Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 52

Review of lead
The lead reads (first sentences):

Intelligent design is the assertion 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] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science.

So ID is an "assertion"? What an odd word to use. Surely it's a bit more than that: it's an argument. In fact it's a syllogism: the universe is too complex to have come into being by chance; the opposite of chance is design; ergo, the universe was designed. But better is to call it an argument. It does argue its case, it doesn't just assert.

Going on a little further, it would seem, and I would agree, that ID is "a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." That being so, how about a small revision of these two sentences, like this:

''Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. It asserts 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"''

That should keep you all happily occupied for a day or two. PiCo (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about you scroll a page up an look at the discussion that has already taken place on this subject?. Or are you just trying to flame? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a new variation, effectively shifting from "ID is an assertion that.... it is an argument" to "ID is an argument..... it asserts that..." The good side is that it now becomes "an argument that asserts.." rather than "an assertion". The problem is that it pushes the ID proponents' definition into the second sentence, after the secondary analysis of what it really is, and ID supporters are likely to reject that. Worth careful consideration" . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, ID is not itself an argument. It is a variation on an argument for the existence of God, but as it does not explicitly argue for the existence of God (or for or against anything else), it not itself that argument. It acts as an umbrella for a wide range of old and/or repackaged anti-evolution argument, but is not itself any of these arguments. It likewise does not contain any explicit argument, as this would require a form of 'premise + logical reasoning = conclusion', which it lacks. After much debate, the best word we could come up for this philosophical ambiguity is that it is an "assertion". HrafnTalkStalk 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it is a loose paraphrase of the conclusionary statement of the teleological argument: '...therefore a God who designed life and the universe must exist' → "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause [who most ID proponents admit they think is God]". HrafnTalkStalk 12:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, we used to have something like that for the intro. After a long debate with ID supporters, we settled on this language instead. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Guettarda. I guess this will be an ongoing issue that people will raise from time to time, especially when, like me, they don't have experience of the history of the article. PiCo (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say: Intelligent design was the assertion, etc? The past tense seems appropriate, given that ID has been roundly dismissed by all the relevant authorities? :-) ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, Academic Freedom bills mean that ID textbooks have a new market – watch out for the next lawsuit in Louisiana. .. dave souza, talk 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Using ID textbooks on the basis of an Academic Freedom law would be a really bad tactical blunder. These laws rely on providing wiggle room, and work best where there's plausible deniability about the exactly what was taught -- was it ID, was it creationism, etc? With a textbook (as opposed to some teacher speaking from unknown sources), a lot of this factual uncertainty over what was taught is eliminated, and the whole thing revolves around (i) expert testimony & (ii) matters of constitutional law -- both areas in which ID/creationism court cases typically get massacred. HrafnTalkStalk 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, and my memory may be at fault, but my recollection is that they'd hoped to sell anti-evolution texts like Icons of Evolution and the equivalent, leaving it to the teacher to "just mention" intelligent design in the Caroline Crocker manner. Since the law and the school boards would be facilitating such teaching rather than mandating it, their hope would be that court cases would have to be taken against individual teachers rather than the district, making it that much harder to mount a challenge. As you'll have noticed, this comment is rather timely, further links at PZ's. As you say, they're beingcareful to deny it, but less careful elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Their whole strategy relies on (i) school boards being sufficiently careful/cautious as not to be sued/not to lose (which worked really well from them at Dover) and (ii) if/when they do lose a case that other boards not being risk-averse against trying (again, worked really well for them post-Dover). Even leaving to one side the morality/constitutionality of what they're doing, it's simply unworkable -- it only works if the least well informed, least disciplined members of the movement (the grass roots at the school board/classroom level) all keep on message, at least where their opinions will be recorded. Some of them won't and the ACLU will get to cherry pick which complaint gives them the most loud-mouthedly-religious defendants and the most sympathetic complainants for their test case. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard B. Hoppe elaborates on this point on PT: "Whoever called this law a 'Dover trap' [that was me: RBH] was, therefore, on point. It’s main effect will be to encourage local boards to approve wingnut 'science' for use in the classroom and so invite Kitzmiller II. The local boards that do so – in open meetings, on the public record, as Louisiana law requires – will have their decisions invalidated in federal court, where they will be hit for large fees and costs. Legislators who think the prospect is one of local interest only forget that Louisiana pays up to half of every local board’s costs by way of our Minimum Foundation grant system." Sounds like the Louisiana school board set-up makes it about the worst place to try this sort of strategy, in terms of getting creationist gaffs while implementing it on the record. HrafnTalkStalk 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lead not lending credence to intelligent design, but isn't there a less ugly way of starting off the article? Like "The concept of intelligent design centers on the assertion that..." The way its written just reads as jarring. More an issue of style than content. Avruch 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of sources
This should be removed from the article: "While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument." The sources all appear to be promoting forms of creationism other than ID. WP:QS is clear that questionable sources, including any promotional sources, may only be used in articles about themselves, and this article is not about Young Earth or even Old Earth Creationism. The Verifiability policy further indicates that contentious claims may never be referenced from questionable sources. So that is two separate reasons to remove this. 65.39.195.36 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The above user is a serial sockpuppeteer who is banned from editing creationism-related articles for abusing Tor proxy accounts to cause disruption. siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? These sources are identified in-text as non-ID creationist sources. I'm not following...--ZayZayEM (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please DFTT. The exact same issue was brought up at Talk:Young Earth creationism (as well as in other related articles) where multiple editors explained to the Tor-hopping IP why AnswersInGenesis is a reliable source for the views of YECs, and also why it is not covered by the policy governing the use of self published sources.  This editor, however, appears to have made it a personal crusade to eliminate any references to AiG from Wikipedia, and to do so in a manner that explicitly violates WP:DE and WP:PROXY.  He/she is well-aware that all of this has already been explained elsewhere.  This thread should be archived to prevent further time-wasting. siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to ZayZayEM: It doesn't matter that they're identified as such in text. WP:V is clear about where questionable sources can be used and what can be cited from them.
 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves as described below."
 * Since this article is not about Young Earth Creationism, sources promoting YEC can't be cited here. Even if they could, the material cited above is contentious, and thus is excluded by the policy. Now, if this is not the actual intent of WP:V, as some contend, then the policy should be rewritten. 91.66.13.46 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay i am starting understand what you mean. Creationists don't check facts, ergo creationist material is QS. However, this article IS about YEC opinions on ID, while not being directly about YEC itself. The sources and materials are used well within policy/guidelines and are not used to support any real-world facts. The QS source is directly used in relation to the QS itself, follows policy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, ID = creationism. Cannot be denied. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It could be argued that there QSs are being used in an article about creationism, since this article is about creationism. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please explain what this term "QS" means in the context? I'm sorry but I only speak English, not guess-what-the-initials-mean. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * QS = Questionable Source(s). Sometimes it helps to review the discussion to see if initials are being used as shorthand for something that has already been spelled out once before. It was used here in the second posting, but I had to look hard to find it, and QS isn't a common usage outside that particular page (WP:RS, or Reliable Sources). Doc  Tropics  17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressions
This section written on intelligent design is obviously done from an atheistic viewpoint... it would be nice if the facts were just presented as facts, and people could be left to make their conclusions based on raw information presented, not based on information manipulated to have an atheistic slant.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.187.201 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll pray for you. ... dave souza, talk 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an atheist by any means, but I don't think that is a fair criticism. Not all religious authorities accept creationism, intelligent design etc. --Stetsonharry (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes. ID essentially rejects science as it doesn't presuppose that unknowns are proof of God. From the ID perspective, the Archbishop of Canterbury has an atheistic viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the anonymous poster presumes that ID should be identified with God as Designer.PiCo (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

this isn't an Athiest point of view, it's a completely neutral agnostics point of view. Which is the way Wikipedia approaches everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.50.230 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 June 2008
 * Thanks, that's about right though I think the viewpoint is intended to be secular rather than agnostic. Effect's much the same, dave souza, talk 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(note: I posted the previous comment, I just bothered to log in this time)Actually, I would like to think that a secular approach implies an agnostic one, since an atheistic stance implies that we have proven a negative, which a secular society should realize is impossible. So essentially what I am saying is that wikipedia is an agnostic flavor of secular, NOT an atheist one. it certainly isn't intended to push any unproven (or unprovable) view. Playwrite (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a devout catholic and personally belive it's nonsense. Of course that doesn't have much afect on the article, but many scientists also agree with me, which does have significant effects on the way it's written.--Serviam (talk)  13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

forgive me if I sound insensitive, but what is it that you believe is nonsense?Playwrite (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Creationism.--Serviam (talk)  16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Thankyou. just wanted to clear that up.Playwrite (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

question
I was about to do start some cleanup on this article (and yes, I recognize this is a highly temperamental article, and so I plan on treading cautiously), but I immediately ran into a question that needs discussion. the last two paragraphs of the lead section feel as though they aren't really 'right' for the lead, but would fit better in the "origins of the concept" or "movement" sections - they seem a bit too historically specific, I think, to fit comfortably in the lead section. is there a reason that I am unaware of that they are in the lead, or can I consider repatriating them to other sections? -- Ludwigs 2 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Pop the bits where you think they belong, and we'll see how it goes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bold is one thing, suicidal another. =D  I'll give it a try, though.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the worst thing that can happen? Somebody will revert your edit.  This is pretty normal for Wikipedia, really.  It's how it's intended to work. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony here, and I want to make a further point: The intro is well within both policy and guideline as it stands which is apparent to anyone who takes the time to read the reading the archives. It is the product of hundreds of hours of debate. It enjoys a broad and long-standing consensus, standing more-or-less as-is since 2005, this last year as a Featured Article. Which brings up another relevant point: Intelligent design is a Featured Article. As such it has already been carefully reviewed by the community and and found to meet Wikipedia's highest standards governing content. A very strong case will have to be made that the article's content actually is in violation of those policies and guidelines for any significant changes to pass muster. This has been the case and continues to be the case. As for which guideline Ludwigs2's suggested changes run afoul of, I'd say WP:LEAD comes first to mind. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. actually, the lead reads as fairly balanced to me as it stands, and I wouldn't want to disturb that.  my main feeling about it is that it is a bit stiff-sounding, which I think may be the result of a careful avoidance (on all sides) of saying that this manifestation of intelligent design was a political gambit designed to circumvent laws against teaching creationism.  at least, when I clean it up it in my head it comes out much better when I say that outright; as it stands it's thoroughly implied but never stated.


 * I'll look over wp:lead, just to be sure... -- Ludwigs 2 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, interesting. having read through this article thoroughly, and poked around in the archives, my first thought is that this article is really an article about the socio-political movement called intelligent design (and should probably be merged with the "Intelligent design movement" article, or vice-versa). there's almost nothing here about the historical and philosophical uses of intelligent-design-like arguments. for instance, and just off the top of my head, I can point out that the modern construction of evolution theory was itself a political move designed to curtail the power and influence of theology in science. Darwin would not have rejected the Intelligent design argument outright - there are 'Creator' references in The Origin of the Species - and Lamarck suggested a theory of evolution that allowed for teleological development (basic difference: darwin theorized that unfit creatures died and fit creatures bred; Lamarck theorized that marginally fit creatures would produce offspring who were slightly more fit). the 'random mutation' model came later, when Mendelian genetics was warped into Darwinian theory, and the Lamarck approach was rejected largely because it could be turned into an ID-type theory, whereas random mutation was effectively God-proof.

there are still variations of Lamarckian theory floating around in modern biology, incidentally: it's a small but notable position in the field.

further, this article doesn't seem to recognize that the creationism/ID/evolution debate is really just one thread in a larger philosophical problem: the what is man's place in the universe thing. the Abrahamic worldview is built around a conception of man as the pinnacle of the universe, with all of creation having been created as his property and birthright. Scientific research has (more or less unintentionally) progressively de-centered man, reducing him to a creature like other creatures - not even the highest form of creature but just a currently successful phenotype. In this context, intelligent-design-type approaches are one way of trying to preserve the centrality of mankind while accommodating (or at least paying lip service) scientific advances.

in short - hooooboy...  where do I start with this? lol. -- Ludwigs 2 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Start by recognising that "intelligent-design-type approaches" is a neologism you've coined for a big field which isn't called that name by experts in the field, and find verification for the article you want to write. The term intelligent design has been taken, and in modern usage means the assertions, or as they would have it the "theory", put forward by those "design proponents" as shown in this article. You might find it rewarding to work on other articles which cover the field you're interested in, perhaps those related to theology such as teleological argument. . 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC) oops, too many tildes - signature missing, comment was by dave souza, talk, clarification added 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Intelligent design' = intelligent design movement + pseudoscientific arguments (irreducible complexity, specified complexity & The Privileged Planet-style cosmology) used to support it.
 * "the historical and philosophical uses of intelligent-design-like arguments" can be found at Teleological argument
 * "the modern construction of evolution theory was itself a political move designed to curtail the power and influence of theology in science." I know of no reputable scholarship that makes this claim.
 * The "what is man's place in the universe thing" would appear to be well beyond the scope of what this article can reasonably be expected to cover.

HrafnTalkStalk 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn - no doubt you're right about the neologism, but this is a talk page; I'm just trying to sort out my impressions. please remember that this article has a tremendously long history, and try as I might I can't be expected to know all the details of the discussion as they have panned out.  that being said, your comments suggest more strongly to me that Intelligent design and intelligent design movement should be merged, and that a disambiguation line should be included at the top, saying something like "This article is about the political and social Intelligent Design movement in the US. For the theoretical or philosophical perspective, see..."  I mean, just as a naive reader, I expected to see some discussion of Intelligent design itself on this page. what little is there, however, is buried beneath long discussions of the political, legal, and historical descriptions of the movement.  I can't honestly say that this page gives me a good idea of what intelligent design is, or how it fits into the larger philosophical world.
 * with respect to your specific points:
 * this is good argument for merging pages.
 * teleological argument is a bit narrowly construed for this. I could expand it, of course (and that might be an interesting project).
 * I can source this if we get to that - I remember reading the argument in a book about Darwin and Lamarck that I can picture sitting at the bottom of a big box in the garage underneath a pile of junk. :-(  for now, take it more as an indicator that this topic is larger than and precedes ID as it has been construed here
 * I'm not suggesting that we branch the article out into metaphysics, but I do think we ought to tip our hats to it. unless (again) this is only supposed to be an ID movement article.


 * maybe it will help if I say that what I'm trying to figure out here is whether the page effectively discusses what it is supposed to be discussing. unfortunately, what this page is supposed to be discussing is buried under geological layers of rhetoric, which makes that task a bit difficult.  if you can help me clear up that point, that would make things easier.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two issues – the things you suggest off the top of your head are wildly inaccurate, and this article discusses intelligent design, the movement article goes into greater depth about the movement pushing intelligent design. Specific proposals with sources for improving this article will be welcome, but your failure to understand the article isn't a good starting point. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  Dave, a couple of things you should know about me:
 * I'm never 'wildly inaccurate,' at least not unintentionally. I may be wrong sometimes, and I'm always willing to admit it when I am, but as a rule I miss by inches rather than miles.  if you think I'm being 'wildly inaccurate,' all that tells me is that you're not really taking me seriously. that's a mistake.
 * when I raise a problem or ask a question, I won't give it up just because someone doesn't feel like answering. I'm not difficult to convince, really - I always listen to reason and I'm a great fan of discussion - but if you don't try at all, then I'm just going to assume you can't answer, and look for input from others.
 * now, I don't need sourcing to suggest that two pages with almost identical contents should be merged; and when I am asking for clarification on what this page is supposed to be about, telling me I don't understand is hardly helpful. so maybe we can take a step back and try again? -- Ludwigs 2  02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs: would you care to elaborate on why you think that intelligent design and intelligent design movement articles should be merged? You say there's a good argument for the merge.  It would be helpful if you could let the rest of us know what that argument entails.  Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll spell it out in the section that got started below...-- Ludwigs 2 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I merely observed a determination to further marginalize an already marginal assertion/argument, rather than a willingness to allow it to reside in the near-infinite reaches of Wikipedia alongside Piltdown Man. Guettarda says that a handful is not a sub-community -- I see nothing to support that assertion in the Scientific community article. "No one is actually using ID in science" is only true if the rich and varied roots of Natural Philosophy (Newton was an alchemist; Maxwell was a mystic) are not considered -- SCIENCE means many things to many people. User:Hrafn brings lawyers into it (what's with that) -- I was talking about scientists. Membership in the Scientific Community is essentially defined by education, not endeavor -- read the article. So...I am NOT mistaken, I simply disagree with YOU -- which brings me back to my very first post: the mere existence of minority dissenters (even those with PhDs) is clearly an inconvenience to the prevailing "keepers of the tone" of the Intelligent design article. User:Dave_souza trounces Ludwig2, who made some good points about this Featured (bow down, bow down) article. Guettarda, Hrafn and Souza equate the decision to disagree with the failure to understand. I'm not even a creationist, and I see the bias. The guardians of this FEATURED article really need to find out about solipsism and examine themselves. The "Please read before starting" box is a case in point: it tells all newcomers that they can't possible hope to understand the nuances of so EXALTED an endeavor as this page -- what a great way to stifle boldness and ignore introspection.

