Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 4

How does your own POV assertion justify its own separate heading here?
Rednblu, you are constantly restructuring the Talk pages here and at Talk:Creationism, Intelligent Design and Human, usually in a way that favors your POV. Your incessant refactoring of these Talk pages is highly inappropriate and clear evidence that you are conducting a campaign, the purpose of which to rewrite both the Creationism and Intelligent Design articles to conform to your pet POV. Your attempts to control the debate here are consistent with your well known history of bias on the usenet and the web.

I am going to have to insist that 1) you cease your mendacious campaign to promote your biased POV on wikipedia, 2) that you stop restructuring/refactoring the Talk pages, 3) that you cease continually resurrecting previously settled NPOV topics.

Wikipedia provides for dealing with those who conduct POV campaigns, and based on what we've seen of your contributions at Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Human taken with your usenet history, and your statement on your User page there is substantial evidence that you are conducting one here.

BTW, the second paragraph of the article is accurate and concise as it stands, your text above is no improvement.--FeloniousMonk 18:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...
ChrisDuben on one hand, and Steinsky, Bobby D. Bryant, and Duncharris on the other, have been in an edit war over the inclusion (or not) of the above phrase.

I don't expect that this will be easy to resolve, but I offer the following comments: So with that last point in mind, is the sentence just giving the facts, or is it preaching? Or, to ask another question, why is the entire paragraph put so high up in the article? The Evolution article relegates any mention of disagreement to the very end of the article (bar the links). Why shouldn't the same apply here? Philip J. Rayment 16:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The phrase is factually correct.
 * One version said, "who include the overwhelming majority of evolutionists". Opponents of ID probably include all evolutionists, so this variation is a bit pointless.
 * <>In fact it can be, if the the selection of facts display bias. From NPOV dispute: "While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."


 * Isn't there an evolution survey which shows that 99.8% of biologists and 95% of scientists in general, agree with the theory of evolution? --Uncle Ed 21:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The National Academy of Science, according to their mandate from both the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Congress, "...the Academy shall, whenever called upon by any department of the Government, investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art, the actual expense of such investigations, examinations, experiments, and reports...". As the representative of the scientific community as a whole and the definitive arbiter for opinions on matters scientific affectly public policy and following the terms of this mandate, The National Academy of Science has spoken unequivically numerous times in support of evolution and has deprecated the concept of creationism and its proxy, ID, as both being matters of belief, not science. That's an explicit endorsement of the leading national scientific body, representing the majority view of the scientific community.--FM 23:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Some pollsters do look at people in American men and women of science versus the general public show more knowledge and acceptance of evolution within the scientific community. But the quickest evidence of this can be seen at Project Steve at http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 -- and that's just those called Steve. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Notice that Project Steve is a satirical response to the list of "50 scientists who reject evolution" that evolution deniers presented while lobbying the Ohio State Board of Education a year or two back. But to get even that list of 50 they had to pad it out with 'scientists' like civil engineers and dental surgeons, who made up almost half of the list. (And that's being generous: when I went over the list I let mathematicians and the like pass, since they might conceivably have something to say about evolution. Whether any on the list actually have said anything about evolution in their professional work is another matter...) Project Steve shows that even if you limit yourself to scientists named "Steve", you can find a far larger number who support evolution. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Project Steve was an attempt to ridicule creationists. It method was to show that there are many more evolutionists than creationists, but that is something that was never in dispute. Philip J. Rayment 18:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, therefore the opposition to Intelligent Design from the scientific community is significant because of the numbers; therefore it gets mentioned. I'm glad we agree on something. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 23:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And I never said that it shouldn't get mentioned. I was questioning how prominent a mention it should get.  The answer to that is a value judgement.  Philip J. Rayment 13:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In most controverial articles, the main contrasting view points are mentioned up front. That seems to be a general pattern resulting from the way Wikipedia is written. Rikurzhen
 * a) So evolution is the exception? b) By 'prominent', I didn't just mean how close to the top, but how large it is.  Perhaps a simple one-liner is appropriate for the introduction, and more information at the end of the article?  Philip J. Rayment 04:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Evolution isn't an exception, because to most scientists it isn't a controversial issue. Whether or not evolution occurs isn't a matter of debate at all in scientific circles; just flip through the last few decades of Nature or any other respected journal, it's a given. I assure you whoever that 0.2% might be is marginal, of no consequence to anyone other than the choir they're preaching to, so to speak. What's controversial is someone suggesting an alternative based on a belief in a supernatural--hence, inherently unverifiable, unscientific--force, already held to be unassailable. That's why the controversy takes center stage; to the vast majority of informed people it's just a fringe stance not especially worthy of consideration, thus its appropriate characterization.
 * <>
 * Absolute rubbish. The fact that most scientists are on the same side of the controversy doesn't mean that it is not controversial.
 * <>
 * Again, rubbish. First, there are the creationary scientists that debate it all the time.  Secondly, there are the evolutionary scientists that take the other side, such as (a) those that take part in actual debates, (b) organisations like the NCSE that have defending evolution as their main reason for being, and (c) journals such as Scientific American that publish articles attacking creationary views.
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The sentence definitely should stay (even better if it can be quantitative, perhaps with % of biologists as well). Intelligent Design proponents claim ID to be scientific, and that the majority of people with a training in science claim that it is not scientific is something that must be mentioned in an encyclopedia article about it. --Steinsky 22:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correcting versions for paragraph 2
The current version of paragraph 2 is as follows.


