Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 59

Dogma by Consensus
I was disappointed to see the dogmatic and defensive tone of the FAQ section on this article. To reflect the current majority view of the professional scientific community that ID should not be considered scientific, an encyclopedia article should state that factual situation descriptively. The tone of the present article, however, intentionally takes up the cause of the majority point of view rather than simply describing it as such. Any educated reader could read the WP article and the Britannica article on ID and easily see the difference in tone. Would anyone like to discuss the bias of this article and the denial of its bias? Scoopczar (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not biased, see WP:UNDUE. ID isn't a scientific idea, it's at best a sociological phenomenon, at worst an outright deception.  Actually, it's probably both.  And no, we wouldn't like to discuss it.  ID is clearly, clearly nonsense, with the entire scientific community saying so, and an explicit part of the Discovery Institute's efforts to shoehorn religion into the scientific, educational and cultural sphere.  We give appropriate, due weight to the majority opinion, and because it is a publicly editable encyclopedia, are much more nimble than Britannica, thus able to much more rapidly integrate new sources.  While Britannica may have one article handled by, at most, a couple people, the wikipedia article has thousands paying close attention to the topic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I seems to me that WP's policy of giving due weight to the majority view would be best served by statements that simply describe that view as being the majority view rather than promote the majority view as true and beyond question. Of course, if one labels an alternate view as "nonsense," perhaps that settles the question without discussion--especially if "clearly" appears twice before "nonsense" and all the best people think so. Scoopczar (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have trouble separating the idea of "majority view" from "view that is supported by evidence". This article "promotes the majority view" because that view is supported by evidence as found in reliable sources, and Wikipedia articles have to report what reliable sources say. If that is an editing requirement you cannot abide by, you might find that your time is better spent on other websites that don't have such constraints. Raul654 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Scoopczar, it's biased, just like everything and everyone. But we can be grateful WP admits it bias;  few of us do.  Read Systemic bias, from which I've selected this excerpt:

Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. More university professors and computer programmers edit Wikipedia than do dental technicians, firefighters, flight attendants, plumbers, et cetera. This leads to a bias against full coverage of blue-collar subjects, employment, and practical skills, while obscure academic theories and minority subcultures are well covered.
 * Wikipedia carries the liberal bias of academia, and it says so. Ideally, it would be as professionally encyclopedic as Britannica, but it's too democratic (or oligarchical, however you see it) for that. Conservapedia carries the right-wing Christian evangelical bias. (They may admit it or even proclaim it, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know.)  Not being a liberal academician, I sometimes fret under this particular bias but try to work within its framework.  I honestly believe I have no bias whatsoever, but, thankfully, know better...but not well enough to identify what my bias may be.  Here's an open invitation to my fellow editors to illuminate me.  --Yopienso (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, thanks for your constructive comment. I believe that you have exemplified in it the best of WP policy and spirit to encourage honest inquiry and interaction. I appreciate the pillars of WP, and only wish that they were better followed in this particular article. As you say, I am biased as well. There are none so biased as those who insist they are not. I am not suggesting that ID be given equal weight, only a descriptive NPOV treatment. I agree that we are to report what RSs say, but not that we are to judge and promote a view we believe is best supported by the evidence; that is OR. We are to report such evaluations made by others from RSs in a descriptive manner. Editorial tone is a subtle thing, but when the purpose is to disparage rather than to describe, it comes through. IMHO if the ID article title were changed to "Why Intelligent Design Should be Rejected as a Deceitful Pseudoscience," and published on an editorial page of a periodical, the article itself would need little or no revision as it stands. Scoopczar (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the criticisms of ID? There's no science there and it is deceitful (as well as incredibly lazy).  It was specifically designed as a way of shoehorning god into the classroom, a religious theory with a patina of sciencey-sounding words and ideas.  Every, literally every proposed bit of evidence of intelligent design has been thoroughly and vigorously disproven.  There's nothing there.  Quite literally, ID is nothing but deceitful pseudoscience, used by a dishonest religious entity which ties itself in knots and lies to its audience to portray itself as the underdog rather than the truth that it's nothing but a mouthpiece for Christians trying to break the laws of their country.  This has been pointed out many times in many sources, so perhaps it deserves to be on the page.  In this case, the truth can be verified.  ID and the DI actively irritate me because they are both predicated on the populace needing to be tricked into believing in YHWH.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconding WLU. For WP to do its job here, this (ostensibly) scientific subject should be described as it is understood and perceived within the relevant context: the scientific community.  The reliable sources in this domain are unequivocal in their rejection of ID.  Its central ideas have either been undermined theoretically (in the case of Dembski's SC) or discredited empirically (in the case of Behe's IR).  And that's before one considers its patently dishonest formulation by creationists as an attempt to bypass education law (the Wedge).  It may well be the case that it is popular with a significant section of the general population, but an encyclopedia would doing its readers (who, lets not forget, have come here for factual information, not political opinion) a disservice if it presented a science subject without the scientific evidence that supports (or falsifies) it, or from the perspective of anything other than the broad scientific community.  Judged this way, ID is baseless pseudoscience, an eminently source-able characterisation.  Note that it is not us who are making this judgement, we are merely reporting it.  --P LUMBAGO  10:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem within WP policies with presenting in a dispassionate and descriptive manner any or all of the factual information from RS to which you refer. Let the facts, properly sourced, speak for themselves. My criticism of the article is that the passionate and intentional opposition to the ID movement reflected in some of the comments above are reflected in the article itself. One of WPs standards is not to be a forum for advancing one's cause. On a positive note, I do appreciate the places in your comments, WLU and Plumbago, where you leave off name-calling and give reasons for your position. As for this talk section, I think it has been revealing but will not likely lead to specific improvements for the article. So perhaps it should be closed. Scoopczar (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in that the discussion shold be closed, preferably using hat and hab. This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, it's not meant to be used as a debating forum on Wikipedia's treatment of the topic "intelligent design". Gabbe (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a specific issue being brought up, in that the tone of the article is sometimes not neutral, and it comes through. The article should not argue the "correct" position, but simply describe the facts.  Scoopczar referred to specific wording as the problem, specifically "nonsense."  Instead of getting defensive, why not re-examine the wording and how it might be improved to be more dispassionate and neutral? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Sxepto, my reference to "nonsense" pertained to a comment on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. @Gabbe - I just reviewed the Talk page policies and saw only that the Talk page should be about improving the article, nothing about limiting the talk to specific edits. Nevertheless, IMO, this talk section has run its course in terms of any benefits to the article. Scoopczar (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Thanks for the correction. Still, I think it's long past time to address some of the neutrality issues in this article.  I've been trying to discuss the issues with the lead, but getting little input. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sχeptomaniac, in this case there is clearly a correct position, and a blatantly wrong position. Much as the blood libel page shouldn't include a comment like "However, there is no proof Jews don't drink the blood of Christian babies" or the AIDS denialism page doesn't say "HIV may not be the cause of AIDS", this page shouldn't portray ID as anything but religon.  ID has failed every single test proposed and every example offerred has turned out to be flatly wrong.  It was explicitly created for religio-cultural reasons, and deliberately dressed up to look like a scientific theory in order to bypass decades of legal rulings.  There is absolutely nothing of merit about it.  Not even religiously.  UNDUE, FRINGE and REDFLAG all apply and none support the theory as being worth anything but derision.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the original issue raised--and this has everything to do with improving the article--was that the tone should not be "dogmatic and defensive," to which I will now add "derisive." The facts can be laid out clearly in a matter-of-fact, neutral tone.  I've not been able to quickly find a passage to cite as an example, as the whole article is permeated with "This is so wrong!"  As far as I know (I'm not a scientist) it is wrong, but HowStuffWorks, founded by an atheist whose other websites aim to disprove Christianity, presents Intelligent Design straightforwardly.  Notes: It's in the "Western Spirituality" category, the writer is not a scientist, ID creationism is once called a "theory."  --Yopienso (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went off half-cocked and need to think about this some more. --Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just re-read the article through and I am sorry, but your claims of it being "dogmatic and defensive" are utter rubbish. The article deals with the specific claims made by ID and explains why they are wrong.  This is not dogma, nor is it defensive.  In an article about a subject aimed at ordinary people, such as any Wikipedia article, not to point out the error of claims ostensibly made in the scientific domain would do a significant disservice to the reader.  As for deriding ID, it is not this article that does that, but rather ID itself.  It is ID that make the ridiculous claims, to try and pretend that they are anything else takes a special sort of thinking.  This article does not need to be corrected for NPOV violation because pointing out that a pseudo-scientific claim is in error is not POV, rather it is the very essence of NPOV. -  Nick Thorne  talk  23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) WLU, none of that has anything at all to do with whether or not the tone of the article is neutral. The same facts can be presented neutrally or non-neutrally. Deride ID all you want on your own, but that should not happen on the article; to do so violates WP:NPOV Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you point us to some specific lines in the article that you feel are most egregious? Blanket assertions that the article is not neutral are not particularly helpful since they don't guide our editing terribly well.  Does, for instance, the lead get the balance right?  Turning to your main point, how exactly do you think a movement predicated on explicitly breaking the spirit of the law by dressing up its particular religion (over and above all others, let's not forget) as science should be described here?  Science subjects, and this article describes something that is positively straining to be classified as science, should be described within the context of science with appropriate balance (cf. WP:PSCI).  As I noted above already, we would be doing readers a disservice if it is not abundantly clear that ID is judged pseudoscience by the scientific community (as well as an attempted end-run around the law).  --P LUMBAGO  08:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm about half-way through a complete read of the article and I also don't see a problem with the tone so far. It's very well sourced, and meshes completely with all of the scientific reviews of the idea, as well as the DovervKitz trial reviews I've read.  I ended up being impressed at how the neutral the lead was.  The body contains many descriptions by proponents, and immediately afterwards the mainstream position and reaction.  Nearly a point-by-point rebuttal, which I think is valid since the scientific community made a point of refuting every pseudoscientific claim made - just like they have for nearly every appearance of creationism in American history.  I would like to echo plumbago's statement - where, specifically, is the article problematic? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Compare the tone of |"Intelligent Design" in How Stuff Works with that of the WP article. In the HSW treatment, a detailed refutation by the scientific community is provided in a tone of description rather than persuasion. HSW is not an encyclopedia, but its respectful and objective tone while presenting strongly critical information would do an encyclopedia credit. Any one example of specific biased wording in the WP article will not convey the cumulative effect. As one example in the first sentence, however, there is a fierce opposition by some WP editors to any word that comes close to "theory" or even "theoretical" with regard to ID. I understand that ID does not meet the established criteria of a scientific theory, so to call it a "scientific theory" would be incorrect. However, the vendetta against the ID people by editors with an axe to grind is so pronounced that even the non-technical everyday use of the adjective "theoretical" as in "theoretical proposal" or the modified noun as in "proposed theory" is shot down in favour of a weasel word like "assertion," presumably chosen to substitute for "knuckle-headed nonsensical (but we mustn't say that) assertion." With regard to my original description of "dogmatic and defensive," Nick Thorne, I applied it not to the article itself but to the FAQ section of this talk page. Scoopczar (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but as you say we aren't how stuff works. What specifically is wrong, and should be corrected, on this page?  What specific suggestions do you have?  We aren't bound to be "respectful", we are supposed to represent the topic as expressed by the relevant experts - who have rejected it.  It has been pointed out that ID isn't a theory - it's a religious run-around of the scientific establishment.  The best you can say is advocates attempt to portray it as a theory, but it's not one and this is dealt with in the second paragraph.  It's not a theory by the scientific criteria of a theory, and it's not even meant to be a theory by its proponents.  We could arguably call it a religious proposition, or dishonest lie, but theory is clearly inapplicable.  Proposed theory doesn't work either, because it's not a theory.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, y'know, I wouldn't particularly mind seeing the word "assertion" replaced with "proposition". ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A neutral non-technical word such as "proposition" or "thesis" would be an improvement. WLU's suggestion that "dishonest lie" would be appropriate makes my broader point better than I can. Nevertheless, I do agree that further broad discussion of bias is unlikely to be fruitful here. Time to focus just on specific edits; that's my theory. Scoopczar (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Amatulić: "something offered for consideration or acceptance." Agreed, Scoopszar. WLU is largely correct, but the problem lies in being dogmatic about it, which can lead to long discussions, hurt feelings, and hairsplitting that impede progress on the article.  Merriam-Webster is not a fringe ID proponent, but it calls ID a theory.  So did the National Geographic 5 years ago.  So does The Free Dictionary. We don't want to call it a theory because we want to be more scientifically precise, but we don't have to think ill of the less precise or even the dogmatic ID proponents--arguments stand or fall on fundamentals, not niggling terminologies.  --Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with assertion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit summary, ID supporters don't just "propose" ID is correct, they assert it is, goes beyond the ID thesis itself into characterizing its supporters. The article isn't about ID supporters, but about ID.  Not all "ID supporters" are aggressive or even vocal; many don't go around "asserting" the idea;  they just quietly think it explains the Universe in a way that makes sense to them.  Every time an evolutionist speaks of his science he necessarily "asserts" it, but we wouldn't write, "Evolution is the the assertion that..."  (Even though we wouldn't, we could logically write, "Evolution is the theory that asserts..." What we actually say at the moment is, "Evolution is the change in the inherited  traits of a population  of organisms through successive generations."  Strange it omits the word "process."  Oh, well, that's another page. )
 * Summary:
 * 1. Let's focus on explaining the idea without speculating on the motives of the people who believe it.