As to my suggestions for improvement, in addition to what I ALREADY posted concerning Feature designation: in all the essentials concerning Article changes I agree with Ludwigs2. BTW, Hrafn, what makes one an expert in so useless a subject as this? Championdante (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Championdante: you say that "science means many things to many people". Be that as it may, this isn't the place to debate the meaning of "science".  Nor is it the place to debate what constitutes a scientist.  While the Wikipedia scientific community article isn't a terribly useful source, to say that the scientific community is based on "education, not endeavour" misrepresents the article - it describes membership of the scientific community in terms of "education, employment status, and institutional affiliation".  Simply having a PhD in a scientific field does not make you a member of a scientific community - it also requires that you participate in the broader community.  But to say, as you did, that ID should be considered a subset within the scientific community is fairly meaningless if they aren't using ID to so science.  If they are doing what the IDists call "materialistic science" then it really doesn't matter what they believe.  If they aren't doing the kind of "non-materialistic science" that ID requires, then it doesn't matter if they support the ID movement or not.  They are acting like they belong to the mainstream scientific community.  Since no-one has figured out how to do "non-materialistic science", your "ID subcommunity" is no more meaningful that "scientists who avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk" or scientists named Steve.  Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2/Championdante: The dated, but unsigned, comment above my own most recent one is Dave's not mine (the result of accidentally using not ~ . In answer to Championdante's question misdirected to me, relevant experts would be Historians/Philosophers of Science who have made a study of ID -- most prominent examples would be Barbara Forrest and Robert T. Pennock. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 04:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, it may be an artefact of oversimplification, but your assertions about Darwin and Lamarck appear to be woefully misinformed. Darwin was distinctive in rejecting the teleological argument as it relates to speciation, though he continued to accept the possibility of evidence of a Creator in fields such as astronomy which were beyond his competence to decide. It's a side issue, and if all you want is a mention of ID's relationship to its wider philosophical predecessors, see #Origins of the concept. You're welcome to make specific suggestions for improvement, with sources. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that's possible - I'm not Darwin scholar, except in a general interest sort of way. If we need to discuss it for this article we can get into the literature and piece it out (or if you'd prefer to discuss it just for the heck of it, we could move the question to a talk page).  I'll leave the question open for now, because it's not really pertinent.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"cdesign proponentsists", "creaintelligent designism". what other evidence do you need that it was deliberate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and intelligent design movement
Ludwigs2 has proposed above that the intelligent design and intelligent design movement articles should be merged, and that a disambiguation line should be included at the top, saying something like "This article is about the political and social Intelligent Design movement in the US. For the theoretical or philosophical perspective, see..." My understanding is that this article is about the current usage of "intelligent design" as an argument or "theory", necessarily including an outline discussion of its protagonists as well as the theoretical and philosophical aspects. intelligent design gives a summary style outline of the aspect dealt with in detail in intelligent design movement – read WP:SS and you'll find out why. There may be an argument for focussing the movement article more narrowly and for tightening up the summary style section here, but each article still has to be self contained and cover the essentials. Any detailed proposals? . dave souza, talk 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section could also be considered to be on the IDM but, because of its prominence, has its own section (and several, more detailed, articles). The ID project follows a roughly hierarchical structure, with this article at its apex (or 'trunk' to use another metaphor). While we may at times debate splitting/combining 'twigs' (to use my second metaphor), I rather doubt Ludwigs2 would get any support for merging two of its main articles (if for no other reason, then because the amount of work & renegotiation involved would be simply horrific). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, the way this appears to me is that everything in the Intelligent Design article from the movement section on down (1/2 to 2/3 of the article, excluding the copious footnotes) overlaps with, duplicates, or supplements the intelligent design movement article, because it is all talking about the particular political, legal, and intellectual strategies adopted by the American ID movement. there are exceptions on both sides of that dividing line, of course. for instance, the sections on 'peer review' and 'defining science' are relevant to the discussion of the theory of intelligent design (though in the article half of each of these sections is devoted to legal and political ramifications), while the upper section is peppered with political comments (e.g. the comments that all the people who support intelligent design actually believe in the christian god) that have no bearing on the theory itself.  and honestly, when I read the ID article I get the distinct sense that only reason theory points are raised at all in the article is cast aspersions on the motives of the movement.  I'm not actually objecting to that, mind you - I personally see the ID movement as a somewhat Machiavellian political effort that probably calls for aspersions - but still, I hate to see theory and philosophy reduced to those levels by either side.


 * my merge suggestion is based on the assumption that there is no real interest in this article (or in the project as a whole) in discussing the theory in its own right. in that case, theoretical discussions should be excised in their entirety, these two articles should be merged as a discussion of the Intelligent design movement, and I'll go over and expand the ID section in teleological argument and make a link as I suggested above.  if in fact there is an interest in discussing the theory, then I could see the value of two pages, one called Intelligent Design (movement) that covers most of what's on this page and the ID movement page, and another called Intelligent Design (theory) that restricts itself to discussing the theoretical and philosophical aspects, without engaging any of the political or legal foofaraw.


 * I mean, I don't actually think the content on these pages is bad - I just think that the political and scientific discussion here have been badly confounded, and that they need to be teased apart and held separate. by mixing them like this you just can't avoid a POV article. -- Ludwigs 2  19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "theory in its own right" -- ID has no positive theory of how things happened, just a bunch of arguments as to why evolution couldn't possibly have done it -- conveniently leaving a God-shaped hole for Creationism to fill. Therefore it is hardly wikipedia's fault if this non-existent theory doesn't get discussed. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, I know this is the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia (in a lot of fringe theory articles, actually), but it simply doesn't hold water. there are no 'lower-bound' limits on what can or cannot constitute a theory, at least from the perspective of a scientist.  the Great Spaghetti Monster Theory is itself a perfectly acceptable scientific theory.  now, if ID (or GSMT) were actually treated as the scientific theory it claims to be it would fall into ruin overnight - it's unfalsifiable, it explains nothing that is not better explained and better supported by other theories, it's impossible to create any sort of research paradigm from it - but that's a different issue.  it is the job of scientists to debunk ID as a scientific theory, not the job of wikipedians.


 * there's a different political issue here, of course, that ID promoters have tried to introduce a theory into the education system that hasn't been tested or accepted by the scientific community. it's a violation of the trust we put in our school systems that any educator would even consider teaching a theory like that to students; I can't tell you how much that annoys me.  but it's not correct to confuse the political machinations of the proponents of ID with the presentation of ID as a scientific theory.  the former is unpleasantly suspicious; the latter is a normal part of the scientific process.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be impolite, but I think you might want to do a bit more research (off-wiki of course) into what is truly a "theory" from the scientific viewpoint. "And the Intelligent Designer said let there be light and there was light" is not a scientific theory. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * lol - Jim, I'll refrain from the easy comeback that maybe you should do a little more research. :-)  That "an Intelligent Designer said let there be light" is surely a theory. it's just not a very good theory.  The only reason to say it's not a theory is so that you can dismiss it before you've looked at any evidence. Dismissing things without looking at evidence is not science, it's prejudice.  if you want to oppose this on scientific grounds then you are obliged to take it as a theory, and treat it as such.


 * again, politics is getting in the way of science here. -- Ludwigs 2  01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[Ludwigs's continued insistence that we must reopen this issue, based upon nothing more than his own base assertion, userfied to User talk:Ludwigs2 per WP:TALK "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ]


 * again, as you prefer. but this does not close the issue.  -- Ludwigs 2  09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I use Wikipedia daily, and this is the first and only Wikipedia article that I have encountered which reads like a position paper, instead of an encyclopedia article. If the authors cannot figure out why people are claiming that this article is not "neutral" in perspective, perhaps I can shed some light on it, and offer some proposed revisions.

"It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer."

This is leading with a false statement. It would be more correct to say that it CAN be used to argue the existence of God, but an "intelligent designer" does not require a supernatural being or entity. A more advanced life form, for example, could be an intelligent designer. This life form does not need to be divine or all powerful... or even exist anymore. One might infer, for example, "an intelligent designer" from examining the inner workings of a mousetrap.

"The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[3][4][5] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute[6][7] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[8][9]"

This paragraph calls into question the theory because of certain beliefs held by its proponents. The actual theory does not depend on any of these beliefs. Not to mention, an article discussing a theory should not lead by calling into question the theory in the second sentence. It would be like an article about Barack Obama which begins by disscussing questionable positions held by Reverend Wright.

"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[12][13][14][15]"

The sentence would never appear in an objective piece about any topic. Even phrenology. It can be rephrased in a more neutral way, and should be shifted to a subtopic regarding criticism of the theory. "Many scientists oppose the theory because A, B, and C." "Pseudoscience" is a mere conclusion; it is better that the reader make his own conclusions based upon what the scientists actually say regarding A, B, and C.

"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.[16]"

Since the theory does not require "supernatural intervention" as claimed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, this sentence should be stricken, as it may mislead the reader into erroneously thinking intelligent design requires supernatural intervention. Anyway, a particular group's position on a theory does not belong in the intro paragraph of the theory, but in a "criticism" subtopic...

The subsequent court cases, possible motivation for advancing the theory --> All belong in a "criticism" section.

I believe these changes will improve the overall neutrality of the piece... LuckyLavs (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reason someone might feel this way is because overwhelming scientific opinion is not sympathetic to ID. That seems to be the source of much dissatsifaction with the tone of the article. Perhaps something can be done to fix the tone, or give advocates of ID a better shake, but otherwise I don't see how that can be overcome.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are sweeping assertions which do not follow from the sources which the article cites, and your proposals fail to comply with the provisions of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ as listed in the Please read before starting box at the head of this talk page. See also WP:FRINGE for guidance. Note in particular that your proposal to move any critical content to a subtopic fails NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". For further detail, see Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ . dave souza, talk 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave - These may or may not be sweeping assertions, but they are intelligently put criticisms that require responses. throwing out a bunch of policy links intended to discourage reasonable, good faith discussion is not in the best interests of this article or of wikipedia.  Please desist.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2: these "criticisms" fall apart completely without these "sweeping assertions" -- in fact ID is not a theory (even by occasional admission of its proponents), it is widely regarded that it does require supernatural intervention, far from "not depend[ing] on any of these beliefs" -- it is these beliefs -- just with "God" artfully replaced by "designer" ("Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski), wikipedia frowns upon isolating criticism in 'Criticism sections'. Take these away and what criticism do you have left? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To discuss compliance with NPOV policy, we have to refer to the relevant policies, especially when proposals obviously fail to comply with these policies. For changes like this, we must start with verification from reliable sources, not with discarding the well sourced statements in the article because of feelings that ID should be something else. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn: I disagree. just looking at his first point, re the phrase "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer..." the words modified to avoid are clearly leading the reader to assume that the action was both intentional and evasive (and thereby suspect).  you can see it clearly in this equivalent phrase: "that's pretty much what John did at the bar last night, modified to avoid a fight with his wife." does that make you want to respect John, or smack him upside the head?  :-)


 * Your disagreement is uninformed. The ID assertion is merely the conclusionary assertion in the "traditional teleological argument" with 'designer' substituted for God. The anti-evolution arguments (IC, CSI, FTU) are more sciency-worded rewrites of the original body of the argument. That they are tactically avoiding naming the designer is well documented (e.g. here, here and here). The words are clearly simply summarising well-documented evidence -- including admissions from the 'father of ID' himself. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, your response misses the point completely. I am not arguing about what the ID people did; I'm arguing that the phrasing used is biased.  saying "ID is the TTA without reference to the existence of God" is factual and neutral.  saying "ID is the TTA modified to avoid reference to the existence of God" implies a political agenda.  this is fine (assuming you have proper sourcing) if you are talking about the political 'movement', but clearly biased if you are talking about ID as a theory.  again, we're back to that distinction you simply refuse to make.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave: I'm all for the use of policy and guidelines. I just don't like seeing them used as tools to forestall conversation.  if you have a particular point in LuckyLavs' comments that violates particular aspects of policy, then please make appropriate comments to that effect, with clear quotes from the policies in question.  However, you are currently using policy the way you would use a rolled up newspaper to smack a dog on the nose, and that is not proper.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, please assume good faith. LuckyLavs' comments have to be related to policy and founded on verifiable reliable sources if they are to make any headway. The sentence you're picking up on is based on sources 4 and 5 in the article, if you'd like to propose altenative wording that equally matches these sources or find an altenative reliable secondary source supporting a change of wording, that will be helpful. . dave souza, talk 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwig: I don't think the policies and guidelines were used to forestall conversation but rather to promote intelligent conversation that is within WP's well-established paradigm. If one does not fully understand NPOV, how can one argue whether an article meets the NPOV criteria?  Editors and users need to understand that "neutral" does not necessarily equate to a 50:50 split, especially on pseudoscience and fringe topics/views.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludgwigs2, I think you have to recognise that ID was constructed as part of the Wedge Strategy, and thus that failing to describe it as a reformulation of creationist teleology constructed primarily as a legal strategy for putting creationist ideas into schools would be very wrong.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave: I always assume good faith, believe it not. I would ask you to do the same.  your assumption that LuckyLav was not already aware of those policies is completely unfounded by the content of his post, and your blanket, unfocussed, undifferentiated barrage of links was clearly not intended as a strategy for explaining things.  If you think that LuckyLav violated policy in some particular way, then it is your responsibility to say specifically what you mean,  not his responsibility to dig through the seven different policies that you threw at him to try to figure out what you're talking about.  frankly, if you can't spell out how a policy applies in a given case, then you have absolutely no grounds for saying someone has violated it.
 * Jim62sch: I found LuckyLav's comments to be well-stated and intelligent. I'm not sure what you feel you need to 'promote' here, if not that.  and I will point out that just because someone disagrees with you about what NPOV means, that doesn't mean they don't understand the term.
 * ANLAT: pardon the abbreviation... I'm well aware that ID was a Machiavellian construct designed more as a piece of political subterfuge than as an actual scientific theory.  That still is not grounds for failing to examine it in its own terms.  as I keep saying, you can write an article about the political aspect of the movement, or you can write an article about the theory, but if you try to do both at once you're going to end up doing a disservice to one or the other - which is what has happened in this article.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwig, my assumption that LuckyLav was not already aware of those policies was based both on the content of his post, making assertions without any reference to verification from sources, and from the fact that this post is the only edit LuckyLav has made to Wikipedia. I therefore welcomed LuckyLav with a reference to policies to aid his/her education, and pointed to the necessary preconditions for the changes proposed. If you found LuckyLav's comments to be well-stated and intelligent, perhaps you could favour us with detailed proposals based on these comments to improve the article, complete with verification from reliable sources without the "original research" that's all that's been presented so far, and with due care taken to comply with NPOV policies. This would help to dispel the unfortunate impression that you're trolling. While I'm sure that you mean well, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, per WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll take that under advisement and see what I can do. -- Ludwigs 2  21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Teleological argument" is not a false statement. It is backed up by references. It has been used and carefully worded after quite a lot of consensus discussion. The use of words such as "modern form" and "modified" allow for ID not being identical to previous forms of the argument. Namely the supernatural component has been expanded to allow for arguably non-supernatural alien entities. In my view any hypothetical life form more advanced than us still falls under "supernatural" as it is outside our currently verified limits of natural.
 * Secondly the unequivocable reception of ID as pseudoscience is a perfectly valid, and supported statement. This statement is also the result of a lengthy consensus process. It accurately characterises scientific view of ID. It does not say that ID is pseudoscience, merely that is how the scientific community resoundingly perceives it.
 * Thirdly the opinions of leading proponents regarding the identity of the designer are important as well. This statement is verifiable and accurate. The identity of the designer is obviously important in a designer-centric idealogy. It is also a key component of the surrounding controversey. It makes no judgement on what the impact of the proponent's view have on the validity of their basic assertion. It is actually quite neutrally worded.
 * The overall controversial nature of this issue makes it difficult present an acurate portrayal of events without allowing intelligent and discerning readers to make conclusions about ID. ID is internally inconsistent, deceptive, duplicitious and absolutely overflowing with ignorance. Wikipedia has no control over this and is only capable of reporting facts. It does not censor itself about subject matter that will expose its own failings.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One has to intellectually torture himself to arrive at the conclusion that this article is written from a neutral point of view. By the second sentence of the article, sources that are openly hostile to intelligent design are allowed to supplant the definition of intelligent design provided by the very people who advanced it. This is tantamount to allowing a creationist to give us the "true" definition of evolution, ignoring what Darwin actually had to say about the matter. Not surprisingly, the new definition we are given is substantially easier to attack than the definition originally presented. In logic, this is known as the "straw man" fallacy -- distorting a proposition and then attacking the distortion, instead of dealing with the proposition head-on. If you are really interested in attaining neutrality, however, you would never let an opponent of a proposition redefine the proposition for you.

Various people have stated that I have not provided a source which supports the premise that intelligent design does not depend on Creationism, divine entities, or the supernatural. This inference, however, may be readily drawn by the definition already presented and sourced. The term actually provided in the definition is "intelligent cause." You can't just wave your hands and pretend that it reads "supernatural entity", "divinity," or "god" because you don't like the proposition and would rather have it read in a different way.

An "intelligent cause" is exactly what it sounds like, i.e. there is intelligence, but it does not necessarily require divine powers or supernatural phenomena. To illustrate, if humans could one day create a computer capable of rational thought, and the computer became aware of its own RAM, processors, and data buses, it could one day infer from its own inner workings that it had been intelligently assembled. However, the humans who created it could not be fairly said to be "divine," "supernatural," or "gods," for they are subject to the same rules of nature as everything else.

But don't take my word for it. The people attributed to advancing intelligent design have stated this premise ad nauseum, in fact, this can even be found in the same sources cited in this article used to support the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Kitzmiller at 35. So there is internal inconsistency with the definition, as proponents say ID means A, opponents say ID means B. The real question then becomes... if your goal is to present a proposition from a "neutral point of view" - wouldn't it be better to take the definition of the proposition from the person who actually advanced it than from some other person? For example, if you were to present Faraday's law in a Wikipedia article... wouldn't Faraday be the best authority to ask on the subject? I don't suppose that Faraday's postman or his gardener would be able to give it to you any better, so I would be very reticent to rely on these sources, let alone allow them to supplant what Faraday has already told us. But I would be even more reticent to take the definition from a person or organization who may have a vested interest in preserving a theory that ostensibly competes with Faraday's law.

And when I say vested interest... please recognize that there are many scientists who have devoted substantial portions of their lives to researching, investigating, and exploring various facets of the big bang theory. They receive research grants for these projects -- to them, the big bang is their very livelihood. We should therefore expect ID to provoke a fair amount of hostility from the scientific community. However, we should also be smart enough to know that bald assertions, conclusory statements, labeling, name calling, ad-hominem attacks, etc. have no place in an encyclopedia article. This subverts the intellectual process, for it denies the reader the opportunity to understand the idea and evaluate it on his own terms. We should also be smart enough to know that the rules of logic are not suspendable by consensus or popular vote. If someone presents an idea as X, the idea doesn't change to Y because certain people would rather deal with Y.

To those of you who robotically cite one Wikipedia rule after the next, routinely faulting people with legitimate concerns about the neutrality of the piece for failing to become familiar with the policies outlined in the "Please Read Before Starting" section -- it may very well be that all of us who have read this article "coincidentally" ignore these policies and wind up committing the same faux pas anyway. Another possibility, however, is that a select group of people are using the rules as a justification to prevent any changes to the article which they do not personally agree with. Don't you find it quite telling, for example, that a "Please Read Before Starting" section is even included with this article? Apparently, NPOV has been used so frequently to squelch undesirable positions that someone felt that a sign-post should be erected for future convenience.

I happen to be a scientist by trade, but I do not have a pony in the ID / big bang contest. However, I do think the proposition has been bastardized here... Whether you call this particular proposition "science" or "pseudoscience," a "theory" or merely "junk science" -- these issues really deal with semantics and ignore the actual idea. This notion that ideas should be compartmentalized, labeled, and summarily dismissed or accepted based upon the label assigned or the group that assigned them does not further science, but more importantly, it does not assist a person desiring to understand the idea from an encyclopedia article.

The core idea is essentially that if we are looking at a certain system at time t, can we infer anything about the origins of the system based only upon our observations at time t and later? This is simply an inductive proposition, similar to how one might infer an explosion, or "big bang" based upon estimated velocities of stars taken now. We cannot say with 100% certainty that there was such explosion, as no one was there to witness or record it; however, based on our observations of the trajectories of the stars now, that the universe is apparently expanding, from these observations--we might predict there was such an explosion. In the same vein, based upon perceived complexity of a human being (i.e. that each human contains a network of interworking systems: i.e. a reproductive system, a nervous system, a digestive system, an immune system, memory, means for balance and coordination, cognitive processing, etc.) can one infer some form of intelligent assembly? Evolution is not in itself a counter-argument to intelligent design, because it could be possible that a "means for evolving" was part of the original assembly.