 * <>

This paragraph, in my opinion, mischaracterizes ID and mischaracterizes the opposition between mainstream scientists and ID. For example, it is physically and logically impossible for an argument to be deceptive; a Trojan horse is not deceptive; it is the flaws of the perceiver that cause the deception--not the object perceived; a deceiver may use a Trojan horse to work a deception, but it is not the Trojan horse that deceives; it is the flaws of the perceiver that work the deception.

In other words, ID is not deceiving to mainstream scientists; ID is deceiving only to people who do not understand science. That is, the deception is caused by the flaws in the perceiver who does not understand science. Accordingly, let us develop an accurate paragraph 2. Feel free to edit the following text to improve it. ---Rednblu 19:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that your analysis of "deceptive argument" is correct. A Google search for that term returns hundred of pages, suggesting that many people use that phrase. Looking at the entries, they all share the same general meaning. The term deceptive -- in my understanding -- merely means "tending to deceive". A deceptive argument is one that tends to deceive people, which is exactly what is meant in paragraph 2. Also, the existing paragraph seems more suscinct and more appropriately detailed than your alternative below. I would keep the existing paragraph. Rikurzhen


 * So, in your opinion, who would be deceived by the "deceptive argument" you have in mind. Would it deceive a scientist--or would it deceive someone who had no understanding of science?  ---Rednblu 06:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I also think your contention is mistaken. Obviously with any deception, only certain parties will be deceived, those who do not possess enough information to see through the deception. In this case, since the argument is being directed primarily at non-scientists (since it does not for the most part occur in scientific journals), the deception should be primarily perceived in that light. You're picking at the wrong nits, here... Graft 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Graft's and Rikurzhen's analsys and opinion on the second paragraph.--FeloniousMonk 19:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---


 * <>

Supposedly Wikipedia is directed primarily toward that same group of non-scientists. And I am pointing out that the polls indicate that, among non-scientists, there is general agreement that Intelligent design is not a "deceptive argument." How could a mere argument be "deceptive"? And I am pointing out that the Intelligent design people are right: How could a mere argument be "deceptive"? It would seem to me that the idea of evolution would compete more effectively with Intelligent design, if the second paragraph would explain how an Intelligent designer is not needed to create all the observed diversity of life. Hence, I proposed the Version 1 below that anybody can edit to make a clear statement; two sentences would be ideal, but I don't yet know how to make it clear in two sentences.

