Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 73

Update question
Where do we stand on the connection between ID and "argument from design" exactly? I'm asking for clarification. BabyJonas (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Short version, my opinion:-
 * 1. The term is sometimes used as a short term meaning the "argumentum" that you mention (which has lots of names, mostly post 1800), although in some sources. We have excellent sourcing to specify that the name applies to the version of the argumentum associated with the movement of that name in America and it does apply to older variations as well. [1b. ADDED: As a detail, Atethnekos and I have pointed out that there is a theoretical but practically unimportant difference between the "intelligent design" which is perceived in nature as evidence in step 1 of any argument from intelligent design, and that argument which then derives from that observation.]
 * 2. Clearly, the term is also used to refer to that creationist movement in America.
 * As far as good sourcing is concerned, that is all. The term is obviously used by extension to various things associated with the movement, but sourcing the details of this is difficult. Of course a lot of the types of sources who write about such movements are not careful with words, and so they often give no clarity on how they are using it in a particular situation. And indeed the same goes for "creationism".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So ID and "argument from design" are synonymous in your opinion? I'm of the opinion that ID tries to be a predominantly scientific argument (appeals to irreducible complexity etc) with philosophical underpinnings, whilst "arguments from design" (incl. teleological arguments) are predominantly philosophical arguments with scientific underpinnings. Are you in favor of seeing ID and teleological arguments (which I presume includes arguments from cosmic fine-tuning and other non-biological scientific data) together in the same article? BabyJonas (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be good for the main participants to give their individual answers. I agree with what Andrew said. My summary would be that ID is a broad topic (much broader than the promoted limitation of this article) and TE is an element of it. Not as a subset of it, but as a component of it.  North8000 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As North says, the argument-from-design is a theological construct, a philosophical proof of the existence of god[s], while ID is claimed to be science but is based surreptitiously on this theological argument. Thus the TA article is about the argument, its history and use including creation science and ID use, while this ID article is covers this specific subset of both the TA and creationism. Appreciate Andrew's clarification that use of the phrase "intelligent design" in the TA does not necessarily cover the whole argument, and agree that at times "argument from intelligent design" has been used to refer to the TA. . . dave souza, talk 08:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that edit warring over article tags is still ongoing. I'm embarrassed to see this.  Article tags help invite other editors to join the discussion on the talk page and should not be edit-warred over.  Please don't do it.  I agree with North8000 that the tag should be added, so I think the edit summary that there is consensus not to have the tag is incorrect. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just on the tags:
 * I have reinstated the vf tag because this was discussed here and for example Dave seemed to suggest that he was thinking about how to fix the problem. So surely it is valid to have a marker there to indicate agreement that something needs doing. Before reverting, editors should please note that the concern is about the word "it". Our text points readers back to the first sentence which gives a different (or not clearly the same) referent from another source. Certainly it has been emphasized to me that the first sentence is NOT about "intelligent design theory", whereas that is exactly what our source for the second sentence says it is about.
 * Concerning the tagging for the first sentence the claim here is that there is a consensus that sourcing exists, so I do not think anyone should reinsert that tag for now while we try to establish if that is true. But for now, after many efforts apparently no one wants to explain what the sourcing is, and that implies we need to come back to this eventually. Apparently the sourcing is simply the first sentence of the abstract of Padian and Matzke?? If not, someone should please say so because I am thinking of taking this question to WP:RSN for broader discussion. I do not want to explain other people's positions wrongly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The various points are covered in Padian & Matzke, and this has now been supplemented by other editors with two other sources: we can probably cover it with just one of these. On your earlier question, ID differs from creation science in going to greater lengths to obscure the Creation by God, but its arguments are essentially the same. . dave souza, talk 07:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For quite some time I have been asking you, citing WP:BURDEN to explain which words in Padian and Matzke you are using, and with which reasoning. You've deleted tags, but not responded. This is of course not normally considered acceptable on WP. But help me out: If I understand it, the text you are using is the abstract and your reasoning is the same as the one Yopienso mentioned?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any delay, as stated earlier I've been a bit short of time lately. From Padian & Matzke"ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism;… The DI in Seattle is an umbrella organization focusing on several public policy issues, including regional traffic control, but in 1996 it started the CSRC (Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), locus of the ‘ID’ creationism movement….. The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI takes some elements from ‘Paleyism’, but is much more ambitious than Paley’s deist-friendly argument…" [quoting the DI] "the Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think-tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design". They don't go into much more detail on the DI, Forrest's position pager covers much of the same ground and "The ID movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative think tank in Seattle.. Most of the CSC’s funding has come from a wealthy benefactor, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., who supports the organization’s religious mission". Think that covers the sentence reasonably well, do please ask if there are specific points where you want more citations. . dave souza, talk 13:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave I have also not had enough time to do the perfect job and I would never criticize you simply for a delay. When you are delayed from answering something I do believe you should avoid posting lots of accusations, statements that things are already answered when they weren't (or weren't when they were), or for example doing mass reverts, or rejecting draft suggestions in a few seconds. Coming to your explanation, I do not see how you are connecting the dots to justify any of the issues which have seemed so important to you.
 * No one has argued against Intelligent design being a word commonly used to refer to a form of creationism.
 * There is nothing in the citations you make which indicates that the terms ID, and indeed creationism are being used consistently to refer to anything other than the movement or an argument from design. (They are clearly mixing it up a bit, which many culture war sources do. Overall of course the article is about the movement and not a general commentary on theological history.)
 * There is nothing as far as I can see which shows these authors discussed ways in which the term was NEVER used, or ALWAYS used. So for example it does not say that there is nothing commonly called ID outside of the Discovery Institute, and it does not say there nothing called that before the 1980s. This was a key point concerning what the present lead strongly implies - a very strong type of conclusion which needs very strong sources. I understood from you that this source was the justification for that, but I guess it is not?
 * If we have no sufficiently strong source for saying something "strong" then WP should avoid saying anything about that matter (even if between the lines). So we do not for example need to decide when this term first came into use, and we do not need to make strong conclusions of discontinuity between IDM-ID and other uses of the term ID, at least beyond what we have good sourcing for. If our sources say that the IDM is different from Paley because they are fundamentalist Christians then if we think that is notable maybe it fits somewhere. (We also sources available noting the difference between IDM and Thomism.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This question is by no means answered.
 * The sentence gives us the 3 word sequence which we use "Intelligent design ... is ... a form of creationism". I do not think this in itself is a major concern, but creationism can mean many types of things such as "argument from design" or a movement or whatever. So it is the OTHER words, the context, which needs to be discussed.
 * Dave has, if I understand correctly, argued that this article is about not the movement (which has its own article) but the "theory". However, he has recently added that it is not only about the argument from design either. So this is apparently intended to cover a mixture of 3 things: a creationist movement, a creationist "argument from design" (for some experts in this field creationism means believing in an argument from design) and something else which is other creationist doctrine, but not the argument from design.
 * So here is our QUESTION: do we have any source for such doctrine EVER being referred to as "intelligent design" apart from in a general way when talking about the movement and/or the argument from design of the movement, (both of which clearly ARE referred to as "intelligent design")?
 * Even more difficult to prove: do we have a secondary source which says that the intelligent design movement and the intelligent design "argument from design" are NOT the most common uses of the term "intelligent design"?