I've said enough about neutrality. By this point, you will either have taken my points, or instead, you will be frothing at the mouth ready to pull the rule-book trick again. If you are in the latter category, I would only request that before you respond and start throwing around consensus, how everyone in the scientific community agrees that ID proponents are morons, the various awards the article has received for its high standards of excellence, etc...  please first take up my challenge. Present this article to random people in your neighborhood. Non-scientists, non-religious types, people on the fence, or people who have no stake in ID at all. Ask them if they think this article was written from a neutral point of view. I guarantee you that even a high school class would be able to recognize that this article was not written from a neutral point of view. And they could make this determination without even really understanding the ideas presented herein. LuckyLavs (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Random people in your neighbourhood probably don't have a clear grip on what "NPOV" actually is. NPOV is not neutral in the sense of mainstream media or what joe everyman might be led it means. NPOV allows introduction of controversial and judgemental material as long as it is used correctly. This means attributing sources, accurately portraying sources and ensuring use of reliable and verifiable sources. This article does this tremendously well. NPOV doesn't mean a they say-they say approach, balancing material, or avoiding sensitive points.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ZayZayEm - I think you missed the meat of LuckyLavs post, which I'll reproduce here: "This notion that ideas should be compartmentalized, labeled, and summarily dismissed or accepted based upon the label assigned or the group that assigned them does not further science, but more importantly, it does not assist a person desiring to understand the idea from an encyclopedia article." I heartily agree with this point. When someone comes to a page like Intelligent Design, they would expect - and ought to be allowed - to develop a decent idea of what intelligent design is and says before they are confronted with the criticism of it.  no implication here that the criticism isn't important, but this article (as it stands) starts the critical analysis of ID in line 2 of the lead (maybe line 1...), and doesn't get back to any non-critical assessment or analysis of ID until (depending on how you read it) paragraph 3 of the lead, or paragraph 3 of the overview.  and from then on it's spotty.


 * I mean really - this is kind of like starting the article on Islam with the phrase "Islam is best noted in the west for its relationship to terrorism..."


 * random people may not have any idea of what NPOV is, true, but my friend's four-year-old understands when something isn't fair, even if he can't quite put that understanding into words. we can sit here and argue NPOV, NPOV, NPOV, until the cows come home, but what really matters here is what all those people (those who would never think of editing Wikipedia, and who don't even know about talk pages) think when they wander by and look at this page.  do you think that they think this article is fair?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just passing through to offer my 2¢: Ludwigs2 and LuckyLavs are plainly right about the bias in the writing here (and FWIW, I'm no fan of ID). The fact that a perspective is widely held and well documented  (in this case, that ID is a religiously and politically driven movement that masquerades as a scientific theory to advance that movement's ideology) does not mean that Wikipedia articles should  be wriiten from that perspective.  As I understand it, the premise of the NPOV policy is that the articles should fairly represent the issues at hand (including making it clear when an idea is broadly rejected by established authorities in the relevant discipline), but the writing should not advocate for one position over another.  The intro of the article as it currently stands insists on dismissing ID as old-fashioned creationism while omitting any summary of the ID-ists claims for what they do.  It fails both the NPOV standard and basic standards of good writing.  Even the most ardent anti-ID advocates, such as Barbara Forrest or Eugenie Scott, allow the ID position more of a platform before they dismantle it, and they are writing explicitly partisan arguments that would surely fail the NPOV test.   I would venture that NPOV means that both the ID-ists and the anti-ID-ists should see their perpesctives fairly represented in the article.  I don't believe that is the case now.  BTfromLA (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that ID is wrong in every regard, and really enjoyed Pennock's book critiquing it. But I have to admit, the first time I looked at this article a few months ago, I was shocked at how one-sided it was. And then shocked again to find out that it's a featured article. When I came here it was with the thought it mind that I wanted to see a clear statement of what iwhat proponents think the theory is, and what they believe supports it. I stopped reading before I'd finished the lead, and left in disappointment. TimidGuy (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can work out a clear and concise statement of what proponents think the "theory" is, fully referenced to a reliable source like Pennock, Forrest or Scott, please put it forward as a proposal on this page, preferably in a new section. These authors are reasonably representative of the overwhelming majority expert opinion, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" means that we don't present ID claims as having equal merit. Be aware that leading ID proponents, such as Johnson, don't think they've got a "worked out theory". They seem to throw a rag-bag of creationist claims about in the hope that one will stick, or simply make anti-evolution claims without bothering to have a positive hypothesis, but perhaps a short and clear statement can be found. . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

reopening the debate on ID as a theory
ok, I'm particularly busy today, so I'm going to put this down and come back to it over the weekend. that will give everyone here a chance to chew over it and come up with responses. the main reference for what I'm writing is Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (ISBN: 978-0-226-45808). as I get a chance over the weekend, I will supplement this with one of the articles that gives a summary of this work (mostly so that I don't have to dig out my copy and dig through the text looking for page numbers). sorry, Kuhn is heavily cited (he is one of the major voices in the philosophy of science), and digging through the mass of texts that use him is too much for today. anyone who doubts the veracity of this, however, can begin reading the original text if they don't want to wait for the supplementary articles. it's written in a fairly non-academic style, and it's interesting, so it should go quickly.

for our purposes, the important parts of Kuhn's theory (often called instrumentalism) are as follows:


 * Normal science:the kind of thing that we normally refer to as plain old 'Science' Kuhn refers to as normal (or sometimes paradigmatic) science, and is distinct from revolutionary or pre-paradigmatic science. The term 'paradigmatic' is used to mean that scientists practicing normal science are merely taking a variety of methodological exemplars (or paradigms) that are accepted in their field, and applying them to different subjects for the purpose of publishing papers, establishing a reputation, getting tenure, grants, or other rewards that will advance their social status in the field.  for example, some new piece of technology might be used to measure a certain kind of phenomenon - once that technology is accepted by the community, other researchers will take it and try to apply it to different situations, hoping to leverage some type of reputational advantage in their discipline.  this has several ramifications that Kuhn points out:
 * normal science is first and foremost a social activity of scientists; the preservation of exemplars is more important to most scientists (because their reputations depend on it) than the nature of their results.
 * there is no such thing as a unified, cohesive 'scientific methodology.' Scientists are simply pursuing practical (not necessarily scientific) ends using the analytic means that have been accepted by their communities. any effort at expressing a 'scientific methodology' in the abstract can only be an after-the-fact, synthetic attempt at rationalizing the given behavior of scientists as though it had a systematic basis (which, for Kuhn, it doesn't).
 * people engaged in normal science actively avoid or dismiss evidence or theories that conflict with their methodological exemplars (Kuhn calls these anomalies). again, it's bad for one's social reputation as a scientist to run into something that can't be explained by one's preferred methods.
 * pre-paradigmatic and revolutionary science:these are similar concepts - revolutionary science begins when some anomaly or anomalies in normal science reach a state where they can no longer be (or at least no longer are) ignored, and this throws the standard exemplars in the field into a methodological tail-spin. Pre-paradigmatic science is the state prior to the initial establishment of a dominant paradigm, where various, more-or-less flakey theories compete. in either case, the competition is at heart a social/political struggle - a new dominant paradigm emerges when one camp or another gathers a sufficient hegemony in the academy to control the allocation of research funds, personnel hiring, and the like.  Kuhn (in his day) pointed to psychology as an example of a pre-paradigmatic field, since there were any number of psychological theories arguing past each other, none of which had sufficient power to create a "consensus" about what was 'psychology'.

I will point out that Kuhn later backed off from the radically social view of science. if you read the appendices starting with the second edition, I think, there's a debate Kuhn has with a detractor where Kuhn ends up admitting that there is some degree of forward progression in science, and not just a purely socially determined exchange of paradigms. but that's not relevant to the points I'm making here.

so... I'm suggesting to you that the dismissal of ID as a theory can't stand on wikipedia, for the following reasons.
 * 1) asserting that ID is not a scientific theory implies that there is a unified, cohesive 'thing' called scientific methodology which ID fails to measure up to. that violates wp:NPOV because it does not take into account one of the major perspectives in the philosophy of science, which denies that a unified scientific methodology of this sort exists.
 * 2) Kuhn would clearly place ID (and all fringe theories, for that matter) into the category of theories that recognize an anomaly in the practice of normal science, and are trying to present themselves as revolutionary competitive theories (for ID, incidentally, the anomaly they notice would be complexity of existence or some-such, per the teleological argument). the fact that ID is a purely political machiavellian stratagem wouldn't phase Kuhn for an instant, since in his view the vast majority of scientific action is purely political machiavellian stratagems.  for him, that's just the way science works.  therefore, trying to call ID unscientific or non-theoretical again violates wp:NPOV, for the same reasons as above.

this is actually kind of fun. when I get a chance, I'm going to pull out my notes on Dewey, Feyerabend, and Lacan, all of whom, I think, have a place in this discussion. maybe a few others as well, particularly from the post-modernist critiques of science. in the meantime, please feel free to comment. -- Ludwigs 2 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 doesn't hold - as an uberparadigm, science is something that ID fails to adhere to.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 2 - wasn't a deficit in science but to support a noscientific paradigm i.e. religion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, do please take care to comply fully with WP:NOR, and ensure that you have a reliable secondary source that specifically relates thes speculative ideas to ID. .. dave souza, talk 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was originally going to simply archive this as it adds no legitimate new perspectives. Then I decided that at this point it probably is "child's play for [me] to explain to [him] where I've gone wrong in [his] reasoning" -- mainly because he has forced me to waste time revisiting these arguments. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Kuhn does not say that ID is a theory.
 * 2) In order to infer this statement from his work one would first have to demonstrate:
 * 3) There is a scientific consensus that there are "some [major] anomaly or anomalies" in evolution that would necessitate a major rethink of the of how we explained it. This is not the case.
 * 4) That ID is a legitimate alternative. This is also not the case. ID provides no positive theory -- it is thus no more legitimate an alternative explanation than "leprechauns/fairies/the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it". Its lack of legitimacy is part of why the "not evolution, so ID" argument is called a "false dichotomy".
 * 5) In any case, even if the above could be established, this inference would still be WP:SYNTH and impermissible on wikipedia. This is why, per WP:PROVEIT & WP:NOR, I have demanded a WP:RS (sufficient to meet WP:V, given the contravailing evidence) that states that "ID is a theory" before discussion of changes to the article, on the basis that ID is a theory, can be countenanced. Lacking such a source, I will quickly proceed to re-archive this thread.


 * I agree that User:Ludwigs2's proposals stray far over into original research. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn: thank you for not archiving an ongoing discussion, and for taking the time to respond to me with a degree of consideration for my position. I appreciate that.  however, you (and dave) have missed the thread of my argument.  let me comment on your points briefly, and then state my argument in a more succinct form that should be easier to evaluate.
 * re your point 1: of course Kuhn doesn't talk about ID - ID (the movement) was invented long after his heyday.
 * re your point 2: I am not making any inferences here. in fact, my main argument is that inferences are being made by a cohort of editors here, very likely unintentionally; all I am trying to do is address that error and remove the flawed inference.


 * the argument I am making, put as simply as I can at the moment, is this:

<blockquote style="border:thin solid green; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px;">
 * 1) editors here have made a positive claim to the effect that 'ID cannot be considered a scientific theory,' on the grounds that it does not meet some basic criteria of scientific methodology.
 * 2) this claim (assuming good faith on the part of the editors involved) is based on reliably sourced research in the philosophy of science, or on reliably sourced opinions of scientists who can be assumed to have an understanding of the philosophy of science.
 * 3) *if this point is not true, then the editorial claim against ID conflicts with WP:OR, and therefore cannot be used.
 * 4) I have shown (above) that there are prominent, reliably sourced authors in the philosophy of science who dispute that a meaningful definition of scientific methodology exists, or that any effective criteria of inclusion or exclusion can be made.
 * 5) therefore, the claim 'ID is not a valid scientific theory' goes against policy, because either:
 * 6) *it violates WP:NPOV (where it says "...representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..." - emphasis mine) since it privileges one particular perspective on science, or...
 * 7) *it constitutes original research or synthesis to the extent that is asserts a resolution to a question that is still contested by experts in the field.
 * I will reiterate two points for emphasis.
 * I am not asserting that ID is a valid scientific theory; I am questioning the prevailing assertion that it is not a valid scientific theory. hopefully you can see that distinction, so that the discussion doesn't get sidetracked by any further by efforts to refute claims I'm not making.
 * I have no particular ideological stance here, and dislike being treated as though I do. this is merely a question of proper reasoning for me, and I'd prefer to resolve it on that level.  acceptable?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some brief thoughts. This issue isn't what editors say here, it's what it is that is reported in the article. As far as I can see, the article reports on notable opinions. Arguing about Kuhn's definition of science is beyond the scope of what we are supposed to do here. We have reliable sources that describe ID as non-science. We also have some additional material regarding what science is, but that's just background for our readers. We aren't drawing conclusions based on ancillary material. The way that is presented is an entirely separate issue. If you want to suggest ways to improve that, please do. But that's entirely aside from reporting the facts, per NPOV. Saying "I disagree with the sources based on my reading of Kuhn" is unacceptable, per Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Guettarda - actually the assertion that ID is not a scientific theory is a talk page argument, not a article content argument. see this and this from the archives, as well as the archived discussion I was involved in above.  now while I would normally assume that talk page and article content arguments would be handled by different rules, in this case the talk page arguments have become a major determining factor in article content, so I'm not sure we can actually make this distinction.  whether we like it or not, this 'ID is not a scientific theory' assertion is deeply embedded in article content, and whatever biases it represents are implicitly biases that the article shares.


 * for an apt (if unfair) comparison, I know a guy who belongs to this private club that styles itself as highly egalitarian; they have membership rights for women and minorities written straight into their charter. however, you can only get membership through referral from other members, and for some reason no one ever refers women or minorities...  the bias is built into the assumptions, even though the surface is clean as a whistle.


 * and no, I never got a referral either. liberal as they are, it seems they draw the line at letting in college professors. ;-)  -- Ludwigs 2  23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, please actually engage in positive debate. "[ID is not a scientific theory]" is accurately referenced and sourced, to numerous and independent sources, throughout the article. While many editors certainly agree assessment from sources like the NCSE, AAAS, NSTA, Supreme Court etc. it is certainly not mentioned in the article solely on the opinions editors. Indeed in the lead you will find this correctly attributed statement: "Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory". Your answer has been provided. Please do not continue with self-victimisation and ignoring points that have been presented to you. It is no longer constructive criticism.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand why the word "theory" is not applied to ID. While it may seem that way to a layman, "theory" is a term of art that clearly does not apply to ID.--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ZayZayEm - you might want to read my argument again, because you've failed to address it entirely. in fact, you'll note that your entire post (except for the ad-hominem at the end) is covered by my point 2. there are two more points after that to read... -- Ludwigs 2  04:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Stetsonharry - while I understand that that's a common opinion, it's not one that's borne out in the philosophy of science. -- Ludwigs 2 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Talk Page
Discussion is defined as "consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate."

In a majoritarian sense, and in light of NPOV: Giving "equal validity", this IS a neutral article. It might not be considered so elsewhere, but it is on Wikipedia. (The records are voluminous.) The community has decided that the majority of editors are not "taking a stand" concerning ID, but "describing majority views" and "fairly explaining strong arguments" concerning ID. That may be unpalatable for the minority, but Assume good faith requires it. The Discussion has been over for a long time!

'''This article's neutrality is not "open" for consideration. This is not due to moral flaws of the participants (nor due to this article's intrinsic perfection), but because the community has made its decision.''' My recommendation would be to hang a statement similar to this at the top of the Talk page -- it presents a more forthright tone than some of the more easily ignored notices that currently reside there.

That does not change the fact that this page has, heretofore, been rancorous, surly and terse (sounds like a law firm); but it might cut down on problems in the future AND save multitudes a lot of time.

Championdante (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * just as a general principle, trying to use authority to curtail conversation generally leads to more rancor, not less. and I will say that while a This article's neutrality is not open for consideration tag would certainly amuse me to no end, I doubt it would have any real effect, except to convince people more that someone is trying to exercise page-ownership here.


 * you may call me naïve, innocent, foolish, idealistic, or whatever other term you like (believe me, I've heard them all), but I seriously believe that an effective balance can always be achieved through discussion. when I see a page like this where there is a lot of angry tension, what that tells me is that is that a good number of people are sore because they feel they haven't been heard, and a whole lot of others are unwilling to listen because they're sore over having to argue for everything.  that's not a healthy state, and it can't possibly represent balanced, consensual neutrality.  I'm not suggesting that you'll ever reach a state here where everyone wants to go run though a field of flowers together, singing old seventies songs, but I do think it can reach a state of grudging acceptance.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a good number of people are sore because they don't understand Wikipedia's core policies, and don't want to understand these policies. It's not easy to get to grips with these policies, but they're well thought out and well tested. It surprises me that you've been editing as long as you have without appearing to understand verifiability and no original research, if you try to follow the advice you've been given I'm hopeful that you can propose worthwhile improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see the appeal of Championdante's suggestion, however my personal experience suggests that it would probably not have the hoped-for outcome. As dave souza alludes, at least part of the problem is with new editors who don't properly grasp core policy and how it applies - exactly the kind of person who will ignore the warning and thrash around on the talkpage, forcing regular editors to cover old ground for the "nth+1" time. I still haven't seen a really effective working solution for this situation, and it is a very common theme at certain articles... Doc  Tropics  19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, Doc - I can only speak for myself, as a reasonably bright, well-intentioned editor with a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies (in principle, at least, though no doubt there are a lot of nuances hidden in the details that I am unaware of). let me tell you what I see when I approach this page:
 * in the article itself, there is a palpable tension, and such a thorough merging of theory and politics that the two have become indistinguishable. and yes, I understand why that merging is there, but I happen to disagree with it.  the whole thing feels like a heavily defended point of view (I'll leave the facticity of that as an open question, to be fair, but it sure feels that way)
 * in the talk page, there is an incredible mass of only partly structured archives. even the FAQ (Points that have already been discussed) section, while at least somewhat structured, is still basically just a mess of previous arguments
 * there might be a useful solution to this point actually - if someone familiar with the debate could take the time to extract out the main points and make a nice condensed list of the arguments that have been raised and how they have been resolved, that would make it much easier for people like me to acclimate.
 * conversation here is elliptical, almost cryptic - probably, yes, because you've all been over this ground umpteen times, and so one word brings up 500 lines of discussion for you, but that makes it difficult for me. for instance, when I get a comment like no, please read wp:NPOV, well honestly, I have read wp:NPOV, but that leaves me no closer to understanding what your no comment means.  everyone else here might understand, but I don't.  maybe I'm just a little more tolerant of the 'umpteenth time' thing than most (I teach college, and so every class I get a new batch of fresh faces asking the old batch of stale questions; I'm used to it), but it would be nice to get a little more direction than a blanket go look at this.
 * I mean, here I am thinking I have valid concerns about the article, and finding myself running a gauntlet just trying to express them - it's frustrating. I happen to be stubborn, and I'm willing and able to hold my own to get my point across, but I can just imagine how it looks to people who take an interest in this topic but who don't have my well-developed billy-goat nature.  really, all I'm asking here is that even if you find people annoying (which is perfectly understandable in my case - lol), at least take the effort to give then the time of day.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Running a gauntlet -- what an accurate description. I must clarify a previous entry: my characterization of this article as neutral is more a bow to the absurd than a rousing endorsement -- it is neutral because the community, with its own quaint ways, has made that determination. Championdante (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this talk page has more than enough headers already. These headers contain enough material that coincides with the spirit, if not the exact wording of your proposal. I agree with other editors that such a proposed header will probably incite more trolling and unconstructive discussion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of places to express views as it is. I did notice that one discussion was archived a bit fast.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Start with a Definition of ID, not with Casey Luskin's Opinion
The first sentence of Wikipedia's "intelligent design" page begins with Mr. Casey Luskin's assertion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things". However, that assertion is not currently attributed to Mr. Luskin.