 * 2. Let's realize "ID supporters", like "evolution supporters," vary in intensity of conviction and activism.
 * 3. Let's remember we aren't fighting for The Truth.  --Yopienso (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The strength of conviction of various supporters is irrelevant. It is evidence that matters. There is absolutely no evidence for ID, zero, zilch. Assertion is not a weasel word but dogma is. Religions have dogma but science has evidence.--Charles (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Neutrality
Does anyone else believe that this ariticle is very unneutral? The page does not make any reference to Id's strong points, like evolutions lack of transitional forms or Id's other strong points. (See Refuting Evolution or Icons of Evolution. These are good sources to get information from the Id point of veiw) For the record, I believe that all issues should be observed from both sides and should be veiwed with as little bias as possible.

Onestopsnackshop (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems just fine to me. The reason that it does not make reference to ID's strong points is that, frankly, there are none.  As per your example of a lack of transitional forms - there are many transitional forms: literally warehouses full of them.  We even have a nice article here at wikipedia with a sizeable list of them, complete with pictures.  Refuting Evolution and Icons of Evolution might be good sources of the ID point of view, but they are, sadly, not good sources of facts.  I don't know how to say this any other way, but they lied to you.  Over and over and over again.  A lack of transitional fossils is a lie.  The idea that the missing link is still missing is a lie.  Irreducible complexity is a lie.  The list goes on and on.Farsight001 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are gaps in the fossil record it only means that they have not been found yet. Only a minute proportion of living things become fossilised and of those only a tiny proportion are visible at rock surfaces at any time.--Charles (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Insofar as I understand the topic, all life forms are transitional forms. As for bias, the idea that both sides of an issue should be treated equally is in direct contrast to Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned similar concerns in the past. I don't think that both sides need to be given equal weight, but I think that the tone of the article could still use some work. Consider the lead, for example:"... The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that 'creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.' The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science. ... U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science ..." Wouldn't it be enough to call it "not science" once and to subsume the other redundant remarks into the footnotes? Eugene (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't reconcile what you just said with your proposal to insert this into the lead description of the pseudoscholarly theory that Jesus was an entirely fictional character:"'...it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.'" Anthony (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked out that list [|list] of "transitional" fossils. Right at the top is "Ida," almost certainly NOT a human ancestor.  Guess I'll have to check out the rest of them.  Actual evidence of a chain of evolutionary developments is mighty hard to come by. --Yopienso (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I resent your claim that those books lied to me, those are not the only books I have read on these topics. I have looked at the evidence, done my own research and come to the conclusion that evolution does not accurately explain the existence of life on earth. There are problems ported to be truth with and anomalies with it that cannot possibly be explained away and falsehoods (whether on purpose or by people too eager to believe in evolution) that are purported to be true even after the majority of the scientific community reject it.


 * Darwin himself mentioned it in the Orgin of Species. Darwin said that the lack of trabsitional forms would destroy his theory. There are many fossil anomolies that can not be explained(polystrata fossils, fossils in the wrong order and upside down strata.


 * People are smart, they just need to examine the facts on their own and not blindly accept something because someone with a large amount of letters after their names says it is true.

