your first two statements above are bullshit (even though the first one was qualified as your recollection). r b-j 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What's up with the invective and rants? How about contributing positively instead of flaming others. No wonder you haven't gotten very far here. Odd nature 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I hereby modify the second sentence of two that r-b-j has asserted are "bullshit" to: " In the interim, r-b-j has over time increasingly displayed indications of a much more intimate knowledge of the topic than he displayed at first, irrespective of what his personal POV may be about the topic."  And, this statement in either form was intended as a compliment, because it's a complex topic the various issues of which relatively very few people understand in depth. Those issues with regard to this topic at minimum involve socio-political, theological, philosophical, educational, and legal factors, along with a well thought out propaganda campaign that has been well funded.  Like any complex subject matter, it's a process that takes a great deal of time and effort to understand the essential factors that are involved, else it would be simple to understand rather than complex, and no such compliment would be necessary or appropriate. ... Kenosis 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we just make it clear that it's a quote, quote it correctly and attribute? Who else is better positioned to define what ID is than the people who proposed it? Any other definition is a secondary source, and an opinion about that definition. We don't have to build a criticism into the base definition. Tomandlu 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It originally was a quote, and remained that way for a long time until very recently. The quote was attributed in the footnote. The following sentence in the article mentioned, and still mentions, the DI and makes clear that all the leading proponents are affiliated with the DI. In light of the totality of discussion rendered on this talk page, the only discernible motive for wanting to attribute every little statement to some particular source in the article text, rather than to broad communities like the scientific community, would be to attempt to imply to the reader, under the pretext of spcificity, that only such-and-such person or such-and-so organization maintains this position.  When in fact, the intro, now as before, pretty much sums up the whole ball of wax in three short paragraphs.  The article then goes on to explain in more detail, and the nearly hundred-fifty references taken as a whole are a very objective, very informative starting point from which to do yet further research if the reader desires to do so. ... Kenosis 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i've already made that point multiple times (and said that we don't present the premise of the ID definition as fact, but only as how these proponents define ID). i said that this sense of the terms was pretty young and that the definers of the term get to define it (even if what it is is bullshit).  all this fell on deaf ears (except maybe yours).   i dunno. r b-j 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the intro and its sources, I see the passage described in Pete's first two points is essentially a direct quote of the definition of ID from the Discovery Institute, IDNet, and IDEA, the 3 main ID organizations. Since articles need to rely on the most notable and significant sources when covering a particular viewpoint I don't think deviating from that viewpoint's own prose is necessary or wise. I don't think it makes much difference whether we drop Abrahmic and just use God, the issue is described in depth further down. I also agree with Pete is a very good article that deals with a very complicated and not always forthright debate in a balanced and accurate way. Odd nature 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If, as seems likely from the above, we're stuck with "the universe and of living things", then I agree with Kenosis that we should put the quotes back in around the material that's taken verbatim from the DI. If we can't paraphrase them, even for the sake of stylistic improvement, then we should at least make it clear that the words are theirs rather than ours. Tevildo 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem with paraphrasing them is that some here will completely misrepresent what the ID proponents have been saying. that's why i continue to advocate the use of dictionary definitions.  that way no one can accuse such dictionary definition of bias.  (except some the POV-pushers here have done it multiple times, they have literally accused the American Heritage, Encyclopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia Encyclopeida of being Creationist propaganda.  they made that accusation using me as a proxy.  that's how i became convinced that they were totally biased and close-minded POV pushers.)  if we use the dictionary definition, it is neither quoting the DI party line nor paraphrasing it. r b-j 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the main problem with the American Heritage, Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia entries at present is that they're pre-Kitzmiller. And, Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow the lead of any of these three, nor to submit to the same commercially related concerns of any of these three either.  WP editors are obliged only to submit to the principles of Wikipedia.  And since we work for nothing (ostensibly at least) and as a community do not need to be concerned about the same kind of advertising boycotts and other such commercial concerns, the editors of Wikipedia quite reasonably may end up with a product that is significantly different than any of the three sources just mentioned, and which may offer readers advantages that are not necessarily present in such commercially available sources. The disadvantages are, of course, legendary by now, so I need not go into those here. ... Kenosis 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I need to correct myself at least in part and note the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica entry I could find, here, which appears to be post-Kitzmiller. It also bears some remarkable similarities to the WP lead presently under discussion. A most interesting aspect of the EB's presendation of the topic is that it is referred to largely in the past tense. I do not care to fuly analyze the implications of this use of the past tense by the Encyclopedia Britannica at the moment, especially on the heels of the recent discussions on this talk page (preferring instead to cool my own heels for a bit). ... Kenosis 05:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Relying on a dictionary definition is problematic from a verifiability and attribution perspective, which I take to mean that views, not simple terms, must be attributed and verifiable. There's nothing so simple about ID that it lends itself to being easily summed up by a dictionary definition. Odd nature 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this is telling: so 151 and Kenosis are saying that that their opinion and judgement (and neutrality regarding this contentious topic where they clearly have taken a side) exceeds that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Kenosis further implies that the entry in EB regarding ID would, in some manner, be different if written after Kitzmiller (other than the obvious fact that because of causality, the article does not mention Kitzmiller) as if there was a significant change in the definition of ID (which was the factual resource i was drawing on as a comparison to the blatent non-neutral and made-up definition that they were previously advocating).  