The current strategy of blasting the non-scientist readers with the big leap and accusation that Intelligent design is a "deceptive argument" does not score points--except with those who already understand that evolution provides a better explanation. And as a result, the current paragraph 2 is only propaganda with no explanatory value for the most important class of reader of this page--the non-scientist. ---Rednblu 18:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the point of wikipedia is to educate, but I disagree with your analysis and position. To that point, The National Academy of Science, in it's definitive book Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999) states that "The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted." Since the point of wikipedia is also to educate, the same argument applies here. It goes on to state "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief... This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

Since the point here is to educate, presenting a religious assertions as science would be in error.--FeloniousMonk 19:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And yet naturalism is a philosophy, as the paragraph under discussion presently asserts! --DannyMuse 06:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Version 1: An Intelligent Designer is not needed to explain the complexity of life
Mainstream scientists contend that an Intelligent Designer is not needed to fully explain the origin and evolution of species on this earth. According to mainstream-science interpretations of all available data, natural selection has resulted in daily and hourly changes in the surviving gene pool by propagation on the one hand of those gene combinations that adapt individual creatures to the environment they face--but death on the other hand without issue to those gene combinations that do not adapt the successive generations to the surrounding environment. Accordingly, mainstream scientists reject the Intelligent Design idea as an example of an unnecessary cause that Occam's razor would eliminate from any theory of mainstream science.

Meaning of "scientific"
Does the word scientific mean:


 * true, because the thing in question has passed through all stages of the scientific method? Or,
 * (William M. Connolley 16:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) The SM page is a philosophers disaster area.
 * accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists? Or,
 * something scientists care about? Or,
 * a hypothesis which scientists consider to be 'falsifiable', i.e., they can think of some practical experiment that might prove the hypothesis to be false?

I'd like to see all the Wikipedia articles touching on evolution and creationism use a consistent definition of "scientific" -- or at least highlight and clarify and inconsistent uses of this crucial term. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)). (1) - no. (2) presumably not, else relativity started off being non-sci but then became sci. (3) maybe (4) usually a touchstone.


 * (4) is probably best. For example (just a random example you understand :-) global warming passes the test, because its predictions (warming of 2-5 oC in 100 y given certain CO2 scenarios) can (in theory) be falsified by waiting 100 years to see. OTOH observing the Crab Nebula is science but it isn't falsifiable... but could be called stamp-collecting science. Ah... I slipped in the word predictions too. Making predictions is a Good Thing from the science POV. Does ID make any?


 * A scientific theory is much more than just falsifiable, though that is one of the criteria. Theories are also judged by their scope, clarity, logical consistency, precision, testability, and empirical support, and can usually be used to make predictions about other data and observations which could be made. --Steinsky 16:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say none of the above are even close to adequate definitions of "scientific." I propose the following definition as being the most relevant to the discussion and topic: " scientific : Consistent with the commonly accepted and practiced methodologies and philosophy of science." This is not a difficult one to figure out folks, unless you want to incorporate some particular spin.--FM 18:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words, the way scientists act and think? Kind of circular to me...


 * This makes global warming theory scientific because $2 billion a year fuels research into proving it's true; and,
 * researchers looking for non-anthropenic causes are "unscientific" because they're going against the mainstream

I think the attempt to make a concise definition backfires, unless (a) it doesn't use the word "science" or "scientific" within (because you can't define a word in terms of itself unless you're deliberately forming a recursive definition) and (b) we can use it to determine at a glance whether a particular idea is "scientific".

I agree with practicing scientist William Connolley that 'theories' about carbon dioxide levels causing warming of 2 to 5 degrees Centigrade in 100 years are "scientific", because 100 years from now (at the latest) we'll know one way or another.

Note carefully that neither Dr. C. nor I are asserting that being "scientific" does not necessarily mean that these theories are correct (although for the record, he thinks they are correct and I don't).

The question, though, is whether ideas about 'evolution' or 'irreducible complexity' or 'design' are "scientific".
 * Is there any prediction made in, say 1940, that has been proven true or false by the passage of time? Or any prediction we can make now, of future events?
 * Are there any kinds of fossil records, which we don't have now but if we found them next year, would prove or disprove evolution or irreducible complexity or intelligent design?