Onestopsnackshop (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Darwin said that, 150 years ago. We have 150 years worth of research and transitional fossils and better explanations since then.  Polystrate fossils were explained quite conclusively about 140 years ago in a book called Acadian Geology by John William Dawson.  Ironically, when creationist/ID organizations try to claim that there is no explanation for polystrate fossils, they often borrow an image from that very book.  This guy: [] Along with polystrate fossils, inverted strata and fossils in the wrong order (oddly, they are related issues) have also been explained for many many years.  I don't want to sound rude, but you obviously did the wrong sort of research.  Saying that those books lied to you is the nicest way I could try and get through to you that the game between evolution and creation is over - it ended a LONG time ago.  Creationists want to stay on the field and toss the ball around?  That's fine.  But claiming that the game is still going is simply dishonest.  Let me be more blunt this time around - those books are full of lies from the pit of hell itself.Farsight001 (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fossils out of order? Along the Jurassic Coast and around the Isle of Wight in southern England dinosaur fossils are constantly being eroded out of soft rocks and if not picked up by human collectors they will be redeposited in sediment at the bottom of the English Channel,along with baked bean cans and all the plastic debris of twentyfirst century living. Give it a few thousand years and there will be some fantastic "evidence" for future creationists to claim that dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans.--Charles (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you guys are just being rude. Keep the conflation between intelligent design and creationism out of this discussion, it's obvious he's talking about ID and not creationism and if you don't know the difference then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing here. It's well understood by most that this is a left leaning article, heck it has even be written about that it's a left leaning article. Serious work here needs to be done if ever this article is to reach a respectable stance of Intelligent Design. Ink Falls   20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ID is a form of creationism that was created shortly after the Griswaldo case tossed creationism out of schools. And what do politics have to do with science? Nothing. There are many on the right that can accept the evidence for evolution, so don't make this political. Aunt Entropy, 20:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Auntie. As for the discussion, while it's of general interest the talk page is not a forum and we make necessary assumptions about issues such as the validity of evolution which are fully discussed on other articles. Unless there's a specific proposal for improvement of the article, we should put a hat on this section. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to the original claim that this article is biased, I should point out that while the article does not present evidences in support of Intelligent Design (except for spelling out the most important concepts) it also doesn't present evidence against intelligent design. This is because a good article should NOT "present both sides", but rather should simply be neutral, reporting the facts and informing on the subject, rather than sponsoring any kind of debate.128.187.80.2 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has definite issues with keeping a neutral tone. The fact is that there are some facts in support of ID, leaving them out is indeed biased.  It's not just the issue with not presenting evidences in support of ID, while going way out of the way to show it's criticisms, it's the entire general tone of the article.   This article wouldn't pass anyone's reasonable test in terms of NPOV.   I'm no supporter of Intelligent Design, the lack of nuetrality is seriously just THAT obvious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.122.149 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Facts in support of ID? I've been looking for those for years.  What, pray tell, are some of them?  And can they be reliably sourced as is required for inclusion in this article?Farsight001 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Farsight, stop taunting the anon - you know there aren't any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Proposition" vs. "Assertion"
I replaced "assertion" with "proposition" in the first sentence and was reverted. I would like to discuss it and seek consensus if possible. An assertion is simply a statement that is declared without necessarily making a formal argument concerning it. It may also carry a weasel-like negative connotation in the context of a controversial subject. ID is not considered a "theory" in the technical sense, but surely it is a formal proposition in an intentional argument, regardless of whether the argument is true or false. What is the objection from a NPOV to the use of "proposition"? Scoopczar (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted, as I stated in edit summary: ID supporters do not merely "propose" ID as a suggestion, they much more forcefully assert it as fact. Yobol (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ID proponents do not simply assert their position "as fact." A fact requires no argumentation. ID proponents state their position and then seek to build an argument and to submit evidence. The consensus of the scientific community is that ID fails in this effort. Nevertheless, ID proponents fully recognize that their position is a proposition that requires a logical and empirical case to be built. I invite others to weigh in on the suitablility of "proposition," especially editors who have no strong feelings about the ID controversy itself. Scoopczar (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my post immediately above. Yobol is straying from the idea into personalities.  Not all "ID supporters" forcefully assert it as fact, and even if they did, it would be outside the scope of the article. --Yopienso (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To suggest that ID is a mere proposal or a suggestion rather than an assertion seems unusual to me, but I defer to the consensus on this issue. This particular phrasing has been brought up countless times before (search "assertion" in the archives) and it has stood up as consensus. I await other input to see if consensus has changed. Yobol (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ID was forced into classrooms with no actual support from any peer-reviewed sources, asserting it was true without proof, substantiation or even serious work. It was always a scientific screen over a religious idea that's little more than Paley's assertions from the 19th century dressed up with biochemistry.  Dover v. Kitzmiller clearly demonstrated this.  It was never subjected to actual peer review, merely handed directly to the public in the form of non-peer reviewed books and lectures from a pulpit.  Assertion is more accurate, it was never actually proposed in a meaningful way.  Not to mention it literally is creationism - witness it's use in Pandas and People where it was literally substituted word-for-word for "creationism".  It is not, and has never been a scientific idea, it's simply dishonest.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is true. I assert it belongs in Intelligent design movement, not here.  --Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proposition" (not 'proposal' or 'suggestion') is a formal but non-scientific term used to describe a position statement in an argument. What NPOV objection is there to the use of "proposition" in the opening sentence? Scoopczar (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I see "proposition" I see the Merriam-Webster definition of "proposition": "something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal". In other words, a suggestion or proposal. Yobol (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Yobol, "proposal" can be a synonym for "proposition" in certain contexts as can many other terms. Each term has its own connotations. The term I am talking about is "proposition," especially for its usage in the context of an argument. So what is your specific objection to the term "proposition"? Scoopczar (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That the most common usage of the term is as I noted above, and that provides an incorrect connotation for the lead of this article. Yobol (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direct reply, Yobol. I know of no reason to assume "suggestion" to be the most common usage of the term "proposition." Even if it were, the context of a formal argument, which is specified in the paragraph (i.e., ID as a form of the teleological argument) makes the usage of "proposition" clear in the sense of a formal statement to be defended rather than a mere suggestion. Comments from others? Scoopczar (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know of no reason to assume "suggestion" to be the most common usage of the term "proposition." Do you mean besides that it is the first definition in the dictionary, and therefore, the most common usage of the term (as with almost all definitions in the dictionary, it is listed in descending order of frequency of use)? It seems odd to me you would advocate the use of this term when it is now clear that is easily misinterpreted from what you intend it to mean.  Yobol (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see "suggestion" at all in the definition that you quoted. "Suggestion" seemed to be a word that you added yourself, unless I misread your comments. The definition that you quoted from Webster is consistent with a proposition in a formal argument: "something offered for consideration or acceptance." Whether or not it is accepted, of course, being subject to someone's evaluation of the argument and evidence. Scoopczar (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ID and the IDM are essentially indistinguishable. There are no proponents who are not religiously motivated, and the scientific community has been clear and universal that it's an untestable assertion designed to shoehorn god into the classroom.  