The first sentence of Wikipedia's "intelligent design" page should read, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact" [this definition is found in Of Pandas and People; include citation]. This definition of intelligent design can be followed by Mr. Luskin's assertion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation, and that assertion should be attributed to Mr. Luskin.

Casey Luskin has compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and has concluded 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." He refers to his conclusion as "the scientific theory of intelligent design" (see page 4 of The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454 ).

Mr. Luskin asserts that intelligent design is a scientific theory and that it may be taught as such in science classes at public schools (see "Intelligent Design could slip into science class," by Marc Caputo, http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/454417.html ). However, in 2005, Federal Court Judge John E. Jones III held that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and it cannot be taught as such.

Scott610 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please follow sources in the article before making judgement. The sentance is correctly attributing to primary DI resources. Such as CSC FAQ. That Casey Luskin, a program officer within the DI, should use similar or identical wording (or vice versa, the DI use identical wording to Luskin) is hardly a surprise. This wording is not necessarily original nor sole propriety of Luskin. Using the DI version in the first sentance has also been the result of several serious discussions regarding consensus on how to accurately and appropriately explain the nature of ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear ZayZayEM:


 * The video that you referenced in your response (above) is a video of Mr. Casey Luskin stating his opinion. Please note that Mr. Luskin is not attributing the "best" in his statement to some other person.  That "best" is coming out of his mouth; it's his opinion.  Furthermore, Mr. Luskin repeats that opinion in "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", which he signs "Sincerely, Casey Luskin" [along with his co-author, John West].


 * If you are going to continue publishing "Intelligent design is the assertion that..." then the person or persons who are making that assertion should be identified and it should be made clear that the "best" in that assertion is the opinion of a particular person. The opinion that ID is the "best" explanation should not be presented anonymously, especially when we have heard that opinion come out of the author's mouth.


 * Please note that Discovery Institute is a legal fiction (a corporation). Discovery Institute cannot assert that ID is the "best" explanation.  It's directors, officers, and employees can offer such an opinion but Discovery Institute cannot!  The directors of Discovery Institute might adopt a resolution declaring that ID is the "best" explanation but I doubt that the institute's Board of Directors has done so.


 * Scott610 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The discovery institute asserts it on their website. Since it is not attributed to any individual, the statement is properly attributed to them as an organization, not to any individual within the organization. And if you don't like that, I suggest you write to them and have them modify their website. But until and unless that occurs, this article will remain as is. Raul654 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I make no mention of any video. Nor do I need to. Courtesy will not get you anywhere if you continue with rabid nonsense.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

current requests for comment
Talk participants should be aware that a Request for comment Project is going on right now. Championdante (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ''<comment moved from middle of ensuing discussion>


 * I do not think it serves to help an already convoluted RFC to discuss it in this pages. Please leave discussion of the RFC on Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design. Thank you user Championdante for alerting project users of the RFC.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed definitions

 * Dear Championdante:


 * You endorsed the "View" that I posted on the ID "Request for Comments" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design . I recommended that the definition of ID "be separated from the opinions of ID proponents and opponents."  In the following paragraph, which I wrote as a possible replacement for the first paragraph of Wikipedia's intelligent design page, I have attempted to put my recommendation into practice.  What do you think of my effort?  How would you improve that first effort?  Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[insert footnote referencing this quote in Of Pandas and People] Proponents of intelligent design assert 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."[insert hyperlink to video of Casey Luskin making this assertion]  They further assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[insert reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454]  However, in 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as a scientific theory in science classes at public schools.


 * "Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God...[continue the rest of this paragraph as it is currently written]


 * Scott610 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this gives undue weight to the extreme minority expert view that ID is science, and current ID has changed considerably from the Pandas definition which they no longer use. Text references are better than a video of Casey, no matter how photogenic he is. It loses the careful balance that the current lead displays. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Souza:


 * Several years ago, I exchanged a number of e-mail messages with Casey Luskin. He reluctantly admitted that his "...certain features of the universe and of living things..." is not a definition of ID but is instead a "description" of ID (a description that I now know contains his own opinion).  You are correct that the proponents of ID "no longer use" the Pandas definition of ID, but their conclusion that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things" is based on that Pandas definition.  They use "inference to the best explanation" to compare ID (as defined in Pandas) to the theory of evolution and then they conclude that ID is the "best" explanation.  The Pandas definition is thus embedded in their conclusion.  And then they assert that their conclusion constitutes a scientific theory, and, frankly, that's hogwash!


 * What has changed is that Casey Luskin is now publicly putting his voice and his name behind the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. That "best" should now be attributed to him.  His "best" should not be used to hide the fact that the Pandas definition of ID is the foundation of the so-called theory of intelligent design.


 * Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to that particular issue of the Pandas definition, but "birds with feathers, fish with fins" is wholly incompatible with Behe's form of ID, which is as near as it gets to credibility. Worth having a look at the Kitzmiller testimony, as I recall he was cross examined on it and disclaimed that definition. The rest of your proposed lead very much weakens the mainstream position and misses out significant points, as I read it. Unfortunately, don't have time just now to get into detail. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Souza:


 * I could not find Dr. Behe's definition of intelligent design but I think that it is interesting to note that Ben Stein has defined ID as a "hypothesis." See "a discussion between R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein about evolution, and the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449&q=Expelled%3A+No+Intelligence&ei=-csSSNigCZDCqAP65aDFBA


 * In summary, Mr. Stein asserts that ID is the hypothesis that an "all-powerful designer" created the ancestors of the forms of life that exist today, and that those ancestors were not significantly different from their currently living descendants. He embraces micro-evolution (changes in the average genetic characteristics of a population) while rejecting macro-evolution (changes that amount to the development of new species).


 * Mr. Stein's "hypothesis" is not testable but at least he is NOT abusing us with the claim that his hypothesis is a scientific theory. His definition of ID might be added to the Wikipedia intelligent design page.  His definition, which posits a creative "all-powerful designer," is more honest than the Pandas definition of ID, which seems to assert that a creator acted "through an intelligent agency."  [What did the creator do?  Call an employment agency that specializes in providing temporary workers who have an I.Q. of at least 145?  ;-)  ]


 * Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussing Scott610's proposed change to the lead, rather than the RfC ... I do not consider the proposal ("Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly...") is WP:NPOV, in that it presents ID's claim as though it were a fact. Would we accept a lead of Flat Earth that states "Flat Earth means that the surface of the Earth is flat (a plane)" (rather than the current "The idea of a flat Earth is..." -- my emphasis)? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 05:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ben Stein is an actor and scriptwriter for a movie claiming persecution of cdesign proponentsists, not an authoritative figure on the definition of ID. The definition the DI themselves choose to display is well sourced and undoubtedly their preferred "definition", wooly as it is. The Pandas definition isn't repeated in current literature or web pages from them, for good reason. Scott, you'll have noticed how much the Pandas definition was discussed at the Kitzmiller trial. We want to give the definition in use by the proponents, rather than expert third party opinion which is hostile and would add to the issues many editors already seem to have with this page failing to give the "equal validity" they expect, for good policy reasons. . dave souza, talk 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn - you are confusing fact in the sense of what's scientifically understood about the world with fact in the sense of what is true about the theory. intelligent design does mean something like what Scott610 suggests (if maybe not that exact wording), and the Flat Earth did mean that people thought the earth was flat like a pancake.  that these theories are wrong with respect to our understanding of science is irrelevant; it is a fact that they do indeed say these things.  I mean, does that fact that santa claus doesn't exist mean that little kids don't believe he exists?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, I don't want to upset your beliefs, but Wikipedia is not here to keep alive the hopes of little children that yes dear, Santa Claus really does exist. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "...means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact" is expressing this as a 'fact about the world', not a 'fact about an idea'. It is stating as fact that "various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact." <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * actually, Hrafn, it's an (incorrect) theory about the world, as well as a factual statement about the beliefs of certain ID proponents. I'm actually a bit taken aback here - you do realize that there can be social facts as well as physical facts, yes?


 * oh, and Dave... I hereby officially endow you with the title WikiGrinch. I'll see if I can make a barnstar about it for you :-) -- Ludwigs 2  08:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can move on if you'll clarify what you mean by a "social fact". I think a bit of precision in that area would be particularly useful.  Do you mean the same as NPOV means (last time I looked at it, quoting Jimmy Wales), "facts about opinions"? --Jenny 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * you'd have to point me to the JW quote - it might be the same idea, but it's not on the WP:NPOV page that I can find. I was using 'social fact' more in the sociological sense.  In a nutshell, that's a recognition that much of the human world is a cognitive (mental) construction, and so when you discuss the human world you need to discuss it in terms of social (i.e. cognitively constructed and communally accepted) facts rather than just physical facts.


 * examples: (1) a clear case would be marriage. obviously, when two people get married there is no overt change in the physical environment which reflects or creates the act (no matrimonial gluon or interpersonal gravitational shift or anything like that).  however, marriage is clearly a fact in society - people have been forced to do it, murdered for not doing it, punished for not respecting it, in droves.  would you want to try to claim that marriage isn't a real fact because it has no physical representation in the material world?  most everything can be seen this way, though: for instance (2) while gravity is a physical fact, the various theories of gravity are social facts.  Newton's theory of gravity is a mental construct (social fact) designed to describe the functioning of the physical force, but in fact Newton's theory is everywhere and always slightly wrong; Einstein's theory is also a mental construct (social fact) designed to describe the functioning of the physical force.  it's better than Newton's (particularly in extreme conditions) but even it has places where it falls apart.


 * in ID's case you have a social fact that a group of people got together and made a particular set of claims, with particular arguments behind those claims. it's all well and good to say that the group had issues and that the claims weren't worth a darned thing, but the social fact of who they were and what they said deserves consideration in its own right. I mean, if it weren't such a political issue, this point would be obvious;  no one, for instance, would bother to argue that we shouldn't have a frank discussion of the ancient greek belief that the sun was carried around the earth in a golden chariot (another social fact, that), even though it's pure poppycock from the perspective of modern science, right?  so why should the social facts of the matter be precluded in this case?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (undent) The problem is that ID is a Big tent idea, ranging from the fairly innocuous guy on the street version, to the slightly more implausible Michael J. Behe version, to the ranging anti-evolutionary tome of Stephen C. Meyer. There is no single definition so you have to get broad as possible with the current definition that represents years of consensus. JPotter (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion does not appear to lead anywhere. I understand Ludwig you are advocating for a change in the page? I'm not sure what your previous argument is getting to. Do you mean to say that Scott's revised lead should be given consideration? Could you please stick on that point and argue that. Your point especially: but the social fact of who they were and what they said deserves consideration in its own right who/what/where please do not talk around the topic but directly state what you wish to include. Takk. .:DavuMaya:. 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * DavuMaya - that was just an explanation to a concept that was requested. it has a definite bearing on this page (because of the physicalist slant that a lot of editors here take), but...  if you would like a clear statement of what I would like to see (which I've made before, and had archived a couple of times), then I think a good part of the beginning of this page should be spent discussing ID as a social fact in its own right, without the critical perspectives that are strewn all over the place right now.  as I've said before, people coming to this page will expect (and should be allowed) the develop a clear idea of what ID is and says, before we begin getting into the commentary about why it's a bad theory.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn, et al:

You are concerned that quoting the Pandas definition of ID would present "ID's claim as though it were a fact." In response to your concern, I propose the following definition of ID, as part of a revised "first paragraph":

Intelligent design is the assertion "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[insert footnote referencing this quote in Of Pandas and People] Proponents of intelligent design have compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and have concluded that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." They assert that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[insert reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454] However, in 2005, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught as a scientific theory in science classes at public schools.

I believe that the "first paragraph" that I have proposed above has the following advantages: (1) It provides a definition of intelligent design that is labeled as an "assertion", thus addressing Hrafn's concern, (2) it documents the fact that the proponents of ID have compared ID to the theory of evolution and have concluded that ID is the "best" explanation, and (3) it addresses the status of ID -- is ID a scientific theory or not, and can it lawfully be taught in public schools. Please note that my proposed reference to page 4 of "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators" takes the reader to a page that is signed by John West and Casey Luskin, thereby identifying them as the proponents of ID who have concluded that ID is the "best" explanation. Their opinion that ID is the "best" explanation would be separated from the definition of ID, thus addressing my primary concern.

After these points are covered, the philosophical nature of ID can be addressed in a following paragraph (e.g., ID "is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God..."). Scott610 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that usage of the Panda definition would present it as fact, the problem is that notable ID proponents do not operate under that definition. Michael J. Behe accepts common descent. Thanks, JPotter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scott610, you really need to get a better understanding Wikipedias core content policy, WP:NPOV. Please save yourself and us a lot of wasted time and frustration and get up to speed on Wikipedia's content policies first. Odd nature (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer"
Full quote of a ref I've just inserted into the lead:

Numbers previously refers to ID's historical basis in the teleological argument ("Although the intellectual roots of the design argument goes back centuries..." p373). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hrafn, Numbers is an excellent source, noted for his sympathy to the creationist view. The specific issue is also well covered by reference 5 which quotes Kitzmiller – would it be worth moving ref. 5 up next to the Numbers reference? . . dave souza, talk 07:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk states that Intelligent design "is the product of hundreds of hours of debate. It enjoys a broad and long-standing consensus, standing more-or-less as-is since 2005." I'll accept that statement at face value. IF that is so, then I am gratified that the two "avoids" have finally been brought under scrutiny. User:Hrafn's wonderful footnote 3 -- (love and kisses from an admirer) is really all that's been required. Now that the first "avoid" has been supported with a neutral citation, can it be admitted that the second "avoid" is not neutral? Therefore:

I suggest that "The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science" be re-stated in neutral terms: "The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to conform with court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science." This may not be as juicy, as satisfying, as "avoid" is, but it is an accurate description of changes in practice that arise from changes in law. REMEMBER: silence is assent. --Championdante (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the phrase "conform with" gives entirely the wrong impression. The ID movement has no interest in conforming with anything; they exist for the sole purpose of forcing their religous beliefs into science classes. They are not attempting to conform - they are attempting to subvert. Doc  Tropics  15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, but this is in section 26 ("first paragraph -- "avoid") now


 * "conform with" is long gone for reasons you can read there


 * --Championdante (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio recording
I find this article to be fascinating and delightful to read -- and am considering giving it an audio recording. How often does it change and what sections are fairly "permanent"? If its still influx, I probably will wait until more Consensus is reached. .:DavuMaya:. 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More consensus? This is a featured article, it doesn't change much. In fact it has been essentially as it is now for years. Odd nature (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll start on it later. Btw, why is the lead photo a watch? .:DavuMaya:. 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ID = teleological argument = watchmaker argument . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respect other people's time and patience
New arrivals to this article with challenges and proposals to this article's content need to make sure their objections or proposals are in alignment with Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Those making objections and suggestions that do not should expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is *not* a form of rudeness, but meant to help (I'm referring to you Ludwig). To respect their own time and that of others they should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. Those who have been pointed to policy and yet continue to argue the same matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy can expect to not get the response they are looking for and have their discussions prematurely archived. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating. There's no Wikipedia policy that allows for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy and there is one against doing that, WP:DE, and it's better for all if things don't get to that point. Odd nature (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If not already done, the "discussions prematurely archived" guidline for this talk page should be clearly spelled out above in "Please read before starting." Also, instead of abruptly ending a discussion on this page, please consider providing clearer links on this talk page to existing ID subpages and creating new subpages to this talk page that allows others to express their views on "points that have already been discussed" (without bogging down this talk page). To further help things, I added a maintained template to help new arrivals get answers that otherwise may require long term experience with the article and/or talk page. Bebestbe (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd nature - I have the full intention of respecting people's time and patience, and the full expectation that people will respect my edits in turn. and as I have said before, if you think that I am making inappropriate points with respect to policy, then please point out which specific comments of mine have violated which specific aspects of policy.  this generic pointing-at-the-moon-then-telling-me-to-be-quiet technique doesn't help either of us resolve the issue.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Several people have already informed you much of your suggested content is in violation of WP:NOR. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read over the lead paragraphs. The lead paragraphs are full of inappropriate terms: "is the assertion", "modified to avoid", "developed by certain unnamed United States creationists," "to avoid", "that prohibit", "Its primary proponents", "Advocates of", "unequivocal consensus", "has stated that". Also, if intelligent design is claimed as a scientific theory, then it is only relevant if the scientific community determines that intelligent design is not scientific theory. The lead paragraph scientific community statement about ID not being science mixes apples and oranges and is POV. The scientific community statement in the lead paragraph needs to be replaced by referenced material stating that intelligent design is not scientific theory. Perhaps consider reviewing examples of how other encyclopedia's write about Intelligent design and use that to improve this article. Bebestbe (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is sourced. No "replacement" is necessary. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bebestbe, please read the archives and the FAQ, links to which are found at the top of this page. You'll find that each of your objections has previously been discussed and resolved. Odd nature (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of the Proposed Definitions section little more than 24 hours after it was posted was an unwise, capricious act. The first segment was addressed TO ME: archiving it before I've had a chance to read it and post a response is inexcusable -- another manifestation of ownership. (More at the RFC.) The pretense that it, as with similar archives, contained only "old news" has been WAY overused. Talk about "Please respect other people's time and patience" -- I spent several hours on a response, which I've had to re-work. Anyone would be hard-pressed to find support for such hastiness. --Championdante (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. It is SOP for maintaining article talk pages when discussions stray from content changes which are supported by policy. Windy, original research discussions at other controversial article talk pages are simply deleted outright, so please don't think you're are a victim of some unfairness. Odd nature, Hfran and the rest of the regulars have been very indulgent toward you and Ludwig2 in trying to help you work within policy. And frankly you both have been disruptive by continuing to make OR challenges despite their efforts at reform. Ludwig2 has already been warned, so Championdante I'm cautioning you now. You need to stop going on and on with your challenges to this article's content that ignore WP:NOR and stop reviving archived discussions. Such behavior is considered disruptive and can get you blocked from Wikipedia, see WP:DE. This discussion should be archived after Championdante has read it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

fresh (hopefully quick) start
alright, now that I have leave to speak openly here, let me take advantage of it without occupying too much time or space. I'm going to re-present two arguments here, ask for discussion, and see what can be made of them over the next two or three days. whether or not they are resolved, I will drop it at that point, and (if it proves necessary) continue the discussion over at the ID RFC page. I'd only ask two things from other editors


 * that they do try to respond clearly and fairly to my points, to give me the best feedback possible
 * that they use specific references to policy when needed (rather than vague please see WP:NPOV statements), so that I can either refute the usage or learn from it.

after that, editors may archive this (and other) section(s) as needed. hopefully this will satisfy all sides, at least marginally.

give me a few minutes to put the statements together, please. -- Ludwigs 2 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

argument 1
[ WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption userfied to User talk:Ludwigs2, per 'Notes to editors' and WP:TALK. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ]

argument 2
the theory of Intelligent design exists as a social fact, independent of its validity as a scientific theory, and as such deserves treatment in the article independent of the scientific criticisms of its validity.