what basis do they have for either opinion (other than their opinion)? it's worth a chuckle. r b-j 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the consensus were to rely on the approach of one or more of the American Heritage Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and/or the Columbia Encyclopedia, the WP article would presently be doing so. But instead the many WP editors who worked on this article, working for the best possible consensus of each issue in the article, have taken a different approach. Whatever the ongoing disagreements with respect to this controversial topic or with respect to WP's presentation of the topic, the present article is nonetheless quite well consensused on the whole and virtually every little point has been scrutinized in great detail by multiple participants.  The article, in my opinion, presently is a very informative presentation, providing some 150 references in support of what the article reports to the reader about the topic.  It tells the reader what ID is said to be by its principal proponents, who the main participants are (the DI affiliates as its principal proponents and originators), it reports in summary form the scientific community's responses, the legal status, the historical perspective, the conceptual issues such as irreducible complexity, specified complexity, FTU and the responses of scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc. to these conceptual issues, it provides a very informative summary of the issue of where science ends and where speculation begins, summarizes the "peer review" controversy, and so forth.  Offhand, I'd say that's about as good as it gets for this type of article, whatever its deficits may be argued to be.  Current attempts to change/improve the article always hold the possiblity of increasing its effectiveness in informing readers about this topic, and I personally support such attempts because they hold this possibility of improving the article.  But presently the opinions are all over the place in terms of what's being advocated for the article lead.  After all the debate and arguing in the last month-and-a-half or so, the article lead has slightly different language and emphasizes a few points a bit differently than it did before, but still expresses the basics in a reasonable way, as it did earlier on.  The most definitive source is used to tell the reader what ID is said to be by its principal proponents, that it's asserted to be scientific, that the scientific community has essentially said "no way", and that the federal court system has agreed that it's not science and is "essentially religious in nature", and so can't be taught in public school biology classes.  That's not POV bias; rather, it's a fairly strightforward summary of what the reliable sources say about the subject of intelligent design. ... Kenosis 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you guys have been misrepresenting "consensus" ever since and even before i pointed out the obvious lack of neutrality in the previous lead definition. you claimed "consensus" for your favorite POV when the history of this very talk page (as well as the many attempts to change the lead definition to a real definition that wasn't just made-up by some WP editors who hate ID) indicates precisely the opposite.  you guys have repeatedly misrepresented my position, calling it "DI party line" and "Creationist".  you guys have used bullying tactics, because of having at least 2 admins to enforce your POV on this article even to the point of blocking me because i simply pointed out the deliberate misrepresentations.  and the pathetically weak argument you and 151 (i would include Orange, but he makes no argument except to assert his preference is "right") became clear right above. why should people trust the neutrality of a bunch of WP editors, who made it clear they think ID is bullshit, who have no verifiable credentials as experts in the subject or as journalists, who accept no editorial checks on neutrality, over a reputable encyclopedia where authors are identified as experts, paid to research it, have no obvious stake in the matter, and have multiple paid and experienced editors to check and recheck facts, copy editing, and neutrality?  that is why i have been incredulous that here, at Marriage and at Homophobia, that in this so-called neutral resource (Wikipedia), there is so much resistance to using an outside authority (like a dictionary), recognized as reputable, as a reference for the defining lead sentence in a contentious article.  you guys are literally saying that your personal POV is a better more neutral definition than the dictionary.  why not let that same standard apply to some ID proponent who wants to edit in Wikipedia?  you guys just don't get it.  you don't let reason and self-examination prevail so people like Gnixon or Morphh have to go get more editors from the outside to help push back this blatent POV editing.  nor do you let repeated recitation of the Wikipedia policy (i was more than explicit) affect your thinking.  and repeatedly you and your allies have misrepresented me and my position.  because it has happened so many times, i intellectually cannot assume good faith about it.  besides not being an ID apologist nor a Creationist, i'm also not a chump.  and i think that you and 151 have explicitly exposed your bias and i called you on it.
 * you just don't get it. r b-j 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * RE "besides not being an ID apologist ..." above: Interesting assertion, given the totality of r-b-j's edits and assertions over the past few months.  Anyway, as I said, the recently revised language (formed without my participation, incidentally) does bear remarkable similarities to the earlier language, with only a few minor differences from before, after all the talk and arguing in the sections above and after all of the various possiblities that were presented.  As I also said, quibbling aside, the basic thrust plainly had consensus earlier on, and still does at present.  Perhaps the most telling indicator of this is that the ongoing complaints are all over the map in terms of what people's preferences are said to be.