 * I see nothing in the above citation which helps us? If I am missing something, somebody please help me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help if I confirmed that this is the main article about ID, it covers the strategy as well as the concept and the claims that it is a "theory", and also necessarily summarises info about the proponents and the movement. The article fully meets Notability, I'm unconvinced that the same could be said for the use of the phrase as a synonym for part or all of the teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So this article is about a strategy? Where is the evidence anywhere that "intelligent design" is a word for a strategy? You know there are sources the things you are "unconvinced" about. BTW this sudden rush of new posts in old threads is quite remarkable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of first sentence
Andrew has helpfully provided a link to Darwin's Gift: To Science and Religion - Francisco Ayala, Joseph Henry Press - Google Boeken (2007), p. 6, which says of Paley's theology that "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively, and on p. 138 says that the [DI] proponents revived the argument from design in the 1990s with the differences that they sought to hide their real agenda, avoiding direct reference to God to get ID taught in public schools without running into conflict with the U.S. constitution, and pretending that it was scientific rather than religious, in a creationist religious strategy that evolved from earlier forms of creationism. That source, together with Padian & Matzke (2009), supports clarification of the first sentence as follows:

I've used square brackets round the [intelligent] as sources cited on the talk page indicate that this is a much less common formulation than simply "argument from design", which is the usual alternative term for the teleological argument. I think this will avoid any interpretation of the wording as having some unstated suggestion that the argument or phrase was new. . . dave souza, talk 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just on the name for the argumentum. I agree that the longer wording is less common. If we are aiming at easy cross referencing for leads though, should we not use the name we use for the main article for that argumentum?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the sourcing issue, which you just say you agree with yourself about, has not been explained by yourself and is in need of such explanation.
 * As explained by me at length there are issues which require us to look at the second and first sentences together.
 * Trying to understand what changes you are proposing. Are there any?:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is one simple step to overcome any misunderstanding that the sentence somehow implies that ID was the first usage in this context of intelligent design. The only change is to the piped link introducing [intelligent]. Will peruse the lengthy discussions later. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems a very minor point to me, and a bit of a distraction. I really think we should focus on the iceberg and not the deck chairs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've adapted my comparison table to help see the first two sentences, and also to allow comparison to my recent proposal. (As I understand it, your posting here is intended to be a proposal directed at solving some of the concerns my proposal was addressing. You mentioned you would do this above. Sorry if I misunderstand.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The iceberg is that this relabelled creation science uses both a variant of the teleological argument, and the label "intelligent design", a phrase found in descriptions of the teleological argument. It's a separate sub-topic of both teleological argument and creationism. The proposed change is to assist anyone searching for the phrase in the teleological context, highlighting that some modern authors have on occasion used the wording "argument from intelligent design" for the TA. The same change could be made in the disambiguation header. . dave souza, talk 07:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As is often the case I think there is more to this iceberg than immediately meets the eye? :) Can you check if you agree with these attempts to state a common base point:
 * "Intelligent design" is a term a type of argument for the existence of an intelligent creator, but in that meaning it is not a term used exclusively in contexts related to the intelligent design movement, but can also be a term for any teleological argument (a subject with its own article). A concern has been articulated, maybe badly, by me and others that our first sentence appears intended to be read as saying that the term is never used outside the context of Discovery Institute creationism. The request continues to be that this implication be tweaked out.
 * "Intelligent design" also clearly refers to a movement, a "form of creationism", and that movement is also called Neo-creationism (which has its own article), the intelligent design movement (which has its own article) and I see you equate it also to creation science (yet another article). Questions lurk under our waterline about how to know where we should edit about which thing (apparently in many articles at once?). The concern has been raised large amount of highly over-lapping articles does not appear necessary, not advantageous, either to readers or editors? It also seems to lead to problems reaching agreements on almost any editing:
 * Third, the fact that it is clear (above) that we here have a word with two (related) meanings, that can not always be treated as equivalent in all contexts, suggests logically that our article (and all the others with the same issue) need editing to make sure we do not connect a source talking about the argumentum to a source talking about the creationist movement. But for some reason, probably a misunderstanding of the point being made, attempts to work on this have attracted heavy reactions.
 * For example, our second sentence quotes a statement from the movement, which is clearly a definition of the argumentum. (They call it their "intelligent design theory", but it is still the classic argumentum.) Your most recent edit still does not address the fact that this argumentum definition is being equated to the movement (the form of creationism known as Neo-creationism) in the first sentence. (Or at least this is one obvious reading.)
 * I've suggested from an early point in discussion that it seems to me that a clear decision should be made about whether this article is about the "theory" (probably including all the add on "theory") and not just the argumentum) or the movement. There appeared to be agreement about this, but it now appears to be getting a very cold shoulder.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be about the topic as understood in common usage. Common usage is what the established version of this articles states: ID is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute. It is known that ID was proposed to allow the teaching of creationism in certain US schools—that's a very significant and controversial issue, and this article should not be hijacked to confuse readers with references to any text containing the words "intelligent design". If the topic is notable, and if independent secondary sources are available, another article might cover the history of those words. Update: I see that Intelligent design (historical) was created a week ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No: policy is a bit more complex than this. Sorry but can you refer to my extended explanation above concerning the "anaology with creationism"? Please, everyone, do not just keep repeating the same position without trying to understand the concerns of others. I am not ignorant of your position, which I above refer to as WP:UCN "fundamentalism", but honestly, I think you have not tried to understand why others are saying it is not correct. In any case I see no evidence of it.
 * OTOH, here in the discussion you have broken into, your point is not actually relevant. It is not about any proposal to change the name of the article, nor even to change to the definition of what this article is about! :) This talk page is quite busy, so we really all need to be careful to read what we "reply" to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've broken this out into a new section in case anyone wishes to discuss. It was clearly not a reply where it was posted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you've insisted on putting it back as a "reply" and deleted a whole bunch of my posts. This means we have a broken chronology because people then posted here before I could reinstate deleted materials. So now unfortunately this is a bit messy. Can I ask everyone here to be a bit less hasty?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources don't support the existence of an independent "intelligent design movement". Even the linked article which Andrew links to does not support that interpretation: The intelligent design movement says "The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign". Any concerns about dictionary definitions unrelated to this article are irrelevant, wikipedia is not a dictionary and we are using common usage of the word here. IRWolfie- (talk)
 * I do not quite get the relevance of this point to this particular discussion. I guess you prefer the word "campaign" to "movement"? Fine by me I think. I do not think there was any dispute involving this. The movement just keeps getting mentioned because, to put it another way a campaign can not be an argument. Just not sure if I get what you mean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design is a strategy and a concept, the basis for the various campaigns. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is a source for saying intelligent design is a term for a strategy? And by concept what do you mean? The word is unclear and does not come from sources either. It is good to be seeing more clearly what the OR is which you want to force in between the lines of the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The institute's definition
Example from Dave's adaptation to the article. Please can anyone else apart from me not see any potential ambiguity in this sequence of words? "The Institute claims that it is a theory". The antecedent of the "it" here is "intelligent design" which we describe (the way I read it) as a movement. Can a movement BE a theory? The other way to read it is that what we mean by "creationism" is the same as what the Institute calls its theory, which is an argument from design. So then the article is not about the movement, except concerning its theory? But at least looking at recent discussion this seems not be the intention? Another probable implication when reading the two sentences is that it is a big issue that neutral sources actually disagree that "intelligent design" is a "theory". I do not think that is the intention either? This is exactly the type of problem we have, and if more editors were allowed to work on this article I think wording tweaks could easily clean this up. This is a typical lead problem in 1000s of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, I've added a subheader as this deviates from discussion of the first sentence. Nope, the movement isn't the theory, it promulgates same. Fair point about "it", on reflection I've used the simpler construction that "In the Institute's definition, the "theory of intelligent design holds 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." Trust that reduces ambiguity, it leaves the deliberate ambiguity about the word "theory" which is covered later. . dave souza, talk 12:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of similar to what you reverted? Please do consider: honestly, would you be able to explain back to me what you think are the positions I hold that you believe you disagree with? Maybe I do not think those things. Just wondering. I do fear you are not very interested in trying to understand what other people are trying to explain. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I find a lot of your writing confusing and potentially misleading. I do my best in the time available, please show more patience to allow time for research, writing and posting on this talk page which has been rather hectic lately. . dave souza, talk 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Managed to slip another little accusation in there? Always time for one of those! LOL! Dave please do take more time! But in the meantime please avoid ad hominem postings, accusations, mass reverts, knee jerk remarks etc etc. (It is true they are quicker.) There are editors making good faith efforts to explain a complicated point, and that should be respected more by you. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Culture warrior sources cited in the article
ID is obviously an issue over which there is a large, ongoing culture war. Some, if not many of the people involved in this article have been a part of that culture war on one side or another. However, I presume we can all agree that for the purpose of encyclopedic integrity, we need to keep our culture-warring views out of the article and commit to balanced and objective depictions of ID. This does not entail endorsement of ID, but neither should it entail a disavowal of ID. The article isn't intended to pronounce judgement either way, only to publish facts.