this argument, if accepted, would require a rewriting of portions of the article to present an uncritical treatment of the ID position. -- Ludwigs 2 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ID makes the claim to be a scientific theory, therefore should be measured against its own claims. The social effects of the ID movement, in terms of it's effects on scientific literacy in the community, education and politics, can certainly be described if referenced. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are stating. However, the policy of Wikipedia is to applying something called Neutral Point of View. Neutral Point of View states that the proportion of views of a controversial topic are determined roughly by its prominence among what are deemed to be the relevant experts in the corresponding academic field. And in this case, intelligent design is not being examined by the academic experts in food science or in European history. Intelligent design is not even being examined by experts in the philosophy of science. The relevant experts are mostly in the biological sciences, and a little bit in the geological sciences and anthropology etc; fields in which the theory of evolution is encountered. There are also a few physical scientists of course because of arguments based on fine-tuned universe and a few statistical scientists based on assorted probabilistic and statistical arguments in specified complexity. And also a few academic experts in theology. But for the most part, the academic experts that are relevant are in mainstream academic biology. And that is why the article is written how it is. Do you see? --Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use care when using terms invented by sociologists. Firstly, in terms of the article, I don't see how labeling ID a social fact has much bearing unless you would provide us some sources here please to identify the extent in which people ascribe to ID and how it has permeated culture. The article itself indicates  I will assume here that you assume Discovery Institute has successfully done this. I would be in doubt of that. My own Google searches reveal nothing to show that ID would approach the qualifications for a social fact that is different from having a religious belief. If it were qualified then this site  would likely note it. This source qualifies the statement that people are religious  and belief is a social fact. Thus social fact is covered inherently through links to various religious WP pages. Seemingly I don't understand how you want to rewrite the article, what needs to be rewritten, provide a paragraph and then your proposed suggestion. And as stated by Filll, this is not meant to encompass the entire realm of minority voices -- the cultural one here, perhaps you should go to the Discovery Institute article itself. .:DavuMaya:. 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any references supporting the contention that ID is a social fact, and not a scientific theory as its proponents claim? If so, it might be worth a mention, but I can't see where portions of the article would need re-writing. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is original research. You've offered no notable, reliable sources again. Ludwig2, prior to this section you were warned several times by several other admins that if you continue raising discussions based on original research you can and may be blocked. And yet here you are again. It appears to me you are either trolling this community or trying to get blocked in order to be a martyr. I'm going to see to it that you do not accomplish either. To the regulars here, simply continue archiving any similar discussions and please don't feed trolls. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the wording of the statement should be tweaked because I'm not clear what is meant by it. For example, if this opening statement were to read, "the theory of Intelligent design exists as a social artifact apart from its status as a scientific theory, and as such deserves treatment in the article independent of the scientific criticisms of its validity," I would ask what there would be to say about the theory apart from the claims made that it is a scientific model?  If it read, "there is an intelligent design social/political phenomenon and not just a scientific theory" I'd say perhaps yes, where that is a developed theme the determination whether or not it is valid science to scientists would be less prominent. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael Johnson - yes, ID makes the claim that is a scientific theory, and should be evaluated and rejected on that basis. but part of the evaluation of a scientific theory requires a clear and unbiased statement of what the theory is.  you can not say that it should be treated as a scientific theory for purposes of criticism, but should not be treated as a scientific theory for purposes of explanation.  that's clearly bias.


 * FIlll - your points are well taken, but leaves an open question as to what the "corresponding academic field" is. now if you want to take the slant that biological scientists, geologists, and etc are accepting ID as a theory within their respective fields, and then rejecting it as a failed theory, that 's one thing (because that would call for a neutral treatment of ID as a theory, to show why it was rejected).  however, if you are taking the slant that biological scientists, geologists, and etc are rejecting ID on the grounds that it doesn't constitute a scientific theory at all, then it is clear that the proper "corresponding academic field" is the philosophy of science, not any particular scientific specialty.  can't have it both ways...


 * DavuMaya, Amatulić - the prominence of ID in American society - as evidenced by the copious journalistic articles on the subject, as well as the legal cases and scientific opinions cited in the article - are sufficient to identify ID as a social fact in US culture.  it's not a question whether or to what extent people accept or reject intelligent design theory, but rather that intelligent design is recognized as an issue to almost everyone in the US.  I have explained how I would like to rewrite the article a couple of times (it keeps getting refactored) -  not major changes really, but I will write them again elsewhere and post you a link


 * FeloniousMonk - I'm simply trying to raise some issues, and I'm being very careful to delimit it in time and space so that it is as acceptable to all as possible. but I'll say this: if you would prefer not to listen to any ideas that oppose the established understanding on this page, say so, and I'll leave right now.  no sense arguing against hermetically-sealed minds.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Professor marginalia - really, the only change that I'd like to see to this page (going with the minimal effort theory) is that a clear, neutral, direct discussion of what ID is and says be presented on the page, without being burdened by criticisms. specifically, I'd like the first paragraph of the lead to talk about ID without introducing critical perspectives, and I'd like one section in the body (preferably immediately after the overview) that discusses ID in detail, without critical intrusions.  the remainder of the article can stay as is, and (I think) would be improved by the fact that the criticisms of ID now have a clear statement of what it is they are criticizing.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I get what you're saying, you think there should be a more direct description of what ID is, but what you find prominent in its place instead is a detailed description of what the criticisms of ID are? A comparison to Britannica might give some idea how well an informative NPOV description is achieved in the opening of the WP article:
 * where WP uses the terms "assertion" or "argument", britannica uses "argument intended to demonstrate" - neither say "theory";
 * WP characterizes it as "a modern form of argument for the existence of God", britannica instead describes it as anti-evolutionary and as a refutation of Darwinian evolution and then characterizes it as a new variant of Paley's teleological argument ;
 * WP then goes on to say ID was reconstituted creationism following US court decisions, and britannica instead gives basic description of irreducible complexity ;
 * WP links to DI, while britannica talks of Behe
 * WP talks of religion vs science, pseudoscience, junk science etc britannica is basically silent on the demarcation dispute but says ID "was widely perceived as being allied with scientific creationism, the notion that scientific facts can be adduced in support of the divine creation of the various forms of life", although, britannica writes, this is disputed by its proponents
 * WP traces path from Edwards v Aguillard to Pandas and People to initiatives to teach ID in public schools culminating in Kitzmiller when the court judged ID creationism and therefore could not be taught in public schools. Britannica likens efforts to get ID in schools to similar "earlier" efforts by creationists and culminating in Kitzmiller when the court judged ID creationism and therefore could not be taught in public schools
 * WP returns to "not a science" proclamations; britannica opts for "Opponents of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection and that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms", describes evolutionary biology's critiques of Behe's arguments, and closes with, "[{ID} appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science."
 * Overall, both cover common terrain but WP puts a lot more emphasis on the "not a science" declaratory and britannica much more emphasis on claims and critique of irreducible complexity. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, just by way of example, if I were to minimally rework the current first paragraph to what I would see as a more neutral tone, it would look something like this (temporarily removing footnotes and citations for easier reading in this context, and possibly creating errors in the second-to-last line I added, but this will give you the idea):
 * "Intelligent design is the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' It is related to the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but unlike that older debate does not specify the nature or identity of the implied creator or designer. The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the context of the creation-evolution controversy. Several variants of the concept have been advanced, notably the Irreducible Complexity, Specific Complexity, and Fine-Tuned Universe arguments. While advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept transcendent explanations, these efforts have been rejected by both the scientific community and the US legal system."
 * the critical elements I removed would be re-added in (as necessary, and where appropriate) in the following paragraphs. this form of the paragraph, it seems to me, gives a clear statement about what intelligent design says, who says it, and what its current disposition is in the US, without trying to argue for or against it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: forgot to add, I'd probably suggest something similar be done to the Irreducible Complexity, Specific Complexity, and Fine-Tuned Universe sections, and maybe to the overview as well, but this should give you an idea of what I mean. -- Ludwigs 2  21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem going with something like this in the opening. I'd tweak something like "Intelligent design is the assertion that "<font color="#dc2800">the origin of certain features of the universe and of living things are <font color="#dc2800">scientifically best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is related to the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but unlike that older debate does not specify the nature or identity of the implied creator or designer. <font color="#dc2800">Intelligent design arguments were first formulated by certain creationists in the United States in the 1980s in the wake of court decisions barring the teaching of creationism as an alternative theory to biological evolution in the public schools.  There are several <font color="#dc2800">lines of argument advanced by intelligent design proponents, most notably the arguments of irreducible complexity, of specific complexity, and the fine-tuned universe." Further tweaking recommended here, "While advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, these efforts have been rejected by both the scientific community and the US legal system" because the legal system can't reject efforts to redefine science; in Dover the court rejected an attempt to teach it in the public school system because of its similarity to religious creationism and because it doesn't fit within the domain of science as currently defined by scientists.  A more subtle delineation is necessary between who ultimately defines what is science is important, I think. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwig2, your proposed content is again original research. "...fundamentally redefine science to accept transcendent explanations" is not supported. But the current "fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations" is: Again, you're trying to replace properly sourced content with your original research. This needs to stop, it wastes your time and ours. If you're really interested in editing Wikipedia and not just in adding pov to this article, you'd do well editing some less controversial articles first in order to learn Wikipedia's rules, then coming back and contributing here. Odd nature (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The two terms are often used together or interchangably when discussing science's limitation to methodological naturalism. Supernatural is more commonly used perhaps in the sources cited, and it may lead to confusion or conflict if we don't stick with it here, but can we keep the thermostat turned down a little, please?  It's already grindingly hot in here. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Prof M. - I'd have no objection to your tweaks, except that first couple change a direct quote in the first line. maybe something like this instead: Intelligent design is the assertion that the origin of " certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [scientifically, implied] by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.  that's just shifting quotes and parenthesizing to keep the quote intact.  also (re: Odd Nature's comment) transcendent is the proper philosophical term that they would use in the teleological argument for God; supernatural has modern 'X-Files' type connotations that make it more of a pejorative term than an analytic one.  but I'm open to other suggestions if you can think of any.  'mystical,' maybe?  Odd Nature is in the throws of a conviction that I'm a sockpuppet (or sockpuppeteer maybe, you'd have to ask him - he's already tried to convince Gwen Gale to investigate me as such, which would be fine).  at any rate, I don't suppose he'll have a good faith attitude towards me for some time to come, so I for one am simply going to filter out anything he says that's off-base as a heat-of-the-moment kind of thing, and try to address his useful points in their proper context.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To turn the temperature down: I tried to make constructive suggestions. I tried to suggest ways that Ludwigs2 could formulate his ideas in a place where he could compile his ideas in peace as he requested, and then others could consider them. I made this suggestion 3 times, but it seems it has not gone anyplace.

I also tried to describe exactly why the article is written the way it is, with the views balanced the way they are. This was rejected and some wikilawyering was presented implying that the way that consensus has chosen to structure this article is completely wrong. That would mean that all the 300 or so other articles associated with intelligent design are also wrong. And many thousands of other articles in controversial areas which follow similar reasoning. Maybe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of other articles even.

I will point out that the relatively new editors Ludwigs2, Championdante, Scott610 and 66.96.243.12 do not agree on how the page should be changed. They all are quite sure that the regular editors should leave and let them change it. But this will not solve anything, since they themselves disagree with each other, and in fact do not seem to be advocating changes that are in accord with the principles of Wikipedia, unless I am mistaken.

The article has had almost 11000 edits by more than 2500 editors over more than 6 years. The talk page has had almost 18000 edits by more than 800 editors over the same period. If you look in the archives, many of these issues being raised have been argued about over and over and over. The current version is the result of a very hard fought consensus by many many editors over a long period. No one gets exactly what they want. Strict guidelines, such as those described here, have to be followed for any hope of agreement between such a large group of editors.

For the last month, I have stayed away from this talk page and others of controversial articles, since I found that many were just using my participation as an excuse to attack me and threaten me. I ventured in here a little to try to help smooth things over. Obviously, it has not helped and my efforts have just been rejected. I am very sorry. I guess I will back off now and leave you to your own resources. That is how I will turn the temperature down.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll - I am taking your advice on all more controversial points, but this is a simple, straightforward discussion of stylistic changes to the lead. it doesn't affect sourcing, or raise any difficult or problematic issues, or even suggest major problems with or changes to the page.  further, there's no particular reason why Championdante, Scott610 and 66.96.243.12, and whoever else and I should agree at the start, and very little open discussion here that would allow us to come to an agreement.  in that regard, I can not tell you how much I appreciate Professor marginalia's simple, good faith efforts to listen and discuss.  let me just say that I would personally prefer that you (Filll) not back off, because - even though I'm not always smart enough to see it straight off the bat - you have given me good advice, and I do value your input.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Prof M. I'm going to continue editing even inside this silly box.  I think I may edit in the changes we've talked about on the main page, just  so that it's there in the page history.  I certainly think it's better than what's there now.  when it gets reverted, I'll open an RfC on the topic.  do you think that's too much?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwig, please don't edit inside archived discussions. Keep it in the open. If there are changes you think are justified which fully comply with policy, particularly WP:NOR, you're advised to open a new section on this talk page showing your proposals. If you edit in changes with the idea of opening an RfC when they get reverted, that will be seen as disruptive editing. . . dave souza, talk 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, please stop archiving my discussions, and I'll stop editing inside of them. seems a simple enough solution.


 * re your 'you're advised to open a new section on this talk page...': it would be fairly stupid of me to reopen a discussion that was already perfectly valid (guilty of neither OR nor any other violation) when it was last archived. I'm not going to waste my time and effort writing something that will automatically and immediately be refactored, without any thought or any regard for content.  in fact, the mere suggestion that I might get a fair and unbiased hearing if I try again, flies in the face of the actions on this page to such an egregious extent that I can only assume you are intentionally being dishonest when you say it (because if I didn't think you were being dishonest, I'd have to assume you were incredibly stupid or incredibly naïve, neither of which strikes me as the case).


 * re your other comment: I can make whatever wp:good faith edits I choose, so long as they are within the limits of policy; your suggestion that I can't strikes me as a violation of WP:OWN, which I suggest you read, thoroughly, since you seem not to understand it. beyond that, I can hardly be held accountable for anticipating a bad faith reversion of my efforts given my experiences here.  I would suggest to you that if you have any meaningful complaints about my behavior, you can take me to wikiquette where we can discuss it in detail, along with all the other stuff that's happened on this page.  otherwise I simply have nothing further to say to you on the topic, and no interest in listening to you blather on.  clear enough? -- Ludwigs 2  04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing Reliable Sources
Dear Odd nature, et al:

I was directed to WP:NPOV and to WP:RS (Reliable Sources). In accordance with those Wikipedia content guidelines, I have written the following proposal to revise the Wikipedia intelligent design page. The first paragraph of that page should read: Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon have asserted "that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact."[Of Pandas and People, 1989, pages 99-100] They have named their assertion "intelligent design." John G. West and Casey Luskin have compared intelligent design to the theory of evolution and they have concluded "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", page 4, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454] They assert that intelligent design is a "scientific theory."[ibid.] Odd nature, I have tried to learn from my mistakes.  I hope that you can regard my proposal as a valuable contribution to the discussion, rather than as a waste of your time.  My goal, as I have previously written, is to separate the definition of intelligent design from John West and Casey Luskin's opinion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation.  Their opinion should be clearly attributed to them.

Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stylistically, I have a problem with the opening paragraph to an article bringing up individual names that a casual reader has likely never heard of and hasn't yet read any context to determine why those names are meaningful or relevant. It seems awkward to write it that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Scott,

I explained this earlier. The definition you are suggesting, that, "...life began abruptly...with their...features in tact..." is not the valid definition of ID, since some notable ID proponents accept common descent and for other reasons. The Panda textbook was written at a very early stage of the ID movement, at the cusp of when the creationist movement was morphing into the ID movement. Much of the text in Pandas was lifted from an earlier creationist version where the word "creationism" was simply copy/pasted with the phrase Intelligent Design. Thanks! JPotter (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Potter:


 * You do not consider the Pandas definition of ID as "valid" and I appreciate your reason for saying so. However, Judge Jones based his ruling in the Kitzmiller case on the Pandas definition and I therefore regard that definition as the most relevant definition.  If Dr. Behe or others have formulated other definitions of ID since the publication of Pandas then those other definitions can be acknowledged further down in the article.  For example, I have previously suggested adding Ben Stein's definition of ID to the Wikipedia article on ID.  As a result of his appearance in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, millions of people will recognize his name and associate it with ID.


 * Thank you for your thoughtful response to my proposal. Scott610 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay Mister Scott, I think I've finally read up on the previous debates on here to also reply to this. While indeed your proposal to change the introduction is clear, concise, verified and factual, the point is, editors before you have already reached a Consensus as to what the lead should state. Let me first state that Wikipedia articles are styled in a certain way. The ID article is about the overview of ID. It is not merely the definition of it--(see Wiktionary). And so while you are making an honest attempt to edit the lead in a way that is acceptable to you and probably most ID-subscribers (which is fine), it is not what this article is attempting to do. It's not to define it. It's discussing the major notable points which have revolved around the debate since time. Thus your definition is not what is being accepted by Consensus. Let me think of an example uh, say the United States article does not state that "the U.S. is the coolest country in the world and we love hot dogs" or "the U.S. doesn't want illegal immigrants" etc these minority viewpoints come secondary to the overbearing facts which equals NPOV. While you indeed can find sources for just about anything, in the end we have to evaluate due weight in the face of Consensus. Does this make sense? .:DavuMaya:. 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear DavuMaya:


 * Thank you for writing that my "proposal to change the introduction is clear, concise, verified and factual". I now feel that the time I spent studying Wikipedia's content guidelines was worth the effort.


 * You report that "editors before you have already reached a Consensus as to what the lead should state." I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of previous editors.  I am now asking the current editors to recognize that a very significant change has taken place.  John West and Casey Luskin have publicly acknowledged that the "best" in their "description" of ID is their own judgment.


 * During an exchange of terse e-mails with Mr. Luskin, he reluctantly acknowledged to me that a statement on Discovery Institute's website is not a definition of ID but is instead a description of ID. He declined to reveal who is responsible for the "best" in that description.  I now know that Mr. West and Mr. Luskin are jointly responsible for the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation.  Now that this fact has been publicly revealed, I believe that it should be included in the Wikipedia page about ID.


 * I believe that the proponents of ID should not be allowed to hide behind an anonymous "best" and behind a legal fiction (the corporation named Discovery Institute). That corporation does not have a brain with which to make the judgment that ID is the "best" explanation.  That corporation does not have lungs, vocal cords, and lips.  It cannot state that ID is the "best" explanation.  It does not have a hand to write that ID is the "best" explanation.   That corporation should not be regarded as or cited as a "Reliable Source".  The flesh-and-blood people behind that "best" should be identified.  Their names are John G. West and Casey Luskin.  They are nationally known advocates of ID and they should stand ready to accept responsibility for and to explain their judgment that ID is the "best" explanation.