 * Also, do have a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica Concise entry on the web that I noted above, as it appears to me to be post-Kitzmiller. I can't verify that, though, and only deduce that it's post-Kitzmiller from the content that appears consistent with the trial testimony and decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. That entry can be found here. Aside from the use of past tense by the EBC in describing this topic, I see no apparent conflict with what the WP article presents about intelligent design. ... Kenosis 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any bias in the article despite your incessant claims. Consensus never trumps WP:NPOV and this article is accurate and extremely well-sourced and has stood this way for years so it doesn't matter how many meat puppets people like Gnixon or Morphh recruit from the outside. Because of all this (and your constant incivility), I think you're the one, rbj, who doesn't get it. Odd nature 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you can think that (but thinking so, doesn't make it true). you still haven't answered a single one of my challenges.  one is: if you think your POV definition (in this contentious article) is better and more neutral than the dictionary, why can't the DI partisan come in here and change it to his preferred definition?  he thinks he's neutral and accurate.  the other is: how can you expect someone (like a NYTimes reporter) who's doing a story on Wikipedia and "truthiness" and other issues about WP, how do you expect that person to evaluate your composed definition of ID, which had nothing semantically in common with the dictionary definitions nor the defining lead statements of other reputable references (like EB, etc.) as authoritive?  either EB is wrong or you are.  and if you have your way with the article, that becomes "either EB and AH and the other references are wrong or Wikipedia is wrong."  Wikipedia will lose that battle for authority against standards like EB.  doing these blatently POV definitions of contentious topics squanders any reputation of authority of Wikipedia.  it damages the project.  just to be clear: you damage the project. r b-j 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, r b-j, you seem to be going on at inordinate length demanding that we ditch the definition consistently presented by leading proponents of ID because you think that a theoretical DI partisan would prefer a tertiary source which doesn't meet WP:A policy requirements. Wikipedia is not in a "battle for authority against standards like EB" – it has different policies and objectives, and if you prefer the other approach you may be happier on Citizendium or Conservapedia. Though first you may find it helpful if you learn to spell blatantly. .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. misrepresentation.  i have only advocated using the dictionary definitions (i don't even know which variant is "the definition consistently presented by leading proponents of ID") and i have no idea exactly what "tertiary source" DI partisans prefer.  i don't give a rat's ass what DI partisans nor DI enemies prefer, i want a sourced and independent definition that no one can claim to own, nor accuse the other side of framing.  thisis not the first time you have misrepresented my position, Dave.
 * 2. regarding Conservapedia, i'm sure Phyllis Schlafly and her son would like this 51 year old, pacifist, long-haired, occasional-cannabis-smoking, 60's liberal from Vermont who worked on the Howard Dean campaign (and even introduced the Gov to a town hall meeting during the NH primary) 3 years ago who had a "Bush/Satan 04" sticker on his car. i'll mix in pretty well with those guys.
 * 3. Dave, it's the same old "if you ain't fer us, you agin' us." you misplaced me on the spectrum.  it's not because i'm on the side of DI that i want to see this article become more neutral.  it's because it had been (and still is, in some places) shamelessly biased as depicted in some horrible lead sentences, some of which have since been toned down.  it's the shamelessness (like Bush and Satan and Rove and Rice and Gonzoles and Wolfowitz) that is the real shame.  that's why you guys don't get it.  another way of putting it (i've said this before): you guys think your own shit don't stink.  r b-j 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey, rbj, you been smokin' too much shit, cool it man ;) . . .  dave souza, talk 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * but you don't even know that. i'll cool it when this article stops serving dog-shit to the guests, calling it "caviar" r b-j 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My only concern on this particular issue is that "certain features of the universe and of living things" is a very ugly phrase, and I think it's possible to improve the way the sentiment is expressed without changing its meaning. If we weren't under space constraints, I'd suggest "certain features of the universe in general and living things in particular", but the lead is too long already - the addition of "specifically" improves the langauge a good deal at minimal cost; if we can't do this for reasons of neutrality, we should make it clear that this is a deliberate decision by putting the quotation marks back in. Tevildo 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen: any discussion about intelligent design is virtually guaranteed to have elements of POV contained within it, insofar as the whole concept is a matter of opinion. Or a matter of faith. Could I suggest that, while debating the issues as you all think fit, it would be better to abstain from personal comments and personal attacks, however gently phrased?--Anthony.bradbury 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like Anthony said, a element of civility and keeping cool is required in this discussion. I ask all of you guys to refrain from personal attacks as it causes a increasing amount of stress on all involved parties. Before posting a comment, I ask all to see things from the other person's point of view and to discourage the use of unconstructive words. -- Kzrulzuall  Talk • Contribs 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons of the article lead since the publication of the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover
After the discussions and arguments in early April of 2007, several weeks ago and easily viewable in the most recent archive, the article text reads like this:
 * Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection.[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God,[5] and 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.[6]
 * The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[7] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] 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.[10]
 * In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[12]