In light of that, I think we all have to acknowledge the culture-warrior viewpoints represented in some sources, even in some substantially weighty sources. I brought up an example elsewhere: Sahotra Sarkar's book review in the NDPR. To my knowledge, this qualifies as a good source, but do the views in it represent encyclopedic facts? Most of us wouldn't use every statement in this review as fact.

Making this distinction brings an important nuance into the issue of sources: Yes, even otherwise authoritative sources can exemplify biases. This is particularly obvious when reading editorials in prestigious newspapers- citing the NYT is nice, but citing claims in a NYT editorial authored by, say, Ahmadinejad requires great care before one portrays it as an encyclopedic fact. As such, I think it's worthwhile to start a gradual reviewing of the sources in this article, paying particularly close attention to culture-warring and biases even in sources that seem prima-facie authoritative. BabyJonas (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you're familiar with Wikipedia's policies, WP:NPOV required due weight to majority expert views, and WP:PSCI shows how we have to present topics such as intelligent design. Care is needed to avoid giving "equal validity" to such beliefs. As for Sahotra Sarkar's book review, it doesn't seem to be used as a source in this article. The page has a link to "about", which states that "Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews began publication in January 2002. It is entirely devoted to publishing substantive, high-quality book reviews... " It appears to have editorial oversight, so on the face of it would seem to be a reliable source: if you have any doubts, you could try WP:RSN. . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:NPOV or WP:PSCI address the nuance being discussed here. Please read what I said again. Expert views published in an acceptable source are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a source to be seen as being reliable while not culture-warring. What is being said here is merely that certain sources can be, by virtue of their reputation reliable, yet nevertheless contain unreliable statements of opinion, such as the example I provided above. Whether or not Sarkar's review is used in the article is irrelevant- what is relevant is whether this distinction I am making exists. That is, whether a source can be considered reliable while the statements in it are not statements of fact but of opinion. BabyJonas (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviews are always a matter of opinion, and reliability isn't a black and white issue: it depends what the source is being used for, and the context which would include the points you raise. Since the source isn't used in this article, it doesn't support the heading to this section. This article gives due weight to mainstream views from reliable sources, it's clearly your own view that "there is a large, ongoing culture war" – this talk page is for improvements to the article, and if you want something about that added to the article, you'll have to make specific proposals for improvements, and provide reliable sourcing. This isn't a forum for general discussions. . dave souza, talk 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, it appears you are misreading me again. I'm not making general discussion, nor am I insinuating the Sarkar source is used in the article. I'm making a distinction between reliable sources containing non-factual information but statements of opinion. If you're still struggling to understand what is being said, let me know. I'll find another way to say it. BabyJonas (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this type of "stuck" discussion appears a lot on this article talkpage, and maybe the following remark helps avoid the same thing repeating over and over. I will try to write in terms of WP policy and we should all try to do that in a clear and commonsensical way.
 * What I understand Dave to be saying, and I guess we can excuse him for it having become a quite standard answer, is that science is not considered to be needing to be balanced by non-science, when we are writing about science. Is that correct Dave?
 * But, at least if BabyJonas' point is like one of my concerns, I think what he is saying is that when we are talking about for example the history of arguments from design, a biologist is not an expert source at all, and a non-neutral biologist with a stake in the culture wars is really actually the type of source WP policy would normally tell us to keep clear from. Is that what you meant BabyJonas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew. If that's what Dave is saying, I agree. But while I agree, his response is a non sequitur. On your point about a biologist not being an expert on the historical and philosophical aspects of arguments from design, I agree here too. But my point is something else. Tersely, it is that even ordinarily reliable sources contain non-factual claims, and this problem becomes egregious with a culture-war-infused topic like ID, where the culture-warring extends even into prestigious academic institutions and reliable sources. If we can acknowledge this we can actually make progress on this discussion by casting a more critical eye on reliable sources. BabyJonas (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave though, that in a sense your remark seems general and not pointing to any particular source in the present article. Basically I think the POV-sourcing problems confronted here are not the most challenging on WP and that even with a shortage of truly neutral sources we have enough material with enough common ground, that this article can be improved. The normal WP approach to what I perceive to be your concern is to say that (a) truly neutral sources are an unrealistic ideal and so "reliability" is more important but with the proviso that (b) where a source is known to be side-taking concerning a particular issue, we should avoid using only that source for "Wikipedia's voice" on that particular issue. This kind of problem happens a lot in many articles about political subjects and I think if this article could be handled that way it would be a better article. What muddies the water, it seems to me, is that this subjects links to a "science versus non-science" subject. So, again just how it seems to me, the normal WP approaches on how to treat political and philosophical debates are being blocked in the name of defending science concerning a scientific subject. Problem with that reasoning is that no editors seem to me to arguing against any scientific consensus on scientific points, for example that the argument from design is not science. So as a result it seems striking to me that we have one editor apparently insisting that biologists are the unquestionable highest level experts regarding distinctions not just between science and religion, but even within religion and theology and concerning political activities of a politico-religious movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after a reflecting a bit more, if your concern is that we are giving WP a "bloggy" style article, then what I am saying is that I think you are right, but I am defending WP's normal policies which I believe are not being followed here. Just to take a minor point, there almost seems to be a competition to insert repetitive adjectives implying "not science" such as "traditional", "theological" and so on, over and over, while deleting words which might give any hint of science such "theory". Any readers from outside will feel this immediately I think because the style is highly un-natural and forced. We can I think usefully refer to our competitor online encyclopedias such as http://plato.stanford.edu/ and http://www.iep.utm.edu/ who do not disagree with biologists on anything but manage to sound like reasonable folk with open minds. (As a Darwinian myself I must say that I fear our articles can even be used to promote misunderstandings for less informed readers, such as the old saw that Darwinians are also people promoting their faith.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The core issue here has not been in the debate between science and non-science. It has been over the narrowing and resultant statements which end up as a statement that ID means just the Discovery Institute initiative.So it's not a matter of sources vs/ sources. It is a matter of sources vs. that artificial move.  North8000 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but I suppose the claim is that this "artificial move" is based somehow on sources? (Even just invoking WP:UCN kind of implies an invocation of sources?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any sources that say that.   I have seen editors mis-derive it from sources. For example mis-derive "DI institute is A meaning"  into "DI institute is THE meaning". North8000 (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns, and for that reason I am trying to focus on those sourcing claims for the time being. I must admit it is not easy, because I do not tend to get clear answers about the nature of the sourcing claims. But what I can see certainly gives the impression that this article is a Wikipedia original. It takes bits and pieces from various sources but gives a different basic story overall. The closest I have seen to the core theme we give is the Matzke blog post, which was originally more openly mentioned to me as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No editor is saying that the words "ID" only ever refer to the DI initiative. You're not getting responses here because you both keep repeating the same thing, despite every effort to explain that's not the argument being made. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor clarification: the words "intelligent design" have clearly been used with reference to both industrial design and the argument-from-design, so far I've only seen the initials ID used for the Pandas group of arguments as promulgated by the DI. . dave souza, talk 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mann_Jess. Yes there is.   You need look no farther than the first sentence: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute...." equivalent to stating: "An automobile is a 4 wheeled vehicle manufactured by General Motors" North8000 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? That's not equivalent. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is Dave. And all the reverts show that this is what you want it to say. At the very least you are being told by editors who have no reason to lie that they read it this way and you show remarkably little interest in helping them see their "error".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more equivalent to stating, "S.O.S. Soap Pads are steel wool soap pads for scrubbing pots, as advertised by Safeway (Tesco for Dave) supermarkets." ID is promulgated by the DI, but is not exclusively in the DI's domain. This is not a perfect analogy either, because DI helps manufacture as well as promote and "sell" ID. (I originally came up with the flawed automobile analogy.)