Like, evolutionists all agree that if evolution is true, we will eventually find fossils of type XYZ. As the years pass, if no such fossils are found, will these evolutionists admit that their theory is false? If so, then their idea was a "scientific hypothesis". --Uncle Ed 18:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What makes global warmining scientific is that it explains the observations we see in nature. That it makes predictions improves its standing, but I can make all sorts of predictions that aren't scientific, just as I can come up with all sorts of falsifiable by absurd claims, which are also completely unscientific.  You can not judge whether a theory is scientific by whether it makes predictions alone. --Steinsky 23:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Evolution makes various "predictions" (note the quotes). Things like: the DNA of related species is related. That the "evolutionary tree" (phylogeny Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 20:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)) is expressed in the DNA. That older organisms thend to be more primitive. All of these things are true. Yet ID predicts none of them. Indeed, ID doesn't make any predictions at all. Or does it? I think ID is junk so I'm biased.


 * Perhaps some versions of ID do make predictions -- just incorrect ones. Such as, if humans were molded by an intelligent designer, then the human genome should contain many novel sequences not found in other species. But I can't think of any falisfiable predictions made by ID that haven't already been falsified. Evidence of design in nature would be evidence for ID, but there is little room left for much of a designer in the gaps of our understanding of biology -- and certainly no reason to predict an omnipotent designer. --Rikurzhen 19:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some forms of ID do make predictions. For example, one might predict that organisms are from an engineering POV optimal; and in that respect one would be wrong, organisms are clearly suboptimal.  However, it is easy to move the goalposts and argue that ID doesn't predict that but instead predicts "good design", etc and one gets progressively further away from perfect design to cack-handed design to Omphology.  The key point is that forms of ID do not make predictions, they do, though not very good ones, and they are often inconsistent.  The problem with ID and scientific philosophy is that the predictions are simply unfalsifiable because they rely on supernatural explanations. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 20:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--


 * The definition is far from being a tautology, it is merely observational; it defines the attribute "scientific" as being consistent with what is observed in scientific philosophy and practice. That makes your examples non sequiturs, and hence the definition I presented stands. The definition presented was also consistent with the common usage and definition, so I see no need for redefining the term for special usage in particular pages here. Further, to use your reasoning that a definition cannot reference its subject, "scientific" would have to be defined as "Consistent with the commonly accepted and practiced methodologies and philosophy of the discipline concerned with observing and explaining the observable and explainable." Some improvement.


 * Scientific is defined in the vernacular as:
 * 1. of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science


 * 2. Agreeing with, or depending on, the rules or principles of science


 * 3. Having a knowledge of science, or of a science


 * If you want to make a special pleading for an exception to the commonly used definition, then by all means do so, so far you have not proposed an alternative, and don't be surprised if it does not get much traction with those who do share your particular viewpoints. I'm not about to be drawn into an argument about the validity of 'evolution' or 'irreducible complexity' or 'design' here, which seems to be favored method of drawing attention away from the actual issues, like the use of the term scientific and it's definition. I find the constant attempts to redefine terms that are unfavorable to their personal views and beliefs disingenuous and a subtly cynical misuse of wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 22:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) You *could* try using the consistent-with-sci-practice definition but its terribly vague and very hard to test against. One test it provides is publication in peer-reviewed journals: that is definitely a part of accepted sci working. ID fails that.

Errmm... but to follow up. If you want to see a mess, look at the Scientific method page. Producing a usable defn of science is tricky. We won't succeed in this talk page.