Previously the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] 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] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4][5] 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.[6]
 * The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] 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.[10]
 * In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[12]

It may be appropriate at this point to review how it read before, presented here in chronological order at three month intervals, all "post-Kitzmiller". The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was published in early December of 2005. In late December of 2005, the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."[1] Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2]
 * An overwhelming majority[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.[4] 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.[5]
 * United States federal courts have ruled as unconstitutional a public school district requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes, on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

In late March of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
 * An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] 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.[7]
 * A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

In late June of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
 * An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] 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.[7]
 * A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[8]

In late September of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]
 * An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8] 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.[9]
 * In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[10]

In late December of 2006, the article lead was as follows:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6][7][8][9] assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[10]
 * The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[11] as pseudoscience[12][13][14] or as junk science.[15][16] 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.[17]
 * In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[18]

And it has taken a lot of talk and arguing, some two megabytes in the past year-and-a-half or so, since long prior to my own participation in WP, to get from point A (immediately post-Kitzmiller) to point B (today). Note that numerous options were just put forward in the period from about the beginning of April of this year, and especially about April 9 through April 14 or so in which neither myself nor most of the other earlier editors who are intimately familiar with this topic participated substantially if at all, and still the present version is remarkably similar to the one that emerged very soon after the Kitzmiller decision. Surely this should demonstrate some level of viability of the consensus process by which WP editors arrived at the current expression of WP:NPOV and WP:Attribution in this article... Kenosis 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I had the time to do this kind of analysis. Outstanding information.  It's funny that after reading this, the current lead sounds "not so bad", though I still prefer the lead previous to the current one.  I might be persuaded to go along with the current lead, even though it is a bit weasely (is that a word?).  Orangemarlin 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a farce
Seriously, this should be titled "Refutation of Intelligent Design" This is nothing more than an agnostic/skeptic/atheist platform to rebuke intelligent design. When I go to the Jesus page...or the Muhammad page, or the Zeus page of Wiki, I do not expect refutation in the opening paragraph. This is NOT a neutral perspective on Intelligent Design, it is just a platform for zealots to control this encyclopedia and impose their view. I do not CARE about refutation, I wanted to learn about ID...not the refutation of it. And the overwhelming majority of this article is refutation. If you want to refute all of ID...make a seperate article for refutations. Thats what people did with Hillary Clinton and scores of other articles. But you can't do that. Why? Because you just cannot bear the idea that something be presented neutrally that conflicts with your secular convictions. Stop hiding behind your delusional NPOV. This is not NPOV. not even close. And that is why atheists approve of this article so whole-heartedly....because ID is so well refuted. Until all of ID points are well refuted, the atheists who guard this topic are not happy with it. Once all points are fully refuted, only then does it get the NPOV stamp. You can assume I believe in ID, but that would be false. I just enjoy reading articles here from time to time, but the overwhelming stench of cramming an article full of refutation such that every single point has a detailed rebuke is simply ad-nasuem. It makes a joke out of this entire site. This article is another example (of thousands) of why Wikipedia is an unreliable source of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 25 April 2007
 * To unsigned IP 24.18.108.5: I should think that removing this article, or writing it in the way you have said you prefer, would not stop comments from folks saying Wikipedia is a joke. The Wikipedia editors did not invent this controversy, nor does WP policy provide that WP should pretend that a controversy involving the scientific, academic and legal communites, as well as the general public, particularly in the United States, does not exist.  The primary problems with ID tend to arise because it inherently is not forthright (read that: "not entirely honest").  Please see wedge strategy, which is only briefly introduced in the "intelligent design" article.  Also please see Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37 in the use of the words "intelligent design", which came into play as a tactic to attempt to avoid running afoul of the US Supreme Court's decision in 1987 that "creation science" could not be taught in public school biology classes.  Also note the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, where the camps involved in this vigorously contested controversy argued the issues in depth, and the court concluded that ID was in fact something disguised as something else, specifically that it was not science as asserted by its proponents, but was "essentially religious in nature".  As well, please see the most recent entry on the topic by the Encyclopedia Britannica Concise here, which provides a quick summary not at all in conflict with what the WP article presents to readers, just much more concise.  For an article that discusses arguments for the existence of God, may I suggest teleological argument, cosmological argument and if one prefers, the much more existential and confusing set of arguments known collectively as the ontological argument.  These articles, among others, introduce the basic philosophical and theological point-counterpoint of arguments for the existence of God, but without the confusion and widespread public controversy that resulted from advocates framing it as a "science" in order to try to teach a creation-based model in science classes in the United States, as was the case with "intelligent design".  Thanks for weighing in in the discussion. ... Kenosis 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For the most part this article is awesome and clearly reflects the viewpoints of both sides of the topic. The problem is the so many ID promoters want the article to portray ID as something it is not (science, scientific, anything but creationism) and they want to ignore or downplay the overwhelming and wholesale rejection of ID creationism by the scientific community or suggest the scientific community is out of touch.  While it's funny to read the misguided objections to the article it does get old after a while.  Mr Christopher 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep reading the same BS over and over again. It's hard to comment without getting really uncivil and mean.  But one critical point, the unsigned user misunderstands:  NPOV does not mean to present just the POV of the promoter of the idea.  Otherwise, Bill Gates can edit the Microsoft article, and Behe can edit this article.  People need to read articles and get a balanced viewpoint of the topic.  In this case, it appears to not be balanced, because the preponderance of information says that ID is not science.  Orangemarlin 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a simple suggestion, place the claim and its evidence first, and then refute it separately. The way it is presented now, it does not appear to give ID's points a chance.  This may be more work than we really want, but as the article is now, it does give the appearance of strong bias, whether its points are valid or not.  --SomeoneElseEntirely 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