 * Andrew, I have consistently supported the original first sentence as accurate and well sourced. The DI does promulgate ID, and the ID this article treats of is that same version. Yopienso (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the basis of which sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, where are the sources that say that say that the superset is the subset, which is the assertion of that first sentence. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the sentence: Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
 * We have sources that say ID is a form of creationism.
 * We have sources that say ID is based on the argument from design.
 * We have sources that say the DI promulgates ID.
 * We have sources that say the DI is a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
 * I have no idea why anyone would object to that sentence. Which of its elements do you think are untrue or improperly sourced? Please be very brief and very specific. Yopienso (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopienso I'll go through your useful points:
 * We have sources that say ID is a form of creationism. But creationism can many mean things, including "argument from design" or a creationist movement, both of which Dave says are NOT the subject of this article. Shouldn't we clarify?
 * No need for that--it is one of many forms of creationism. The rest of the article clarifies it. Yopienso (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why make the first sentence unclear?
 * We have sources that say ID is based on the argument from design. We also have sources saying ID is an argument from design.
 * The two are not mutually exclusive. Yopienso (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you read Wikipedia. It tells us that they are two different things. Attempts to indicate any link between these inter-related terms are consistently reverted so there must be a reason?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have sources that say the DI promulgates ID. But we have no sources which say that only the DI promulgate it, and indeed it is obviously not true.
 * That sentence does not assert that only the DI promulgates it. Yopienso (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I can not read it any other way. Treat me like a test reader. Aren't people worried that I can not understand the sentence? Can it be tweaked for clarity?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have sources that say the DI is a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. No problem with this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to Yopienso, the first sentence is misleading in two different ways. (1) It gives DI undue weight by prioritizing the relationship between ID and DI above relevant features of ID theory itself. (2) It suggests that DI has an exclusive role in promulgating ID. The fact is, ID is promulgated by many groups and individuals who may or may not have a relationship with DI. And even if they do, their promulgation of ID would not necessarily be in the official capacity of a DI affiliate. The sentence has to be changed. The connection between ID and DI needs to be explained in the body of the article, or mentioned very minimally in the lede, and the sentence has to not mislead the reader into thinking ID is promoted or believed primarily by one group. BabyJonas (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My thoughts as mostly an outsider:
 * The opening sentence is perfectly clear, supported by sources and needs no clarification of any kind.
 * This talk page has become virtually unmanageable, mainly due to Andrew's WP:FORUM like incessant contributions. Just today, he has added over 26Kb of text and he doesn't seem to be slowing down.
 * Please remember WP is not a forum. If an edit is proposed it needs to be backed by reliable sources and the stick dropped when the discussion has clearly run its course. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is really an ironic problem on this talk page that people keep inserting long off-topic speeches in front of my posts, increasing the confusion and the verbiage on this talk page, but claiming to be complaining about the same. You really have no right to do that. If you want to make a comment ABOUT comments perhaps try my user talk page. This one is being used for other purposes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I'll respond here instead of inserting my response within the thread. In terms of sources, I move that all sources be open to such scrutiny, including otherwise reliable sources currently in use. If I had to name one source I would start with, it would be with the Dover vs Kitzmiller sources. Legal transcripts don't carry the weight of a branch of the US govt., but of the person whose testimony is being transcribed. As such the claim that "All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][5] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 3]" strikes me as both providing undue weight to the link between ID and the Discovery Institute, as well as being attributable to Barbara Forrest only, not some kind of consensus on ID. In fact this claim is demonstrably false (see David Berlinski). BabyJonas (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that using a legal source in this way is not normally best practice on WP. This seems like a separable question which could be taken to WP:RSN for discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas, Berlinski is not a proponent of ID... unless something has changed recently. He is a critic of evolution, avowedly not a believer in ID and certainly not a contributor to it.  Not that your concern isn't valid, but your example is wrong.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if BabyJonas was saying he was an example, but if so then maybe both of you are wrong according to our article on him: A critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Hmm. Maybe the point is that he is a case of someone who apparently does not claim that the intelligent designer is the Christian god? (That is one of those ALLs in our lede, but not one I have focused on, for example in my summary of 3 concerns below.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How does that make me wrong again? Keep reading the Wiki page: he "does not openly avow intelligent design" and "refuses to theorize about the origin of life."  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I've been reading more of his work, and while he does not argue in support of ID, it seems his involvement with the DI suggests at the very least that he doesn't think it is bunk either. Maybe he think it's a scientifically viable hypothesis, even though he doesn't think it's true. Regardless, Berlinski himself is not the point. Rather, the point is about the usage of sources, and I'm glad that we seem to be finding more common ground on that. Kudos. BabyJonas (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The origin of concept section
Our current origin of concept section contains some errors and oddities, and my recent edits relevant to this section were deleted. Below is one proposal, but more importantly following I explain reasons I think some changes are needed. If anyone wants more sourcing please show good faith tell me specifically what for, in order to avoid long circular discussions which are clearly frustrating for anyone trying to follow.

NOTES:
 * The first sentence repeats the common names for the argument from design and then this is repeated again in the start of the next section. Surely this should be done once and properly in the lead instead?
 * Given that no meaningful explanation has come, I believe we can re-instate material similar to what was deleted by Dave souza and MisterDub. Above I have compressed part of it, and of course it is now in the correct section according to Dave souza, so that overcomes the only concerns that were clear.
 * I believe mentioning the way that Sedley feels that the modern debates stretch back to the original confrontation of atomist physics with Socrates is specifically quite relevant to this article.
 * I really think we need to stop repeating "theology" and "not science" in every sentence. One could just as easily insist on "philosophy" and it just makes us sound like a WP:pointy blog.
 * I am not confident that the concept of a prime mover has anything to do with the argument from design! I believe this is mistakenly been OR'd from the first of Aquinas' proofs, whereas the one relevant here is his fifth. I suggest replacing our OR with something more relevant and also making sure we link to quinque viae.
 * Later versions were more complex? Really? I'd say that one more often comes across the opposite opinion. In any case this un-sourced opinionated remark can be interpreted in various ways (different arguments from design are complicated in different ways) and seems unencyclopedic. And the comment is apparently still based on the above misunderstanding of Aquinas.
 * A reader of the above (even my version) may well get the impression that Paley was the first one to use complex biological phenomena or the analogy of a complex machine. Both these things are classical and discussion can be found in Sedley and other sources if anyone is interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are classical, but sources date the usage in theology back to Aquinas, and the issue with ID is one of theology more than philosophy. The reader isn't expected to remember points from the lead all the way through the article, which is why we repeat links. The material deleted was from the "origin of the term" section, where it clearly didn't belong, and the points left out appear to be OR synthesising info about the general topic of the TA with this specific topic of ID. The original shown above tries to outline the argument, it's based closely on Pennock but is probably going into excessive detail. Your proposal diverts into the different version by Socrates, and fails to explain the argument. Will add further suggestion below. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be making some very subtle point there about "theology" but I don't get it. We can save time: if the argument from design is theological, like you and our article say, then Socrates is presumably theological but attaching too much relevance to this is OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the passage was based on Pennock why was he not noted as the source?
 * If Pennock mixed up the 1st and 5th arguments of Aquinas we do not have to use him. We have enough sources on this subject to get this right.
 * Our article (and its footnotes) already makes it clear that the history of ID is the history of arguments from design. The Sedley source was used by me because it explicitly remarks the link between Socrates and what is happening today, so this is not OR and not a diversion.
 * "fails to explain" can be helped by expanding. I already mentioned I was keeping it compressed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to get rid of appears to have been and apparently from your draft. Either reword the sentence to convey a lack of certainty or just delete the words entirely.  The lone parenthesis should probably be removed as well; I don't think a parenthetical phrase is necessary here... just use the comma.  I'm a bit concerned about calling Socrates a creationist, but maybe that is supported by sources.  My only other complaint is that these sentences read as if they are stunted, like you're just listing random facts in a haphazard order.  I'd move the although the simpler idea clause somewhere and continue with Socrates as the subject of a subordinate clause ("The argument from design appears to have been first proposed by Socrates, who developed his creationist position...").  Maybe the last two sentences can be combined with a simple and?

