Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 60

Deterioration
There seems to have been some deterioration of the article since its promotion to FA. When promoted in 2007 it was 7,145 words long with 134 refs, very few of them templates, so the article was easy to load and edit.

Before my recent edits, it was 10,418 words with 248 refs, all of them templates. This makes the page slow to load (I even had to reboot once during the recent edits), especially when doing diffs and preview, and very difficult to edit, made worse by the use of vertical templates. The templates and the over-referencing are both a bar to editing. It look me around three hours to make modest changes that would normally have taken half an hour or less (actually, considerably less). A newish editor would have very little hope of wading through it without getting into trouble for leaving the article a mass of missing refs.

That's not to mention the tone, which is a separate issue. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for the claim that it changed in the 1980s
I've just looked through some of the philosophy books I have here, and I'm seeing the term intelligent design used throughout in a way that seems identical to this use. Can someone provide a high-quality no-dog-in-the-fight source who says that this concept of ID is different, and that it developed in response to the 1987 case, or in the 1980s at all? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of how it is used in your philosophy texts? NW ( Talk ) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In just the same way it's used here (so far as I can tell), as part of the teleological argument. It's a very old concept, so I'd like to see a source who confirms that something significant about it changed in the 1980s. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute (obviously someone with a dog in the fight) says, "[Charles Thaxton, editor of Pandas and People,] found [a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with "creation" but one less ponderous than "intelligent cause," and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto. ] in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist--intelligent desgin [sic]. "That's just what I need," Thaxton recalls thinking. "It's a good engineering term.... After I first saw it, it seemed to jibe. When I would go to meetings, I noticed it was a phrase that would come up from time to time. And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." Soon the term "intelligent design" was incorporated into the language of the book." NW ( Talk ) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We need an independent high-quality source. This just describes someone who didn't know it was an old term. If WP is to say it's new, we need to say who is saying this, and how it's new. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Barbara Forrest would be the most authoritative source to cite. She has built her academic career documenting the DI movement. Specifically, something like this http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/]: ''

In Creationism's Trojan Horse, Forrest and Gross examine in full detail the claims and operations of the “Intelligent Design” movement, the most recent manifestation of American creationism. Explaining and analyzing what “design theorists” call their “Wedge Strategy,” they document the Wedge’s aggressive political and public relations campaigning. '' The problem is that pretty much anyone who writes about the DI has a "dog in the fight" so your ruling out all the expert a-priori. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the claim for now. It's sourced to one opinion expressed in that court case (a primary source), and the source is actually saying it has not changed. This is a philosophical idea, so we need some high-quality philosophical sources (more than one) or similar telling us it changed in the 1980s and how. Raul, what you posted above doesn't say how or whether the concept changed. How it is marketed is a separate issue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that that particular quote on that particular website is something we should cite; I'm saying that that book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse" is by the world's leading expert on the ID movement. The book traces the history of the ID movement, and therefore it's the logical place to look for an answer to your question. Raul654 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see where she discusses its strategy, but not where she says it has changed, or that a new concept emerged in the 1980s. If you have some page numbers that would be helpful. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't own the book and I haven't read it, but from looking at the table of contents, I think chapter 1, "How the Wedge Began'', would be the logical place to look. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at that, but it's about the marketing rather than how or whether anything changed, but google won't let me see it all, so perhaps it's in the missing pages. We do need a solid source before we add it to the article, and if it's only one person saying it, we need to attribute it in the text.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The book is available on google books. The answer to your question can be found on pages 16 and 17: There is now, however, a new variant of the old (anti)scientific creationism - a no-holds-barred commit to a particular, parochial religious beliefs about the history and fabric of the world and the place of humanity in it... This lusty new variant of creationism is advancing rapidly by means of a strategy called 'The Wedge.' We begin our account of its operations with its own (true) origin story. The wedge is a movement with a plan to undermine public support for the teach of evolution, while at the same time cultivating a supposedly sound alternative "intelligent design theory " (IDC hereafter). The wedge of intelligent design, which is simply a restatement of the ancient argument of design, did not arise in the mind of of a scientist, our in a science class, or in a laboratory, or as a result of scientific research in the field. It appeared in the course of one man's personal difficulties after a divorce... [Forrest goes on to describe how it occurred to Phillip Johnson in the late 1980s, and how Johnson himself dates it to 1992]. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, so she's describing the beginning of the movement, as she makes clear in her Daily Kos interview. But not the beginning of the idea. If it's not the same as the teleological argument, we need a good source who says that it differs and how it differs. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I can't find a single journal article which goes into the history of creationism/ID (which is all I have access to at the moment, no books for me) that uses the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to anything pre-1980. It is clear that the phrase was used before 1980 though (per the numerous mentions in our article), but I think the fact that no article that I have read goes into it is certainly significant. NW ( Talk ) 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the very first sentence, Forrest calls ID "a new variant of the old (anti)scientific creationism" and goes on to say that ID "is simply a restatement of the ancient argument of design." She then proceeds to date this new spin on an old idea to Phillip Johnson in the late 1980s. Your were asking us to provide a source to answer the question 'did ID gain a new contextual meaning in the 1980s? " From the above paragraphs, the answer is clearly yes. I don't really see how much more clearly it can be sourced. Raul654 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have one person saying in effect "it's a new idea," and then saying "no, it's not." :) We need someone to tell us what the new variant is, what the spin was, if it is new at all.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We need someone to tell us what the new variant is, what the spin was, if it is new at all.'' - this is already covered in great depth in the article. To summarize:
 * The teleological argument says that (1) aspects of the universe show evidence of design; (2) this implies a designer; (3) that designer is God.
 * ID says that (1) aspects of the universe show evidence of design; (2) this implies a designer; (3) We don't care to speculate on who or what that designer is - it could be God, or aliens, or who knows what.
 * As should be obvious from the above, ID (as it was formulated in the 80s) recycled propositions #1 and #2 from the teleological argument, and changed in the #3 deliberately to avoid court rulings against creationism. So some parts of ID are old, and other parts are new. If you're approaching this from a black-or-white, either it's new or it's not angle, you're not thinking about it right. Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the arguments. What I'm asking for are sources who explicitly say this. The article has to be based on high-quality secondary sources, with primary sources used to augment, and the article has to say what the sources say, without going beyond them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have Forest and Pennock, another philosopher of science. I'm a bit lost and not clear what exactly needs sourcing. What exactly is the sticking point here that we need to look into?  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A source who makes clear that the difference between ID and the teleological argument/creationism is that we don't say the designer is God. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The clean and neatest I can put my hands on quickly is from, Science and Religion: Understanding the Issues which lays it out in a table. Rows "Teleology" and "Theodicy", columns "Creationism", "Intelligent Design" and "Theistic evolution".  For teleology and intelligent design it reads, "there is design, therefore there is a purpose" and for theodicy it reads "ID brings God, excluded by Darwin, back into the beauty and horror of nature".  It is footnoted, "For comparison purposes, God is specified as the designer in the intelligent design column, although ID proponents do not insist on God as the designer". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick Matzke goes into the issue in some depth in "But isn't it creationism? The beginnings of "intelligent design" in the midst of the Arkansas and Louisiana litigation" in Pennock & Ruse's edited volume But is it science? : the philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr Roy Spencer has a handle this Theology/Philosophy, perhaps reference his views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with "SlimVirgin" above, regarding teleological. associating this with creationism is politics. Perhaps this subject should have a "Politics of Intelligent Design" section ?


 * It would be helpful if you could create an account and log in to post. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got many sources that explain ID but I think the key here is we be more careful against too much conflation or lumping by applying one aspect or chapter in the story to cover broader questions. At the center of it is Kitzmiller, which didn't put ID on trial-it judged ID as it was implemented in Dover PA in trial.  ID is the DI brand of the teleological argument, packaged and promoted to further religio-political goals, and one of those promotions resulted in Dover using an obviously genesis based creationist-textbook dolled up as ID with the clear intention to teach creationism.  That textbook (Pandas) was cosmetically dolled up because Edwards v. Aguillard made it impossible to use in schools in it's original form.  Then what gets all confused is when ID itself is labeled a response to Edwards, which is an overstatement, or at the very least, legitimately debatable.  ID is not narrowly defined by what's in Panda's.  But much of the testimony given at Kitzmiller does apply to ID more broadly.  But make no mistake-the teleological argument is considered creationism today.  It's not the Morris style "Genesis as history" creationism, but it is creationism.  The DI proponents of ID have tried to dissociate ID from creationism by not specifically identifying the designer as "God" but that effort hasn't gotten them far, for numerous reasons. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That it purposefully avoids specifying the designer
I'm having trouble finding this: "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 souce is Numbers, Ronald. The Creationists. Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 373, 379–380.

I'm looking at the paperback, so the page numbers may have changed. Can someone post what he says exactly? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got the book. Might take me a few mins. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On page 373, "ID, as it came to be know, captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted that it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins--one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.'" Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the mid-1980s."
 * On page 379, "From the beginning, ID theorists quarreled with their critics over the identity of intelligent design. Was it a revolutionary new scientific paradigm, or merely 'the same old creationist bullshit dressed up in new clothes?' ...Hoping to distance themselves from the intellectually marginal creation scientists and to avoid endless niggling over the meaning of the Mosaic story of creation, design theorists carefully avoided any mention of Genesis or God, although as one of them confessed to some fellow Christians, referring to an intelligent designer was merely a 'politically correct way to refer to God."
 * And on page 384, Michael Behe was described as winning recognition as a "modern-day William Paley" (18th century natural theologian famous for his use of the teleological argument).Professor marginalia (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Some useful sources
Firstly, the changes remove a carefully considered balance from the lead, and appear to me at first glance to go too far in segregating views, violating WP:STRUCTURE, removing useful and informative sources, and rephrasing sections to give undue weight to minority views.

In the interim, I've made some modifications and improved the balance on the basis of. This source covers much of the same ground. and may also be of use in improving the article. . . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #A3 technical problem
Right now, FAQ #A3 reads "A3: No. The article does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[dubious – discuss] Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim.[7][9][10][11]" (emphasis mine)

However, in edit mode, I see "A3: No. The article does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. "

Why does the dubious tag show up in view mode, but not edit mode? NW ( Talk ) 19:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was there for me. But I removed it, since I can't find the pertinent discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave's edits
Dave, you're partially reverting, removing material that is well-sourced. Some questions:


 * Dembski's book was published by CUP; why would it not be peer-reviewed? The source says it was, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't have been. Do you have a source that says it wasn't?


 * I don't know what this means (oddly written): "because it is not testable to meet the requirements of the scientific method.


 * Why did you remove the counter-argument (secondary sourced) that Darwinism also isn't testable?


 * What is your reference for it starting in the 1980s?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For that last question, see p. 373 of The Creationists which is cited. And quoted in the section above. While the teleological argument has been around for a while, the modern incarnation of ID began in the 1980s. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sembski's book is dubious, AFAIK it was not introduced as peer reviewed work in support of ID in Kitz 2005 and certainly wasn't accepted as such, so it's a stretch to include it in the lead. Even if it's peer reviewed it probably doesn't support ID. 2nd, ID can't be tested to meet the scientific method, and its proponents have failed to show any possible tests. "Darwinism" is commonly used by creationists to mean evolution which is testable and has been tested – their argument is a red herring which was resoundingly thrown out at Kitz – read the judgement. See cited source for when it started, and note that Pandas was promoted by the IDists as describing intelligent design right up to 2005. They chose it, see when it was published. Also note Buell's description of it as the first use of the term. Gotta go to bed, but please bring these dubious ideas up in talk before introducing them into the lead. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, we have to reflect the sources.


 * The book would have been peer-reviewed, and we have a source saying explicitly that it was. Do you have a source that says it wasn't?


 * As for the second point, philosophy arguments aren't settled by courts! The counter-argument is that Darwinism is not falsifable, and the article must be neutral. It is about ID and that is their argument. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ???? Wait up. This isn't arguing from sources. This is arguing "with", "on behalf of", or "in place of" the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To support Dave's point - Darwinism, which is not a testable theory, is distinct from (and only tangentially related to) The Theory of Evolution which is a testable theory; although it appears there may be some national/cultural differences in how the terms are used. Doc  Tropics  22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The court was required to rule what the scientific view was, and it did, as described in various sources including that given above. Do you have a source showing that the book actually supports ID, or just uses some woolly phrases about "design" without describing the concept? The counter argument is fringe and should not be given equal validity, as well as being rubbish repeatedly shown to be such. Also, don't give false equivalence by attributing clear overwhelming majority views. Per WP:ASF, "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the article
Dave, this is not acceptable editing. It seems that whatever you personally agree with is stated as fact.

The article is not up to current FA standard. It comes across as an attack page, rather than a disinterested description. It's over-referenced, but many of the references are not high quality. It's repetitive, and very hard to edit because of the templates. The bits I've checked so far aren't necessarily borne out by the sources. It focuses on the politics, rather than the concept, and the concept is a philosophical idea, yet I'm not seeing that many philosophers used as sources. Dave, you elsewhere strongly argue that sources must be specialist, but here you're relying on a court case (a primary source), the text of which you yourself added to Wikisource, as well as various websites. The article should rely on academic sources who specifically discuss the concept. These things do have to be fixed. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, regarding that reversion, both Dave's and yours are factual. The only difference is that Dave's doesn't unnecessarily attribute accepted facts to specific sources. This has nothing to do with personal agreement or disagreement. Historical facts should be referenced, but there is no need to clutter the article by naming the historians. I doubt that anyone on either side of the debate would have a problem with the historical timeline of the ID movement.