violation of undue weight
This article violates WP:NPOV. Undue weight states that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority. " People who hawk this article misapply this point to the ID article. This is fallacy because ID, a minority view *IS* the topic of the article. If the topic of this article were Evolution, then only would ID be granted a very limited space. But because the very topic of the article is in itself the pseudo-science, undue weight is not violated if the majority of the article presents ID without refutation. The hawks who guard this article have it backwards. They feel that unless refutation exceed the claims of ID, then undue weight is violated. This reasoning would only apply if a pseudoscience were presented on a page whose topic was established science. Note that the actual wiki article Flat Earth has...by far....less refutation than ID. Why? Because if the TOPIC of the article is Flat Earth, then undue weight cannot be violated since the topic itself IS the pseudoscience. You will see this on numerous pseudoscience articles. Refutation should never outweigh the topic. This ID article actually contains more text that is refuting than text that presents. To claim this is NPOV is a joke. Please make 2 articles: ID and refutations of ID. The article as it is now is blatantly biased and in violation of the spirit of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 April 2007


 * 24.18 I agree with you. But look on the positive side. The article is so obviously biased that any open minded person will see it immediately and realize the degree to which much of what is called 'science' is really politics. A thinking person after reading this article will be even more skeptical by what is put out by the 'scientific establishment'. I think people who read this article are very motivated to look into the supporters of ID to see what they have to say. This article helps all of us realize how really little we know about so many things and how we have to be skeptical about the claims of the lastest fad of 'scientists. 68.109.234.155 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. Excellent point.  This ID article is so blatantly biased, no intelligent person could not see it.  Honestly, it is an embarrasment.  If I was an atheist who had an agenda, and my agenda was to debunk ID, then I would want to ensure its wiki article soundly and completely refuted because Intelligent Design on Wiki gets the #1 Google result.  I would feel quite compelled to "educate" the world that ID is nothing more than religious nuttery.  But I would need to write the article on Wiki in such a way that it "passes" off as NPOV.  This article is not subtle at all in its attempt to refute.  That is its goal, and it is obvious to embarrasment.