Can people who believe it's a credible theory name any proponents who are not members of the discovery institute?  Or any scientific articles published in any peer reviewed journals that support ID?  I would venture the answer is no.  And Dover v Kitzmiller, the ultimate test of ID, found none either.  I would accept "theory" if it were phrased as "an assertion presented by its religiously motivated proponents as a theory, but the scientific community has determined is actually a form of creationism."  I've read several book on ID and Dv.K, it's quite clearly universally seen as worthless by anyone who isn't a creationist.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ID and the IDM are essentially indistinguishable. Why, then, do we have two separate articles?  --Yopienso (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, suggestion is a word I added, as an illustrative contrasting point to how I see the word "proposition" and as an obvious synonym for the word "proposal". You said that the connotation of the word was not meant to be "proposal", and yet you now agree with the dictionary definition that says it is? ID is not merely "offered for consideration or acceptance", it is pushed at all levels, from shady attempts to get peer-reviewed publications to local school boards to legislative efforts at the state and even national levels.  Trying to divorce the concerted efforts to push support for ID (which is not only one of the most notable aspects about ID and is widely documented in our WP:RS) from this article seems to me an obvious violation of NPOV.  As it appears we're going in circles now, I will await further input from other editors before replying. Yobol (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is a discussion of the word "proposition" for the opening sentence. Scoopczar (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Yobol was responding to my post of 18:48, 17 July 2010, which was about "assertion". --Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Two observations at this point: 1. Yobol and I appear to have different purposes. I am looking for a label for the statement (quotation) that follows it. Yobol is looking to for a label for the actions of ID proponents to "push support" for that statement through "shady attempts." No wonder we gravitate to different terms. 2. I did search and read the archives on the choice of "assertion." I can find no expression of consensus on its use. Quite the contrary. After vigorous objection and debate, the thread just dies. Apparently, "assertion" survived through exhaustion and default rather than consensus. Scoopczar (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scoopczar is talking about ideas and Yobol about people and their actions. Yobol is conflating the idea with its proponents. Because they are distinguishable, we have separate articles. S/he is also apparently unaware that most people are followers, not leaders/proponents/activists, and do no kind of pushing. Not everyone is in an armed camp, even here at WP. --Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the change from "assertion" to "proposition". The subject of this article is Intelligent Design (the concept or idea). We have other articles for subjects relating the the movement and its proponents. As such, the word we use to describe the concept need not be the same as the word most appropriate to describe the actions of ID activists.

The word "proposition" is also the most appropriate given the way the article labels ID activists: we call them proponents. A proponent, by definition, is "a person who puts forward a proposition or proposal." So even if we label the concept after the actions of its proponents, the best word is still "proposition". ~Amatulić (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "proponents" for those pushing ID is used because it is more polite than the word "IDiots". ID is not a proposition for the simple reason that there is nothing tentative about it, the "proponents" actively assert that it is true against all logical opposition.  If it was a true proposition they would be actively seeking review and confirmation (or refutation), whereas in fact that is the vary last thing they want.  They seek to actively change some fundamental definitions of what science is so that they can slip their theology into the science classrooms and think they can fool everyone into letting it happen.  I think some here are being disengenuous in their arguments supposedly in favour of NPOV when in fact it seems to me that what is being proposed is subtle POV pushing. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ID is not a proposition for the simple reason that there is nothing tentative about it -- A proposition does not become a proposition by being either meekly suggested as tentative or fiercely defended as Truth. A proposition is a position statement used in an argument. Is ID an argument? There seems to be consensus that it is (a form or variant of the teleological argument). Is the quoted statement in the opening sentence the central idea of that argument? There seems to be consensus that it is, otherwise we need to look for another statement to define ID. So what is the objection to labeling it as a proposition? That "proposition" fails to connote idiocy? WP is not intended as a forum for grinding an axe.

The word "proponents" for those pushing ID is used because it is more polite than the word "IDiots". -- If such name-calling is not POV-pushing, what is? Is it possible to get away from blasting away on the subject and proponents of ID and focus on NPOV in the article? Scoopczar (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break
For everyone who thinks there is merit to ID sufficient to give it the rather prestigious label of "theory", please review the List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design as well as the actual findings of Dover v. Kitzmiller: "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community…ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory." And this is from the defence - that would be the very people who purport to believe ID is science. For good measure, here is The Skeptic's Dictionary : "Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief asserting that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe and with an unlimited number of other metaphysical myths." And here is The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: "Essentially, most neo-creationists (among whom there is quite a bit of variation) do not believe in a young Earth, accept micro-evolution (though recently so do some classical creationists), don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and don't even call themselves creationists - the preferred term for their version of things is 'intelligent design'" The list article alone contains 25 scientific societies - and major ones at that. May I also bring attention to the National Center for Science Education's 60 societies opposing creationism - of which intelligent design is merely the latest version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one in the preceding discussion has proposed the term "theory." This new section represents a straw man argument against a potential edit that doesn't exist.  Scoopczar (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments for theory and proposition are similarly flawed as both attempt to portray ID as something scientific, as an explanation. It's not, it's a religious belief.  What I want to emphasize, to people who don't appreciate it, that intelligent design lacks merit.  People don't seem to get that undue weight is to portray it as anything but a fraud.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can a religious belief not be a proposition? We are right in stating that ID is not science, in that it deals with the supernatural, but I don't see how that automatically dismisses the idea that some proponents propose that it is true (or at least potentially true) rather than assert that it is. Is it impossible for someone to propose a religious concept? -R. fiend (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, ID does not proclaim itself a religious belief. Part of the scam relies on it being disguised as science to score an end-run against educational law.  If it explicitly labelled itself as religious, the game would be up.  Secondly, it may well have been fair to describe the original outlining of ID as a "proposition", since it was ostensibly being proposed.  But now, even though its ideas have been roundly discounted or falsified, describing its repeated "pushing" as a "proposition" is inaccurate.  Outlining it is now a straightforward assertion on the part of its adherents.  Much like with any other piece of pseudoscience.  Would we still say that homeopathists were "proposing" their outlandish ideas these days?  --P LUMBAGO  17:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it that the Skeptic's dictionary and encyclopedia are considered a particularly neutral source for wording of the lede definition? Why not Merriam-Webster?:

Main Entry: intelligent design Function: noun Date: 1847
 * the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence


 * This is not from the DI or some proponent, and it's not from an opponent. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "purported scientific theory"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @WLU -- In the context of modern science, "theory" has a specific technical meaning for which criteria must be met. "Proposition" has no such technical meaning in science.  It is a word pertaining to discourse and argumentation.  If your comment is taken at face value, using any term less disparaging than "fraud" is a violation of WP policy on undue weight.  Does that kind of editorial guidance really represent the pillars of WP?