 * You wrote, "in the end we have to evaluate due weight in the face of Consensus. Does this make sense?" Yes, it does.  However, I am asking that Wikipedia reveal a fact that the proponents of ID have long tried to keep secret.  Wikipedia should show that Discovery Institute's "answer" to the rhetorical question "What is the theory of intelligent design?" is not a definition of ID, as the reader of that question has the right to expect, but is instead a description of ID that has propaganda hidden in it.  See their rhetorical question and "answer" at http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign


 * Let the truth be told. Scott610 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is largely original research and personal opinion. There's a bit of promoting here as well. This is not a appropriate use of article talk pages, see WP:NOT. This discussion should be archived. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear FeloniousMonk:


 * I am aware of the Wikipedia guideline on original research. That is why I did not include any reference to my correspondence with Casey Luskin in my proposal to revise the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page about ID.  I could live with that first paragraph as it is currently written if the hyperlink to Discovery Institute's question and "answer" about ID were eliminated.  As that first paragraph now exists, I feel that Wikipedia is directing people into a propaganda trap, an intellectual ambush, an effort to confuse and deceive.  Wikipedia should not send its "customers" out to a website where they will be intellectually thugged.  Scott610 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are what they are. We can't not link to a site just because we think its content is deceptive.  We can't protect people from their own gullibility.  Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott, I understand the point you are trying to make. However, you seem to be the only person in the entire world that considers any portion of this article to be too "pro-ID". The link is not only appropriate, but necessary for NPOV and balance. Doc  Tropics  16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Guettarda and Doc:


 * Footnote number 1 could be revised to read, "John G. West and Casey Luskin, The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators", page 4, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454 . That revision would connect the "best" in the so-called theory of intelligent design with the people who are responsible for that opinion.


 * I prefer naming West and Luskin in the text of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page about intelligent design, as I have proposed above. However, if that is not acceptable to you then please consider revising footnote number 1 so that West and Luskin are held accountable for their opinion that ID is the "best" explanation.


 * Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scott, I looked at the ref you're proposing to use, then I reviewed the two that are already in place. While I wouldn't object to adding your ref in general, I think the one that is currently in the first position should stay there for one simple reason: It would provides the clearest and most accessible definition, and it does so in the first paragraph. While the ref you suggest is accurate and potentially useful, the fact is I had to scroll through it for several minutes to find the relevant info. Better therefore to keep the clearest and most concise ref in the lead position. Again though, I see no problem with adding the ref you propose. Doc  Tropics  20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doc, thanks for taking the time to evaluate my proposal. Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

argument 3
Intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable.24.10.111.154 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

General response to a thread that was closed prematurely
Dear Scott610, Everything about Intelligent design is hotly contested -- everything. Absolute precision in every word, even on the Talk page, seems to be essential -- that's just the way it is, or rather the way it has been allowed to become. So, I'm very sorry (I've been here only for a short time myself) if my endorsement of your RFC view (which I only mention here for the sake of clarity, not to mix pages) as a whole, in principle, in essence (you get the picture) indicated to you an endorsement of every particular. You state in your RFC view; "I am very staunchly opposed to intelligent design being presented as though it is a scientific theory" and "the definition of ID must be separated from the opinions of ID proponents and opponents" -- with these points I wholeheartedly concur. But you have probably put too much effort into your Pandas, especially in light of the 2005 decision from the federal bench that you mention.

As User:Dave_souza points out: it gives undue weight and it is not current. And, nod to User:Hrafn, it really doesn't reflect NPOV. (Also, even though it has pedigree, it is not parsimonious -- perhaps it, even the video link, might be included in the body of the article. But my only interest is in the introductory/lead paragraph.) The first sentence of the article has broad support, me included -- I can see a need for only the tiniest of footnote tweaks (done; see above at "modified to avoid") and a more neutral term than the second "avoid." Oh, and User:Raul654 is right about attribution -- let's not major on minors. Lastly, Ben Stein is a hoot, to be sure, but he's only a social commentator. On a subject like this, we shouldn't stray far from the central players -- e.g. the Discovery Institute and the National Academy of Sciences, LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER FOR NEUTRALITY ;)

Dear Ludwigs2, I'm sure, your Wikigrinch comment was intended as a friendly jibe -- it's nice to imagine an atmosphere where the full range of adult discussion, from cussing to kidding (while it shouldn't predominate), could be present without the explosions that seem to be the norm here. But the only definition I can find for Wikigrinch http://www.organicdesign.co.nz/Wikigrinch doesn't seem to be a light-hearted one. Be careful about taking a friendly cigarette break, with its attendant ribbing, next to a powder keg. :) :) :) Dear Dave_Souza (and Guettarda) et al, You state: "We want to give the definition in use by the proponents." Bravo! The article is already doing that in the first sentence -- so you should have said "we want to CONTINUE to give..." -- I'm sure you'll agree. Except for replacing "theory" with "assertion" (an entirely reasonable and well-supported editorial decision that reconciles the social fact/scientific fact argument), the first sentence is nearly verbatim from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ launched by the Discovery Institute itself. (Perhaps, nod to User:ZayZayEM for explanation to Scott610, this could be included/streamlined with footnotes 1 & 2, or added as its own footnote, as a further demonstration of unbiased coverage, without a change in content.) -- -- MY CONCERN (please review my SUB-COMMUNITY section post) has always been the tone that "avoid, avoid" bespeaks -- though Hrafn, see below, has done something about that.

I am completely unfamiliar with the Panda book's actual contents -- though my admittedly shallow survey has satisfied me that it is thoroughly creationist. So I have no problem agreeing with you that it would be "wholly incompatible with Behe's form of ID." Strangely enough (remember, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent -- I just like evenhanded intro paragraphs), I read Behe's Black Box book when I was considering Lehigh's doctoral program in Molecular Biology & Biochemistry a few years back -- wanted to read something from it's notable son during his school district controversy (killing two birds with one stone, so to speak). He seemed a thoughtful PHILOSOPHER-scientist -- he's probably the only reason I even visited this page. I'll be sure to send him a hate-email (grin).

Your wee nod to his near-credibility seems entirely out of character, vis-a-vis the initial reception I received last week when I noted the Cabal's (just kidding, HONESTLY) seeming denial of IDers intellectual/educational status as human beings with something dissenting to say. What, I ask you, is a newcomer to think, in the face of such mood swings? I'm not trying to be difficult -- I really want to know! (The RFC seems sufficient evidence that mine is not an isolated experience.) Be as nice or nasty in real life as you want. But for me, it has to do with the cost/benefit ratio of contributing to this page. I've spent two days of a very rainy vacation getting acquainted with this subject and its page, so I'm cool; but I don't see why one MUST be a devotee (on one side or the other) to be a meaningful contributor here. Endless hours to get a civil tone just isn't worth it to me.


 * Dear ALL,

re: FACT 'fact about the world' 'fact about an idea' 'facts about opinions'

In discussions about the ID page, rehashing about 'FACT' is really a waste of time. The finders of fact (whether you want to focus on the broader WP community, a federal judge, or the greater scientific community) have already "rendered a ruling" on ID.

Scott610 had an idea for the intro -- I hope he accepts that it is not appropriate on the basis of its content, rather than taking it as a personal attack. I think that many things could be 'dismissed' around here, if an atmosphere of 'dismissiveness' were not so prevalent. (I've already made my View on this known on the RFC and will not expound further on this Talk page.) BUT... he inadvertently brought up a question of FACT that has long ago been decided, generating many lines of text from many quarters (Hrafn, then Ludwigs2, then Souza, finally Jenny/RegenerateThis -- the only one who adds NEW UNDERSTANDING to the discussion) which, quite frankly, seem to me a poor use of our intellectual resources.

User:Hrafn states: 'fact about the world', not a 'fact about an idea' -- the point is already won: it's an assertion not a theory.

User_talk:Ludwigs2 states: "actually, Hrafn, it's an (incorrect) theory about the world" -- actually Ludwigs2 it's not a theory at all, as reflected just about everywhere but the DI. I know that you know this -- I've read your posts -- we've got to get off this dime!

User:Dave_souza states: "Wikipedia is not here to keep alive the hopes of little children that yes dear, Santa Claus really does exist" -- true; but neither is it here to dash the hopes of every little sugarplum-fantasizing urchin in the West. That is a prevalent ethos on this page. Equating ID proponents with believers in Santa Claus is unproductive and condescending -- it's as bad or worse than calling ID-opponents devil worshipers or some equivalent nonsense. There is a profound difference between a belief in Santa Claus (and the time-limited enjoyment of its attendant fantasy) and an a priori philosophical position (and the humane treatment of its adherents on Wikipedia -- regardless of their "minority" status). I want to mirror, with a wrinkle, one of your sentiments: anything that "gives undue weight to the extreme minority expert view that ID is science" IN PRACTICE OR RESEARCH is not reflective of NPOV. But as a philosophical perspective, id est -- why continue to seek to mash its face into the dirt?

--Championdante (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is another one-sided discussion arising from personal opinion and original research; it should be archived. Championdante, please stop ressurrecting archived discussions; they have been archived for good reason and restarting them is disrupting this talk page and keeping editors from performing necessary, actual improvements. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See too long, didn't read. It's almost impossible for other editors to make a reasonably coherent reply to such a long post which contains a large number of unrelated points. Shorter, more tightly focused comments are generally more effective on article talkpages. Doc  Tropics  16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fresh blood -- some thoughts -- please comment
ID is at best a scientific philosophy (that's not at all a bad thing for people to have) in search of a theoretical/research framework that interfaces with the broader scientific community.

My previous "This article's neutrality is not open for consideration" recommendation was intended more as a call for self-examination than a practical suggestion. Remember, I have an issue with only one word of the introductory paragraph.

Many editors effectively deny WP readers the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not ID (which is not generally accepted by the scientific community) has sociopolitical shortcomings (or strengths).

User:ZayZayEM's entry of 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) has so much good to say that it should be a primer on why this article isn't as biased as ID proponents assert -- EXCEPT for "ID is internally inconsistent, deceptive, duplicitious and absolutely overflowing with ignorance." This is the verbiage of an OPPONENT, not an encyclopedia editor. You are BEING Barbara Forrest on this one -- which is fine, but not neutral. ID, as the DI presents it (despite its policy-driven evolution -- isn't it funny that a Creationism outgrowth is evolving), IS internally consistent -- it is simply not consistent with the prevailing philosophy of science. But that is an epistemological distinction. Deceptive and duplicitous -- these are value judgments; one could just as readily, and inaccurately, say that the movement is honestly self-policing and policy-neutral. As to "absolutely overflowing with ignorance," I wouldn't argue against your content, but you do sound flushed. :) Only trying to keep the tone cucumber-cool.

--Championdante (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't really know who you are addressing when you say many editors. It seems prevalent in this discussion board why debates go nowhere is because each new topic of discussion seems to have a lot more than what it seems. Championdante thank you for stating what your issue is: ID... has sociopolitical shortcomings (or strengths) May I assume you feel that the article does not have many statements to support ID? If so, could you please state then exactly what you feel should be added in the text. And please refrain from discussing whatever conflict you may have with another user. As well your logic is going into circles, I am not even able to ascertain what you are directly addressing, please do not post in this manner per Words to avoid and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point .:DavuMaya:. 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems prevalent in this discussion board why debates go nowhere is because each new topic of discussion seems to have a lot more than what it seems. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means.


 * You seem to have missed (go back and read the last dozen sections) that I am addressing the Refusal to 'get the point' of many editors -- THAT is my issue. I didn't know the actual policy: thanks for citing it. I am absolutely opposed to the advancement of either pro-ID or anti-ID agendas (as all my posts demonstrate). I am not looking for support of ID; I am looking for even-handedness on the Talk page, so that more views can be openly discussed, SO THAT THE MAIN ARTICLE WILL BE BETTER! (This is what a Talk page is for.)


 * I have no conflict with ZayZayEM. On the contrary, I commend ZayZayEM for a well-thought-out comment, then make observations concerning those few points with which I differ -- also what Talk is for, rather than for tossing out unsupported accusations of policy violations in a very sloppy fashion.


 * I have made no suggestions for edits beyond the first paragraph and have made not a single alteration to the main article -- I am hardly a disruptive influence. I have continually stated my support for the content of the first paragraph of the lead -- it's tone has been what disturbs me. What I feel should be added to the text is stated in "modified to avoid" above -- you should have read it before commenting. I have attacked no one; nor do I use any loaded language or any of the 7 sorts of terms to avoid; I invoke no policies -- so I can hardly be accused of gaming the system. So neither of the policies you cite apply to me.


 * It is a waste of everyone's time to tell someone his logic goes in circles when you have none of your own -- please refrain from making "please do not post in this manner" requests when you do not have a leg to stand on.

--Championdante (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my comment. Your multiple tirades here are based on your own original research as best I can tell, you've offered no sources that actually support your claims. As such, don't expect to get much traction or think that you can continually brow beat others into submission by restarting archived discussions. Please, either come back with a succinct and specific suggestion for content that is WP:V and supported by sources that meet WP:RS which does not violate WP:NPOV or drop this and move along. There's a limit to how much badgering over original research the community is expected to put up with, and you're fast approaching it. To the regulars: This discussion should be archived once Championdante has read my warning. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent AN/I threads, and constant troubles here:
Can the 'Welcome to this page, read this first' box be moved to the top of the page, so that there's less chance of people missing it? WHile people directly linked to sections will not see it, those clicking on the 'discussion' tab will have more chance of seeing it, and it seems more likely that such editors would be those most in need of the read; they might, for example, be the type who read the article ,and then want to come here and hash stuff out (or fight). ThuranX (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to complain, but I will admit that the notice boxes etc at the top of this page have turned into a bit of a mess. A lot of detail could be collapsed. There could be better headings. The order could be changed. Maybe some of the "happy talk" could be summarized a bit and shortened.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made one attempt to clean them up -- but would agree that they're still not as concise as they should be. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved it. Odd nature (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * hmmm... I think it would be easier to place a banner at the top of the page which reads "This topic is considered closed by all involved editors, and the introduction of other views will be immediately and forcefully sanctioned." that would save a lot of space on the page, and a lot of time for all involved parties.  ;-) -- Ludwigs 2  20:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption
Ludwigs2, by my count, has raised his 'Points that have already been discussed' claims on 3 occasions:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

He has been told explicitly that these claims are WP:OR by:
 * 1) Jim62sch
 * 2) myself
 * 3) Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
 * 4) Professor marginalia
 * 5) Odd nature
 * 6) Killer Chihuahua
 * 7) Gwen Gale
 * 8) Felonious Monk

Additionally, a number of editors have told him that the contrary position is well-supported by WP:RS & made a number of similar points. Yet he keeps on going -- even having the gall to state in this edit summary of an attempt to re-open it that "I haven't even had a chance to comment yet". I would suggest that if he raises/re-opens this again, we should seek sanctions against him. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrfan - I am making a valid point, and I have explicitly stated that I will be no more than two or three days at it, when you can archive to your heart's content. please be patient, and allow me the grace of speaking.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2; I have suggested at least once at AN/I that you make a subpage either of your user page or of this page and develop your argument there. When it is finished, then you can invite others to look at it and comment. Are you unable to do so? Do you not know how to make a subpage? Would you like me to make a subpage for you?--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No Ludwigs2, you are not "making a valid point" -- you are making a WP:OR point that is only very tenuously related to Kuhn's work. You have already inflicted it upon us three times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out to you that it is:
 * 1) WP:OR
 * 2) Contradicted by WP:RS
 * 3) Not even supported if WP:OR were permitted.

Why on earth should we wish to permit you "two or three" more days of you spouting further unsubstantiated WP:OR and of people pointing this out to you? If you had a WP:RS that stated that 'ID is a theory' you have had ample opportunity to present it. Your attempts to stretch Kuhn to fit this point are unusable and thus "not relevant to improving the article" (and so have been removed per WP:TALK). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrfan - the apparent fact that you haven't bothered to read, listen to, or consider the point I am making is not grounds for saying I'm not making a valid point. as I keep saying, my point is that editors have established an OR point as a matter of accepted policy on this page.  I have no points to make on my own in that thread; I am simply objecting the fact that original research by editors on this page is being passed off and defended as accepted fact. however, I can't discuss things with you if you refuse to even consider the remote possibility that something might have gone wrong with your understanding of things.  if that's your position, say so, and I will bow to the fact that you have establish iron-clad ownership of this page and move on.  no sense beating a dead horse.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because your point, all your points, are original research. Wikipedia does not permit original research. Why should anyone waste their time? Odd nature (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not "an OR point" -- it is cited the one time it is made (as a direct quote) in the article itself. It is also substantiated by many of the statements referenced in the List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design, e.g. this statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear he either wants to be blocked or is trolling us like FM mentioned. Either way, it's disruptive. I suggest a limited topic ban per WP:DE solves the disruption of this page while still allowing him to contribute to the encyclopedia if that's what he really wants to do. Odd nature (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct. He might be trying to get himself blocked so he can raise a ruckus about it. Ludwigs2, why do you not answer me about a subpage? What is wrong?--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no particular interest in being blocked, or in raising a ruckus about it if it happens. I'm not particularly interested in political maneuverings of any sort, actually; they just give me headaches.  to Filll - I had assumed that a clear statement on my part that I would keep any arguments limited and within a particular time frame would satisfy any worries that this would turn into an endless problem and allow the discussion to finish.  that is apparently incorrect, and I won't push the matter any farther.  I'm sorry I didn't respond to your question, but I was expecting a reasoned response here and didn't think it was a problem that needed addressing.  since it apparently is, I'll take your advice to heart.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean any offense Ludwigs2. I see from your account history that you are skilled in making subpages. If you need some time and some space to develop your argument, it might be best to do it in a subpage rather than on a fairly heavily watched talk page like this one. You could dig up references, which several have asked for. You could format your discussion the way you want.

I would be quite cautious to avoid the problems people have been warning you about: that is, violating WP:NOR. Any statement you make should be in a reliable source. If you pull together 2 or 3 or more disparate facts to build your argument, make sure you can find a reliable source that pulls the same facts together in the same way. If you are careful, and do a lot of web searching and other library work, you might be able to make your case. If so, then invite others in to look at it and see what they think.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the unusually heated response I got from Championdante and Ludwigs2's insistence over nothing, I would suggest you warn these users for disruptive activity and we begin process by which to "ground" them for not adhering to WP rules. They are effectively gaming the system and evading block by spinning text into un-debatable circles and yet offering no conclusive source, proof, or verifiable claim. It is also very clear that they are targeting Hrafn specifically by their statements (Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper). I am not here to judge on the history of whatever discussion you may have had but it obviously has turned into a useless exercise to goad each other. This is not very productive for the article at hand and this type of circular debate is not even very educational to boot (NOT FORUM). Similarly Championdante and Ludwig2, I advise you to read Don't create hoaxes, You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer, and How many legs does a horse have?. On the other hand I am pleased that we have addressed Scott's suggestion above and move beyond that discussion. For now I suggest everyone Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. This is a dead horse. .:davumaya:. 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll - the more experiences I have here, the more I agree with you.