 * Yes. Surely ID advocates could make a big effort to change this article but they do not. When one googles this article and the pro-ID sites come up. The pro-ID sites are so professional and balanced. And then one reads this article by the anti-IDers. The contrast is stark. Why would they want to make this article look reasonable? This article looks shrill and histrionic and theirs is very sophisticated. 68.109.234.155 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got the "without refutation" bit wrong. All articles on Wikipedia contain critical review. Wikipedia is about verifiable fact. Flat Earth is a bad comparison because the flat Earth view is entirely historic. POV forks are explicitly discouraged on Wikipedia. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the joke about this article as "NPOV" is one that these guys don't get. i would say that the article, to be NPOV, must include attributed and sourced references about what the "scientific community" says about ID (that needs to be attributed to specific writings of specific persons or recognized organized groups of particular scientists, just saying "the scientific community thinks that ID is bunk" isn't good enought).  a truly NPOV article on ID is niether this one, nor will it be one that ID proponents will like. r b-j 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong. THis article is SPOV, not NPOV and you know it.  Please quit hiding behind your NPOV claims.  This article is a sham.  If Wikipedia were to suddenly adopt a strict Scientific Point of View, this article would not change.  Flat Earth being historic is irrelevant.  Astrology is not historic and fewer scientists subscribe to that view than ID, and it still has far less criticism than ID does.  If you total the amount of words in this article devoted to refutation, it is on the order of 75% of the article.  EVERY SINGLE POINT that ID presents in this article has detailed refutation.  And beyond that, there are refutations in this article of ID that are above and beyond even what ID is allowed to present (such as going out of its way in the first paragraph to mention "Abrahamic God"...now we need to expose it to as a xian deception.  Cmon people!  Am I on www.infidels.org?  I thought I was on wikipedia.)  This article is nothing more than a biased joke.  That you label this article as a model example...a featured article and "one of the best" on wikipedia is proof that wikipedia does not work and is actually a dangerous.  When people try to control knowledge is bad enough.  When they control it, package it and then say "Look guys, we are being neutral here, we have no agenda" then it becomes insidious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)
 * IP 24.18.108.5, yes I believe you've made your POV quite clear. WP, thus far at least, is not in the business of whitewashing and following party lines on demand. For that, you will need to use another venue, of which there are plenty.  As for arguments, we get plenty around here from just about every angle.  I believe I've said my piece for now. ... Kenosis 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't know anyone here advocating that we whitewash ID and promulgate the DI party line. to repeatedly refer to such is appealing to the strawman.  r b-j 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great kenosis. And I'll continue to make my point throughout various wiki articles when I see obvious bias.  Just to ease your mind a bit, ID is not the only article that suffers heavy bias.  There are scores of others.  Anyway, I made my point clear too.  Cheers.  Sincerely, IP 24.18.105.5.
 * IP 24, try using four tildes: ~  to sign.  better yet, get yourself a WP account.  151 even did that (finally). r b-j 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good comparison - Aquatic ape hypothesis - not supporting either as taking a better example. just providing an article that qualifies as contemporary bunk science.--ZayZayEM 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One point stuck out at me - "I wanted to learn about ID...not the refutation of it." While I certainly think the refutation of ID is necessary in this article, I'm also concerned about this aspect.  I haven't read the entire article but with the purpose of the lead being to summarize the article, I learn very little about what ID presents.  I do take away a great deal on controversy, proponents, scientists, courts, etc.  Anyway... just a thought.  