Anon edits - 22OCT04
I like the style of the new edit of the first two paras, but IDists (apart from YECs and the like) don't talk about creation other than that of life, in my experience. Noisy | Talk 15:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Preserving the Anon edits - 22OCT04 for discussion
--- Begin preservation container ---

Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that there is empirical evidence that the universe and/or living things were designed by an intelligent agent. This includes but is not limited to arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life, that the mind cannot be explained in physical terms, or that the Earth and/or universe are "fine tuned" for living things, and therefore could not have come about naturally. The various arguments put forth in favor of ID are not necessarily related to each other, but all share the common conclusion that a "designer" must have intervened at some point in the history of the universe. While arguments against biological evolution are the most common, all ID arguments are based upon the insufficiency of natural processes to account for the observed properties of nature. ID can therefore be thought of as the antithesis of philosophical naturalism, expressed as a scientific theory. ID advocates reason, by way of an "eliminative inference", that we should settle upon intelligent causes whenever natural causes are incapable of explaining some phenomenon. Exactly what this intelligence is, how it opperates, why it chose to do what it did, etc., are theoretically excluded from the debate. However, ID is most often used for the purpose of religious apologetics, usually by conservative Christians, to argue for the existence of God. ID is thus a form of the argument from design originally developed by William Paley in the early 19th century.

ID is opposed by the overwhelming majority of scientists and philosophers of science, who regard ID as a form of pseudoscience. Criticisms are ID are many, but usually include the following: 1)  Since ID is based on a purely eliminative inference, and makes no positive statements about Earth history, it does not qualify as an actual scientific theory.  It cannot be used to generate testable hypotheses nor serve as a meaningful guide for research.  2)  The specific criticisms of biological evolution offered up by ID advocates, most of which are merely updated versions of old creationist arguments, are deeply flawed. In fact, most of ID appears to be little more than warmed over creationism. 3) In general, arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes, also known as "God of the gaps" arguments, are highly prone to failure.  The history of science shows that gaps in our knowledge become continuously filled in.  How, then, does one 'prove the negative' and show that there can exist no natural explanation for something?  Additional criticisms include the presence of seemingly poor designs within biology, and the "fine tuning" argument's failure to account for the anthropic principle.  Many religious critics also consider ID to be bad theology.

--- End preservation container --- ---Rednblu | Talk 19:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heading Changes
As it has been reverted, I have re-instated the changes and explained here why: By the way, my changes were described as an "attempt at spin control". I plead guilty. I certainly was trying to control the spin (probably inadvertent) put on it by the previous editor. :-) Philip J. Rayment 15:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Changed "Anti-ID from a young Earth creationist perspective" to "Young-Earth creationist comment on ID" because the former is not accurate. AiG goes along with most ID arguments, but does have a problem with their overall approach.  My heading better reflects that.
 * Reverted "Anti-ID from a scientific perspective" back to simply "Anti-ID" (which was not my wording in the first place). With the change to the YEC heading, this change was rendered unnecessary, and in any case is not NPOV in drawing a distinction between "scientific" and "YEC".
 * The PJR action seems appropriate, given the concluding paragraph of the article linked to. Noisy | Talk 16:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why sacrifice truth
What's the point of phrasing the article as if there might be some valid reasons to consider ID as not being pseudo-science.

That everbody does not agree that it's pseudoscience, does not make it any less so. Especially since the people claming it to be science does not have any relevant arguments for their view. Religious arguments can never be used to decide whether something is science.

Isn't wkikipedia about presenting the truth even if it might make some religious people angry.