 * Rely on academic sources? It's tough to find such sources except those peer-reviewed within the ID community itself. The rest of academia pretty much ignores ID. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Philosophers have been writing about ID for thousands of years; I doubt they have suddenly stopped. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't conflate two different things. The ID of the post-1980s is what was called "creation science" prior to that. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not this ID. Actually, is an academic source, as is Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks, Kevin PADIAN1 and Nicholas MATZKE, Biochem. J. (2009) 417  (29–42) which covers some of the same ground. Also, the Kitz judgement is a reliable secondary source, as these academic sources confirm. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for stating as fact, once again with feeling, WP:NPOV section WP:ASF, "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." dave souza, talk 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not shown that it's a prominent view that it began in the 1980s. The next source (an academic) says everyone agrees that it began in the 1990s. To state one as fact and the next as opinion, with no explanation, is poor editing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Slimvirgin. Not saying that all your criticisms are unwarranted, but I think you've got an ill-formed picture in your mind what the article is supposed to say, and how weakly most of these claims can be sourced. Kitmiller (which I've already warned should not be overused) relied heavily on the testimony of philosophers. And most have all published on the topic.  ID is more of a movement than a philosophy.  It has as its underlying philosophy the view that methodological naturalism be overturned.  That's not what ID is, but that's at the core or their underlying philosophy.  It's founders have come out and said this very thing--ID is Big Tent movement to accomplish this. The argument from design is not even purported by ID proponents as a philosophy.  They'd characterize it as an empirical conclusion, not a philosophy.  But to do so they have to go beyond methodological naturalism, which, in today's modern context, means that it sacrifices claim to being scientific. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should be using the philosophers as sources, not the court case in which they testified. My point is not to argue it out on the talk page, but to have the article well written and well-sourced, and actually explaining what the concept/movement is, before it's attacked. :) Currently it's almost all criticism, and really not well written (very repetitive). If it's going to retain its FA status the writing does need to change.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I haven't read the article in a good while. But I seriously recommend everyone calm down and go-slow on any big changes.  Chaos won't help us any sorting this out. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a read of it then, and let me know what you think. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

At least three good sources confirm the 1980s, Pandas appeared in the '80s and as discussed above it was the exemplary ID textbook until, oops, it got dissed in 2005. Your philosopher says most people says it was Johnson, a common misconception. Do please read the article with more care. Also note it's a religious, political and legalistic argument as much as a philosophical one, and by a remarkable coincidence we show sources for all these aspects. Or did, until you started deleting sources. Gotta go now,. . dave souza, talk 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are the three good sources? And it was a misconception that Johnson started it, or it's a misconception that most people think he did? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotta go for today, but will leave this quick one. Pandas 1989 was the first published use of the phrase "intelligent design"-also sourced in Numbers, page 375. And Numbers is as sound a source as one is likely to find on this topic. Johnson didn't come up with the term, although he was essentially the linchpin of the ID movement, which was a coalescence really of lots of factors: Buell, wanting to sell lots of copies of his creationist textbook and being stymied by Edwards v. Aguillard, along with figures like Dean Kenyon and Michael Denton who'd returned to the argument from design in books written in the mid-1980s (Kenyon joined up with Buell for Pandas), and Philip Johnson's published criticisms of materialism and methodological naturalism.  About this time they began working in concert to promote this newly formed ID movement. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what needs to be remembered here, is that an article about a religous belief should first describe the belief or movement as its inherents view it or themselves, without any pejorative or impeaching information. Then, any criticisms of it can be added, but not in any more weight than the believer's section. Looking at the current revert war, it appears that SV's edits are helping this to happen in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I would like to see for this article is that someone who's never heard of it can come here and learn (a) what the concept of ID is; (b) what the counter-arguments are, and (c) what the social, political, and legal context is within which it developed. Clearly laid out with a strong structure, good writing, and high-quality sources that are very clear (claim, click, source that makes that claim, no ambiguity). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. When this article went through FA review, I outlined my concerns with it, but only a few were followed-up on.  I should have then voted for it to be delisted, but I didn't.  As you said above, it still reads like it was written by someone who thinks ID is a bunch of hooey.  If you are going to spend some time trying to fix that, then the regulars here should be trying to help you, not get in the way. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars, of course, can be mistaken, especially in a hot political issue such as this. If SlimVirgin can clearly document prior use of essentially the same idea, then it does not matter how many people mistakenly wrote that ID started in the 1980s.  If, as Dave souza writes above, the use before the 1980s was "Not this ID", then he will have to document how it differs.  Remember, this article is about all "Intelligent Design" not just one particular variety or conception of it.  Plazak (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is backwards. If what we have are lots of sources that say "X", there's no call to presume that we maybe, somewhere, will find sources that say it is not "X" and waste time argueing about the maybes.  Better idea is to start from the best sources and if one finds claims here that aren't reconciling with those best sources, then we raise a hubbub on the talk page over it. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)  And to add, let's don't revert based on the maybes.  The 1998 peer-reviewed publishing of Dembski is sourced. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that that was removed. It seems clear that it was peer-reviewed (the series editor and advisors are named in the book), and we have an academic source who says explicitly that it was, and who mentions that as a key event in the development of the modern concept/movement. So there was no reason to remove it. On the one hand we want to claim "it's all rubbish and academics don't pay attention." Then there's a claim "most of the sources in the court case were academics and they've all written about it." Then we learn that Cambridge University Press published a book about it in 1998. And then that's removed! We're all over the place. :)


 * The way round this confusion is to stick rigidly to the sources, and where there's disagreement publish the various claims with attribution&mdash;and make sure the references that support each claim are easy to find after the sentence or paragraph.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that Professor marginalia is the one who has it backwards when it comes to dating intelligent design. If his "lots of sources" state that ID started no earlier than 1980, all it would take would be one scholarly source clearly dated earlier than 1980 that discusses ID to prove them mistaken.  Plazak (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's consensus that the ID movement began in the 1990s, but no indication at all that a special version of the design argument emerged in the 1980s, yet we are stating it as fact in the lead. A source makes the claim, so we can include it, but it needs in-text attribution, and the source does not explain what was special about the 1980s version of this very old argument. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Plaznak: Yes. All it would take would be one scholarly source refuting the cited sources to change the playing field. What's the proper order of things would be that one actually finds that "one scholarly source" first before raising it as a major concern.
 * @Slimvirgin: If there are NPOV and Undue weight problems in the article, (still haven't read it through- i'm still in peek-in, fly-by mode) I'm more comfortable speaking to some specifics. This is definitely a special version of the design argument, one that avoided claiming that the Biblical God was the designer.  The earlier teleological arguments did-this 1990s DI version hedged it.  By "hedging" I mean that all the key figures you can name, Behe, Dembski, Kenyon etc admit they think it implies God as the designer, but posit the hypothetical that "it doesn't have to be".  They were also unapologetically calling the designer "God" in their own internally circulated and promotional texts.  But as ID was re-packaged, as in Panda's when "creator" was demonstrably replaced via search and replace text editing, not due to any new philosophical clarity, with "intelligent designer", and then rebranded as a new scientific discovery ... this is of course the 1980s version of a very old argument.  Let's put aside the sources for a moment because I don't think the sourcing is the hitch here, but that the links in the argument don't seem to add up.  And that's because there is an entire backstory-and new necessity resulting from Edwards v. Aguillard.  And in light of that backstory, that fuller context, it all sorts out very neatly.  Edwards v. Aguillard virtually mandated that no Creator be taught in any public school science curriculum-and this decision obviously instigated the "intelligent designer" word switch.  In the sciences the teleological argument was rejected not because it was religious but because it was riddled with logical fallacies and untestable assertions.  Neither the first amendment nor the US courts officially decide what is or isn't science.  Science doesn't have the 1st amendment--it has the methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has no constitutional protection.  But per the 1st amendment, any establishment of religion is unconstitutional.  On the flip side, in science, anything outside of methodological naturalism is considered untestable.  If it's untestable, something may or may not be true but its truth can't be determined with science.  US courts weigh between "establishment of religion" and "secular purpose" when asked to judge whether a certain activity is or is not unconstitutional--and that's only when "what is science" becomes a constitutional issue before the courts-when "establishment" and "secular purpose" (in this case "teaching real science") ever overlap. In other words, even if it's religiousy if it has a secular purpose it may still be constitutional.  What you see new in ID is the attempt to build the high jump over the religiousy part of the 1st amendment to dismantle the methodological naturalism - the "secular purpose" - which they see as a kind of religiousy "anti-religious religion". And this is very new, and probably US centric because of the conflict between "creator" and the establishment clause that crystallized in the 1980s.  Again, my argument isn't meant to replace sourced claims--but to give an overview of the background to the claims which are sourced.  This may or may not be of any help, but I hope at least to eliminate some of the "shooting-from-the-hip" arguments based on trying to interpret these claims in some purely abstract vacuum.  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, PM. What I'm really looking for is sources to use in the article: sources who explain the philosophy. We need independent sources as far as possible; and if primary sources then good ones. Also we need to be careful not to focus this entirely on the United States unless the sources do.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent academic sources
I've been looking for academic sources with no dog in the fight, and found an interesting paper about ID by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, a very distinguished philosopher for anyone not familiar with him. See "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008.

I'm going to use it as a secondary source to add material to the article that hasn't been developed by one or the other side. I'll continue to look for other independent sources. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Some quick comments on NPOV-Intro
Just trying to tackle this in bite-sized pieces. The introduction is informative and appropriate, imo, except for the second paragraph which is over-kill.

The last two sentences should probably be changed because it's a thinly disguised pwn--all it needs to say is something to the effect that this conclusion is affirmed by the US National Science Teacher's Association, arguably relevant since the ID movement has tried so hard to introduce intelligent design in public school science classrooms.

Otherwise, the facts in the intro are correct and easily sourced. I agree many of the sources cited seem less than ideal, but it's safe to say others can easily be found which are more authoritative but the facts won't change. There really isn't much more to say about ID there--it's a very simple concept. I'm inclined to think that the only significant aspect in ID which is not touched on in the intro is the reason that ID advocates gave for trying to re-define science. And these reasons were made pretty explicit early in the movement, if I recall-even before there was any effort made to specifically empirically test ID as theory. But I think it's best to take one step at a time. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the intro. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis revert
Kenosis has reverted all the recent work. K, the article is not up to current FA standard, not even close. If it can't be fixed it will have to be FAR-ed, so I think you need to let people work on it. I'm not interested in producing a pro-ID (or anti-ID) text. But I would like to see this philosophy article written properly, if possible by editors with training in philosophy relying more on academic philosophers as sources. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * K has reverted again. There was for a long time a mailing list devoted to maintaining control over this article. In light of that, K, could you say whether you were contacted offwiki about the recent edits?


 * I ask that not to try to cause a problem, but because articles about philosophy can't be written or controlled by mailing lists of people with no training in philosophy. Philosophy is about argument and counter-argument. You lay out the pros (using the best arguments from the best thinkers), and the cons (ditto). You don't deliberately leave things out, or deliberately present the weakest point. Many of the editors who edit this article are very keen to argue elsewhere about the importance of expertise, yet when an editor with training in philosophy (me) tries to improve the article using academic philosophy sources, I'm reverted. :)


 * The idea that an article like this can be written by committee in order to maintain a certain POV is not Wikipedia at its best. Will you please allow the article to be improved? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, after I noticed the sudden complete rewrite of this FA, I first reverted here back to last version today, 28 August by Raul654. Then after looking it over a bit more thoroughly I replaced the rest of the edits to the body text here so they can be dealt with one-by-one. Then I brought just the lead back to its long-standing form here to before the mass revisions by SlimVirgin began yesterday August 27. The explanations are given in each edit summary. Which, after being a stable FA-class article for three years, and then a sudden mass rewrite in less than two days, I think is reasonable in defense of the scores of editors that have participated in cautiously consensusing countless minutiae that are substantively important to this extremely nuanced and complex topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has never been stable. It's been FAR-ed twice, numerous people have been blocked because of it, and has to be kept under semi- or PD- protection. And it is not up to current FA standards. Can you say whether you were contacted offwiki about the recent edits? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SV, you stated your judgment that this article is not up to FA standards in your opening comment in this talk section. My review of this article's history, in which I participated substantially as well, indicates differently. This article was closely scrutinized in the initial FA process as well as just prior to its placement on the main page. It also underwent FAReview in July 2007 and December 2008 and was kept. .....Here's how it read 25 August 2008. .....Here's how it read on the morning of 12 October 2008 when it went on the main page. ..... And here's what it looked like on 12 December 2008 at the conclusion of the second FAR. ..... And here is the article on 27 August 2010, 14:00 UTC, prior to yesterday's and today's mass revisions . ..... By contrast, here is what it became in between 27 August 2010, 14:00 UTC and 28 August 2010 15:00 UTC. It's a complete rewrite in just over 24 hours. Moreover, the complete rewrite, in my judgment, almost entirely failed to take into consideration the numerous issues that were carefully debated at great length and cautiously resolved by consensus. .....And incidentally, there's still a bunch of very questionable edits to the body text that were logged in the last 26 hours. But I think, absent a vociferous objection to leaving those in for now, that we can take those one at a time and refer back to earlier discussions as may be needed. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kenosis, could you please answer my question? Were you contacted offwiki about the recent edits? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I saw it on my watchlist. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Though, I must say w.r.t. your twice stated assertion about FA status, your edits were not just organizational and MOS, but rather were major substantive edits that changed the entire meaning of key concepts and terms that were well cited to numerous RSs. As I said just above, many of the edits to the body text still need extremely close scrutiny. Frankly, you've unilaterally redefined ID, which prior to when the publishers of Of Pandas and People changed all instances of "creationism" and "creationist" to "intelligent design", was just a merely descriptive phrase used on occasion in several historical presentations of various forms of teleological argument. As a term, ID's only notability today derives solely from the very public push to teach it as science, most particularly in biology classes. For this reason, I'm now taking a very close look at the reorganization of the Overview and redefinition of long-standing content under such section titles as "Development of its modern form". This, for one, misrepresents how the sociopolitical activism of the Discovery Institute and its sibling organizations co-opted various modern forms of teleological argument under the rubrick of the buzzword phrase "intelligent design". ... Kenosis (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy or movement

 * I think the first question that needs to be answered is whether this is about a philosophy or a movement. If the article is supposed to be about a philosophy, I can see SlimVirgin's point. If it is about the movement being sponsored and pushed by the DI, I think her argument is much weaker.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is another article about the movement&mdash;Intelligent design movement&mdash;so this page is supposed to be about the philosophical idea. The two will overlap: in explaining the concept, some history of who has supported it and why will be appropriate. But the focus should be on the idea. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I could support a change in that regard so long as it remains clear that the philosophy has no basis in reality. It doesn't need to hammer the point home by screaming "BS!" at the end of each sentence, but it should remain clear that the concept has no support in modern science.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear in my mind how ID would be a "philosophy". The argument from design comes from natural theology, but I don't think IDers acknowledge themselves as such.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is theology not philosophy? Plazak (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter--natural theology is theology/philosophy, whichever. The argument from design is an argument in support of a theology/philosophy. Just like Socrates was a philosopher, Socrates's often used syllogisms in philosophy, but a syllogism isn't a philosophy, it's an argument. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ID is a philosophical idea, PM, studied by philosophers for thousands of years and still, and several of the key sources for the current form of it are philosophers. It would be better if we could stick to discussing sources and the article, though, rather than the issues, which can't be argued out on talk. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs
 * The argument from design is unquestionably "philosophical idea [...] studied by philosophers for thousands of years". Intelligent design is arguably something different. Do you see these two articles as basically covering the same ground? Gabbe (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm finding articles by academic philosophers about the modern form of ID. I started to add them, and explain the difference between ID and its older versions, but I was reverted. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we discuss them here? What were they? The last few days editing history is a lot to wade through. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * False duality. ID is creation science rebranded, employing the same tactic of obscuring or omitting explicit Biblical references with the aim of making it legally viable for school science classes. It involves the philosophical question of whether absense of explanation is evidence for God, it also involves detailed pseudoscientific claims, education policy, the politics of religion, the theological question of whether God can or should be subject to empirical testing, and most importantly the question of what science is, as defined by scientific practitioners rather than what science might be if philosophers were in charge of it. The philosophical argument is covered under teleological argument, this article covers ID as it is now, as shown and tested by multiple viewpoints, not just a philosophical viewpoint which is currently included among the other views. . dave souza, talk 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Detailed philosophical arguments
The detailed philosophical argument by Nagel is interesting, but inappropriate for the lead as an isolated opinion without the context of other arguments, and something not explored in the body of the article. I've therefore moved it to the Defining science section. Nagel's argument is long and complex, and it's questionable if the summary given accurately captures exactly what he's saying overall.