Morphh   (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do please read the full article, and if possible the related ID articles as well as the DI's presentation of their idea. It's a slippery proposition, essentially some Creation science examples renamed and presented as the design argument wrapped in the rhetoric of being a new science. There's not much to it beyond the controversy. .. dave souza, talk 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did I click on the wrong link and end up looking at an archive page? This all seems so... familiar... SheffieldSteel 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've come across comments here and here? ... dave souza, talk 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * what do you guys expect? to continue to flagrantly violate NPOV in content and tone, to use your own OR definition of the article title term, to simply dismiss criticism after criticism like it isn't even there,... what do you expect?  this will not go away until you clean up your act.  you might notice that this got far more contentious when this became FA despite the objections regarding NPOV.  it's completely comparable to Fearless Leader doing whatever stupid thing he wants (it's way too long to enumerate), ignoring the concerns of critics, and just charging on.  it's blowing up in his face just as this highly biased article is blowing up in yours. r b-j 18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was almost convinced to go along with the current lead, then I read your totally uncivil comments. Give me a break.  This article is POV towards the ID supporters, and the same BS arguments are brought up again and again and again, and they are invalid.  Yes, invalid. Not because I say so, because just about every neutral source says they are invalid.  We dismiss criticism because it gets old.  Orangemarlin 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of ID in this article is a direct quote of what ID is from the 3 leading ID orgs with proper sources given. There is no Original Research there. Please stop misrepresenting the situation and being incivil. Odd nature 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * denial ain't just a river in Egypt. the most flagrant example of OR was the "definition" of ID that Orange recently tried to return the article to (which was reverted before protection) and that all of the so-called "longtime editors" were defending as "sourced and accurate".  you guys need to pay attention to criticism with less denial and more objectivity.  despite your wishes and earlier success in fending off critique, this problem will not go away until there is some recognition of it and willingness to fix it. r b-j 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who bothers to read footnote # 1 will see despite all your bluster the lead sentence is a direct quote of the defintion of ID from the 3 leading ID orgs. You're not going to acheive anything by intentionally misrepresenting the situation, claiming original research where there is none. Odd nature 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * again, just because you infer that i am mispresenting the situation does not mean that i am. far from it.  i am pretty comfortable about my track record of representing the situation.  there is also an easily confirmed track record of you (if you're the same as 151), Dave, and others mispresenting me.  it's on record and can't be deleted. r b-j 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's your record and history of incivility and misrepresention that's been the source of the problems here, but it is currently being reviewed by responsible parties. Continue as you see fit. Odd nature 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i have no record of misrepresentation. but i have been, multiple times, the victim of it.  and you, among others here, have been the perpetrator of such misrepresentation just as you have here. (my Block Log that you cite says nothing of misrepresentation).  this is a deliberate misrepresentation of me and my record, and if i used the simple 3 letter word to identify such a deliberate misrepresentation, you would go crying to an admin to have me blocked.  boo-hoo-hoo. try telling the truth for change. r b-j 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with the original poster. However, ID is not just a proposition - it is part of a deliberate referenced strategy - and that needs reflecting appropriately in the article. By and large, the article is excellent - apart from anything else, it has a wealth of references. Also, certain sections, by dint of their subject, demand that the opposing view to ID be presented - Kitzmiller for one. However, certain sections (e.g. Intelligent_design and IMHO the summary) are prone to either linking facts inappropriately or straying into areas that are dangerously close to OR. This is under constant debate, needless to say. Tomandlu 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to end the edit war?
As I see it, there's four options?