Is this some kind of perverted political correctness!
 * No, it's a consequence of the fact that every time someone introduces straight talk into the article some creationist comes behind them and fixes what they perceive as a problem. &mdash; B.Bryant 14:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with B.Bryant's assessment above. There are those with ideological axes to grind that oppose an intellectually honest statement indicating that Intelligent Design's very foundation precludes it from ever being considered actual science. I'd support any effort you undertake to include such a clarification in the article.--FeloniousMonk 18:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As one of those creationists, I disagree with the above.
 * <>
 * And that anti-ID people keep claiming that it is pseudoscience does not make it any more so.
 * Perhaps you'd like to reply to my outline of the logical fallacies at the very core of the ID 'science', below. &mdash; B.Bryant 08:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the bit you are referring to. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * <>
 * That anti-ID people keep claiming that there are no relevant argument does not make it so.
 * <>
 * And that is an example of the poor arguments of anti-ID people. You can accuse creationists generally of using religious arguments (although you cannot rightly accuse them of using only religious arguments), but ID people specifically avoid using religious arguments.  That their conclusions have a religious implication seems to be the concern of anti-ID people.  But you shouldn't confuse conclusions with arguments.
 * <>
 * Wikipedia is about presenting NPOV articles. The belief that ID is pseudoscience is a POV, not shared by everyone.  And that is to be the case even if some religious (in this case, atheistic, humanistic, etc.) people get angry.
 * The facts that astrology and engram removal are pseudosciences are not shared by anyone. Do you think it's NPOV to point out the bogosity of those groups claims? &mdash; B.Bryant 15:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And BTW, we don't reject ID on "religious" grounds; we reject it because it's pseudoscience. Your attempt to spin humanism and atheism as religions just shows you up for the religious apologist that you actually are. &mdash; B.Bryant 15:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Depending on your definition of "religious", humanism and atheism are religions. I believe that worldviews (religious beliefs) are at the core of the rejection of ID, even if such people don't recognise that.  I would agree with pointing out that astrology is bogus, but in Wikipedia it still has to be done in an NPOV way, and as far as ID goes, I don't agree that it is bogus. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * <>
 * True. There are those atheists, rationalists, etc. with ideological axes to grind that oppose an intellectually honest statement.  And they presume to think that they have the market cornered on intellectual honesty.
 * P.S. Regarding the title of this section, as a Christian, I value truth very highly.  It is a characteristic expected by my Creator.  Why would atheists, rationalists, etc. be concerned with truth?
 * Philip J. Rayment 05:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * So why would non-Christians, "Atheists, rationalists, etc.", value truth? Intellectual honesty, integrity, a desire to be correct and wise, all the same reasons a Christian would. You may choose to continue to amble through your life thinking that Atheists are rudderless, immoral profligates. And some are. But so are some Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus. A good philosophy regardless of your religious inclinations or lack thereof is live and let live. I've seldom encountered Atheists who didn't believe in liberty and freedom for religious believers, but I encounter weekly quite a lot of religious believers who have no respect for those who don't believe or who believe differently. I can only hope that perhaps some interaction with Atheists here will cause you and more religious believers to be tolerant.
 * That Intelligent Design is pseudoscience is a fact, not a POV. Intelligent Design is mentioned specifically in the List of alternative, speculative and_disputed_theories and indirectly in the pseudoscience article. The National Academies of Science identifies Intelligent Design as pseudoscience.
 * Pseudoscience is "...any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method. [and] ...makes use of some of the superficial trappings of science but does not involve the substance of science." Intelligent Design is not testable by any known or anticipated method of science, asserts claims without supporting experimental evidence, asserts claims which contradict experimentally established results, asserts claims that violate falsifiability and Occam's Razor, all done while it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means. This places Intelligent Design squarely in the realm of pseudoscience. That it is is supported by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, other relevant and definitive wikipedia articles, and simple reason.--FeloniousMonk 06:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. &mdash; B.Bryant 15:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * <>
 * Yeah, except when it comes to actually claiming that the Bible might be true!.
 * <>
 * The fact that various articles and bodies opposed to ID claim it to be pseudoscience does not make it so.
 * <>
 * So if ID people claim that complex structures cannot occur naturally, that is not testable? They why is it that some have claimed to show that complex structures can occur naturally?
 * <<...asserts claims without supporting experimental evidence,...>>
 * My real concern is not whether or not ID is pseudoscience, but how it differs from evolution is that respect. What, for example, experimental evidence is there that reptiles evolved into birds?  If ID is pseudoscience, surely goo-to-you evolution is also?
 * <<... asserts claims that violate falsifiability ...>>
 * Ditto. How is the claim that single-celled creatures evolved into multi-celled creatures falsifiable?
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Why wouldn't the truthful and NPOV approach be for the Intelligent design page to say something like the following to just report the facts?
 * The AAAS says . . . . And the NAS says . . . .  In response, Francis Beckwith says . . .   When the Harvard Law Review in January 2004 published a Harvard law student's favorable review of Beckwith's book, the CSICOP posted to the Web a response that labeled the book review an "advertisement for Intelligent Design theory" and described a general "process whereby the pseudoscientific ID movement enhances its credibility" by obtaining the appearance of a "credential" by getting a favorable review slipped in the Harvard publication.