To quote the summary, "Against this, the philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not depend on distortion of evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense. Whatever the merits of the positions, he argues that it is a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else."

One obvious problem with this is the relabelling of creation science arguments in Pandas, presented by proponents as exemplifying ID in a suitable text for schoolchildren. Same arguments, so how come it's "very different"? Nagel seems to be arguing that in principle there could be a form of ID very different from the current rehash of creationist arguments, and that there could be a form of science which relies on untestable forces such as the undetectable intervention of a supernatural bean. Rather an isolated view, and more expert philosophers of science have dealt with these issues. . . dave souza, talk 06:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of sources
Professor marginalia has started a list of philosophers who've written about ID at User talk:Professor marginalia/scratch2 if anyone has names to add. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

anti-Religion POV
Right of the start the opening paragraph miss-represents Intelligent Design. The attempt by those who are anti-Religious bigots to equate Intelligent Design with Creationism is transparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.252 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a conservative, Lutheran member of the United States judiciary in that last sentence, right? NW ( Talk ) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I'm NOT. If I was I would have stated such. What on earth would a good Lutheran possibly know about Intelligent Design ?
 * Sorry for the rather snide remark. The opinion of John E. Jones III is significant though; he was the presiding judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover, a landmark judicial case, where he found that "ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." NW ( Talk ) 18:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph also shows an anti-Religion POV.


 * "Advocates of intelligent design seek to redefine science” Intelligent Design does not seek to re-define science (some one has an axe to grind).


 * My perspective is that the current state of the article actually strengthens the ID position: It is consistently unilateral in the way that the information is presented, and is almost childishly hubristic in denying the ID perspective on many points of contention. Bias to this degree smells of a coping response by a vested interest, and I suspect would act to motivate people away from the primary POV. 109.152.236.193 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Our goal as editors is not to support or disprove any particular position. It is to represent the current state of affairs on a topic as reported by reliable sources. Whether or not the article strengthens any particular POV is irrelevant, so long as it is written to properly reflect the sources we have. It just so happens that, according to them, ID is bunk. Jess talk&#124;edits 01:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Although I do have some qualms about NPOV in terms of tone in places and a kind of inappropriate "gloating" (pwnage) that may undergird the article in some subtextual sense that I'm having difficulty putting my finger on exactly, the fact that this "strengthens" any side's case for or against ID is beside the point.  The article is in general accurate, and fair to the points raised by both sides.  I think our challenge is how to tune out the noise and "everybody has an opinion and everybody's opinion deserves to be repeated here" buzz from talk page battles to concentrate in the article's main space on what the average readers of any encyclopedia truly deserve to read to be accurately informed on a topic.  I think the article stands improvement in tone, but that's hard to pinpoint.  And too often the us-against-them sideshows on the talkpages serve as reactionary feedback loops, making these problems harder to fix.  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE the above assertion "Advocates of intelligent design seek to redefine science” Intelligent Design does not seek to re-define science (some one has an axe to grind)" submitted by IP 109.152.236.193: Six reliable sources for this information are provided in the article, consolidated into one footnote. Possibly you didn't notice them or didn't have the time to read them. They are: Sources 1 and 2 are book reviews by three leading proponents of ID arguing at some length against the current expectation that science be restricted to investigating natural causes while excluding hypotheses and theories based on supernatural causes. Source 3: Stephen C. Meyer, another leading proponent of ID, argues at length exactly what the IP has just questioned-- for a redefinition of science to accept supernatural explanations. Source 4, from the US federal court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover:"'It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world,'"Source 5, from a different part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision: "'First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)). 'Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (5:32-37 (Pennock)); P-341 at 224 (“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.”). The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.14 Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)).'"Source 6 is an article in the International Herald-Tribune (owned by the NY Times and unfortunately the article can't presently be accessed by the original link in the article. It says the same thing, that ID proponents advocate a redefinition of science to allow supernatural explanations and still be called science. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed again. This is all true.  Phillip Johnson has made this need for redefinition explicit, linking methodological naturalism with a kind of ethical imperative against philosophical materialism. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing some of the issues
I've added the NPOV tag to the article, because I feel it's inherently biased, and efforts to fix it are being reverted. This is the version of the lead I began to work on, now reverted by Kenosis back to this. The two leads (lead plus overview) have also been restored, as have all the 24 templates making the lead very difficult to edit (248 templates in all).

These are the main issues as I see them:


 * 1) This is an article about a philosophical concept. But it has been written by editors with no formal training in philosophy (I can see one editor in the history who I believe may have some training, but he made very few edits), and most of the sources used are not experts either.
 * 2) It strongly pushes a POV. It does not calmly explain the philosophical arguments for and against.
 * 3) The lead is not neutral and doesn't properly explain what ID is.
 * 4) The article contains argumentative paragraphs that read like personal essays.
 * 5) It has never been stable. There has been an offwiki mailing list devoted to it for years with a view to maintaining the POV. It has regularly been under full protection, semi-protection, or PD protection since January 2005. Lots of accounts have been blocked because of it. That in itself is a problem for its FA status.
 * 6) It was promoted to FA in 2007 because people who support the POV, and the involved editors themselves, supported the promotion. The objections were ignored. See Featured article candidates/Intelligent design. That was common in those days, so I don't intend it as a criticism, but it doesn't happen now, because we have a more dedicated set of reviewers and a firmer set of rules. Also, FA standards in general have significantly increased since then.
 * 7) It has been FAR-ed twice.
 * 8) It is deteriorating over time, not improving.
 * 9) It is very, very slow to load the page, diffs, or preview, and close to impossible to edit with 248 citation templates in it, many or most of them vertical, 24 in the lead alone. That in itself is a bar to editing, a form of protection.
 * 10) It contains dead links, links that won't load, and lots of links to websites&mdash;including religious ones&mdash;that are not reliable sources.
 * 11) Of all the articles I've been emailed about over the years, Intelligent design comes up the most. Editors that several of the article's writers would regard as wiki-friends (or at least not as wiki-enemies) are concerned about it, but they don't want to get involved because they don't want to fight.

So the question is: what can be done about this? It is not the sort of thing where one issue, then another, then another can be discussed on talk, because that would take literally years. There is a problem with practically every sentence, and with the whole editing philosophy of the article. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please stop with the complaints about the citation formats: they are not normally considered to be a barrier to editing, and are tangential to the issue at hand. I'm actually starting to question the purpose of the article's existence: what can be placed here that isn't better placed in Teleological argument or intelligent design movement?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SV asked me to comment. I believe she classifies me (correctly) among the "editors that several of the article's writers would regard as wiki-friends (or at least not as wiki-enemies) are concerned about it, but they don't want to get involved because they don't want to fight." As she knows, I am a extremely firm supporter of the standard evolutionary model.
 * In one respect I disagree with her: in one important way the article is better than earlier versions: it clearly separates out ID as a religious/philosophical/scientific theory from the contemproary ID movement. I would go further: I would not cover them in the same article. One is an honest but mistaken way of exoplainingthe world; the other is an appeal to inneudo, double-think, and prejudice. Treating them together is inherently unfair to the r/p/s theory.
 * But the treatmentof the r/p/s theory is biased, and is written on the assumption that it is incorrect, and that it needs to be shown as incorrect. This is wrong on several counts. In some versions, it cannot be proven to be incorrect; the hypothesis that there is an hidden step we do not see and which cannot be explained other than by divine interposition is not disprovable, though one may choose not to classify such a theory as scientific. Second, we should not attempt to prove or demonstrate anything, but merely to present the arguemtns. We must not judge which of them are correct. We could probably fairly say that most scientists in biology ignore such arguments as irrelevant, but thwe can not say that this proves them false, nor can we organize the material to imply that. But I do notpropose to rewrite the article,, for I have seen by experience what will happen. My position continues to be, that if I am correct, it will be shown by giving my opponents the fullest oportunity to present their case as well as possible.    DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't disagree more with this: "There is a problem with practically every sentence". In fact I see numerous errors in the changes that were proposed in the opening paragraph.  The "the proposition that the diversity of life is best explained by reference to design" was much more accurately worded before.  Irreducible complexity is a completely different idea from "can't be explained by chance"...they're not even roughly similar.  And while here you're saying that it's a philosophical concept, your revision quotes a philosopher who claims intelligent design is a "scientific claim", not a philosophical concept. (I tried to explain this earlier--methodological naturalism is the philosophical concept Nagel is alluding to, methodological naturalism is the overarching philosophical concept that is relevant in judging whether or not intelligent design is science.) So things are getting all mixed up in here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nagle does not say it is not philosophy. Of course it is philosophy. That's why he's writing about it in an academic philosophy journal. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't say "it is not philosophy" because the question before him is not "is ID a philosophy". That's your question--it's not his question.  That wasn't the question asked in Kitzmiller v. Dover either. The question Nagel, and Kitzmiller, is addressing, is "Is ID a science?" I don't know how else to say it.  ID is purporting to be an empirically based scientific explanation for how something in nature came to be - it is an alternative explanation from natural selection.  Natural selection is not a philosophy.  Natural selection is a scientific theory.  Philosophy <-> scientific theory, two different things.  The philosophical questions at the heart of the issue of whether or not "intelligent design" is or is not science are the same as those that apply to whether or not the theory of gravity or theory of relativity are scientific theories.  And the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity--they are not themselves philosophy. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A debate about ontology&mdash;about whether the existence of a designer makes sense&mdash;is a philosophical one. A debate about epistemology&mdash;about what can be known and how it can be known&mdash;is a philosophical one. A debate about the limits of science is a philosophical one. That is why philosophers are interested in this, writing about it in academic philosophy journals, and turning up as expert witnesses in court. But again, I have to ask: what is the point you're making, PM, for this article? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding--although I've almost zero edits on this article, -I certainly don't remember adding any content to it- I have read a good deal on the topic, including that written by philosophers. And I agree that many places in the article it's just too much-much, beating some points to death, obviously taking a "side" rather than delivering description. But except for a quibbles here and there I'm not so sure about, the article appears to me to be generally accurate overall -- and completely consistent with the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * PM, could you give me some refs to the philosophy papers or books you've read about it? I'm trying to put together a list. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed the main ones I can remember here Professor marginalia (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is very helpful. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, RE This is an article about a philosophical concept. : As has been hashed through in excruciating detail by numerous editors including several of the most competent and most respected editors on the wiki, and which can be seen in countless archives, the simple answer to your premise for this article is "No, it's not an article about a philosophical concept". ..... The philosophical concept can be found in the teleological argument, a.k.a. "argument from design". This article has consistently gotten five times the amount of traffic as the article I just mentioned, and a lot of the traffic at teleological argument is a direct result of the conspicuously placed wikilink in the opening paragraph of the lead. You've attempted in your mass revisions to redefine ID as having long been a name for a teleological argument which happened to get caught in a sociopolitical brouhaha, when in fact the very notability of the term "intelligent design" is a direct result of a group of, might we say, neo-creationists first coining it in Of Pandas and People, then further networking with one another, hooking up with the Discovery Institute, and vigorously advocating teaching it as a "scientific" alternative to standard high-school biology. It's the main article that explains in summary style the basic issues philosophical and religious, scientific and educational, legal and political, allocating specific aspects of the issue out to intelligent design movement. teleological argument, Discovery Institute, and numerous other related articles. The article could well be called Intelligent design controversy but such a renaming is unnecessary because its very notability in today's world, or at any point in history, derives solely from the controversy itself. Prior to the use of these words as a term replacing "creationism", its sole use had been limited to a descriptive phrase on several occasions at very intermittent times in support of teleological perspectives (never before this modern controversy was it a term for anything). Fundamentally the article has been this way for at least three or four years now, and in one day, SV, you've tried to make it into an article mainly about the philosophical concept, focusing in the lead on the musings of one philosopher. Given the wide range of RSs to which this article accounts and cites, this proposed POV plainly will not do. ..... As to controversiality of this article, I take this as granted, and this factor alone is a completely adequate explanation for the emails you mention you've received, for the user blocks you mentioned, for the occasional edit war that still pops up here and there, and also for the fact that it's been twice reviewed at FAR. Despite these, as I gave evidence of in the old versions going back over two years (two sections above this one), this article has remained stable, which IMO is remarkable given its inherently controversial nature, and the many nuances and complexity of this topic. .....As to FA standards, if you think it's deteriorated below FA standards, you already know you can request another. What you did yesterday and today, however, was not to review what the article consisted of when it reached FA and twice was successfully FAR'd and begin editing it to bring it back up to that standard (which as I said was the result of the work of scores of editors), but rather to completely rewrite the whole thing to your POV as presented just now. You are attempting to rewrite the article into something completely different than what achieved FA, which is tantamount to asserting the FAC and FAR processes are flawed and that your perspective is instead correct. On top of it, you're attempting to completely change the topic of this article from a main article about the ID controversy, a unique sociopolitical-educational-religious-scientific and legal controversy of the late 20th and early 21st century, into essentially a daughter article of teleological argument. ..... As to the NPOV template you placed today, I respectfully submit that your personal POV about this (essentially as you alleged, that the article itself isn't consistent with NPOV) is completely inconsistent with the predominant consensus of participants in this article, including the consensus of FA reviewers. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was editing it in the hope that a FAR could be avoided. You seem to be suggesting that we go straight to FAR, but it's always better to try to improve articles first. The number and form of the citations are in themselves a serious bar to editing, which you're not addressing. They mean the article can't realistically be fixed without tremendous expenditure of time, and anyone who does put in that time will be reverted. The wiki process is not supposed to work this way.