 * 1) Resume the discussion, starting with the three or four versions competing for the lead.
 * 2) WP:RfC
 * 3) Give up, let the edit wars recommence.
 * 4) Give up, let the article sit in uneditability forever  Adam Cuerden talk 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 sounds reasonable - now let's start arguing about which 3 or 4 versions to put forward for consideration... :) Tomandlu 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We already did #2 (RFC) here but it could go higher in the dispute resolution process (Mediation or Arbitration). I think #1 along with the next step of #2 is the way to go.  #3 may result in 1(e) FAR - combine that with challenges of 1(d), 2(a), and the FAC self nom - the article might lose FA status IMO.  Not sure #4 is an option and should go all the way up to Arbitration before such happens.  Morphh   (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 & 4 are bad alternatives. I say 2, since Consensus was, I contend, no change to the original lead.  Orangemarlin 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. And, obviously, I'm being a bit facetious with 3 and 4. Right, let's dig out the versions, try 1, and if that fails, go with RfC or Mediation. (I'm pretty sure arbitration isn't really appropriate unless we end up with a complete breakdown of civility, which hasn't really happened: I think we all want to work together, with one or two exceptions, but have differing opinions.) Adam Cuerden talk 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds promising. SheffieldSteel 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we were doing quite well before until the edit protection went off before consensus had emerged, and it turned into a bit of a free-for-all. As long as we get consensus first, we'll probably be alright. Adam Cuerden talk 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Astrology
As mentioned in the article, a main strategy of ID proponents to change the definition of a scientific theory. I believe it is significant and worthy of note that, under oath, Behe admitted that astrology fits this new definition of a scientific theory. 

Q = Lawyer, A = Behe

Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

A Yes.

Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.

A Yes, that's correct.

[...]

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Xerxesnine 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your point. Are you saying Behe is in error here? The ether theory was not scientific? 68.109.234.155 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I belive this is covered in the Behe article and the one about Dover v Kitzmiller. I think... And I think that is more relevant to the trial and Behe than ID in general  Mr Christopher 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but I am arguing for a brief mention here as well. The fact that Astrology and ID both qualify as a "scientific theory" seems too essential to leave out.  It provides some perspective via a concrete example.
 * Suppose a reader with no previous knowledge of ID was given this article to read. When the reader is finished, we ask him, "Now, do you think Astrology fits this new definition of scientific theory?"  It is unclear how he would respond, in my view. Xerxesnine 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is yet another illustration of how restrained this article is in light of the many relevant and verified facts involved. Seeking NPOV has been a tough gig on this article, as many participants will I think be willing to attest.  Currently the article mentions only that "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.'[14]" I personally have no preferences at the moment whether the article about "intelligent design" should be more specific about this particular issue. ... Kenosis 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point that the "stifling dominance" quote says quite a bit already. But since Astrology is not exactly "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", it seems to support my point as well.  I suppose there's too much commotion here already, so I won't push the issue. Xerxesnine 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this is an essential part of ID – the insistence that science be redefined to give credence to the supernatural, both as justification for it "proving" the existence of the Designer/God, and as Johnson put it, to replace "materialist" evolution as a creation myth with an unknowable Creator. Jones in deciding Kitzmiller noted the "flawed duality" of the assumption that disproof of evolution would prove a supernatural cause. .. dave souza, talk 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)