 * Davumaya, please note:
 * none of this has spilled over onto article content. I've simply been trying to ask questions and get some decent answers, and have been met with an opposition bordering on hysteria.  fascinating from a social-psychological perspective, but hardly an indication of any massive wrongdoing on my part.  if you'd like to accuse me of being ham-handed in my approach here, I'll accept that and give my apologies; I really had no idea that this page had this kind of tripwire emotionalism in it, and if I had I would have taken an entirely different approach to it.  but do take a deep breath and place things in perspective, please...
 * I am not 'targeting' anyone. Hrfan has been the individual who has most consistently reverted and archived my posts, and so I have had some discussions with and about him on the matter, but - again - deep breath.  no need to personalize it. -- Ludwigs 2  19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've simply been trying to ask questions and get some decent answers. Not WP:FORUM. There are many other sites in which you can "ask questions" for answers. Also you ought to consult the archived talk pages for many answers to questions you have been politely asking thank you. As well, refrain from name-calling and please consult Staying cool when the editing gets hot. .:davumaya:. 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Davumaya - you've misused the wp:forum policy. allow me to quote extensively to show the error:
 * "Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate."
 * since my discussion were all related to trying to improve this page, this policy has no bearing. also if you'd care to point out what you were referring to by 'name-calling' and Staying cool when the editing gets hot, I'd appreciate it, because I can't see any place where they might apply to my behavior.  thanks. -- Ludwigs 2  20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments toward you in particular are advising and if you will not take the advice, I cannot force you. I'm sorry you feel I have "misused" policy. The spirit of these policies and essays are meant to encourage you to be a better participant, not to put you down. Yes they can be used later in a more serious manner but for now I encourage you to frame your discussion in a manner that would further improve the article than it already exists. Please use the Talk page to propose changes to the article and the accompanying sources. .:davumaya:. 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Davumaya - my apologies, I misunderstood your intent. as advice, it is excellent, and I will do my best to adhere to it.  thank you. -- Ludwigs 2  20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ed)Maybe nerves are extra brittle lately, but neither Championdante nor Ludwig2 have made any problem changes to the article, at least that I could find, so why don't we all just take a deep breath. It's a bit premature to label this WP:DE. It looks like efforts have been made to seek input from others besides those involved in the dispute, and that's the proper course that involved editors shouldn't unduly interfere with. When there's an impasse like this and editors aren't understanding each others' points, but simply talking past one another, well-isn't that's what the RFC is for? When patience is running thin the discussions often deteriorate into argumentative yakyak with nobody listening except to tally any implied or inferred insults from the other side on complaint sheets, which is unproductive of course. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But constantly responding to the same gripe ad nauseum here is a huge waste of our time and frustrating. Lodging the same challenge over and over demonstrates a contempt for the time of others, and ignoring consensus shows a contempt for the Wikipedia community. There is a limit. The only question is have we reached it? Odd nature (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's when outside input may move things along. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and I'll point out that I wouldn't need to (as you say) 'Lodging the same challenge over and over' if you listened and responded to it once. -- Ludwigs 2  04:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have been listened to three times, and each time explicitly told that your argument was WP:OR (a flaw that has also been drawn to your attention by editors from AN/I). You have done nothing in either your responses to these replies, or in your further iterations, to remedy this fundamental flaw, so should not expect an extended hearing. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
I have removed the section "Intelligent Design Theory" and suggest all new posters to this talk page read the big box at the top as well as the WP:TPG (talk page guidelines). I will continue to remove original research and lengthly argumentative postings. I suggest if you wish to argue ID, you go find a nice forum somewhere. If you wish to improve Wikipedia, I suggest you start smaller, not on a large Featured Article. If you continue to disrupt this talk page, you may be blocked. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - fully and completely. Things are getting stupid here. Doc  Tropics  23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Odd nature (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided numerous sources which refer to ID as a theory - all mainstream, all reliable, some as scientific as it gets. All that has been offered as a reason for not using those sources is an OR argument that those sources clearly do not buy or they would avoid the word too. Thus, the only people disrupting this talk page at the moment as far as I can see are those using OR to exclude or rewrite sources, and those deleting other peoples talk page comments.66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No you didn't: Your sources used the term idiomatically, were not definitive and ran counter to more numerous and notable sources. Odd nature (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. A 2002 AAAS article which does not state that ID is a theory for the very good reason that ID is not a theory is not a "reliable source" that ID is a theory, no matter how much you want it to be. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of the source is "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory". Can you see the last word? Can you see the absence of scare quotes? You have no more scientifically notable source than the AAAS. That source uses the term "theory" quite clearly to describe ID. Nothing other than OR has been offered as a reason for excluding the word "theory". And the conclusion of that OR is implicitly rejected by the sources in their choice of words. Unless someone wants to argue that the AAAS doesn't know what it's talking about then I think Wiki should align itself with, rather than run counter to, those reliable sources.66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the entire article is about how ID is not a scientific theory. Your point? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that ID is called a "theory" in the title of the AAAS article. And since the AAAS article is very anti-ID and they have no qualms about saying "theory" the word "theory" must perfectly OK as a way of referring to ID even given its non-scientific status. Thus: 1) the OR argument to the contrary is refuted; and 2) we should call it a theory because that's what the reliable sources call it.66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. The entire article was about how ID is not a theory, but because they refer to it idiomatically as "Intelligent Design Theory" you want to use it as a source that ID is a theory? Um, no. Odd nature (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the term "theory" in this article contributes nothing significant and instead potentially confuses readers. It's too subtle a distinction to use the term "theory" to discuss what scientists define as a valid "scientific theory" (stature ID proponents have been seeking, so far in vain) and also to use the term "theory" in the idiomatic sense as was done in the NYT.  Since the fact that ID was found not to be a valid scientific theory is so significant to the understanding of ID and its exclusion in science and education, it's critical we avoid the murkiness the idiomatic "theory" would bring to the article.  Just because the NYT article or the AAAS (which clearly does not allow that ID is a theory in the scientific sense) used the term idiomatically doesn't require the article here to follow suit, especially considering to the more significant difficulties and confusions which would be raised by doing so such as I've outlined. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling this one closed. Anything arguing the challenge further will be archived. Odd nature (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Professor Marginalia makes a reasonable point. However, I think I am entitled to express concern that many reliable sources can be overruled by an OR argument that top notch scientific sources don't buy. If the AAAS doesn't think it's confusing, nor the Washington Post, nor countless other sources that could be cited, then I don't see why Wiki should appear hell bent on maintaining that it is. As I said earlier, I think this is more of a red herring than anything else.66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've expressed your point and the community rejected it and explained to you why. Read WP:CON. Move on. Odd nature (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the community rejected anything. All I see is a few editors desperately trying to avoid discussion by archiving everything they don't like before almost anyone gets a chance to see it. One other editor suggested that my other option, "hypothesis" might be acceptable and he was told (by you) that he had no business editing this page at all. It is easy to see how a consensus may be achieved in such cases. That being said, I am willing to withdraw the appeal to use the reliably sourced "theory" (primarily on the points made by PM), however, I still fell "hypothesis" or even "idea" are far better words than "assertion". Comments.66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside, new top box layout looks great. Very clear, and rather non-authoritative. Kudos to those involved.ZayZayEM (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a good hunt through the FAQ's but I don't see anything that says: a) that OR can or should override RS; or b) that the words "hypothesis" or "idea" should not be used. Perhaps you could point out the particular sections or quote the relevant stuff here. As it is, it seems that you are simply pointing off vaguely into the distance.66.96.243.12 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm as guilty as the next guy of asking what's maybe been already answered. This isn't an OR issue that I can see, and sorry if I missed why it would be.  I think this is, for the most part, an editorial call.  What's the concern about "assertion"?  Hypothesis has similar problems as "theory", maybe even more so, since it has a specific scientific definition and one of the specified reasons ID is excluded is because it's judged "untestable" (which I believe is the key purpose to any scientific hypothesis, to methodologically "test" some claim).  "Idea" seems fuzzier to me than "assertion".  As I said in a prior thread, britannica relied heavily on the term "argument" and if that sits better I'm okay with using it here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no OR issue here, we're simply following official guidelines, referenced above, about words to avoid in articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. 66.96.243.12: In the future, it would be very helpful if you made a specific proposal, rather than just a non-specific suggestion, such as referring to ID as a theory. For example, in the topic Citing Reliable Sources (above), I proposed specific, alternative language for the first paragraph of the article. My proposal was not accepted. I then made a more modest proposal (a footnote change). That more modest proposal was not accepted. Discussion "Closed". Next time, make a specific proposal to change the article, defend your proposal, politely answer questions, and accept the outcome. That's how it goes here. Scott610 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"creationism by intelligent design" with the Institute for Creation Research
Is the creationists, like Institute for Creation Research, promoting "creationism by intelligent design" a new thing? If so, I think this should be mentioned in the article. Kenntand (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is more a case of expropriation of the term "intelligent design" by YECs (just as they expropriated 'Creationism' in earlier decades), rather than adoption of the philosophy (Neo-creationism, etc). Also, the Kanters are fairly minor players, and I see no evidence that the ICR itself is giving this a major push. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Henry Morris Sr was not a "Big Tent" creationist at all, and in many respects very critical of the ID approach.  If ICR transformed into an ID institution it would be notable but a flip like that requires much stronger support in references.Professor marginalia (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Theory
I'd like to return to the question of whether "theory" should be used to describe intelligent design, this time scrupulously focusing on citing sources (by everyone, please). A quick search for "intelligent design" in the journal Philosophy of Science turns up this review of a Susan Haack book, wherein Professor of Philosophy Keith Parsons (University of Houston, Clear Lake) twice applies the word "theory" to intelligent design (5th page). Can anyone identify a WP:RS which says the word "theory" cannot properly be associated with ID? Gnixon (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many problems with using the term "theory". They've been described many times, and it can be sourced many ways that ID was judged as not a scientific theory.  I will find a few if you doubt it.  But if you could explain why you feel it's important to use the term here it would help me understand why it's a problem of some kind by not using the terminology here. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Please do identify a source saying "theory" is an inappropriate term. I think avoiding "theory" is awkward, and including it is probably not as misleading as some people think.  I'm not yet convinced one way or the other on the question of whether "awkward" or "misleading" is the weightier concern here.  For example, "claim" would be a poor substitution, but "assertion," "argument," or "idea" might (or might not) work.  The fundamental question is whether "bad theory" or "not even a theory" correctly describes ID.  I'm sure there's no deep disagreement on these issues between the two of us, but if you'd like to explore them at greater length, perhaps one of our talk pages would be more appropriate.  Since Ludwigs2 has been 55-hour blocked for not focusing on the citation of directly-applicable sources, I'd like us to limit ourselves strictly to that task.    Gnixon (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)  PM, thanks for catching that mistake in the quote; I thought I had it w4w, but missed that part.  Gnixon (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Words to avoid. Odd nature (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ID is not a scientific theory. Using the word "theory" at the sharp end of the article is likely to cause confusion and mislead the reader. I hope you don't mind that this statement is not supported by any sources; it's my opinion as an editor.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't personally mind discussing our opinions as editors, but others have insisted on sticking to direct citations. My own opinion is that using "theory" may not be overly misleading, since the lead very quickly turns to the rejection of ID as valid science by the scientific community and the courts.  Gnixon (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's your own opinion, isn't it? Calling ID a "theory" would both misleading and confusing precisely because since the lead includes the rejection of ID as valid science by the scientific community and the courts. Not to mention a guideline prohibits it: Words to avoid Odd nature (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm open to discussing whether "theory" will be misleading to our readers, so long as I won't be blocked for it. However, I think it would be much more constructive to first establish, once and for all, that it is no mortal sin to describe ID as a "theory."  I've supplied specific citations, above and below here, supporting the assertion that experts have no problem with the term.  No one has yet supplied any contradictory citations.  Note that continuing to argue without specific citations appears to be a blockable offense.  Gnixon (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you being intentionally slippery here? A number of unaffiliated editors have already shown you sources and content guidelines that calling ID a theory is not possible. From Disruptive_editing: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." As long as you do not continue editing in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors and provides sources that are not unencyclopedic or misrepresent reliable sources or manufactures original research or resists moderation or continue to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators, you have nothing to be concerned about. Got it? Odd nature (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not being "slippery." I've backed up my statements with citations, and I've gone to the trouble of debunking a vague, incorrect citation by you.  These are useful bits of grunt work critical to advancing a discussion, not disruptive editing.  Moreover, I've had civil, productive discussions with those who have joined me in attempting to find and interpret useful citations. Gnixon (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, your sources are weak and you've misrepresented them to us. What you claim your AAAS source says run is completely contradicted by other, better sources from the AAAS. You may call endlessly arguing to pursue a certain edit while misrepresenting a source useful bits of grunt work critical to advance a discussion, but WP:DE calls it disruptive editing. Odd nature (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is already covers the issue of whether ID is or is not a valid theory. Read it and the sources supporting it. I think you're beating a dead horse. Odd nature (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ON, I have read the article, including a search for every use of the word "theory." I do not find any sources indicating it is inappropriate to describe ID with "theory."  The closest I have found is 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".'  But this statement only asserts that ID is not good science.  Moreover, the phrasing chosen by a bunch of scientists and teachers hardly deserves more weight than that chosen by an expert in the philosophy of science (see my citation above).  Another quote from the article clearly indicates that a legal expert has no problem using "theory":  the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."  Please contradict me with a specific citation, not with a general hand-waving toward the article, which I've shown does not support your assertions.  I remind you that Ludwig was recently blocked for such vagueness in discussion here.  Gnixon (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Nixon: John G. West and Casey Luskin (both of the Discovery Institute) have asserted that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause". Their assertion is not a "scientific theory" because NO cause and effect relationship has been asserted and verified. However, if you make the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things, and you can find a way test and verify your assertion, then you could thereby transform your testable assertion (i.e., scientific hypothesis) into a scientific theory (i.e., a verified scientific hypothesis). Since you cannot figure out any way to test such an assertion, it should be obvious to you that it is inappropriate to refer to intelligent design as either a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory. Scott610 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scott, I've provided sources where experts specifically apply "theory" to ID. Can you provide a source saying that it's inappropriate?  Gnixon (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Please do identify a source saying 'theory' is an inappropriate term."

I would think that referring to it as a "so-called" theory, and scrupulously only using the phrase in quotes would be a fairly strong indication that they consider it illegitimate to call it a "theory". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict below) Hrafn, thank you for the citation. It helps considerably to sharpen the discussion.  The source doesn't directly say that "theory" is inapplicable to ID, and I would dispute your interpretation that it implies it.  On the contrary, the AAAS saw fit to use "ID theory," albeit in quotes, presumably because they thought that was the simplest way to refer to the idea.  Note that "intelligent design" is also in quotes, by itself, later on, so "theory" doesn't seem to be driving the use of quotes---they could as easily have written intelligent design "theory," but did not choose to do so.  To sum up, this citation in no way contradicts the citation I provided, wherein an expert on philosophy of science directly applied "theory" (without quotes) to ID.  Is there some better source supporting the assertion that "theory" is an inappropriate term?  I'm happy to separately discuss whether or not "theory" will be misleading to our readers.  Gnixon (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Kitzmiller ruling. Odd nature (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a long ruling, and I've already done the legwork to show that this article doesn't back up what you justified by a similarly vague reference to it. Please point me to a specific quote.  Gnixon (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would weigh in here, but frankly these kinds of attitudes have just made it too dangerous. So have fun.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 19:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest this one:


 * Professor marginalia (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with using the word "theory" in quotes, as even theologians can have theories, just not scientific ones. Use of quotes gets across the idea that the designation is contested . Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, nahh! I think the subject is treated adequately impartially in the article. Use of "theory" in quotes would seem overy predjudicial. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah, I'm against that use of the "quote mark" in principle. I think they come across as informal sneer quotes and are unencyclopedic.  There are cases where I used them in edits myself simply because I could think of no better alternative but it bothers me greatly that I couldn't come up with one. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PM, thanks for the sharpest citation yet for the "not a theory" argument. Still, I think that quote can easily be misread.  Especially in light of the AAAS's repeated use of "intelligent design theory" in that same document, we should understand the emphasis of that statement to be on the adjective "scientific," not on the noun "theory."  The point isn't that ID is not a theory, but that it is unscientific.  Lest you think I'm merely splitting hairs, let me say it this way:  AAAS could have made their intended point just as well by saying "The theory of intelligent design is unscientific."  Note also that the AAAS has a dog in this fight, and the source you quote is a position paper---while it deserves due weight as representing the position of science, the question is most properly within the realm of philosophy of science, whence I think my citation has more direct bearing.  I agree with you that sneer quotes would be unencyclopedic, and I, too, have been bothered by the possibility that "theory" might mislead our readers into inferring ID is accepted as legitimate science, but I'm equally concerned we might be forced into linguistic contortions if we want to avoid it.  Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Nixon: According to Jonathan Wells, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, "Intelligent design maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes" ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/what_is_intelligent_design.html ). He refers to intelligent design as a "theory" ( http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf ). When he writes, "Intelligent design maintains that...", what he really means that "I, Jonathan Wells, assert that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes." The folks at Discovery Institute have the bad habit of using the term "intelligent design" as though that term is a flesh-and-blood person who can make assertions about cause and effect. That bad habit is an example of a reification, treating an abstraction as though it has corporeal existence. Their bad habit can make discussions about ID very confusing. They make ID into a being who has the capacity to make the judgment that something is the "best" explanation and then they refer to that reified abstraction as a "theory." Ouch! It's enough to make your brain hurt. The bottom line is that they are really just jerking us around with a lot of confusing double-talk. Don't fall for it! Intelligent design is not a scientific theory or a theory of any kind. It's pure propaganda. Scott610 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scott, you seem to think I'm unfamiliar with all these issues---that's not the case, and I'm not confused, despite any efforts the DI may have made. Rather, I'm arguing, based on specific citations, that we shouldn't be so worried that our readers are too dumb to understand that "theory" has different meanings in different contexts, and that it neither means "vague speculation" nor "well-established," nor even "legitimate science."  One may obviously have a well-established theory.  No red herrings, please. Gnixon (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The last time you were here a year or so ago your proposed changes were rejected because they gave the ID viewpoint a favored position that violated the Undue Weight clause of the NPOV policy. Now you're arguing that we should ignore Words to avoid. I don't think that's evidence of a strong understanding of the topic or Wikipedia's content policies. Odd nature (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was clear at the time that I disagreed with others' interpretations of those policies as they apply to this article. Anyway, let's stay on topic here, and focus on the available sources.  Gnixon (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When you're ready to look at them objectively, sure. Let me know. Odd nature (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, from Philip Johnson in 2004: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem.  Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus.  Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as of yet, no general theory of biological design".Professor marginalia (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PM, I'm sorry if I failed to respond directly to your comment before continuing in my 20:47 post below. I think your quote does demonstrate that various connotations are attached to "theory"---they are often most clearly indicated by adjectives like "scientific," "full-fledged," "speculative," or "naive."  Taken together with other citations in this discussion, I think the implication is that readers must be (and likely are) aware of the fact that "theory" has different connotations, and not much can be read into use of the word alone.  Gnixon (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we've suitably established that at least some experts are comfortable using the word "theory" in their writings about ID, I'm happy to turn the conversation to whether or not we want to make that editorial choice. My opinion is that readers are unlikely to be confused by use of the term when it is soon followed by clear statements demonstrating that the scientific community doesn't consider ID to be good science.  I think we need to have some respect for our readers and be willing to gloss over technical points in the lead in favor of cleaner prose.  Gnixon (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But you've failed to establish even that. Odd nature (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've established (see first citation) that experts are comfortable using "theory" in reference to ID, as is the AAAS. What more would you like to have established?  Gnixon (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your AAAS source used the term idiomatically, not definitively. And 2 other sources from the AAAS presented by Hrafn  clearly shows the AAAS saying it is not a theory and cancel our your source, which you seem to be misrepresenting as being more that it is. Again, you've failed to establish that any experts at the level of the AAAS say ID is a theory. Odd nature (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the opinion of a professor of philosophy doesn't count, particularly if that professor is an expert in the philosophy of science? Gnixon (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I have to? Your source doesn't say what you say it does. Odd nature (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct quote, for your convenience: With the rise of ‘intelligent design theory’ and the vocal support of that theory by some very distinguished professional philosophers (see, e.g., Plantinga 2001), the religious critique of natural science is no longer easy to dismiss.  Note "theory" is used twice, which is what I've asserted.  Now will you explain why we should disregard this directly-applicable citation of an expert in favor of your unsourced opinions?  Gnixon (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Alvin Plantinga is a ID supporter; he's a partisan source. He's Fellow at William Dembski's ISCID. We can't let partisan promoters define whether or not ID is a valid scientific theory. Are you trying to tell me that you didn't know that Platinga was sympathetic to ID? Odd nature (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pay attention. I'm not citing Plantinga.  Gnixon (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source you've cited appears to be. Odd nature (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gnixon, makes exactly the point that I have been trying to make. There are vast amounts of high profile sources that use the word "theory" to describe ID. If the AAAS, and the Washington Post, and all the others, are comfortable with the word then why is Wiki stepping out on a limb here. If the AAAS was so concerned then why did they use the word at all. Surely the Washington Post has professional writers on its staff whose job is to ensure that readers are not misled or left confused. Surely the same is true of the AAAS. Are we really to believe that the editors of Wiki are so well informed that they know so much better than these prestigious sources that they can realign them in this way?