 * The bottom line is that this is not a good article, K, regardless of POV. What is your suggestion if you don't like mine? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Under this circumstance I'd recommend taking it to FAR and get some more dispassionate opinions. Gotta go for now. Talk later. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As with some other controversial articles, I think there are ultimately only two solutions: either all the involved people will need to be less assertive about their positions, or previously uninvolved people will need to take over the editing, and then we can only hope that the process does not get them equally over-committed to a position. As a college debater, I learned the  technique of WP:Writing for the enemy. For example, if I were to edit this, i would concentrate on the sections   explaining the ID position. I am not eager to do it, as i find it very difficulty--it's much easier to argue for what i am inclined to believe, for then I inevitably feel I always find good arguments.    DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not here to deal with "ultimate solutions", the practicality of this situation is that controversial changes are best achieved by discussion on talk, short section by section, of detailed proposals backed by reliable sources, and an opportunity to review the proposals as well as considering other sources. See WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 06:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added archive links for most of the dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS. Smartse (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for doing that! . . dave souza, talk 13:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Checklinks just adds the archive link to the reference, I wasn't sure whether the orignal links should be replaced or not? Unlike webcite, archive.org has the original url in the archive url so you can still see where the page was originally hosted. Shall we delete the links that are dead and replace them with the archived versions? Smartse (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the page now, although there will always be the need for improvements, especially on a page like this that deals with a controversial subject, I don't see the evidence that there are serious, systemic problems with this page. Wikipedia does not have a policy saying that editors who do not have academic training in philosophy are second class citizens who are discouraged from editing certain pages. There appears to be a substantive history of philosophical concepts related to the subject, and the page seems to discuss them, but the modern-day version that grew out of creationism is not regarded by the vast majority of reliable secondary sources as being a "philosophy" to be taken seriously. Wikipedia uses citation templates, and their purpose is not to push POVs. If there are specific edits that have deteriorated the page, they can be fixed with further edits and talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring version that was promoted
I think the best thing for now, as someone suggested above or elsewhere, would be revert for now to the version that was promoted to FA, because at least that can be loaded more easily, and it was the one that passed the review. I'll consider doing that later, though perhaps with the current lead, unless the earlier one is obviously better. The problem with taking the current version to FAR is that it would almost inevitably lose the star, only because people would be reluctant to work on it given the slow load time. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I've gone ahead and done that, including the lead. The version that was promoted is significantly better, and is loading in a normal way. It's just over 7,000 words and has 134 footnotes, so it's not so wildly over-referenced. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would strongly ask you to revert. Removing 4 years of work simply because you don't like the article in its current state is unacceptable. In addition, FAC in 2006 was a much different beast than it is today, and there are several issues with the version that's up now. NW ( Talk ) 15:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, 10 minutes isn't exactly long to discuss whether do that or not! I've never heard that content should be deleted because a page takes too long to load, per WP:SUMMARY shouldn't split content off if it is too long? Smartse (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it not make sense to work from the current version? It's not a question of too long, Smartse, but over-referenced, and splitting it is not so easy. Also the additional content is very poor quality if you read it. The FAC was in 2007, NW. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're going to build new content from the current version, that should be done in userspace until it is ready to be used. That you've only ditched 3.5 years of content instead of 4 isn't compelling to me. I see no consensus for this, in fact, quite the contrary, and the change is far too bold for me. I'm reverting. Please establish some kind of support for ditching many years of content, or move the "rebuild" project into userspace. Thanks. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, having only edited this page by chance earlier today. I disagree with any editor reverting years of other people's edits though. It's almost impossible to analyse the diff as it's so long. If there was a consensus to revert then that would be fine, but I can't see anything like one in the discussion above. I'd suggest you are less bold, and if there are too many references, as you say, then remove those that are unneccesary. Smartse (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, perhaps in your userspace draft, you could use <ref group=Necessary> and <ref group=Unnecessary> to indicate which refs you think should be kept and which you think should be removed? That would make discussing the issue quite a bit easier. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think upon close examination of the numerous relevant talk archives relating to sourcing and how best to summarize the numerous RSs on this topic for the reader, we'll find that most of them are necessary. E.g., when the article says "Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank", multiple RSs are needed in support of this somewhat counterintuitive statement. For another of many examples, when the article says "the unequivocal consensus of the scientific community is ' x' ", multiple RSs are needed in support. Similarly on down the line. There's hardly a clause in this inherently complex article--with its many relatively obscure concepts--for which a citation wasn't demanded by someone at some point in time. (This was among many specific aspects of the article that were discussed in FAC and FAR, and IIRC, also when it was informally FAR'd in preparation for presentation on the main page.) I should perhaps also mention that criticisms on Talk came from all sides of the debate, with many users arguing that the article gave far too much credence to propositions put forward by the Discovery Institute affiliates. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I asked above, and I'll ask again: please stop complaining about citation templates. They do not detract from the quality of the article, they do not make it unmaintainable, and they do not render the content of the article somehow unacceptable. If you find them difficult to work with, practice. Using them as part of a rationale to revert an article back 4 years in time is inexcusable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen this before at FAR with articles that need a lot of work but are weighed down by excessive templates. No one can face the time involved in fixing them, because of the slow load time, so they're demoted. One that springs to mind was Israel, impossibly slow to load, so few people wanted to help sort it out, and it was delisted. Whoever added the templates here was not doing the article any favours.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The way to reduce page load time is not to remove references or arbitrarily ditch nearly 4 years of edits; it's to reduce the length by separating content into sub articles. Yes, that's not a simple task; it will take time. But if you feel strongly about this issue, that's what you should be proposing. What you're suggesting now is simply not feasible. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any good content that has been added since 2007, and if there is anything good it can easily be added after we revert to the promoted version. Can you give me an example of something post 2007 that should ideally be kept?


 * And length is not the issue, Mann, it's the number of templates. There is a technical explanation here. Basically the server has to remake the page every time it encounters a template, and the templates often contain other templates, so the server has to keep remaking the page hundreds if not thousands of times when there are a lot templates in an article. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the technical reason for page load times quite well. We therefore have three options: 1) eliminate references, 2) cite everything without templates, 3) delegate content (and hence citations) to sub pages. 1 leaves us underreferenced; 2 leaves us without the benefit of the functionality; 3 should be done to reduce the page size anyway. You appear to be suggesting 1. It should not be my responsibility to make a case for why nearly 4 years of good faith consensus edits shouldn't be thrown in the trash. I haven't seen any case made for why they should. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits  00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My plan was to start replacing the templates with manual refs (option 2), but I was reverted. I don't know what the benefits of the "cite" functionality are. I don't think there are any, and when there are such a large number it's very awkward. I've noticed anything around 100 causes issues, sometimes fewer. So (2) would be my preference.


 * I'm not sure which parts of it would go to a subpage. The lead had 24 refs in it when it was promoted, I believe, because it was one of the objections at the time. But they weren't templates, so at least they didn't slow down loading. So moving material to a subpage won't solve that basic problem. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not undo citation templates and replace them with manual citations. The advantages have been explained to you multiple times, and at this point I have to believe that you are consciously choosing not to understand what they are. This article loads up in under 30 seconds if it has been freshly edited. That's not a major problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mind you, for those who are unaware, this lag is only experienced by editors who are logged-in, not casual readers, and most noticeably only when editing the entire article rather than individual sections. My last two edits have removed quite a bit of bloat in the form of html comments, duplicate referencing, etc, and have changed all cite book and cite journal templates to vcites (which load faster). I didn't modify the content in any way. My work was certainly not exhaustive, and it could be continued by someone equally masochistic if they're passionate about the problem. Frankly, I see little (if any) reason to make the article less content-rich in order to save a few seconds of load time for a handful of editors working on it. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 01:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RE This is an article about a philosophical concept. But it has been written by editors with no formal training in philosophy (I can see one editor in the history who I believe may have some training, but he made very few edits), and most of the sources used are not experts either. :
 * As you no doubt recognize the para re Plato and Aristotle is totally misleading in the most elementary details. To make Plato out to a proponent of a creator God is the worst anachronism, since the demiurge is a metaphor, and the forms, the template against which chance's matter is moulded into order, are eternal and independent. Whatever, I've sketched a paragraph out that anyone can harvest if they wish to rewrite it according to contemporary scholarship
 * "Whether the complexity of nature indicates purposeful design has been the subject of debate since the Greeks. Anaxagoras saw Mind (nous:νοῦς)as the first cause, though the material universe then functioned by its own laws. Socrates, though accepting Anaxagoras’s first cause, was apparently dissatisfied by its lack of teleology, and, according to Xenophon, thought of nature as providentially designed. Both Plato and Aristotle, in opposition to the materialists Leucippus and Democritus, developed a teleology of a purposeful universe, the former positing Reason or a  Demiurge as the transcendent crafter and first cause of the physical cosmos., while the latter  viewed nature as immanently purposeful. While theorizing an Unmoved Mover  as the source of motion in his Physics and Metaphysics, Aristotle denied that god was ‘a creator or an ordering ruler’,  since nature is itself the cause of order. , and dismissed talk of a personal demiurge as a vapid poetic metaphor. These lines of reasoning later developed into the teleological argument for the existence of God."Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As to Plato (whose Timaeus was written around the very beginning of Aristotle's career) there are plenty of reliable sources in support of that Timaeus was very much a teleological argument. Many regard it as one of the all-time classic teleological arguments, so it's by no means an anachronism within current scholarship. True that the demiurge was not a monotheistic creator, but more a divine craftsman or artisan who created and maintains the universe. For those who are unfamiliar with this subtlety, maybe try the following sources online for a start in researching this line of thinking about Plato: "Timaeus" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this Cambridge source. This WP article is on extremely solid ground w.r.t. Plato, though I think the sentence could be better written so as not to imply that Plato had a monotheistic view. ..... As to Aristotle, I've long been very slightly uncomfortable with the reference to the unmoved mover (aka primum movens) in reference to a teleological argument because Aristotle very much posited an immanent order or even wisdom in the universe. The "unmoved mover" really was more a precursor of cosmological argument than teleological argument, though as your research may have already informed you, many scholars do see Aristotle's overall view as teleological as well. It's universally accepted he was definitely referring to some kind of first cause or at least a prime cause, so it's not unreasonable, IMO, to have made a quick reference to it. ..... IMO, this article is not the place to give a more detailed synopsis of the Greek philosophers. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nuance I was trying to bring out is that a modern philosopher still finds creative stimulus in Platonic and Aristotelian texts, but probably would be less impressed, not even tempted to engage in, arguments coming from the recent exponents of 'Intelligent Design' even if these have an indirect lineal descent from Greek thought. The problem posed by the Greeks is, as Nagel would allow, real and contemporary, and to confuse or conflate this, with the religious instrumentalization of the idea in the United States is questionable.
 * Despite your confidence of the article here being 'on extremely solid ground' (a ref to a primary source that is notoriously difficult to interpret, and a brief synthesis of it) it is a sophomoric tidbit, that I find meaningless, because both Plato and Aristotle were not primarily theologizing, but dealing with a perennial problem of eternity and change, the infìnite and determinate being, the transformational laws relating metaphysical or mathematical structure into phenomenal realities. As given they look like primitive chumps in search of a deus ex macchina.
 * The dating of the Timaeus is not known. You opt for Owen and Ryle's middle period, which challenges the traditional view of it as late, a view which still has strong support.
 * Why repeat that Plato and Aristotle were teleologists? That is precisely my point, with the qualification that their respective concepts of teleology are distinct. It is quite important to distinguish final, efficient and material causes. The demiurgic metaphor refers to an efficient cause, not an Aristotelian final cause.
 * The demiurge is, as Aristotle noted, a poetic metaphor.
 * I added the word 'physical' to cosmos, and changed the word 'create' to 'craft' because in Plato's terms, the Forms and matters, preexist the 'cosmos' or ordered structure of things. The 'demiurge' is a concrete visual image for indicating whatever agency effected the translation of matter into order by moulding it on the template of transcendental 'forms'.
 * Whatever, I dislike empty thumbnail sketches that appear to say something, and yet are void of content, as I think this passage is. By all means ignore the suggestions, but the passage needs rewriting to make it say something, instead of gesturing at an idea.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, w.r.t. dating of the Timaeus, the only point was that Aristotle was exposed to the concept early in his six-decades-long career, even if it was written later than ca. 360 (or for that matter the same holds if it was written earlier than the traditional dating). ..... W.r.t. sourcing of the sentence about Plato's Timaeus in the article, possibly you didn't notice that it also cites to a secondary source, the article about the Timaeus in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ..... W.r.t. "on extremely solid ground", if you'd actually fully read my comment before tearing into your response, you'd have noticed I was referring to the article's reference to Plato as having put forward a teleological argument. Indeed whether or not one philosophically aligns with Timaeus' perspective in the dialogue, it's widely accepted as a "first-rate" classic teleological argument. I already gave my opinion about mentioning Aristotle's "unmoved mover". His teleology actually lies elsewhere in his voluminous writings, the Mover being a cosmological argument, or at least a direct progenitor to the cosmological argument. But I've chosen not to make a stink about it, and think a very brief mention of Aristotle is, as I said, "not unreasonable" in an article of this type, which must deal with a large quantity of nuances. If you think you have a better way of expressing it which doesn't drag in other Greek philosophers, I'd be inclined to consider supporting it, speaking as just one editor of course. ..... W.r.t. "sophomoric", shame on us I suppose. I already gave my opinion about adding a longer synopsis of the Greeks. This article is a bit too long as it is. Though, I'd want to say to SlimVirgin that this here is another example of what the editors of this article have needed to deal with in terms of length. Some of this stuff is extremely difficult to reduce to WP:Summary_style and still give it its full due. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nagel
Dave, why did you remove Nagel from the lead? The lead must have an opposing view. He's a very distinguished and well-known philosopher, a professor of philosophy and law, whose paper on ID and its status as part of a scientific argument (or not) was published in an academic journal. He is not involved, and he's not coming from a religious perspective. It is exactly what's needed for the lead as an academic counterpoint from a disinterested party. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. He's not the only philosopher to have opined on the matter. For a start, Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy, Department of History and Political Science, Southeastern Louisiana University has done extensive research and writing on the subject. Having looked through Nagel's paper, it seems to depend on a strawman argument. For example, "Either divine intervention is ruled out in advance or it is not. If it is, ID can be disregarded. If it is not, evidence for ID can be considered. Yet both are clearly assumptions of a religious nature." I think it improbable that any U.S. schools rule out divine intervention, but neither do they teach that divine intervention is empiricably detectable and hence a subject for science teaching. There may be an argument for a detailed section of philosophical arguments, but they need to be balanced and shown in context. If appropriate, that can be summarased in the lead. . .  dave souza, talk 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, with respect, you're not in a position to evaluate Nagel's paper, and even if we were all top philosophers, the point is that he's a very distinguised RS, and he provides an uninvolved other point of view, which the lead requires. Forrest is a good source too, though involved, but Nagel is an extremely well-known philosopher, one of the best there is. We can't have a lead with no alternative point of view in it, when that alternative exists, and comes from a disinterested and highly notable academic. We have a sentence saying this is creationism, and so we should have a sentence arguing that it is not, and explaining the difference. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curious how one goes about labeling philosophers as "involved" or "uninvolved". As soon as a philosopher publishes a cited opinion on it are they then "involved"?  How is Forrest "involved" but Nagel not? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant involved in one of the court cases. It makes no difference for this article. Could you comment on the point, the addition of an opposing academic view to the lead?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I haven't yet had a chance to read the entire cited article by Thomas Nagel. But if might be worth noting that in setting the context for his arguments at the outset of his article in the academic journal 2008Philosophy & Public Affairs, Nagel says: "'Most importantly, the campaign of the scientific establishment to rule out intelligent design as beyond discussion because it is not science results in the avoidance of significant questions about the relation between evolutionary theory and religious belief, questions that must be faced in order to understand the theory and evaluate the scientific evidence for it. It would be unfortunate if the Establishment Clause made it unconstitutional to allude to these questions in a public school biology class, for that would mean that evolutionary theory cannot be taught in an intellectually responsible way.'"As can readily be discerned by any educated person without specialist knowledge, he's advocating that the proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution should at least give permission to teach a bit of philosophy in biology classes. IOW, he disagrees with Judge Jones's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Based on this cursory examination of Nagel's aritlce, it appears to me to be reasonably placed at the end of the section on "Defining ID as science", as a contrary opinion in opposition to Judge Jones's decision, as opposed to in the lead. As to Nagel having any notable influence in the controversy such that it might reasonably be placed in the lede, I did a quick search and was unable to find any secondary sources for this 2008 article that could reasonably be characterized as a reliable source. I'm open to corrections and suggestions as to how to deal with the apparent reliance on Nagel in support of SV's current assertion that the article isn't in keeping with a neutral point of view. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the pleasure of reading Nagel's essay last night, although when I went to refer to it again via the link above I could not gain access, so please forgive me if I misrepresent any details. Leaving aside the biggest problem I have with the essay (that it relies on an apples vs oranges comparison which, in my opinion, invalidates his central argument} the essay does not leap to the support of ID as science. Rather Nagel as I read him argues that science should be more open to religious and philosophical views and that ID is one example. This does not support the proponents of ID who argue that ID should be considered science as science is currently framed, and thus should be exempt from the provisions of the First Amendment. Nagel would rather that ID not be referred to as "not science" but rather as "dead science" or "old science". Nagel does seem to regret that the First Amendment is a barrier to the inclusion of ID in particular and religious explanations in general in science classes. But he fails to consider what would happen if the establishment clause did not exist. I am unaware of any secular democracy where ID is taught as science. This is so even in my own country, Australia, where there is no barrier to teaching religion in schools, and considerable public monies are spent on chaplains in government schools, and in subsidies for schools operated by all religions. So in conclusion Nagel does have an argument about the nature of science, which should be considered somewhere, but that argument does not support the push by ID proponents to see ID accepted as science. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually worse than that. Nagel presents a view of evolution that is not what is taught to high-school biology students today, nor for at least the last several decades, then proceeds to argue against what isn't taught in biology classes. So, essentially, he flunks introductory-level modern biology. As I could not find any secondary sources on Nagel's article which would reasonably be considered a WP:RS, it seems to me we're pretty much stuck with using our own devices to assess the quality and reliability of his opinion piece. Nonetheless, he's now duly mentioned in the article as having published an opinion in opposition to Jones' federal court ruling. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And why should he be mentioned? Other non-notable academics have published opinions in opposition to Jones' ruling. The Discovery Institute's academics have published tons of such opinions. So what? Seems like undue weight to single out this one, especially when there are no secondary sources on Nagel's article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree at least insofar as if Nagel's opinion belongs in this article at all, it probably more appropriately belongs in the section on Reaction to the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, rather than at the end of the section on "Defining science" where it is at present. And we'll need a fresh link so the source can be examined for further discussion. The current link is now dead in the intervening two-and-a-half weeks since SlimVirgin rewrote the lead using it as a countering POV to essentially the entire article. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mailing list
One of the problems with this article, perhaps the biggest problem, is that a mailing list was set up years ago to control it. I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of that, or blaming anyone. Kenosis alludes to it above, arguing that there was good reason to set it up, and given the nature of the article I can understand the need for a protectionist approach.