 * @Plumbago -- Your comment seems to be all about the actions of ID proponents rather than labeling a position statement with NPOV. The statement itself is a proposition; we are not labeling tactics and strategies in this sentence.  Scoopczar (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. Saying the statement is not a proposition (a word I think is hardly POV in any direction) because of actions of some of its proponents seems to make little sense to me, and also smacks of original research. This article is about Intelligent Design in its broadest sense, is it not? Regardless of anything the Discovery Institute might do or say, there are lots of people who simply believe that life was consciously designed, for whatever reason. They don't necessarily insist they are right, and aren't necessarily part of any movement. ID in and of itself is basically just an idea, is it not? -R. fiend (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Thank you, R. fiend; that's exactly what I was trying to express in my posts of 15:44, 17 July 2010; 22:15, 17 July 2010; and 00:13, 18 July 2010. The proposition is one thing, the movement another; hence, the two articles. --Yopienso (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a page about a pseudosicentific fringe theory, making Skepdic and the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience appropriate sources. This is not a serious scientific proposition, it's creationism.  Would anyone here describe creationism as a theory?  The MW definition does not capture the contemporary sense of ID as expressed in this page.  You can't separate ID, as described in this page, from the actions of the proponents, because the actions of those proponents were geared towards concealing their intention, promoting this as if it were a scientific theory, and then forcing it into the classrooms.  The proponents never meant it to be an explanatory theory.  They never meant it to be used in and for research.  It's nothing but an updated version of creationism.  ID does not meet, and was never intended to meet, that specific technical meaning of "theory".  Please read the sources - the Dover trial transcript, Monkey Girl, Talk.origins, Why Evolution Matters, the Wedge document, Creationism's Trojan Horse, Tower of Babel, virtually anything about ID that's not written by the Discovery Institute or a religious proponent who has no understanding of science.  It's clearly labelled, described, and understood as not science.  The most honest way of describing intelligent design is as "not science" but a religious proposition.
 * AQFK, "purported" gets a bit closer, but it still attempts to explain it as if it were an effort to enter into the scientific arena, but it's not. "A concept used by the discovery institutite to replace creationism" is closer.
 * R. fiend, Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as thinking life was designed by intelligence - ID is an explicitly political strategy. You can read about this on the wedge strategy page.
 * The current version actually reads quite well and accurately to me - it is an assertion (in that it lacks evidence to support it, in fact it is actively contradicted by evidence), it is a contemporary teleological argument, and it was developed to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on teaching creationism. The sources that examine it in detail, the most expert sources particularly, are clear in treating it this way.   WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting off topic here quite a bit. When asked the question "what about the statement defining ID makes the word 'proposition' inaccurate"?, the response seems to be that IDers are horrible liars intent on destroying the entire field of science and the only reason the article doesn't call them fucking retards is because that might be slightly POV. Great, but how does that answer the question? This isn't the place to fight the culture wars; let's leave that to other outlets. Now, I don't think there's much of a push to call ID a theory here. While it is a "theory" in the loosest sense of the word (as in "I have a theory that flying saucers are actually time machines") using that word could imply that it is a scientific theory on the level of the theory of evolution or the atomic theory, which it is not. So let's put aside that argument for now; "theory" is not on the table. As for the argument that Intelligent Design is not the same thing as thinking life was designed by intelligence, well, this article defines it as "the [fill in the blank] 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.'" How is that different than saying life was designed by intelligence? And if it is not the same thing, then what is the term for people who believe that life was the result of design, and where can I find the article on that? Can someone please succinctly explain why the word "proposition" is not accurate? Or the word "idea" or "concept" or "belief"? I think we're making a big deal about a pretty minor point, but let's try to be as NPOV and accurate as possible. -R. fiend (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break two
A lot has been written since I brought up proposition as a replacement for assertion. At this point I'd like to summarize my take on the discussion. The lead-up was a section I started headed Dogma by Consensus in which I expressed disappointment with what I perceived as a biased tone throughout the article and a dogmatic and defensive FAQ section on the talk page. That general discussion ran its course and produced no consensus, but it did showcase the strong animosity of some page guardians toward ID.

Starting a new section on one specific example of bias seemed to be the next step. So I put proposition vs. assertion on the table. The quoted definition of ID in the article's first sentence could be correctly labeled many things. It is an assertion, a proposition, a statement, a belief, a position, and many other categories. It was and is my contention (hey, there's another term) that, in the context of controversy regarding this article, proposition better serves NPOV than does assertion. I believe that the proponents of assertion have made it clear in their comments above that their attachment to this term has something to do with a disparaging function they believe it may serve. WP's purposes and policies do not include disparagement. There are other places for such battles.