Although the idea of a cosmic intelligence with no benign interest in humanity is older, the argument from design was first proposed by Socrates, who developed his creationist position at least partly as a response to contemporary advances in atomist natural philosophy. Thomas Aquinas gave one of the most well-known Christian versions in the form of his fifth proof of God's existence, and, in 1802, William Paley's natural theology presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms.


 * I'm really not sure about that first clause still, but I think it reads better overall. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's pointy to identify that the argument is a theological in origin--seems significant to me, especially since proponents today deny ID is theological. And I don't know what is to be meant or implied by "simpler idea of a cosmic intelligence with no benign interest in humanity". Professor marginalia (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Professor, you are misunderstanding what I said. Saying theological once is not the problem. Putting such adjectives into many sentences makes the article look bloggy. If a reader from outside (which is what I was not long ago) looks at the article as a whole they see something which looks like people trying to right great wrongs wrote it. I am clearly not the only person who thinks so.
 * @MisterDub, I know showing any lack of certainty is often considered poor style, but if this is what our sources agree upon I believe style goes behind accuracy. Perhaps this is something you can ask or an opinion about at relevant community noticeboards. Concerning the "stunting" please remember that a longer version was reverted twice and one of the complaints was the length, the way I understood it (although it was not really long IMHO). Anyway the other way to see it is as something that could be built upon. What I propose to replace is certainly quite stunted and also wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please note that there's a difference between theology (as in Aquinas) and natural theology which ran from Ray to the 1860s. . . dave souza, talk 08:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One is a category within the other, and this is not relevant to anything we are discussing. You are synthesizing a from cherry picking and stretching sources here. I notice Aquinas mentioned in our Natural Theology article BTW, whereas theology generally, as per our articles, starts with those pesky Socratics again who apparently invented the term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. It seems Thomas Aquinas originated the distinction "Natural Theology". BTW, just to remind, things distinguished do not necessarily come into being when the words do (as with "argument from design" existing before Paley).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Practical suggestion: change reference above to Paley's natural theology into a reference to his book of that name. Maybe this is what was intended anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To help isolate what's still a contended issue and what isn't (there's WAY too much blabbery on this talk page), can we conclude the "simpler idea of a cosmic..." dispute is over?
 * I'm on board that the tone in the article isn't quite right. I've said so for some time but the problem is that it's not easy to isolate the pwnage quality resulting from disputes on these talk pages from "proofs" to claims by those responding. That tone is exacerbated here - talk page disputes surrounding the exhaustively sourced claims here feed just fuel the "pwn tone" on mainspace as editors try satisfy the same objections over and over again on the back page. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "simpler idea of a cosmic" you mention is from the draft proposal for expanding the origin of concept section, which I believe is a separable job that needs doing anyway. It currently contains some basic mistakes and unsourced nonsense. Concerning the bigger issue I think the problem of the tone comes from
 * (a) The problem of the lack of clear rationale concerning what the article is about and whether that decision is reasonable.
 * (b) A less ambitious way of looking at it: no matter what this article is about, why is it written in such a silly way using absolute judgements (ALL x are y) that have clearly been synthesized and cherry picked and stretched from individual low quality sources. Above, I tried to compare this article to creationism which (as is good practice) explains context and potentially confusing terms in the lead. It does not say or imply that all creationism is defined as one specific type of creationism that Wikipedians judge to be found most commonly when googling. Consider WP:EXCEPTIONAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In his report and his testimony, Haught summarises the argument as a syllogism. In the latter, he answers the question "What do you understand intelligent design to be?": A. I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God, an argument that unfolds in the form of a syllogism, the major premise of which is wherever there is complex design, there has to be some intelligent designer. The minor premise is that nature exhibits complex design. The conclusion, therefore, nature must have an intelligent designer. Can we summarise that in our own words, or is it better to quote Haught? . . dave souza, talk 09:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, are you proposing inserting this in the history of concept section? Seems ok in principle to me. I personally do not think my proposals and concerns above go far enough or are in any way perfect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this goes in the history of concept section, replacing my clumsy attempt to paraphrase a more complex description. . dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the wording of that clumsy attempt you would be replacing? The bit which cites the wrong Aquinas proof? The Haught wording you mention is not exactly short and to the point. That makes me wonder if it the right choice for this section given your claims that even my compressed efforts were too long. But it has the advantage of not being wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, noting your new edit:
 * You give a direct quote for a summary but the wording you use implies strongly that this direct quote is from Aquinas. I think that needs fixing.
 * I continue to think that "natural theology" should be capitalised and linked to Paley's book. As mentioned above, your idea that Paley invented natural theology is not correct so it does not distinguish him from Aquinas (who in fact seems to have first distinguished it under that name).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Got suggestions for improvement to the wording? Currently "Thomas Aquinas presented it in his fifth proof of God's existence as a syllogism, summarised as "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer."
 * In the context of the history of evolutionary science, natural theology from Ray into the 19th century and the Bridgewater Treatises is a common topic, going beyond Paley's book. . dave souza, talk 11:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? My concern is relevant to what our text currently says or implies, which mentions none of this, but rather implies that natural theology is something that distinguishes Aquinas and Paley. That's clearly wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead first para: suggestions for rearrangement
It strikes me that the first paragraph of the lead could flow more naturally if rearranged: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. ID is a contemporary adaptation of the old theological argument from design for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". In the Discovery Institute's definition, the "theory of intelligent design holds 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." All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity." . dave souza, talk 09:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account the concerns expressed above about MOS:INTRO, perhaps it would be worthwhile adding a few words describing the old argument as indicating intelligent design: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. ID is a contemporary adaptation of the old theological argument from design for the existence of God, which proposed that complexity in nature indicates intelligent design. ID is presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". In the Discovery Institute's definition, the "theory of intelligent design holds 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." All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity."

In addition to the sources already shown, these points are covered in Haught's report. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to remark: clearly your intention with this draft is not to address the bigger concerns expressed by editors such as BabyJonas, North8000, and Atethnekos. One concrete proposal is that "proposed" should definitely not be in the past tense. Non DI arguments from design did not cease to exist in 1980s.
 * To remind you of those "bigger issues" (maybe this helps Professor Marginalia get a new summary):

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this may be a good time to reintroduce the proposal I worked up in my sandbox (last paragraph omitted as unchanged):

Intelligent design (ID) 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 contemporary adaptation of the argument from design for the existence of God, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.

The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable, supernatural causes. Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,  and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.