The problem, though, is that a list like that distorts consensus, and it has led to this article being promoted and maintained even though it's not up to current FA standard. I'm not saying it wasn't up to scratch when promoted; I'm saying it isn't now, in part because FA standards are higher, in part because the article has deteriorated over the years. I agree with DGG that the best way to move forward would be for uninvolved editors to try to save the article's star, and that means the involved editors need to disengage for a bit, or at least loosen their grip.

I know this is hard. I had to do it myself with a contentious article (Muhammad al-Durrah incident) that I took through the FA process, at enormous expenditure of time and effort, only to have it become unstable shortly afterwards, and I had to take it off my watchlist. So I know this is heartbreaking. But the aim is not to destabliize, or make the article worse. The aim is to improve the writing and sourcing, improve the structure (which is currently very repetitive), and make sure it's more neutral and more explanatory of the idea itself, rather than the movement, which has its own article (though I accept the two overlap).

I'd therefore like to ask that the editors who've been on that mailing list either declare their interest here, or step back for a few weeks to allow uninvolved editors to move forward with it. And I can assure you this will be done respectfully, and not in order to push an ID POV. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have never been involved in any mailing list. I do think there are NPOV problems. But I think a wholesale revision is a likely recipe for disaster.  I'm just seeing a lot of ideas bandied about on the talk page about ID that are like an "urban myth" style, purely abstract version of intelligent design that doesn't really exist. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the only non-public mailing lists I have ever been on are otrs-en-l, clerks-l, and the non-used global-sysops mailing list. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I'm talking about a cc list. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't been on any of those either. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the only editors who respond here will be those who aren't on the mailing list. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How are we sure that there is such a list?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What mailing list? This is the first I've heard of it. Such an allegation, absent any evidence, isn't what I'd call assuming good faith, tantamount to suggesting that regular editors here belong to some cabal. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SV has been warned by the arbcomm about behaviour like this. See Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV especially FOF 5 (C): She has also sometimes, when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues or association with other users regarded as problematic, rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion. While I am exchanged emails with dozens of Wikipedia editors, including many of the ones involved in getting this article up to FA I am not part of a "mailing list...set...to control [this article]", and to the best of my knowledge, there is no such list in existence. I have, though, been included in issue-oriented cc lists in the past - ones organised by SV (see FOF 5 (D)) - though my lack of interest in backroom conspiracies is, I suspect, the reason I have been happily free of being included in her cc lists for a long time until her recent spat with FM, which led me to add her to my spam filters (and all of a sudden she's showing up at every controversial article I edit). Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, I don't want to out-spam-filter you, but I placed you on a filter some time ago, and told you I'd prefer any exchange between us to take place on-wiki. You've emailed me at least once since then, though it's in a folder and I haven't read it.


 * To return to the point: the reason I mentioned this list is that its existence distorted consensus. The legacy of it is that the article continued along a certain path unchecked by an opposing POV. No matter how well-intentioned the editors, when we have strong views about something, we just don't see the extent of our bias. Not many (if any) editors are able to see their work the way other people see it.


 * The result is that we are left with an article that is not neutral. In addition, because the POV concerns were the main ones, the article has not been maintained in the more mundane ways (making sure the writing is kept tight, the references neat and updated, and all the other maintenance tasks FA writers have to pay attention to), which means it has fallen behind current FA standards. But no one is allowed to edit it if they try to edit from a different POV, so it is frozen in time.


 * The question is what to do about it. If the most involved editors continue to be involved in the same way, I don't see how it can be fixed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No lists. No cc's, no nothing on this whatsoever that I'm aware of. I'm sympathetic though to the feeling there's a "fix", or a "lockout" to anything with even the faintest whiff of "woo" getting a fair enunciation in this article. I've met with over-reactionary show-downs in other articles in a similar vein. I understand this, and I agree there's too much bombast about it here...like driving nails, "ha! you lose!", in a coffin or something, which is not encyclopedic.  You can't peel away the bombastic coffin nailing, though, by replacing it with gut feeling speculations about what intelligent design says or means which seem logical but aren't really real.  This is the quicksand of intelligent design...it's a theory that says "we're really science" at the same time it says "except science has to be redefined to accept it."  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RE SlimVirgin's opening paragraph in this thread: "One of the problems with this article, perhaps the biggest problem, is that a mailing list was set up years ago to control it. I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of that, or blaming anyone. Kenosis alludes to it above, arguing that there was good reason to set it up, and given the nature of the article I can understand the need for a protectionist approach."Reviewing the talk of the last couple weeks, I now see the implications of your assertions in this section, and must protest. I'll leave aside, at least for now, the issue of protectionism as you say, and also set aside at least for now your request that editors who have thoroughly familiarized themselves with this complex topic should now proceed to essentially abandon further participation in this article under your apparent expectation that the article can better be rewritten without such involvement. ..... SV, you say I allude to a mailing list above and that I argue "there was good reason to set it up". This is a radical misrepresentation of my comments, and I insist that you provide diffs and justify how you arrived at this assertion. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (This comment moved by User:SlimVirgin from User talk:SlimVirding to here) SV, I'd appreciate a response to this post] which I left today. I'd previously ignored the section because I considered it irrelevant--we've heard all this talk of mailing lists and cabals before--and caught your mention of my WP name upon a more thorough review of this last two weeks of discussion (with a week of silence in between your two pushes there). ..... SV, your comment needs justification as it wildly misrepresents my comments, or at least anything I intended to say or imply. I'll want to see diffs to try to pin down any possible sources of reasonable misunderstanding on your part. Frankly, though, I'm not at all pleased about getting dragged into your longstanding feuds with several other admins. Please respond on the ID talk page at your convenience. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi K, I don't have long-standing feuds with several admins, so you'll have to be more specific, and I don't understand what you're requesting. I asked a couple of weeks ago whether people here could identify whether they were members of that mailing list, because it distorts consensus. You didn't reply, which is your right. Now, two weeks later out of the blue, you're replying, but I don't understand the response. Perhaps you could just tell us whether you were a member of the list? And if you rephrase your question I'll do my best to respond clearly too. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a second there, SV. This talk page sat completely dormant for an entire week. I just told you I made a thorough review of it yesterday in preparation for dealing with the last week's push to assert the article has major POV issues (though you haven't specified anything but vague generalities to date). Do you now dispute that? Or do you dispute that it's reasonable for me to have noticed my username being misused in the context of several visible, on-wiki. long-standing disputes you have with other editors on-wiki? (One of them is visible just above, another reason my eyes just glazed over when I first saw this section the first time around.) ..... Now, my having more carefully analyzed this situation in preparation for dealing more thoroughly with the assertions you've made about this article, I asked for diffs showing how you arrived at the false or radically misleading statement that: "Kenosis alludes to it above, arguing that there was good reason to set it up, and given the nature of the article I can understand the need for a protectionist approach." I don't consider this a reasonable misinterpretation of my talk comments, but rather I consider it an unreasonable misrepresentation or mistake in your reading, or worse. So please provide diffs (or specific quotes of my comment[s] if you prefer) so we may attempt to determine how you made such an extreme error, or alternately what I said that might inadvertently have led you to this error. Thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that Slim Virgin comes up with some evidence of a mailing list. It is a broad slander against all who do not agree with her POV on this article, and is now being used as a reason for people to oppose removing the tag. If she has any evidence, she should produce it, otherwise she should apologise, and remove the accusation. Either way, she should also disclose whether she is on any similar mailing lists on other articles. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review?
Given the apparent neutrality dispute that exists on this page, would it be appropriate to bring this page to WP:FAR to see if it still meets the featured article criteria? Just asking as a drive-by editor. I won't start that process myself as I don't feel like getting that involved, but still, as a suggestion.  elektrik SHOOS  00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be necessary now that the article has been restored to the state it was in when it passed FA two years ago. However, I object to the loss of the intervening edits since then, all of which were the result of much deliberation and made with consensus support. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Amatulic The article has not been restored to an old state. SlimVirgin attempted this, but it didn't gain support from any other editors, and I reverted. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 05:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Amatulic, my idea was to go back to the 2007 version that was promoted, then begin the job of restoring anything of value added since then. It would be easier to edit the article in that direction than to start with this version. But I was reverted, so here we are. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin: My view is that it would be best to revert back to the version that existed before you started making wholesale changes. That version has slowly evolved from the FA version, and overall the evolution has been in the direction of improvement. I can say from my observations (mostly from the sidelines), that each and every change since FA has been subject to much debate, so I view the changes made since then as acceptable and in keeping with the FA requirements. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what has happened, as Mann Jess said. The level of debate on this talk page isn't related to FA requirements, A. The point is that it would be good to avoid a FAR, because if it goes to FAR the chances are high that it will lose the star, because no one is going to want to fix it given the slow load time. I could be wrong about that, but that's what I foresee. And FAR (like FAC) doesn't work by numbers alone these days.


 * So we have three alternatives: (1) leave the article as it is, with disputes breaking out about it regularly; (2) take it to FAR and risk the loss of the star; (3) fix it without going to FAR. My preference is (3). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, SlimVirgin, I recall past discussions here in which regular editors weren't exactly thrilled about this article having FA status, and thought it was unnecessary. This article attracts enough controversy and disruption without the added spotlight of FA status. The quality of the article won't get worse if the star goes away. Regardless of your opinion of this article, it has already passed FA in nearly the state it was in before you waded in; I see little risk of failing now, as the FA requirements haven't changed significantly in the past 2 years. Even if it fails, I don't see that as a big loss. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article would almost certainly fail now, in part because standards have increased a lot during the last two years. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates
For anyone having trouble editing through citation templates, here or elsewhere, SilkTork has directed me to User:PleaseStand/References segregator, which I added to my monobook.js. It makes them magically disappear into a list below the edit box, but without causing any slow down, and without the different coloured text some of the other patches have. Well worth trying. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish I could figure out why nothing I put in my skin.js works. I put it in my monobook.js and vector.js, switched between the two skins, tried in a couple different browsers (Firefox and Chrome), and I still don't see the green button. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha. This works only if you edit the entire article, not if you try to edit a section. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation
The dab states: "This article is about intelligent design as an alternative to natural selection." Based on statements from the Discovery Institute, which, apparently, is a legitimate source for what ID is, the "theory" of ID is promoted as far more than simply an alternative to natural selection. This is what the DI hopes ID will become once science is redefined to include supernatural explanations for things. While evolution via natural selection is certainly a focus, it is this overturning of current definitions of science that must come first and is the most important (as stated in the Wedge document from the DI, which I assume is also a legitimate source for what ID is). ID seeks to be an alternative not only to natural selection but for all scientific thought.