 * One further point: WTA theory is a peculiarity inasmuch as it doesn't say that "theory" is a word to avoid at all. On the contrary, it encourages its use but limits it in a particular way. That is, it sets out a very particular definition which basically says: ""theory" belongs to science and nobody else may ever use it". However, this word is used all over Wiki in many other ways, and its use by the Washington Post and the AAAS clearly shows that the Wiki distinction, that even Wiki doesn't actually apply, is not accepted elsewhere. When one considers the politically sensitive nature of this article it is not hard to find reasons, other than confusion, for why editors might want this well sourced word excluded.


 * In conclusion, then, I don't buy your argument. I don't think anyone on Wiki buys your argument (or some may buy it on Tuesday and then sell it again on Wednesday morning). I can cite hundreds of Wiki articles and countless reliable sources that use this word in the way I am suggesting and therefore completely destroy your argument. Wiki is a general encyclopedia and so you can't just pick and choose what words mean without telling the reader. And so, as I argued above, I think Wiki would do well to fall into line with what the reliable sources say and avoid OR, and obviously wrong, arguments in order to override those sources and, some might argue, push a particular POV.66.96.243.12 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what's been established is that the word "theory" is ambiguous. I don't think it's helpful for this article to use the word as if it had some special meaning, regardless of what any other organization or wikipedia guideline has to say about it.  Like any other jargon, if we define exactly how the article will use the word and use it consistently it might be reasonable, but avoiding it altogether is preferable.  If we don't use "theory" there, though, "...Darwin's theory of the origin of species...", "...modern science and the theory of evolution to...", et cetera may be equally inappropriate under the same semantic reasoning.  In any case, I agree that putting it in quotes is not appropriate for the article.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we make a radical departure from unofficial "Wiki policy" and follow the reliable sources. Say what they say - surely that is the essence, spirit, letter of all the actual laws. 66.96.243.12 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The essence, spirit, and letter is "write a useful encyclopedia". Getting lost in semantics over "theory" and "not a theory" in the article will just confuse the reader and doesn't write a useful encyclopedia.  Just FYI to folks here, I've proposed a change to the WP:WTA regarding theory, since I believe that my comments above are generally true as well as appropriate to this discussion.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) 66.96 - ID is not a theory, and it is dishonest to imply that it is. Why is "assertion" a bad term? Please answer this, because I haven't seen you answer it yet. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We've seen sources that use the term "theory" in the nonscientific sense, we've seen sources that clarify that ID is not a "theory" in the scientific sense, and it can be shown that ID proponents have attempted to represent it as a "scientific theory" (language adopted by creation wiki fwiw). I think it's important to note, as well, that confused conflations of the various definitions of the term "theory" is frequently played out in anti-evolutionism, as in the case of the US schools, where proposals have been made to put "only a theory" disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks, and I'm not persuaded that we shouldn't be careful not to confuse the issue here as well by casual use of the term "theory" in the article.  Maybe we can accomplish cleaner prose and broaden the repertoire by tossing out other alternatives.  It would confuse readers as well if we adopted those terms used by Johnson above, ie "notion" and "intuition".  Those are problematic as well. Repeating, I think "argument" is fine.  What about "contention", "thesis", "premise", "position"? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the terms "premise", "(philosophical) position", and "argument" would work in the first sentence as a substitute for "assertion". Jenny 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument over theory-not-a-theory could very well be its own article. Semantics and Evolution sounds silly and there's probably a better name for it.  The issue is definitely mushy enough in public opinion that having a neutral, sourced, and well written article about it would be great, though WP:SYN and WP:OR present certain pitfalls.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like "thesis". "Assertion" sounds too much like something some one person once said once or just blurted out in the heat of an argument. In common parlance it is almost always used negatively. By using "thesis" there is even the chance that some people might read beyond the first line. I certainly might. Who knows what arguments we will be in for then though.66.96.243.12 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable, neutral source thesis is original research. Again, please read the archives. Odd nature (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK then, let's just go with sources and use "theory". 66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I said sources that are reliable and notable, not reliable divided by notable. Odd nature (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about relaible multiplied by notable (whatever that means), e.g., the AAAS and the Washington Post66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Odd Nature, you keep changing your position. Half the time you claim that anything not straight out of the sources is OR, and then you reject all sources on the basis that you know better. I'm finding the nature of this argument very odd. 66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are unclear on a specific source, I'm happy to clarify. Odd nature (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know better than the AAAS and you know better than the Washington Post so we can't just write what they say because we will confuse readers. 66.96.243.12 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PM, I understand if you're not persuaded (I'm not 100% myself), and I think this exercise has potential. (I'm aware of and sympathetic to the "only a theory" concern.) Of the alternatives to "theory," I think "argument" is probably best, and may be sufficient. One objection to "argument" is that it immediately suggests debate---perhaps ID amounts to nothing more than another argument against evolution, but we should allow our readers to reach that conclusion rather than implying it with our language. (I might be able to live with "argument.") The anti-argument argument applies more strongly to "assertion" and "contention." A second point applies more directly to the other proposals: ID is, or at least purports to be, something more than a single "premise," "position," or "thesis." Again, the conclusion that ID is little more than the dusted-off watchmaker analogy is one that the reader should reach on her own. ID is a collection of various lines of arguments leading to the conclusion that various things must have been "intelligently designed". It leans on a body of "evidence" (take your pick from among "God of the Gaps" targets), with a unifying interpretation. Mockery though it may be of true scientific theories such as quantum mechanics and evolution, I can't think of a better word to describe it than "theory." Unless the fear is that our article's use of the word "theory" would be taken entirely out of context to advance "only a theory" arguments, I really can't understand why any concerns about confusion aren't allayed by the prominent citation of "not science" statements by the AAAS. Gnixon (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "I can't think of a better word to describe it than theory." Yeah, the only term that ID proponents have been seeking for years to have their position viewed as, the one thing that the scientific community says it is not, and the one word that Wikipedia says to avoid. Go figure. Odd nature (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think all of us who've weighed in have made our points and nothing will be gained by repeating them. It's clear we won't all agree with one another on our first choice but maybe "argument" is suitable enough to most and we can move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I did express some uneasiness with "argument," but I think I could live with it (and it may be the best choice). I had forgotten about Britannica, which I find somewhat persuasive.  Gnixon (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Argument is fine. I see no problem with it. When it's added to the article, this discussion need to be added to the "Points that have already been discussed" list and the FAQ so that there is a record of the consensus. Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being subject to death threats and worse from assorted malconents, the use of the word "theory" is highly problematic. The number one complaint by far by creationists about evolution is that it is "only a theory". It relies specifically on the massive confusion by the American public on what is a theory, and what the difference is between a scientific theory and a theory. I have not seen statistics on this, but I would be willing to bet that not one person in 10 in the United States knows the difference between a scientific theory and a theory. Therefore, we are just playing into the confusion. Particularly in the lead, we have to be clear. That is the reason I previously (about a year ago) wondered if we should use the word "teleological". Let's not obfuscate things unnecessarily.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We can probably assume that our reader is one of the other nine, so I'd avoid the word outright. Some discussion of "what is a theory and what is not a theory" and how that plays into this debate is very notable and well worth covering, and it may very well be a full article of content.  It's part of the controversy, and a link to the more rigorous definiton somewhere in here seems reasonable, but only as a wikilink where it is clear exactly what we mean by Theory.  Whether Evolution is a theory or a Theory is beyond the scope of this article.  Just for clarification on these comments, I see no reason whatsoever to refer to ID as a theory.  I just don't think getting tangled up in the semantics of that word helps a reader understand the objections to the concept.  The justification for why it doesn't qualify is definitely worth covering.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea, and there might well be one. There are so many articles on subtopics involving the clash between creationism and evolution already I wouldn't be surprised.  Someday, given an easier map to find them all, and I can find myself several years worth of free time hiding somewhere, I do hope to read them all. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We do have Evolution as theory and fact which I have been slowly rewriting in a sandbox. However, given the current hostility towards any such topics I have pretty much stopped until I can work on these kind of articles without assorted attacks and threats.--Filll (talk | <font color="Green"> wpc ) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That works. Objections_to_evolution also exists, though these both explicitly address evolution and not ID. A subsection in the article you're working on specifically addressing ID (shouldn't be too hard to source, given that some of the sources are already here in the ID article) would be appropriate.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's an excellent idea in general, and both the pages you two linked have some good stuff to work with, even if not directly related to ID. At least they offer a starting point. Doc  Tropics  00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want some help on it, I'd be glad to pitch in. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph -- "avoid" to become ID "completely reformulated"..."in response to"
I have made a suggestion under section "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer" that has had received no response for 48 hours...and counting. But I'm sure people are interested in addressing this. You may want to review what's there, but here is my current suggestion:


 * "...creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science" - should be re-stated in more neutral terms - "creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to conform with various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science"


 * The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.


 * should be re-stated in more neutral terms:


 * The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who completely reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy in response to various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. (all footnotes maintained)

This goes back to my very first post: "avoid" and "avoid" LOOK biased -- please analyze this! The first "avoid" now has a supporting citation -- great! But the second "avoid" could be replaced with the superior in response to in conjunction with completely reformulated which carries the clear sense of a "revolutionary" re-working that arose neither from philosophical progress nor new scientific evidence; rather, it reflects a specific, even suspect (let the reader decide by examining the footnotes) response to the "various court rulings" mentioned.

But the second "avoid" is not as well-supported by footnotes 4,5 and 6 as "conform with" might be -- here's my reasoning: nowhere in the cited materials does it state "those rascally IDers, they were trying to break the law by avoiding these statutes." We might reasonably draw that conclusion, though the tone of "avoid" is sort of value-added (possible synthesis?); but "conform with" conveys the sense of changing to circumvent WITH RESPECT TO THE RULINGS (it follows logically from "reformulated") but carries none of the tone that casual readers might consider biased.

--Championdante (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * these strikethroughs and improved suggestion are an attempt to reflect developing consensus

I take no position on Intelligent Design -- quite frankly, I wish I'd never heard of it. Check my contribs -- I usually just fix physics formulas and spellings anonymously when I land on a page. But this multiple "avoid" thing is just not good writing -- especially with all the tempers around here -- and a viable alternative that just might quell A BIT of the fire. Once consensus is reached on this issue -- I'm outta here (wasn't planning on camping here anyway, so save your energy on the warnings please). Oh, for the heel of hard science, the cold antiseptic sting of English grammar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlS8O257Gi0

Archivers do your thing, but please retain this and the two germane sections: 1)Accepting the reality of the SUB-COMMUNITY 2)"modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer"

I cannot imagine, from reading the RFC, that any consensus concerning the stridency of this Talk page will ever be achieved. I came here to talk about two "avoids" and how they stink of disdain for a sub-community of scientists -- the two nicest people you'd ever want to meet! :) What I got wasn't a spirited discussion; it was a bloody brawl. I'm sorry I decided to visit during the whole OrangeMarlin thing -- I had no idea how horrible Wikipedia can be.

Talk pages should reflect "reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge...with a view to prompting further investigation." You each name yourselves king yet the kingdom bleeds -- George R.R. Martin

--Championdante (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider also "creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy because of various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science" (bolded text is the proposal). It doesn't imply any particular motive on their part, it's just cause -> effect.  "Conforming with" implies that they were doing their level and honest best to follow the rules, which doesn't quite match the impression I've gotten of their behavior.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you check the wedge document, you'll see that ID is avowedly and unashamedly part of a strategy of evasion, not accommodation. The word "avoid" is well chosen. --Jenny 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ID does not "conform with" "various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science" -- as was demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District‎. It merely attempts to obfuscate its non-conformity by replacing "God" with the code-phrase "intelligent designer". "Avoid" is actually a watered down description -- a more accurate one would be "evade" (cf legal 'tax avoidance' vs illegal 'tax evasion'). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If saying that ID was formulated "to avoid" the rulings is negative, then saying that it was done "to conform with" them is positive. I'd prefer the phrase "in response to", which I think is more neutral. It has the advantage that any partisan reader should be able to interpret it in a way that makes them happy, but it should not sway anyone else (if there is anyone else reading this article).  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like "in response to". That should satisfy everybody, I think. --Jenny 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "In response to" is good. 66.96.243.12 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for insightful input.

because of reflects reality, to be sure, but it's so totally devoid of reference to evasiveness (see Hrafn above on obfuscation of non-conformity) that it's not a purposeful reflection

conform with DOES INDEED carry a positive sense of accommodation to the casual reader which I did not intend -- (I was thinking letter-of-the-law conforming: I'm sitting down on the outside -- because it's the law I must obey -- but I'm still standing up on the inside!)

in response to IS CERTAINLY a better alternative to "to avoid" than "to conform with"

Now the question is how to reap the BENEFITS of the neutrality of "response" while maintaining the REALITY of the evasiveness that "avoid" represents. The key, I think, is to focus attention on the nature of the reformulation itself:

completely reformulated may upset an apple cart, but it carries the clear sense of a "revolutionary" re-working that arose neither from philosophical progress nor new scientific evidence; rather, it reflects a specific, even suspect (let the reader decide by examining the footnotes) response to the "various court rulings" mentioned.

I have made a strikethrough that I think reflects an emerging consensus -- this is 1) to avoid any ultimately unfruitful pursuit of using "conform" which I now see is unsuitable; 2) to incorporate the superior "response" for everyone's consideration; while 3) maintaining the reality of evasion, but in a subtler, more neutral fashion by adding "completely" to "reformulated" -- all footnotes maintained, of course.

But if editing out the strikethrough meets with approval by Somedumbyankee, Jenny/Regenerate, Hrafn and SheffieldSteel (and new IP address if returning) -- please do it so that the better suggestion can stand on its merits, without encumbrance.

--Championdante (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ID was not "completely reformulated" -- as draft versions of Of Pandas and People demonstrated, it was initially merely a very crude 'cut and paste' replacement of terms (without any changes in content), that has since slowly and partially differentiated itself from earlier versions of creationism. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) --Championdante (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was a crude cut and paste, perhaps we should revisit the word "reformulated" -- "reconstituted" carries the sense of a re-working without attributing sophistication of process, philosophical enrichment or response to new research.
 * I'd prefer "...Certain creationists first adopted the terminology 'intelligent design' (in the aftermath of or following) various court rulings in the United States that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science in the public schools". It's not good to imply a "motive" like this as an undisputable "fact" of the "idea" of ID.  Such might be an opinion, an inference, but one which is tangled by a lot of different players with somewhat unique motives initially, such as the earliest originators of the modern ID thesis, the spearheads of the ID "social movement" ala the Wedge doc, the scientists involved in ID associated specific fields such as irreducible complexity and special complexity, the FTE with early Pandas, and others.  I believe that in Forrest, the only source given in the article pertaining directly to the claim, she's put it somewhat differently: "following Edwards, a group of creationists decided to adopt 'intelligent design terminology'" to skirt etc.  "The idea was developed by", as it's currently put, isn't exactly correct: the "idea" didn't originate with Panda's and wasn't a response to the court decisions.  Numbers is a source, though, that Panda's (written by "certain creationists") was the first work to "promote" the ideas with the term "intelligent design".Professor marginalia (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design as an Inference
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on intelligent design currently describes ID as an "assertion". Under the topic Theory (above on this page), Gnixon asked us to consider "the question of whether 'theory' should be used to describe intelligent design". His question was discussed but there was no consensus in support of describing ID as a theory. During the consideration of Mr. Nixon's question, I quoted a definition of ID that was recently published by Jonathan Wells, who is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute.

According to Dr. Wells, "Intelligent design maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes" ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/what_is_intelligent_design.html ). Dr. Wells has used the word "maintains" in his definition of ID. The word "maintains," in that context, has the same meaning as the word "asserts." I therefore believe that the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on ID properly reads, "Intelligent design is the assertion that..." However, Dr. Wells' definition of ID offers us something new to consider. Might it be appropriate to revise the first sentence of the article to read,

"Intelligent design is the inference that 'some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes'."

I am not sure that I would endorse this revision. What do you think about it? The words "infer" and "inference" are used many times in the ID article.

Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's more of a premise. The premise is that the design inference is a useful one. --Jenny 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly what to call "the words that people make supporting ID" it is a bit of a problem. Look at the discussion about  "theory" (a word that many people feel is clearly inappropriate) a little ways up the page.  "Argument" and (wild guess) "ID proponents argue that" appear to be the consensus language from what I can glean, but you should ask user:Gnixon or user:Professor marginalia.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)‎ is, at best, a questionable source. An inference is: The problem with ID is that its conclusion (in the form of the conclusion of the teleological argument) predate its purported "empirical evidence" by several centuries. This makes it, at best, either (i) a restatement of (the conclusion of) an old argument, or (ii) a post-hoc attempt to buttress that conclusion with new evidence, rather than an 'inference', from scratch, from that evidence. To call it an "inference" would therefore appear to be misleading. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the act or process of inferring: as a: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b: the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
 * 2) something that is inferred; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference
 * 3) the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring


 * "Belief" would be a very good word, but I don't think it's commonly called a belief so it may not be apropriate to the article (WP:RS and all that). The reason why I describe it as a belief is because it's not susceptible to disproof.  That is the distinction scientists are making when they say that ID isn't a scientific theory.  There is no conceivable evidence that would disprove the belief that the natural world has an intelligent designer. --Jenny 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also "belief" doesn't take account of the number of YECs in ID, who consider ID to be simply a strategic 'thin end of the wedge' to get what the actually believe into schools. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I had just finished reading through the Wedge document when I wrote the above. :) --Jenny 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)