 * I think this may alleviate concerns about the DI's role in ID as well as provide the more natural flow about which dave souza commented. The only obvious concern I have is the overuse of the term scientific in the second paragraph.  Comments would be much appreciated.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it covers the points, and flows better. But the ID described remains DI's ID with its irreducible and specified complexity, theistic science etc.  It's accurate - it's still all DI and though I don't have any problem with doing it like this the draft version merely postpones introducing DI by name in para 1 to para 3.  Professor marginalia (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad thing to postpone introducing the DI by name to paragraph 3. While I'm not opposed to improving the readability and flow, and I don't have any other problems with this draft, I think it would be a great disservice to the article to remove upfront mention that ID is creationism backed by the DI. That's what ID is, at its very core. It is not a serious proposition as much as a political tool for creationism, and to discuss it seriously for 2 paragraphs before mentioning that harms our definition of the subject.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor marginalia and Jess, could this be fixed by adding a sentence into the first paragraph? Something like what dave souza has proposed below perhaps?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you are not asking me, but indeed the DI could be mentioned and perhaps should be especially where you say "presented as" and talk about the most prominent arguments for example, because there you are talking about things the DI is most prominent for. (But I continue to think we should avoid "all or nothing" words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * MisterDub, moving mention of DI further down is a good step, given the problems with the current version. Your version isn't perfect (there are problems with associating it with an argument from design, as I've shown in a previous discussion), but we're moving towards a more accurate lede and that's a good thing. Good work. BabyJonas (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is a worthy effort. My first thoughts. The definition in the first sentence is the one for "intelligent design theory" and this raises the subject of whether that less ambiguous name for the DI style of argument from design should be the name of this article. (Removing ambiguity or making things clear is always a more important aim than having google counting competitions.) "Intelligent design theory" is certainly what many secondary sources, including critical and pro-DI, do. Whether we do that or not, the approach taken makes it clear that this article is not about the movement, (which has maybe 3 or more articles with >50% overlap of theme?!), and although Dave souza seems opposed to such a move(?) he has many times said that this article is in fact now about intelligent design "theory". Concerning my three concerns about "all or nothing language" summarized above, they are at least not applying to this paragraph. By allowing it to be clear we are covering ID theory as a primary theme we could make it easier to have proper "compare and contrast" to things with similar names and definitions. I think that trying to shove culture war baggage into the first sentences is just silly and ruins the article for editors and readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ID is not just a theory or a concept, it is a strategy. . dave souza, talk 09:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC) update: correction to link. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave Souza, your source is a legal memo detailing the findings of a judge presiding over Dover vs Kitzmiller. It does not call ID theory a strategy. "Strategy" (see pg 18) is a reference to "wedge strategy" in the context of the "ID movement". "Wedge strategy" is not "ID theory", however. Any mention of the "wedge strategy" should be within the context of the "ID movement", of which it is a part. However, even if the source did say this, the source in question is a legal opinion and by itself does not constitute encyclopedic fact on it's own. Thanks for bringing this up and giving us a chance to clarify. No mention of strategy ought to be made in the lede. BabyJonas (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh so that is what you are trying to make the lead say between the lines. This is the problem. Of course if you will propose that we make this the opening sentence everyone will realize it is not encylopedic, but you want it between the lines. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you're ascribing motives incorrectly, your mind reading powers are clearly defective and are contrary to Wikipedia policy. To be clear, I'm concerned to show the necessary context in the lead, as required by WP:MOSBEGIN. . dave souza, talk 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave I can read my own mind, at least to some extent, and I can read your words in this and other posts. And they seem to say the same thing, just in different words. You think it is "essential to show it in the lead, as the ID strategy depends on this repeated claim to be science". In other words you want to confuse our readers about what "intelligent design" means, by slipping description into the definition. We could do this with any subject on WP. Having a dishonest strategy is something most political people could be accused of so it could be the context of every lead about a political person or movement?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that we're providing the DI's definition in Wikipedia's voice, when there are many further descriptions of ID, and losing the context of ti being a form of creationism based on theology. Possibly: Intelligent design (ID) is defined by its proponents as showing 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."[6] It is a contemporary creationist adaptation of the theological argument from design for the existence of God,..." Will review this. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A definition and a description are different things. I think it makes WP look childish and crude to try to shove descriptions "between the lines" of the definitions. Furthermore there is this tendency in all your proposals (and reverts) that you are putting things in people's mouths which they did not say, and making it unclear which things the DI actually says and which things their accusers say. What we should be doing is explaining a controversy, not trying to play a role in it. Is WP going to act like the DI itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this at all. It is DI's definition-it's not "childish" to properly attribute it--it's accuracy.  I guess I place more confidence in readers that they will understand DI's authorship of ID just as well by having it identified in the 3rd paragraph than the first sentence...but otherwise totally agree they need to be attributed.  And as per Undue policy (and Fringe), for WP to realign definitions and opinions of some controversial topic so as to lend "equal" weight to all sides IS to play an inappropriate role.  We don't handicap the independent consensus of opinion to give an assist to the fringe position.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Professor, sorry but you are misreading me, or perhaps I have expressed myself unclearly or both. I am not opposed to the DI's definition if we cite it properly, as shown by the fact that I have placed in my draft proposals and commended MisterDub's effort. I am very opposed to Dave's demand, repeated now several times, that this article is about a "strategy". Do you think this article is about a strategy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that "ID is not just a theory or a concept, it is a strategy." However, as a strategy, it is part of the movement, not the theory. The sources confound the idea with the movement, so trying to sort them out into two separate articles is also confusing. Yopienso (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sources mix usage, especially culture war sources. Encyclopedic ones do not, and to be honest we all know we could clarify if we wanted to here. BTW I strongly disagree with you that any strategy is ever referred to by the name "intelligent design". The strategy must be an act of the movement, but people do not normally get confused between actors and acts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I assume you meant to say the "subject of the article is about a strategy"-Yes, Dave's correct. ID is not just the ID theory, and the ID theory is not just an alternative theory to natural selection.  ID is also a religious effort with a broader set social/cultural/moral objectives seeking to change a "materialistic" paradigm which it considers to be socially destructive consequences of modern science.  ID refers to these broader social objectives, the advocacy movement for building acceptance and this anti-evolutionary theory-these are not independent in any way, and shouldn't be treated as such.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone give any example of anyone published ever calling a strategy "intelligent design"? I find this very remarkable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This describes in in terms of one. I'll find more. "The second focus of ID is 'cultural renewal' [me-1st described in text was "scientific/scholarly focus"] which consists of its efforts to promote a theistic sensibility to replace the alleged philosophical materialism of American society. [..] Until August 2002, this focus was reflected in the name of the main ID institution, Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). In that month, the word renewal was dropped from all Web pages and the the CRSC became the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). [..] Although ID proclaims itself as a scholarly movement, its cultural-renewal focus is fundamentally incompatible with ..." Eugenie Scott, in 2007 Scientists Confront Creationism. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The obvious one, An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism. Also please note, ID cannot be considered in isolation from the IDM: WP:MOSBEGIN requires that the lead first paragraph should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. . dave souza, talk 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Also note, "In conclusion, examination of both the history and content of ID shows that it is a form of creationism, despite the persistent efforts of proponents to obscure this connection. Creation science was struck down because teaching it would be a form of religious advocacy. ID was invented as a way to circumvent the constitutional barrier to creation science, but when the constitutionality of ID was tested in Kitzmiller, it met the same fate.". . dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: The strategy to circumvent court decisions barring "creationism" and "creation science" from schools by renaming "creator" in creation science textbooks to "designer" is already documented. Here's another "But although ID as a legal strategy can safety be said to be dead, it is alive and well as a movement": Scott again. Another, "Judge Jones's legal analysis proceeded in six logical steps.[..] Second, he analyzed the historical development of the intelligent design movement [..] and concluded that an objective observer would understand intelligent design to be a religious strategy that evolved from 'earlier forms of creationism'" Jay Wexler in 2006 Not In Our Classroom Professor marginalia (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are conflating DI's actions/strategy with ID. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right-and those who are experts writing about ID are the authorities on such distinctions here, not us. We can't form our own conclusions about them, novel or otherwise--they can.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether they are experts vs. advocates from one side. But either way, the core statements of those quotes do not support.....it is a case of Wikipedia editors trying to derive definitions out of the shorthand chosen in statements that are not about definition. 00:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I disagree. And I disagree there's any reason why this or any other article on such subjects must be compartmentalized or limited to a single discrete categorical "definition". ID, like creation science from which ID developed, as well as many other human endeavors is a cluster of things, not just one thing. Note the lead in creation science describes it straight out as an anti-evolutionary premise, a strategy to position creationism as science, and a religious movement to take down Darwinian evolution. As do the sources it's drawn from. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious that none of these sources say anything like that "intelligent design is a strategy". In fact while it is clearly a notable fact that the DI have had a strategy of pretending to be scientific, none of our sources claim that they are pretending about believing in an argument from design which both they and their critics (at least the ones not writing blogs) call "intelligent design theory" or sometimes just "intelligent design". That is what this article is about. And we clearly have enough articles about this subject that we do not have to make politics the subject of every one of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Since ID arises from and inherently involves a religious dispute with U.S. constitutional law, it's a central facet of this article. Your reductionism is directly contrary to MOS:BEGIN which requires us to establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "None of our sources claim they are pretending about believing in an argument from design"--? Not following. What passage or claim are you referring to here? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dave, names are different from things. We have good sourcing to tell us intelligent design theory, argument from design, existed before the 1980s. We also have good strong sourcing to tell us that the anti-evolution creation science movement existed before then. If those two facts are not "context" what is? And yet at least one of these is being censored out of Wikipedia. OTOH you are talking about what? You are saying it is a fact that intelligent design is term for a strategy? But it is not. This is nonsense that Wikipedia is currently being forced to promote in its own name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Professor. The proposal is that "intelligent design" is a term which refers to a strategy. I am merely pointing out that not only do we have no source saying this in a clear way. Also, all our sources seem to think that "intelligent design theory" real and not a strategy, not something the movement cynically pretend to believe in. Does not mean that the movement, like anything political, has no strategies. But one never sees the link being made between accusations of "strategy" and intelligent design theory. (Of course the intelligent design movement has quite a lot of articles about it already and is not the subject of this article.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this dispute over the semantics of "intelligent design is a strategy"? Because I don't think anybody's argued to explicitly define it like that in the article. And nobody's implying proponents are only pretending to believe in ID.