"This article is about intelligent design which proposes a new definition of science to include supernatural influence."Desoto10 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it what the article is about. And we don't have to write the entire content of the subject in the hatnote. Just common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitigating confusion on the subject of article
As per previous consensus, much of the current debate about the article seems to stem from the overlap of meaning between "Intelligent Design" and "Teleological Argument," and by extension, confusion over this article's intended scope. I'm curious what editors' thoughts are about adding some kind of disambiguation template at the top of the page that links to the Teleological argument article. Ideally, it could further clarify why there is a distinction between the two.

More radically, we could have Intelligent Design redirect to Teleological argument, and then put a redirect template at the top of that article to a page with this article's current content (but probably not; my guess is most searches for ID are looking for the modern variety). Mildly MadTC 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor who was uninvolved with this page until a few hours ago, I'm very sure that readers will come looking for this page under its present title, so it should stay here, but I also think that anything by way of clarifying disambiguation would be a good thing, so I would support that part of what you suggest. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How about:
 * This article is about the modern theory of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. For "Argument by Design," see Teleological argument.

My only hang-up is how to succinctly describe the T.A. in a way that separates it from this article. Suggestions? Mildly MadTC 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. How about: "For related theories, see Teleological argument"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that TE is already linked in the second sentence, which gives a contextual framework for the phrase. Its not a "related theory" it is a form of; and the word "theory" here should be used with extreme caution, since the whole thrust of the ID promoters is to argue (falsely) that ID is, in fact, a theory, when it is not. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, this article should present the ID idea as its followers see it first before going into any criticism of it. Therefore, if ID's adherents say that it is a theory, then the article needs to say that that's what they are saying first.  Remember, we don't take sides on the topic.  I support the idea of putting the banner at the top as suggested by Mildly Mad. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides of what KC and Cla are saying here. Would it be better to use another word in place of "theory" throughout the hatnote? Perhaps something like "idea"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer eliminating any descriptive noun like that altogether. How about:
 * This article is about Intelligent Design as a modern alternative to Evolution. For "Argument by Design," see Teleological argument.
 * To me, that looks the most neutral, straightforward, doesn't belittle ID by calling it an "idea" (which would appear POV to ID supporters) and doesn't improperly use the word "theory" (which would appear POV to scientists). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is not a "modern alternative to Evolution". That is not accurate. There are no sources, other than the discredited promoters of this religious dogma in sheep's clothing, which claim it is in any way such an alternative - and this is made very clear in all the sources. Why are you suggesting we change the article to make it inaccurate? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :Currently, we state what it *is*, then go into what they claim it is, being careful to specify what is a "claim" as opposed to a "generally recognized fact". Why do you feel the inaccurate definition should have precedence over the accurate, Cla? I'm not seeing that. Its like starting the article on Phrenology by saying it is a scientifcally developed medical method for determining a patients psychological attributes; then following that with the explanation that it really isn't scientific, or an approved medical technique. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * KC, to be honest it appears that you are taking a side here. Remember, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care how valid a theory or credible a movement ID is.  We're just supposed to write a neutral article on it that doesn't take a side.  If the ID adherents regard it as a theory, then we need to say that first.  If scientists disagree, then we say that second, but not in greater weight than what we gave to its adherents.  We do not give predominance to the scientific view, we give equal weight. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla, you should know me better than that. I care deeply - that this article accurately presents the subject matter in an NPOV way, fully sourced to reliable sources. And simply put, ID is not a theory, and its not an alternative. There are zero reliable sources which say otherwise - just like there are zero reliable sources which state that phrenology is a workable and useful medical science. Its not POV to say water is H2O, or that New York City is in New York State; those are simply facts, as reported by all reliable sources. NPOV does not mean that if there is a crackpot somewhere teaching phrenology that we should give his views equal weight; his views are vanishingly small, not supported by any reliable sources and/or experts, and the NPOV solution is to ignore him as irrelevant. You know this quite well. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Oh look - there is such a page! . Please feel free to go argue with the editors of the phrenology page that we should give this view equal weight, and even rewrite the article to begin with the view of the proponents of that thoroughly discredited and non-scientific practice. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Cla, we don't give equal weight to all ideas. Read WP:Weight. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right, we don't need to give equal weight to the scientific criticism of ID. It's more important to give a full explanation of what its advocates believe than to give criticism of it.  I just reread the lede for this article, and it appears to have been written by someone trying to discredit ID.  If that lede accurately summarizes the entire article, then this article needs some serious work to make it more NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just as we should not rewrite phrenology as its advocates present (see link above) we do not give preference to advocates of ID. We write from NPOV, not SPOV (sympathetic point of view). KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Cla, please actually read WP:Weight. We give due weight to the majority view, as presented in reliable sources. We don't "write it from their side" and then sprinkle in the majority view. We do the opposite. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you pay specific attention to WP:VALID as well, Cla. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KC, what's up with this reversion? You just said above that ID is regarded as a theory by its adherents.  So, why would you remove that statement from the lede if you agree with it? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I follow Wikipedia policy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the policy which says that we shouldn't present how ID is viewed by its adherents? To present it any other way sounds like the tail wagging the dog, does it not?  Is there anyone who disagrees with me and KC that ID's adherents advocate it as a scientific theory? Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The polic(ies) have already been pointed to you several times, including in my edit summary when I reverted your edit, Cla. And as apparently it has been unclear to you, I do not agree with you that your edit is desirable. The proponents' views are already presented within the body of the article, which is sufficient and placing their inaccurate and misleading claims in the lead would be inadvisable, per the policies already cited to you. I have given you an anaology of phrenology, and in short, I am finding it a bit bizarre that you are trying to present that I agree with a position I have been disagreeing with you about. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are now saying that the statement that "proponents of ID regard it as a scientific theory" is inaccurate? But, up above you said that this is what they believe.  So, which is it?  Do followers of ID believe it to be a scientific theory or not?  If they don't believe it to be a scientific theory, then what do they believe it to be?  Whatever that is, is what needs to go in the lede.  I believe it's very safe to say that there is nothing whatsoever in any policy in Wikipedia which says that it is wrong to state in the lede how that idea is seen by its adherents. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science. and the entire secod paragraph of the lead given to the definition of ID as presented by its advocates; as well as sections 1 History; 1.1 Origin of the concept; 1.2 Development of its modern form; 1.3 Origin of the term; 2 Integral concepts ; 2.1 Irreducible complexity; 2.2 Specified complexity; 2.3 Fine-tuned Universe; 2.4 Intelligent designer are given over to the views and development of ID as seen by its proponents, with further details throughout as needed; I suggest you take a few days to familiarize yourself with this article before attempting to make useful suggestions for its improvement. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:41, 8 September 2010
 * That sentence in the second paragraph makes the statement in an extremely impeaching and pejorative way. The nature of the idea, that it is a scientific theory, is the heart of the concept.  Therefore, I think it should be in the first paragraph and presented in a more neutral manner.  If others see it as "an attempt to redefine science to accept supernatrual explanations", that's fine but needs to go later in the intro. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, about that sentence, I went back and looked at it. The first paragraph calls it a "proposition", which I think is reasonable and not a problem. Given that the sentence to which you object appears to be well-sourced, I don't think that it is a problem in the sense of being impeaching/pejorative, but I see your point about presenting the ID view first and the criticism second. How about putting a sourced sentence immediately before it in the second paragraph, saying something to the effect that proponents describe ID as a scientific theory, then have a second sentence capturing the criticism part of the current sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fleshing out what I started to say yesterday, how about something like: Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.(refs) In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.(refs)? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, if you look at the sources, note that Phillip E. Johnson advocates a redefinition of science from an underlying standpoint of methodological naturalism to one of theistic realism. Others have argued that ID is at least as scientific as evolutionary theory, so if it's scientific, so is ID. Some ID advocates argued that evolutionary theory isn't falsifiable and therefore it isn't scientific. So the arguments have been pretty much all over the map, which is why the participants ended up using the conjunction "and [seeks to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations]". Hope that helps. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. Are we talking about the difference between "and" and "in so doing"? It seems to me that Johnson's argument is covered by this language. The second argument isn't as explicit about it, but is also covered, I think. The third is an argument supporting ID, but, by simply saying that evolution isn't science, it really isn't taking an explicit position about whether ID is, and so it doesn't matter for this particular sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I"m just explaining how the participants arrived at that language. Many ID advocates claimed it already was science (that if evolution was, so was ID), while others such as Johnson advocated a redefinition of science to accommodate supernatural explanations. Thus, and, and not necessarily in so doing. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you objecting to "in so doing"? Or just explaining past reasoning? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter. No strong objection to such a change, though I think "and also" is more accurate. I wasn't the one who made this particular point several years ago, by the way, but it seemed to make good sense to most all of us when it was brought up. Maybe Dave Souza remembers too, or another of the very active participants back then. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, I think it was you who was concerned about this sentence. Would you consider this change to be a step in the right direction? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's a step in the right direction. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. I guess the next step is to see where we are with respect to Dave's concerns in the sub-thread just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing proposals about the sentence in the second paragraph
As the sources show, ID proponents start from their perception that natural science is unfair to views such as creation science, and want to redefine science to accept the supernatural. Under that revised definition, ID and creation science would become science. As, indeed, would astrology. Meyer and Nelson write "Restricting science to naturalistic hypotheses is not an innocuous methodological stratagem which nevertheless leaves science free to pursue the truth. God, after all, may not have been away on other business when life originated, or humankind came to be." Johnson writes "My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." That's the defining concept as set out by ID's leading proponent. The sentence at present accurately sets out ID proponents' views. We then note that it's not the concept of science accepted by reputable leading bodies, as was explicitly shown at Kitzmiller. . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. But pretty much the same question I asked Kenosis: are you saying that the proposed change would make things worse? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence I'm looking at now is "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." None of the suggestions above seem to be any improvement on this. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The way in which it might, perhaps, be an improvement is in addressing the concern about it expressed by Cla, above. I think it's a reasonable concern, and I'm trying to find ways to resolve the POV disagreements raised in the RfC. If you consider it not to be an improvement, would you at least consider it not to be worse? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the above quotes show, Cla is wrong to state that "The nature of the idea, that it is a scientific theory, is the heart of the concept." – the heart of the concept is theistic realism, science redefined to accept supernatural explanations. Having done that, they argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Your proposal puts things backwards. . . dave souza, talk 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To quote Johnson on how he came to the concept, "So the question is: "How to win?"... Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information... That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?".... The scientific key is, "No natural processes create genetic information." As soon as we get that out, there’s only one way the debate can go because Darwinists aren’t going to come up with a mechanism. ... Once you get that in the debate, then we will be poised for a metaphysical and intellectual reversal that is every bit as profound as the one with Copernicus. ... I see my work as not just being about a scientific theory—it’s about the definitions of knowledge and reality." Claiming the necessity of supernatural explanations is at the heart of ID. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't, of course, want to speak for another editor, but what I think is this. The first of the two sentences that I propose ("Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.") does not in any way say that ID is a scientifically valid theory. It says that its proponents, rightly or wrongly, argue that it is. There is abundant sourcing that this is, indeed, something that they argue. It's a verifiable fact. And it serves the NPOV purpose of stating, first, what the subject of the page says. Then, the second sentence ("In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.") presents what you have just said. There is no danger that I can see that our poor readers will be so confused by the first sentence that they will fail to grasp the second. And I'm fine with tweaking this language further.


 * Look, we can do these things two ways. (And please understand that I'm not just addressing this to Dave, but to all editors here.) Everyone can dig in their heels until this becomes the next ArbCom case, or we can find ways to reach consensus. I came here in response to the RfC and I have opposed the POV tag, but I could be persuaded to support the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We say that they argue it's a scientific theory, noting first the primary point in their own expositions that they want science to accept supernatural explanations. They never say it's a scientific theory in accordance with the normal definitions of scientific theory, they begin with opposition to those "definitions of knowledge and reality" to quote Johnson. We should not misrepresent their own views. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that. How about changing the proposed first sentence to: Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory, as they define such theories.? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay in responding above, Tryptofish. Here is how it read at the conclusion of the last Featured Article Review in December 2008. IMO, the way it reads now is also reasonable. Hope that helps. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no apology needed! I see this page (not surprisingly) really does have quite a history. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out:, which may conflict with Dave's concern above. I'm neutral about it, especially since Dave didn't yet reply to my question above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that redefining science is central to much of their argument, particularly as set out by Johnson, but it must be said that right at the outset Pandas was presenting it as a scientific theory, in the same way as creation science had done before being ruled out of public school science classes by the courts. On review, the revised wording after that edit seems reasonable to me. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

dab?
Are we still discussing here the idea of a disambiguation at the top of the page? If so, can we focus on ways of wording it, instead of arguing about proposed versions that clearly do not have consensus? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO no dab is indicated; the suggested terms are already linked and clearly presented in the lead. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the dab and suggest that Tryptofish or someone else suggest some proposed wording. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the place to continue from is the version suggested by Amatulić above, and modify it to try to address the concerns that KC made of it. I'll think about it, and hope in the mean time that someone else comes up with it! About whether we need it at all, my view is that we should always err on the side of making things as clear as possible for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Amatulić's version is about as neutral as that's going to get, but I'm hesitant to use the word "modern" (which carries a connotation of superiority) in reference to ID. Perhaps a new direction that doesn't involve a direct reference to Evolution: ''This article is about Intelligent Design as a scientific concept. For the philosophical argument, see Teleological argument.''

To be nit-picky about it, I'm not a fan of using "argument" twice in the same sentence, but it may be unavoidable. Mildly MadTC 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "''This article is about Intelligent Design as a scientific concept". No.  ID is NOT a scientific concept as science is currently defined.  Linking it to Wiki articles on science is highly misleading.  I thought that even the Discovery Institute, via the wedge document made it clear what ID was.Desoto10 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can replace "modern" in my version with anything else. How about "contemporary"? Or we can remove the word and "evolution" altogether, stating exactly what its proponents state:

''This article is about Intelligent Design as an alternative to natural selection. For the philosophical argument, see Teleological argument.''