---

I'm just a commoner, and have been enjoying wikipedia, but I was shocked to read intelligent design page as I think its so negative towards the concept/idea/whatever. I don't get the 'neutrality' feeling as when reading other controversial articles. Its as if the page was written by some "evolution-jihadist". Can you guys be neutral and just stick to the fact please?

What is with all the links?
Is this a book list or an article? Do you Pro-iders think you could narrow it down to a few good one ones rather than the current list? -protohiro 00:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links are good. The issue is broad and confusing. There are even people who, er, cheat when discussing opposing points of view -- no one at Wikipedia, of course!


 * the books are okay. If they get too long, then can be broken out into their own page.  An interesting list would be list of scientifically peer-reviewd papers that have appeared in scientific journals that advocate intelligent design. Dunc|&#9786; 19:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I cut this from the article intro:


 * However, most scientists do believe that any hypothesis is worthy of scrutiny, their openmindedness leading them to be willing to scrutinize anything.

This assertion sidesteps the crucial issue of whether ID may be considered falsifiable. Scientists generally insist on falsifiability for an idea to be taken seriously as an "hypothesis".

We need perhaps to expand the section on the debate in the scientific community on the degree to which ID may be considered falsifiable. Don't get my wrong, I've been an enthusiastic ID supporter since I first heard the idea articulated, but:


 * the argument that life is too complex to have evolved at random is metaphysical, or it's shrewed guessing (like a detective solving a murder case)
 * a really useful hypothesis makes predictions, such as if this is true, we should see fossils like thus-and-such (finding such fossils might bolster confidence in the idea; a fruitless search after many decades might diminish confidence)

But it's not like astronomy or chemistry, which can put forth theories that predict future events:


 * If planets move in perfect circles, then we will see Mars right here. Oops, it's not close enough; that hypotheses must be wrong.
 * If this substance is poisonous, then feeding it to rats will kill them. Gosh, they can't seem to get enough of it and our lab is nearly over-run with theme and 6 generations of their descendants; I reckon Swedish meatballs aren't rat poison after all!

How can we make a prediction about the past? --user:Ed Poor (dope rouser) 14:28, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Karl Popper initially had this problem with evolution but later rejected it. Evolutionary theory is a model of how populations evolve.  This model is a paradigm that is constantly being refined.  The model provides predictions, for example about the behaviour of an organism or the differences between the DNA codes of different species.  The model is based on observance of X. The model then can be used to predict something similar happened in Y; it does not matter if this has already happened or if it is happening in the future.  If something is wrong with the model, then it can be falsified and the model refined.


 * As the father of statistics Ronald Fisher said to Huxley, "Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" -- a Darwinian process is not random.


 * Conditional probability is important in relation to Occam's razor. Given that event X has happened, the probability that it occured through path A rather than path B is not the probability of event X happening again through path A, it is the probability of event X happening again through path A divided by the probability of event happening again X (i.e. the probability of event X happening again through path A plus the probability of event X happening again through path B). (I'm thinking of abiogenesis here btw, though creationists' calculations of the probability of natural abiogenesis are often awry, they cannot provide a probability for supernatural abiogenesis.


 * More to the point however, is how can ID provide predictions? What predictions does it make and can these be falsified?

Good questions, and they ought to apply equally to the naturalistic theory of evolution through natural selection as well. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 21:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

style: redundant phrase near top of page
" Religious proponents of ID use the argument from design to argue for the existence of a god, usually &#8211; in the context of Christianity &#8211; God."

Make it " Religious proponents of ID use the argument from design to argue for the existence of a god."

(I'm assuming I'm right in thinking the main page is locked against casual non-divine access?)