 * In any event, here's one: "after reading much of what ID advocates have written, I realized that ID is not a plausible alternative to evolution, at least not a scientifically plausible alternative. In fact, the more ID material I read (i.e, material written by ID advocates), the more convinced I became that ID is a marketing strategy based on religious apologetics and not truly a scientific approach."  Frank Ravitch, 2011. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect this post comes across as a bit disingenuous, not only because of its "in any event" but also because I think all the discussion above is insistent and clear. Everyone in the discussion knows we are not literally even talking about inserting the word "strategy" but rather about the demand that any discussion of intelligent design theory must be about politics and dishonesty, selecting those associated subjects as essential and defining subjects, and meaning WP becomes editorial and bloggy and also that we end up with half a dozen articles about the same thing. All the things you are quoting are cherry picked from descriptions, not definitions. The contexts in source are being deliberately ignored. The flip side of this demand is that the real context of "intelligent design theory", for example that it has a history before the 1980s, and that the term "intelligent design" is a general term for an argument from design, is being censored out. In fact it seems to have become such an established tradition here on this article that WP is essentially being pushed into being part of the culture war like the Discovery Institute itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As to movement, expert witness Forrest in Kitzmiller v. Dover:
 * "Q. And are you familiar with intelligent design being described as a movement?
 * "A. Yes.
 * "Q. And who describes it that way?
 * "A. The proponents of intelligent design, its leaders have described it as a movement."
 * I haven't looked at the ID movement article in a while but if it's packed with details about ID activism, that's fine--there are lots of sub-articles like this. If it's mostly a rehash of the content here it should be replaced with a redirect. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt there is a movement and it is sometimes referred to in casual writing as "intelligent design". But it is also just as clearly something which people have more accurate terms for, which we can and should use, if our aim is explanation. We currently have articles for Creation science, Intelligent design movement, Neo-creationism, Discovery Institute, etc. This article is, if nothing may change, just one of these and quite clearly not in line with WP policies on splitting articles, nor on aiming articles. (WP is not a news survey and we do not name articles based on google searches unless all editors agree that this is reasonable - clearly not the case here. No WP policy tells us to ignore what words mean and how they inter-relate. They all tell us to aim for clarity, not blurring distinctions and ambiguity.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing a statement from context can completely change it's meaning, and that is what has been happening above. There are sources where, in a discussion about DI, "ID" was being used as shorthand for DI's initiative, and authors make some statements about it using that term. Folks here are removing quotes out of that context and making it erroneously appear that they are statements about / definitions of ID in general. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The strategy and movement are essential context for understanding ID, which can no more be divorced from them than it can from the old argument-from-design. . dave souza, talk 11:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has said that these discussions of things associated with intelligent design theory should be censored from the body of the article. We know very well that you raised "strategy", by which you mean dishonesty and politics, specifically in reaction to MisterDub's draft because you think dishonesty and politics are not being emphasized enough in his proposal. You clearly think righting of great wrongs, and getting Wikipedia into politics, is a higher priority than clarity, accuracy, verifiability, etc. It is in my opinion you who is demanding real censoring of basic definitive context information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed even anti-DI blogs are more concerned to use clear language than WP is: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4188 Remember, “intelligent design” and “creationism” are just words. They mean whatever we say they mean. But for clarity’s sake, I have a proposal: Under this proposal, it is quite possible (and common) for someone to accept Creationism but argue for intelligent design. Indeed, it may be unlikely that someone would defend intelligent design without first personally accepting Creationism. But one may argue for intelligent design without any reference to Creationism. We can also compare to online encyclopedias (like we are supposed to be making) to see if they pretend no one can understand the movement and the theory separately: Just like the Kitzmiller ruling, Ayala, and every worthwhile source we look at, they have no problem separating a theory from a movement, and they also use words pretty much like what the above blog proposes. Of course all of editing here also have no problem distinguishing things. Our mixing of these subjects is purely voluntary. Effectively this WP article is one of the least encyclopedic attempts NOT to explain intelligent design that I can find online, even looking at blogs, apart perhaps from some of the pro-DI sites. We appear to be in a "race to the bottom" with them in terms of distorted explanations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design: the assertion that certain features of the natural universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
 * Creationism: the theory that God created the universe, as dictated by some religious doctrine or scripture.
 * Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Design Arguments for the existence of God"
 * Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Conflicts Between Science and Religion"
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence"
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Creationism"
 * EDIT: I agree with pretty much everything here. Making a distinction between creationism and ID, and looking at other articles for cues. BabyJonas (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As for ID-movement vs ID-theory: We have a separate Intelligent design movement article. Details of "ID strategy", etc would be relevant to that article. I think we have to be more firm about making this distinction. BabyJonas (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(For fun) Let's mix descriptions into definitions!
After we get the core content policies changed we can start changing other articles based on the model that this article represents. I've already started trying to imagine some new article openings. Of course I am careful to use very notable and much remarked information (easy to find by google), and then to equate that to being "essential context", as I have now learned to do here. The articles about politicians will be the most fun to re-write in the new Wikipedia! But seriously, the lead has to help readers (and editors) understand how they would identify the subject if they walked past it. (That is what defining means. That is truly essential context.) "Intelligent design" is a specific term that is not identified as a strategy of pretending to be a science. It is associated with that. But it is also very notable (and easy to find on google) that Bill Clinton told a lie, and it is presumably in the body of our article about him somewhere, but we can not and should not put everything notable into opening lines; especially not to "right great wrongs". The term intelligent design is used by the movement and its critics to refer to arguments from design, the most well-known being theirs (as well being used to refer to the movement itself, which of course has numerous overlapping articles already dedicated to it). Both the movement and its critics can and do separate out this concept for neutral discussion. To do otherwise would be confusing. In those discussions, "intelligent design" might be a tool of a "strategy" but no careful writer says it is impossible to distinguish the tool and the strategy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Catholicism is a form of anti-atheism, promulgated by an Argentinian.
 * Dogs are a form of carnivore, promulgated by dog lovers.