Anything wrong with that? It basically says what the lead sentence says. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad at all to me if we're going with an otheruses template. I modified it to the following to render it more accurate. This article is about Intelligent Design as an alternative to natural selection. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. There is no purely philosophical argument called "intelligent design". ID's proponents say it's science and others say it's pseudoscience. A purely philosophical argument of this type is called an "argument from design" or a "teleological argument". Hope that's OK with everybody here. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I put "scientific" in there because ID is essentially an attempt to fit the square peg of creationism in to the round hole of science, but I agree that it could be misleading. I'm Ok with Amatulic's version too. Mildly MadTC 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Desoto; "scientific" is misleading and inappropriate. "Alternative" as suggested by Amatulic, is more acceptable. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the version of the dab that is there now. Good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add a permalink so later commenters can reference the version to which you refer. thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this: . I also don't particularly object to this:, although I consider the earlier one to have been a little bit better. I say that because it is better addressed to what we were (I think?) trying to make more clear to our readers, whereas the newer version seems (slightly) more centered on satisfying the concerns that come to mind among editors (who think about the fine points of the concepts and the wording to a greater extent than readers do). But, honestly, it's not a big deal to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mildly Man's wording is my first choice per his reasoning. Amatulic's wording is my second choice. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since ID opposes explanations "such as natural selection" that's not the only thing it's presented as an alternative to.. I've therefore modified the dab to This article is about intelligent design as an alternative to natural science. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. The essence of ID is a claim to have found supernatural science, and the natural science article explains the issue reasonably well. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So Dave's version is this: . Following the same line of reasoning as in my comment just above, I think this change is a step (albeit a small step, not a big deal) in the wrong direction. I'm someone with a PhD and many years tenure at a large US university, working in the natural sciences, and I had to click through to the natural science page to see what was being said here. Having seen it, I think Dave is entirely correct in the specific, academic meanings of the terms used in the dab. But I ask myself what good that does our readers. The typical reader does not use a dab hatnote to learn the meanings of the titles of other pages. They'll read those other pages for that. The purpose of the hatnote is to help the reader find the right page in case they came to this page looking for something else. At this point, the hatnote is rigorously correct but confusing to a layperson. We should go back to this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As an interim step, I've changed natural science back to natural selection. The problem with your proposal "This article is about Intelligent design as a proposed scientific concept." is that it isn't – it's not a scientific concept but a religious concept, and your proposal would cause more confusion. The various meanings of words aren't commonly well understood, and ID proponents often misrepresent concepts such as "natural" and "science". Other suggestions welcome. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, the "scientific concept" phrase came from myself (explanation) and I WP:BOLDed it in to the article, but I think that proposal is more or less dead. I'm in favor of "alternative to natural selection", because that phraseology is also used in the first paragraph of the lede (which has been debated ad nauseam). Mildly MadTC 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. Dave, my reading of sources agrees with you that it isn't a scientific concept. But that's not what that version said. It said "proposed scientific concept". Mildly Mad, I'm not convinced the proposal is dead. Both I and Cla have indicated support for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still looks very misleading, "proposed scientific concept" implies that it's scientific, which it clearly is not. "purported scientific concept" might be better, or "claimed to be a scientific concept". . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I take your point. In that case, I'll agree with Mildly Mad, and support the natural selection version that is currently on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the first sentence of the current dab, though fairly accurate, is actually repeated right at the very beginning of the article, I don' think it's needed. Assuming we feel the need to eliminate confusion between "intelligent design", which carries all kinds of sociopolitical, educational and legal trappings, and the more general "argument from design", I think the only thing that really need be said is the existing second sentence of the dab: "For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument" ... Kenosis (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a good point to me, have tried it out – anyone's welcome to revert me if they don't like it. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me too. At this point, I've pretty much lost track of the reasons for feeling it was needed at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Endnotes
I know one of the goals here is to reduce the bulk and lag in loading, and make it easier to edit. But I think we are making it tough on readers too with vast waves of blue text (excessive wikilinking) and the plethora of superscripts. Do we need redundant references everywhere? Do we need two for Timaeus for example? And can we combine those with multiple references into a single superscript? Turning this:

into

And do we need to wikilink William Dembski and creationism 6 times? Kitzmiller 9 or 10? Discovery Institute 12? If we could tone down the noisy bits it would be slightly smaller but also much more readable. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks very elegant to me. No idea how it would work in practice. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed about the excessive wikilinking. This needs maintenance and cleanup. Not so sure that consolidating footnotes will help on balance. A whole lot of people drop in on this article, take a quick read and perhaps don't have the time and/or inclination to actually look into the many sources, and proceed to draw conclusions about sourcing and such that aren't warranted on the evidence provided by the multiple reliable sources. I see some indications of this sort of occurrence in some of the drive-by commentary presently visible on this talk page. In my opinion based on over four years of detailed experience with this article, multiple visible footnotes help make clear at least that there exist multiple sources for certain statements that might be counterintuitive at first glance. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My philosophy is that wikipedia's articles should be careful not to overstep into "presenting a case" to its readers (or patronizing them), which articles about controversial topics too often get sucked into doing as a consequence of the squabbling between pov editors backstage. So I do object to the superscript parades<font color="#0050dc">[1][2][5][17][155] when used to the effect of lending extra weight to a claim.  Superscripting shouldn't be used like a staple gun to bolt claims down in readers brains or in the article. (It's the quality of sources, not quantity of superscripts in other words.)  But this kind of footnoting is a bit trickier to edit--that's the main drawback as I see it. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. So there are plusses and minuses for both approaches. I have no strong objection either way. As to the double footnote for Plato's Timaeus, I'm going to go ahead and eliminate the primary-source ref to the Timaeus, which simply isn't needed. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current sources 26–29 all look at first glance to be primary sources, unless I've missed something they're good for the teleological argument but with no secondary source tying them to ID, and without such sources we could delete the paragraph. Against that, the Disco provides a primary source claiming that "The Greek philosopher Plato (429-347 BC) was an early proponent of intelligent design", though quoting screeds of Plato rather than giving any real explanation, and this blog suggests that there has been discussion of this, but I'm not sure if it's emerged from the blogosphere. Either way, this doesn't have as much significance as Paley, and the paragraph could probably be trimmed severely without much loss. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No way. FN 26 is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Plato's Timaeus" and it makes explicit it's a teleological argument. Looks to me like going from "cite web" to "vcite web" may have screwed up the FN. On the others, let me go check and I'll report back when I can. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my fault for missing that. However looking at it there's mention of "an intelligent Craftsman" but no mention of "intelligent design" in the modern sense. It was First published Tue Oct 25, 2005; substantive revision Mon Feb 2, 2009 so maybe references to ID in the earlier version have been removed. The Disco claim is about Selection from Plato’s Dialogue Philebus, a dialogue with Protarchus, so that doesn't tie up and anyway putting them together would be rather like synthesis. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Dave. When I said "no way" it was in response to that the Plato citation was a primary source. On the idea of trimming the beginning of that section back somewhat, I've no serious objections. In the meantime I fixed the footnote for Plato so it again reads a bit more sensibly as published in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy, and threw in a couple secondary RSs for Aristotle as teleological (i.e, as the article says "Whether the order and complexity of nature indicates purposeful design has been the subject of debate since the Greeks"). ..... Maybe it would be useful to throw a couple examples of who argued against this proposition, as Nishidani essentially argued a couple weeks ago and which I resisted due to ongoing concerns about length of the article. But ultimately the point is, as indicated by numerous RSs, that it's an ancient philosophical and religious debate independently of the natural sciences today, including biology. As to the Discovery Institute link you provided, it's obviously part of their campaign effort to back-link their term "intelligent design" to before it was coined in the 1987 drafts of Of Pandas and People. Federal court Judge John E. Jones III didn't buy it and countless other RSs don't buy the gambit. In whatever depth the WP editors here choose to present the background of teleological perspectives to the reader of this article (the expert testimony in Kitzmiller only went back as far as Aquinas, while other authors trace back to Plato or even farther), it still remains central to the article that the concept that there's a built-in teleology in the world goes back to ancient times, while the term goes back to '87 as a replacement of the term "creationism". This is what Judge Jones articulated in the federal court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover based on expert testimony presented, and what numerous other RSs have also said about the issue of what "intelligent design" actually is--a replacement term for creationism intended for consumption by high-school biology students. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the tag
I opened the RfC to ask whether I was alone in believing the article ought to be tagged, in which case I would not have pursued the issue, but clearly I'm not, so I'm going to restore the tag while the RfC continues. I'll copy below my main concerns as a starting point. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be pretty clear consensus that the tag should not be readded. I see no indication from above that any NPOV concerns have been demonstrated. Of the 4 other "keep" votes you received, 1 was due to conflation of two terms, which has been handled with a dab, another is from User:Cla68, who's currently working with other editors to resolve his concerns, and the 3rd and 4th are objections to well sourced criticism being prevalent in the article, which is the overwhelming majority view in reliable sources and therefore necessary per WP:Weight. I see no other outstanding issues, and still see no discussion regarding specific issues which would warrant a NPOV tag. Perhaps I've missed it... but since consensus is in strong support of removal of the tag, it would seem inappropriate to re-introduce it to the article at this time. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits  06:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works, Jess. The tag is appropriate if there's a legitimate NPOV dispute that hasn't been resolved, and we need to signal that to the reader. It's not appropriate to add it if just one person feels that way, which is why I started the RfC, but it's clear there are multiple concerns. There doesn't have to be a majority, just a sufficient number to signal that the dispute is a real one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for the tag
Here is my reasoning for restoring the neutrality tag (after having tried but failed to fix some of it):


 * 1) The article strongly pushes a POV. It does not calmly explain the philosophical arguments for and against.
 * 2) The lead is not neutral and does not properly explain what ID is, or offer an opposing view. My attempts to add a disinterested, academic, opposing view were reverted.
 * 3) The article contains argumentative paragraphs that read like personal essays.
 * 4) It contains dead links, links that won't load, and links to websites that are not reliable sources.
 * 5) The very large number of citation templates&mdash;when I last looked there were 248, with 25 in the lead alone&mdash;make the article slow to load and impossible to copy edit well. This is a bar to editing, a form of article protection, which is one of the reasons for the lack of neutrality. When I last checked the lead looked like this in edit mode:

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<ref name="DI engine">"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.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"It does not calmly explain the philosophical arguments for and against." You see this is where I have a problem. It seems to me we have sources from the supporters of ID that claim it is an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the diversity of life, sources from the scientific community that claim that it is not a valid scientific hypothesis, and sources relating to a court case the results of which support the view of the scientific community. Where is the philosophical conflict that requires balanced argument? Certainly the proponents of ID make no claim that it is a philosophy, they claim it is science. That the broader scientific community disagrees is surely the hub of the issue. It is either science or it isn't. If it isn't then surely the claims of the supporters of ID are just bumpkin, and the article should reflect that, properly sourced of course. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That the broader scientific community disagrees is surely the hub of the issue. I disagree. Not only is it not the hub of the issue, it is not even something the article needs to devote space to. The second paragraph of the lead opens, "Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science." In other words, the starting point for this topic is that ID advocates disagree with the broader scientific community. The corollary is as plain as day. It's axiomatic that the broader scientific community disagrees with ID. How, then, with any credibility, can the article dwell on that at all, let alone point to it as if proving anything? The article should, as others have said, calmly set out the opposing philosophical views. Currently it fails to do that, arguing instead like an essay seeking to prove a point. Several editors have now added their voice to the NPOV concern. I re-added the tag yesterday because of that, but it was summarily removed. I see it is now back, which is how it should be. As its banner makes clear, it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. PL290 (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I may well be stupid, but what is the "philosophical" view that needs to be opposed? I can't see it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand your argument, Michael. You seemed to be saying there can't be philosophical views about matters that some people say belong to science, and that others say do not belong to science? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One can certainly have a philosophical argument about what is science. But the proponents of ID are not arguing for an extension of science to cover the paranormal. They are arguing that ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis as science is commonly defined. You seem to be arguing that, for instance, astrology could be science if we changed the definition of science, and it is wrong to say it isn't scientific because somebody at a philosophical level might argue that the definition should be changed. I can't see where the proponents of ID argue for special allowance for ID, they seem to me to want to be judged as science by the rules scientists impose. In any case isn't the place for a discussion about the philosophical limits to science be in the article on Science not on every page about some minor theory? I think that is incumbent on you to produce a reliable independent source that argues that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis if you want to continue this line of argument. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * People are saying (and not just proponents of ID, but uninvolved, atheist academics) that these are questions about science, and about scientific method. I did try to add an academic explaining that to the lead, but I was reverted. The problem with the article as currently written is that ID isn't explained properly, and when we try to add better sources we're prevented. But a discussion about what ID is asking about science, and about what science is, is the kind of thing that philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, debate. It is a philosophical question. So I'm still not sure what you're asking. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "People are saying" is an interesting expression - often used by my mother. Anyway putting that aside I guess you were referring to Nagel, and I have read his essay, comments above. My personal opinion that in this type of article we should take science as we find her. If people do have questions about the nature of science then yes they should be examined in appropriate articles, because such questions reflect not only on evolution and biology but also physics, chemistry, geology, in fact every area of science. We shouldn't try and find sources to reinterpret science in one corner of science just to accommodate one fringe theory. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I ask the question: philosophical arguments for and against. For and against what? --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask SV the same question: ... philosophical arguments for and against what? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article tells us that advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science. You're now saying that's not the case? PL290 (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I was explaining to Tryptofish above (at the end of first segment of and again at the end of ). Advocates tried both tacks. Which is why the article previously read as follows, for example at the end of the last FAR in December 2008 (here): "Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]" Each clause was appropriately cited to a reliable source, and AFAICT the same two citations are still used at present (one of them includes multiple sources verifying that ID advocates seek to fundamentally redefine science, while the other verifies that advocates say it's science without respect to any proposed redefinitions of science). ... Kenosis (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me addressing ID as just another philosophical argument is somewhat absurd; ID is, at its core, a regurgitation of the teleological movement used by creationists in a pseudoscientific guise to promote a political agenda (namely the teaching of creationism in school), which has been rejected by the scientific community. This article would be in violation of NPOV if it did not address all these issues as some of the promoters of the tag appear to me to be advocating (correct me if I'm wrong).  Arguments about neutrality that are based on citation formats and dead links seem especially weak grounds for justifying a NPOV tag. Yobol (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is not with weight, or whether or not the history of ID should be addressed accurately. The question is about whether the article should be written in a neutral voice, fairly representing the positions of the parties involved, with proper regard to due weight, or whether it should read like a personal essay designed to discredit the ID movement. I think it would help a great deal if we removed some of the clearly non-reliable sources from the lead and did something to reduce the amount of WP:OR. Thparkth (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess my confusion comes from the fact that I do not see this article as reading like a personal essay, and it does fairly represent the positions of the parties involved. I'm sure everyone would like to remove any sources that don't meet WP:RS or statements that contain OR; certainly you don't need a tag to correct any violations of those, though on my read of the article I did not see any significant OR issues. Yobol (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that these debates shouldn't be taking place on talk, but in the article. Here, we should be discussing sources. Some editors feels the article should reflect their opinions, and they look for sources to support those opinions. But that's not how WP works. We should be looking for the key ID sources, on whatever side, and writing up what they say, even if we personally hate it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific discussion
Well, let's look at the following sentence from the opening paragraph:

"The modern formulation of the idea was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science."