I think it is time to move the issue of this one word toward resolution. If there are no objections other than ID sucks and "proposition" is not sucky enough, I think I'll reinsert the edit. If it gets reverted again, it's probably time for some dispute resolution steps. Any constructive suggestions before I do that? Scoopczar (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have done a fine job of summarizing the landscape. Please be bold.  --Yopienso (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you make some very good points. Furthermore, those who assert that "proposition" is inaccurate would seem to state that anyone who proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause would not be advocating "Intelligent Design" unless they steadfastly asserted that this was the definite truth. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. The concept holds regardless of the degree to which it is presented. -R. fiend (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rots o' ruk being bold about this revision. This article is owned by rabid anti-IDers who insist that ID is equated with the Discovery Institute and want to associate all of the bad things about the DI organization with any concept that there may be more than material in reality.  Anyone who tried to tone down the POV was drummed out (they actually resorted to some very dirty tricks to get one objector banned from Wikipedia in 2007).  Eventually Raul will come and revert it, if no one else does, but there is only one NPOV allowed in Wikipedia and your NPOV is not it.  Neither is Merriam-Webster's NPOV. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself. I consider myself a "rabid anti-IDer", yet I must insist on neutrality and accuracy. And I agree that "proposition" serves the lead sentence of this article better than "assertion". As I stated before, the two main reasons are (1) this article is describing a concept, not the actions of proponents, and (2) "proposition" is more consistent with the definition of what proponents do, and we already use the word "proponents" non-controversially. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * IP editor, If you are familiar with the events around 2007 or so, then you know where I stand, and your comments are not helpful. There's already way too much soapboxing on this page. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IP editor, how does your comment help WP? Such bluster does nothing to promote cooperation, and you have made no constructive suggestion.  I'm blissfully ignorant of the 2007 episode, but your remark seems aimed at stirring up contention.  Please consider striking it.  --Yopienso (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys continue to reaffirm the case made by that editor that was evicted under false premises from Wikipedia. If you don't like what you read, then silence those who write it.  The contention exists, whether you recognise it or not.  It is about how contention is handled (fairly or not, honestly or not) which is salient. 71.169.187.208 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on assertion vs proposition. They both mean about the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Assertion more correctly captures the intent that it lacks evidence, that it is an explicitly political struggle and that it is used to conceal its true intent. Proposition implies a fair-minded and good faith attempt at explanation when it is not.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible for strong proponents and strong opponents to describe their views and the conflict in fairly NPOV terms. That may sound idealistic, but it is the stated goal of WP, and I do believe it is possible. Whether it actually happens or not is dependent on the relative good faith of the editors engaged at any point in time. We are asked to AGF. One way for an editor with strong feelings to look at NPOV is this: ''If I'm right (as I #@%& know that I am), the unspun facts will tend to bear that out. And if they don't (not really possible, but just sayin'), then I might learn something and be more right than I was before. In the meantime, maintaining NPOV might also help avoid ulcers and help to keep other WP articles more reliable when I need information.'' "Proposition" hasn't been reverted so far. Unless it is, I'm moving on. Thanks for everyone's comments. Scoopczar (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * proposition sounds fine to me its softer....I do have a Question are youngsters in public schools in the USA   being taught this or is it just Religious schools, the article is not to clear on this point as of today,,yes there are rulings but are people still tying teach this today....anyways great article ! Moxy (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * are youngsters in public schools in the USA being taught this in public schools - no, they are not. Attempts to inject creationism or ID into public school science curricula have been unanimously shot down by courts. There are certainly some fundies out there masquerading as science teachers who use their classrooms as pulpits (particularly in the deep south and bible belt), but they are not allowed to do so officially. Raul654 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting this topic...way out in left field...Is there any current court proceedings that we could cite to show its still a debate ..as a read more about this outside wiki i see there is still controversy over it.. or has the supreme court ruling not been contested. Just asking because the article leaves you wondering if this court outcome is  set in stone our still being argued.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple rulings in Federal court that creationism cannot be taught as science (including the Edwards Supreme Court case). The Dover trial found that ID is another form of creationism and as such, cannot be taught. The Dover court's ruling is technically not binding on circuit court in other Federal circuits, so I suppose it's possible there could be another case like Dover. And it's theoretically possible that the court in that case could rule differently (which in turn would trigger an appeal and possibly a Supreme Court case). But realistically, no school board is going to put itself in the position of the Dover School Board, so I think that's the end of the line for ID. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I obviously continue to disagree, and though ID is obviously nonsense (and anyone who thinks otherwise has not done any research beyond Christian apologetics), it is obvious that consensus is against me and I must perforce accept.
 * Echoing Raul, Dover killed ID dead. It's over and now doubtless the DI is attempting to discover the next beard with which to conceal creationism to shoehorn into the innocent and confused minds of schoolchildren.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious acquiescence. I don't think the article has compromised the facts.  For the record, Kitzmiller v. Dover has no more killed ID than Brown v. State Board of Education killed segregation in 1954.  The schools I went to in Florida were 100% segregated until 1967, when a token number of black (the correct word then) students were sent to white schools.  See what happened this spring in Texas:  The State Board of Education on Friday passed science curriculum standards that members described as a compromise between those who are critical of teaching evolutionary theories without scrutiny and those who feared attacks on evolution would lead to the teaching of creationism in Texas schools.  After the 13-2 vote, it was social conservatives on the board who were doing most of the celebrating while scientists expressed concerns.   That's why we'll have to keep re-editing these articles for years to come.  --Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering ID was designed for the sole purpose of cheating religion through the first establishment clause and it failed dramatically at that, I kinda doubt it. The news article shows they trotted out the "teach the weaknesses" bullshit, but "intelligent design(er)" was only used once to refer to the DI's beliefs. ID will probably not appear in classrooms, but they'll still obfuscate about believing in God using the term. We'll see, but considering that was in 2009, it may or may not have gotten worse. More recently, the creationist on the board got the boot, but then they decided that letting an actual scholar able to demonstrate how stupid creationism is give a talk was not neutral. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry--I gave the wrong link. Just this spring Texas had another big textbook debate.  Here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html  I was following this in the news;  you can find lots of sites.  It's not just science, but social studies.  Google "Don McLeroy" and "Texas textbook controversy." This issue will not be settled for public schools in the US Bible Belt for years. --Yopienso (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Correlation with education levels
Thank you all for clearing that up..As an Atheist i find this very very intriguing...I have found lots of info showing a direct relationship between education levels and lack of progress in nullification. But i guess this would be to POV and deeming to the article ingenreral to add. Moxy (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A source can be reliable or not, but not really POV, though it can be undue weight to include too much text on it. For this article you would need a source explicitly linking ID with "lack of progress in nullification" (not really sure what that is) but overall your sentence is unclear to me.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i was unclear..what i have found is that areas of the USA/World for that matter with populations that have very low income and thus lower post secondary degrees are the areas that have pushed the belief..So basically education levels are the main  factors behind the  differences between the 2 sides ..well after the belief in god. Just think we should show that the more educated an area/community is the less ID is a factor. Moxy (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have to present the sources first (or edit but with the sources as references). If you want to discuss, I would suggest starting a new section with the sources included for everyone to review.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i will add a new section when i find more studies like this one--> War Against Reason: The “Intelligent Design” Scam, but are this valid and with undo weight. " A 1999 Gallup poll showed that a startling number of people (38 percent) believed wholly in creationism, 43 percent believed in a more intelligent design-like theory, and only 18 percent of those surveyed believed in evolutionary theory as the sole explanation for the origin of humans. The same poll showed that increasing levels of education correlated with a belief in evolution (65 percent with postgraduate degrees versus 20 percent with a high school degree). Moxy (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks more like an opinion piece than a study. You'd be better off finding the 2005 study by Ushma Neil itself rather than the linked source.  It's a rather equivocal quote for what you're proposing, but perhaps the original study is more thorough and contextualized.  It doesn't seem to be in the current article.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of a question i had earlier... is Christianity the only organized belief system  that has followers of this theory or have others also jump into the debate? Moxy (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that some Muslims have joined the ID bandwagon as well. Your initial point is quite valid, but I doubt we can come up with a valid source saying "only idiots believe in ID".   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 07:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not confuse religious faith and the beliefs that entails with science. I know many intelligent people of faith who can tell the two apart and who look askance at proselytizing religion under the guise of science and the gullible who are taken in. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Source

 * 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Uneditable
I just tried to remove some blue from the lead, but the text is basically uneditable because of the templates. This is the lead in edit mode, except it's worse than this because the templates are vertical&mdash;and I don't know how to reproduce that here&mdash;so it's even harder to get an overview than what you see below. We really shouldn't allow articles to be referenced this way. It is a clear bar to editing. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good, what changes are you proposing? . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The templates removed and/or the number of references reduced. It has 248 footnotes, presumably all templates. And some of the lead sounds not quite right&mdash;for example that it was invented by Americans to get round a school ruling? None of the sources cited say that, and it sounds wrong. Do you have a source who says it explicitly? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking just the first source cited, "Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content... This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God." More available on request, suggest you open a new section if you want to propose alternative wording. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We need a high-quality source who says what the sentence says. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are high quality sources, and your statement above suggests that you've misread the sentence concerned. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this more like you wanted the text to be displayed?
 * —WWoods (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for fixing that! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead begins:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country". In:
 * "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Dover trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. lead ends

preceding extended comment added by User:SlimVirgin 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that embedded references make it extremely difficult to edit (required purgatory). I use WikEd&mdash;I'm wondering if there's some editor that collapses templates and/or tags. Taking the extra comments out might help. Also, as long as you're not ":"... indented, you can insert line breaks without starting a new paragraph, so...
 * text... 
 * put following text on next line...
 * Just a thought&mdash;it's not pretty but it helps a bit. Alternately, named refs don't have to be defined the first time they are used, I can think about how we could bundle them together at the end. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May I interject here, and note that the referencing of the article developed during a period when citation systems changed significantly, and was redone [twice, I recall] to meet new systems of inline citation. There's now a newer optional system where all the reference templates are moved to the Reflist section, where they are hidden, and only the inline citations in the form appear in the text. Makes for easier editing of the text, but rather a fiddle when dealing with new or deleted references. . .  dave souza, talk 08:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The difficulty lies with the number of templates and also the sheer number of references, so it's unconnected to reference systems changing. Also, the lead reads more like an attack than a summary of the ID position and a summary of the criticism. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:GEVAL. . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't refer to a part of a policy that was written with this article in mind, in order to defend a version of the article that attacks the concept before explaining properly what it is. :) You're in danger of disappearing in a cloud of self-reference. :)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first part is a quotation of the definition of the proponents of the idea, and your edit changed their statemant as well as removing useful references. Please discuss fully before making such drastic changes to a fully discussed lead introduction which you apparently don't understand. Be clear – this version states the concept and states what it is, it's a stretch to call that attacking the concept. . . dave souza, talk 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently pushed for a more condensed, to-the-point lead (which I think would also help with those who feel the lead has a slightly non-neutral tendency), but just gave up when counter-proposals actually sought to make it worse. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term
I can't see how it can be argued that the first significant uses of the term were in the 1980s. This is a very old term, a very old idea. Which are the very best sources for the claim that the term was first used significantly in the 1980s, or that its use then was different from earlier uses? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question is answered in the third paragraph of the "Origins of the concept" section: Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.[37][38][39]. Intelligent design in that sense was new and different from previous uses of the term. Raul654 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  SlimVirgin's failure to see it suggests that she's not read the article properly. The words "intelligent" and "design" have commonly been used together as a description of design, the novelty was in introducing the phrase "intelligent design" as a synonym for creation science, a variant on the old idea of the teleological argument. As is shown in the article. . . dave souza, talk 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you post a source here that makes that clear? There are so many refs and of varying quality, so it's hard to see which source you're relying on. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do in due course, but could you please stop removing references. Your additional sentence seems reasonable to me, so I've kept that addition in the interim. . .dave souza, talk 14:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend that you watch NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, an award-winning documentary on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It provides a very good background on the recent history of creationism in the United States of America. 146.189.245.231 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The references are repetitive and some of them very poor. We need to focus on quality, not quantity, because with so many references, it becomes impossible to see which ref supports which point, so that text-reference integrity is destroyed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tightened lead
I've tightened the lead, removed repetitive refs (down from 24 to seven), and removed templates, so that it's now considerably easier to read and edit. Before and after (please go into edit mode to see the difference when editing). Even some of the existing refs are either not needed, or are primary sources and should be replaced with secondary ones. Side by side below.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * very well done nice consolidation..however could we redo the line "The concept is an old one, but it emerged in its modern form in response to a..." As its not clear what old is ....lets say something like.. "An ancient concept that has recently emerged in its modern form in response to a...". what do you think??Moxy (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, you're right; ancient is better than old. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)