The sources referenced for this statement for this are:


 * a court judgement which addresses the motivations behind revisions to a particular book. It makes no statement about the wider ID movement. We are currently breaching WP:SYNTH in using this source in this manner. We should also be quoting and attributing the judgement because it is a primary source.


 * another part of the same judgement which points out the similarities between ID and the teleological argument, but makes no claims about the motivations of the people invovled.


 * a position paper from a secular-humanist organization. Since no page numbers are given, it's hard to know exactly which part of this large report is being referenced, but in any case I don't think this is a reliable source for anything other than the position of the authors. In any case they are ideologically opposed to the ID movement and it's not fair to uncritically present their position as fact.

So here we have a claim about the motivations behind the ID movement. We are telling people that the only reason for it to exist is to get around court decisions in the USA. We are defining the entire movement as being entirely about cynical maneuvering around court decisions. We have nowhere near enough sourcing to make a claim like that; all we have are court transcripts that kind of allude to that if you add a big dose of WP:SYNTH and a position paper from an organization ideologically opposed to ID. If this sentence in the lead is just a simple, neutral statement of accepted fact, where are the independent, secondary reliable sources to attest to it? It should be easy to find them if this really is the case.

If we can't find them, we should at least quote and attribute the relevant portions of the judgement and the position paper. But to be honest neither of them are good sources. Thparkth (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The citations in the lead summarise more detail given to this issue in the sections on Development of its modern form, Origin of the term and Kitzmiller trial, with sources. The Kitzmiller ruling is a very good source, and Forrest is an established expert on the subject. It's clear from numerous sources that the only reason for the introduction of "intelligent design" as an alternative name for creation science was to get round the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. As a couple of additional sources on this issue, see and Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks, Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke. ( and  may also be of use in improving the article). . . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just an anon here, but I've been involved in this discussion (creationism / ID vs evolution) for a long time, and I've also been lurking on this article for a few months. So I will make a few comments:
 * The article is clearly, unambiguously biased. It presents ID in a way that discredits it.
 * The article is clearly, unambiguously correct. ID has earned no credit.
 * I really have no idea about how to reconcile this conflict.
 * "We are telling people that the only reason for it to exist is to get around court decisions in the USA."
 * Here's a great example. I agree that telling people this comes across as POV.  The problem is, it's true (or, in Wikipediese: highly verifiable from numerous reliable sources).  ID has no philosophical foundation; it's a political campaign.  ID is an intentional rebranding of creationism; I personally don't need more evidence than "cdesign proponentsists".


 * Put another way, if ID does have a philosophical foundation, it does not differ significantly enough from the (impartial, disinterested) explanations given at Teleological argument and Christian evangelism to warrant its own article, under the title "Intelligent design" (:IOW, absent the conflict with the science community, ID simply is not notable). The "ID researchers" are not advancing some field of knowledge, they are promoting a social agenda (which is fine: that's how social systems work!).  Their goals are political, social, and pragmatic, not intellectual or theoretical.


 * On several occasions (which I can reference if you like) ID advocates have stated that a theory of creation is not feasible: one cannot build a rational theory about a subject which by definition is ineffable, omnipotent, and surpasses human understanding. This is why they are attempting to "change the ground rules of science"; it is simply not possible to advance a scientific theory of ID with the current definition of science (or theory, or ID).


 * In the same vein, both privately and (to a lesser extent) publicly, IDers have identified their goal as establishing a moral framework (based on a Christian understanding of morality), not to investigate the methodologies of God. IOW, they seek the greater good for God (or religion, whatever), not science.  If the scientific community (and by extension, the politicians and part of the public) weren't demanding it, and just accepted (the IDers' formulation of) God, ID would atrophy; it would have served its purpose.  This is why there is no true research in the "field" of ID has appeared, why there is no internal debate (unlike, let's say, in anthropology or geology), and the only published "research" is in the form of popular science books written for a lay audience.  (What other "science" or "philosophy" do you know of, that operates like that?  For those who haven't, it's worth reading the actual Wedge Document)


 * Now that I think about it, maybe the POV issue stems from the science-oriented editors' zeal that ID not be mistaken for science. So maybe one road toward NPOV is to reorient the article, and frame ID as a movement.  That is, discuss its goals, origins, and methodologies from a political and sociological viewpoint.  This would preclude the need to "defend" science or to discredit ID, and make it easier to present ID in a neutral light.


 * I'm personally pretty confident I could dig up sufficient sources for this framing, but I'm not sure I want to spend the time on it. 68.167.16.218 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that there is already an article on that movement. This is not that article. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The problem is, it's true (or, in Wikipediese: highly verifiable from numerous reliable sources)." I agree that it's true. But is it verifiable? Where is the article from an authoritative newspaper which clearly backs up the lead's line on this? Where is it unambiguously stated in an independently-published, peer-reviewed paper? I suspect that the best sources will be just a little more nuanced, just a little more neutrally-worded than what we are claiming here. I may be wrong on this (I am *not* a proponent of ID, so I'd be fine with that), but if I am wrong, where are the sources? At the moment it's pure WP:SYNTH with a strong dose of POV. Thparkth (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Thparkth, see the sources I've cited, and note that peer reviewed publications are better sources for scientific and educational subjects than newspapers.
 * $ 68.167.16.218 While I've some sympathy with your reasoning, ID is presented to the public as a body of thought, rather than as a movement, and we have a sub-article dealing specifically with the intelligent design movement. Proponents essentially try to claim that ID is science which should be presented in public school classrooms, as well as promoting it as a revolutionary new paradigm in science which justifies supernatural explanations and scientifically proves the existence of God. Much of the discussion of the subject has focussed on this essential issue, and indeed the question of whether ID is science was something that both plaintiff and defendants in the Kitzmiller trial wanted the court to determine. Which it did. Oh, and I reject the "article is biased" statement – the article complies with WP:NPOV and specifically with WP:WEIGHT, showing the [minority, pseudoscientific] views of ID proponents, and showing how they have been received in the context of majority views. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues for discussion
Of the issues numbered 1–5 at the top of this thread, numbers 4 and 5 may, perhaps, be reasons for asking for article copyediting and cleanup, but they are invalid reasons to claim POV. As numerous editors in this talk have already stated, although individual users may have personal opinions about citation templates, it is currently the practice at Wikipedia to use these templates. If one wants to argue that they be deprecated, this talk page is the wrong venue for it. And to make the innuendo that they are employed by POV pushers for the nefarious purpose of making it difficult for neutral editors to restore neutrality to the page is incorrect.

Issues 1, 2, and 3 are reasonable issues for discussion. In fact, they are being discussed. At this stage it would probably be more useful to raise specific passages that are of concern, as some editors have already been doing, and discuss in this talk how better to word them, instead of worrying about whether or not to remove the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If editors find that making WP:BOLD edits just gets them reverted, they may instead find it more useful to propose and discuss possible changes in this talk. I'd really like to see editors who feel that there is POV list specific passages that they would like to see changed, with (if possible) specific wording of what they would propose instead. We can then discuss how to reach consensus on each change, one-by-one. That is likely to be more productive than having meta arguments about what ID really is or how unfair this page supposedly is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As a person just passing through this, I would concur with tryptofish, that issues 4 and 5 have nothing to do with POV and are best saved for after this dispute is settled. SlimVirgin's issue 1 should also be restated.  "Strongly" seems a bit inflammatory given that there are people arguing that the article is already NPOV.  Now this to me is the big issue that underscores those remaining three issues.


 * It cannot be side-stepped that I.D. has no standing among main stream scientists. There are far too many references that indicate that scientists overwhelmingly think I.D. is bad for science and education.  However, it also cannot be side-stepped that I.D. has a following among the public.  These two observations are at the heart of the dispute.


 * My two bit recommendations for settling this are the following:
 * 1)	 Everyone in this dispute should try to ease up in the use of adverbs. Too many people (and not just SlimVirgin) are using them, intentionally or not, to inflame the issues.
 * 2)	If the article has POV issues throughout, pick ONE section and start working at it ONE sentence at a time. It may be time consuming, but it will keep people on task as opposed to flaming retorts.
 * 3)	Here is what I would say is my most controversial suggestion. The lack of scientific support for I.D. must be part of this article.  This is not a POV problem and it should not be glossed over or minimized.   At the same time it should not dominate the article which then leads to the POV questions.  As there seems to be a lot of information about the scientific standing of I.D. (or rather the lack there of), it may be necessary to have yet another spin off called “the scientific standing of I.D”.  That article can certainly be unflattering (and it won’t be a POV issue) because there is plenty of evidence that most scientists/philosophers of science don’t like I.D.  The main article can then offer a much briefer scientific rebuttal with a link to a more detailed statement in the other article.


 * Good luck and happy arguing. And I am out of here….  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.237.149 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those very sensible comments, and I'm sorry that you might not be sticking around. I've just made two edits in response to the comments in this talk about specific passages that were of concern to editors who feel that there are POV problems with this page. In the edit summaries, I linked to the places in this talk where the wording was discussed. Speaking as someone who was not bothered by the POV balance of the page before the tag was placed, I'm just fine with these changes, and I see them as very reasonable and no big deal. I'd be happy to make more such edits, if editors who are concerned about POV would point out specifically more such passages to change. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the anon for attempting to help, its clear s/he is not familiar with WP:UNDUE. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Questions Related to Sourcing & NPOV
While I don't see ID as being anything that will revolutionize society (and it appears most of the people already discussing this agree) - I do concur with SlimVirgin  on the overarching issue dealing with the fact that this page seems to place a large amount of weight on the opinions of... well, opinionated people.

In saying this I am not claiming that the pragmatic criticisms of ID are necessarily false, however upon doing some research of my own (prompted by an ID-fanatic I keep running into), there does appear to be too much emphasis placed on the following issues:


 * The Wedge Document/Strategy - This fundraiser catalyst as I understand it was intended to cater to right-wing religious groups and individuals. The Discovery Institute initially lacked the funding to even do anything related to this messy venture of theirs and wanted the money to hit the ground running like any other think tank. To compete with groups such as the NCSE (which one site I came across earlier complains about receiving millions in government grants), it makes sense that they would try and do something to attract donors.

So what did they do? Create a fund raising proposal to attract the most loyal and affluent donors possible: people from the religious right. I don't see any reason to be astonished by this or use it to claim that ID is a political strategy. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly astonishing about it as far as I can tell.


 * Of Pandas and People - As the story goes, the earlier drafts of this book had religious overtones. Doing a search on the Dover led to either unquestioning agreement or occasionally resentment. One of these results caught my attention after I searched the individual page on the book in question:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/dover-a-half-decade-later-and-what-difference-did-it-really-make/#comment-358138

Yes, this site is apparently a pro-ID site; that's beside the point. What I think should be brought into discussion here is whether or not their is any truth to what that comment says. If they are correct and none of those traits are in the early drafts, then I think that really calls into question the idea that ID is just repackaged religion - a separate question from the idea that ID is actually true which it has yet to show.

With some of this in mind, I think there is plenty of room for making the entry on intelligent design a little more geared towards a NPV. I agree with SlimVirgin that there's nothing wrong with citing critical opinion so long as it is referred to as such on the page.

Inquisitor360 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're doing here is original research. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, we can't choose to include or exclude content based on the assumption it was created for a purpose outside of its apparent scope. As an unrelated note, I'd suggest you do a bit more research on this topic... as some of the things you've said aren't true or are lacking proper context. For example, Of Pandas and People was very clearly a duplicate of previous Creationist literature, and its unlikely anyone sufficiently knowledgeable, without an agenda would disagree; in the text, a search/replace done on 'Creationism' to 'Intelligent Design'... Due to poor error checking, this lead to such gems as "cdesign proponentsists". This stuff is covered in the ID articles, BTW. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 05:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research or not, I think some of the things mentioned are more than enough to show that the claim that ID is repackaged creationism is an interpretation of a book in question - not something to be presented as cold-hard fact. I have little doubt that ID would fail as a research program, but keeping in the context of the viewpoint itself, here is my main discrepancy with what you're saying (about me presenting false information or bad context):


 * The Pandas drafts - You state that these drafts are demonstrate a hidden agenda in the sense that the earlier drafts have the term "creationist" in place of the term "intelligent design" in them. My dispute with the article is the idea that this somehow means that the earliest drafts advocated a religious agenda to begin with. Here is an example of a site that makes this argument:


 * http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists


 * Based on the material they have posted, the term "creationist" could mean just about anything. Is a creationist someone who believes a supernatural entity did it in less than a week or is it simply invoking an unspecified "creator" of some sort in the discussion of origins? Do the earliest drafts postulate god in the picture? If not, then I think the article could be improved by stating that "creation" (as used in the drafts) was very different from the typical understanding of the term which is that a god of the bible made everything in under a week (and then "rested"). There's no doubt whatsoever that these drafts say terms such as "creation" or "creator" but the context in which they were used is very different from how most people would take it.


 * As an improvement, I would suggest adding a sentence in this section stating something along the lines of "While the term 'creation' appears in the earliest drafts the authors did not explicitly refer to a genesis-type story..." or something to that effect. As is, the article gives readers the impression that the drafts of the pandas book are synonymous with six-day biblical creationism - which is incorrect.


 * Inquisitor360 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Inquisitor, I see that you are a new editor—welcome! Since you are new here, let me reiterate something that Jess said above, that is really basic to the editing process. WP:OR is a fundamental policy about editing that says no original research. "Original research or not" just will not win any arguments, ever. The solution: look to the sources. If you feel that sources have been misrepresented by editors interpreting them inappropriately, that may well be WP:SYNTH. If you can present new sources here that back up what you claim, that will count far more than any amount of argument. I appreciate that you have pointed to some specific parts of the page, and I'd be happy to work with that, if the sourcing so indicates. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)