 * MOS:BEGIN requires us to establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. Defining the topic does not mean restricting the description to a definition: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that this article 'does restrict the definition in a way that has now been show to be an artificial construction by Wikipedia editors. And then that restriction propagates into incorrect restriction on content, and also mis-wording equivalent to "an automobile is a 4 wheeled vehicle made by General Motors". North8000 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please let's close this thread sooner rather than later - it's not constructive. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how often that one sees people being told to shut up on this talk page. Maybe you could try to show that the analogy is not matching the situation or something, except unfortunately that would be rather difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting sarcasm laden rants is typically discouraged on all talk pages on wikipedia. They're never a good idea. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So is mislabeling a friendly tongue-in cheek item addressing a key point under discussion as a "sarcasm laden rant". North8000 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well don't let me interrupt the fun then. I'm not seeing any relevance to this--especially since there is so far no carelessly worded proposal before us explicitly defining it as a strategy.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just meant to not be so nasty. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Professor marginalia, this thread is pointless. Furthermore the underlying topic (ie: let's detach the ID movement from the DI think tank) has already been addressed in some form or another countless times in this talk page. There's really very little use in raising the same issue over and over again. Gaba  (talk)  21:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem doesn't nee "detaching" from DI to fix it, it just needs to stop artificially (and contrary to sources) limiting it to the DI. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This problem could at least be greatly ameliorated, as we all know, simply by ceasing to use un-sourcable and un-encyclopedic "all or nothing" language in our lead. Our sources are able to see a difference between movement and theory and to handle it properly, even our fellow online sources and indeed culture war sources. The discussion here makes it clear that blurring boundaries is a conscious decision being made by WP editors. We are apparently having the boundaries of things blurred in order to ensure that any article which even touches a DI subject will be primarily about dishonesty and politics. But WP is not a news editorial and we have maybe half a dozen articles now which basically have >50% indistinguishable subject matter. Furthermore Gaba, if this point has been raised constantly, not by creationists but by experienced Wikipedians looking at the sources and WP policy, then that is the opposite of a reason to ignore those concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to lead drafting
Personally I think the proposal of MisterDub received enough positive feedback to be the best thing now to discuss, if we are aiming at reaching a consensus that might reduce the concerns this article has apparently created for a long time. A few small issues were noted above. I would like to attempt a new draft based on his. Two changes I should explain: I have introduced the terms "theory" and "movement" which is something we find consistently in sources, and I have reduced the size of the second paragraph which seemed to be very repetitive. I do not believe I changed the meanings, but let's discuss.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "adapted proposal" is best. But MisterDub's is a big step forward in a key area and so I would support it as well. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither of the alternative proposals identify ID as creationism, which is exactly what it is. In fact, ID has been termed as "intelligent design creationism", "intelligent design theory", and "intelligent design movement" -- all three, so I oppose the "more specifically" in the third proposal.  The "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism" from the original should be retained. And all three proposals are using exactly the same characteristics to define ID and they all, - from the "certain features" definition to its "most prominent arguments" irreducible/specified complexity -  point directly to the Discovery Institute.  These are not part of any classical "argument from design".  Hence there's no justification for trying to downplay DI's part in the lead here, and it perhaps is best to introduce it through its ties to those key characteristics. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we include "intelligent design creationism" as a third term for what this article is about? My concern is to make sure we make it clear this article is about (the movement has other articles). Do the redirects for those terms not come to this article anyway?
 * Adding creationism is one thing, but relying on it to be the only description like in the status quo is in my opinion useless. I think we all agree it is a vague term. It might not be wrong but it does not home in.
 * I do not believe anyone wants to "downplay" the DI and indeed maybe it can be fitted in. I think that one big problem with the status quo is the way in which it is trying to fit so much into the first paragraphs, much of it between the paragraphs. So we should be careful not to make sentences which go on forever, nor sentences which basically repeat each other in different words.
 * The other concern about the DI is not to make it sound like the DI is the definition of ID. It is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, this gives unqualified acceptance of the DI's main definition, ignoring what third parties say and disregarding other definitions produced by ID advocates. . dave souza, talk 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your concern is legitimate, dave souza. I don't want to downplay it. We need to represent "what ID is", including in the eyes of it's detractors. We need to include encyclopedic facts on the criticisms of ID and make them clear in the article. One of the obstacles is the culture-war. Many of our sources' claims are based on waging a culture-war rather than stating encyclopedic facts. To them, ID as a religious enemy, and needs to be destroyed.
 * This is not a goal shared by Wikipedia. Our goal ought to be to fairly and accurately represent the subject as it is, not to wage a culture-war against it, even if the culture-war position is in fact true. If we can work on a list of facts that are encyclopedic, not merely culture-warring, we can get this article to where it needs to be. BabyJonas (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We need a step forward rather than getting tied up striving for perfection. Let's just put in the MisterDub or the adapted proposal, with the understanding that either is just the starting point for more work on it. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 I understand you are thinking my redraft must be further away from the status quo, but I am not sure that's correct. Actually I was partly just trying to tidy up, and partly trying to address some concerns. I see no sign that mine is more controversial for the pro- status quo camp?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any compelling reason to modify the status quo and I see a clear reason not to: the other two versions are making a clear effort to explicitly detach it from the DI. So I oppose these two proposed modifications. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The DI should be a major part of this article, and I am not opposed to including it in the lead. But if you want to make this article purely about the DI, and censor out any mention of even a slight gap in definition between ID and DI, then we should be discussing a merge or a name change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not purely about the DI, that's your hyperbole. No merge or rename are needed. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I am not the only one. There is no other way to read the status quo version's opening words than to say that intelligent design is what the Discovery Institute does. No one else does it, and no one did it before they started doing it. And that is just wrong. This is not just people looking for something to complain about, but a clear description of what the words say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The current version suggests to the reader that the DI are the sole promoters of Intelligent Design. This simply isn't true, so we need to update the wording. We can expound on the importance of the DI in the body of the article. BabyJonas (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The adapted proposal is an improvement on the status quo. As dave souza correctly noted, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but if you read down in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, you will read: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic"  Plazak (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, this is precisely what the article already does in the first paragraph. The other two proposals merely shift things around making sure to completely avoid any mention of the DI. That's a clear disservice to WP readers. Gaba  (talk)  14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We can obviously patch them in again, for example after "proponents" we can say "led by the Discovery Institute"? Just seems then like we are trying to force everything into one sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears I have yet to weigh in on the "Adapted proposal," so here goes: I don't like it. First, the bit about "or more specifically Intelligent design theory [...]" is OR; there is nothing "more specific" to write about because ID is specifically a theory. Honestly, this looks like an attempt to circumvent UCN policy. Neither do I like the text stating ID is "presented by proponents in the 'intelligent design movement' as [...]". It sounds like it's trying to separate the ID movement from its proponents, instead of recognizing the fact that proponents of ID, in toto, are referred to as the intelligent design movement. Again, it seems like someone trying to sneak in an artificial distinction in lieu of, or perhaps, as ammunition for, going through the proper channels to rename this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in UCN about such things. That is pure nonsense. I've never seen UCN cited misapplied anywhere on WP like it is on this talkpage. No policy in WP tells us to look at google and ignore word definitions or the need for clarity. And anyway, "intelligent design theory" is a very common term.
 * Separating ID theory from its proponents is obviously something our sources can do, and which we only refuse to do voluntarily and in opposition to our sources. Don't be fooled. It is clearly not true that our sources see it as an artificial distinction. They do not say that Paley and Aquinas were in the intelligent design movement. They do say that they were proponents of intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any source saying that Paley and Aquinas were proponents of ID. Can you present it here?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But you've chipped in below to attack my post where I have summarised such sources. Dave, yourself and Professor have all made a habit of demanding new posts and then using such posts as an excuse in itself not to answer anything.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, I might be mistaken, but the mention of intelligent design theory may be made more explicit because of the confusion between it and the intelligent design movement. There is a separate intelligent design movement page and despite it's existence, we seem to be attracting a lot of discussion of the ID movement (or attempts to promote or teach ID in schools, etc) on this page. I don't hang a lot on the disambiguation. It's useful but not critical. But I can see why some people want it there. BabyJonas (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would normally be absolutely uncontroversial that we would want to distinguish between the subject of this article and all the articles about the movement. There is no reason not to. The current status quo deliberately confuses them and Dave's latest draft seems to be almost like a caricature of that effect. I also noted MisterDub that your newest draft seems to move back in this direction on purpose. The only arguments I have seen against trying to be clear involve obvious misreading of policy and MOS pages or pretending that not to deliberately confuse two subjects is like removing mention of their links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Modified proposal
I have since modified my proposal, taking into account the concerns voiced above. The new lead paragraph is as follows:

Intelligent design (ID) is defined by its proponents as 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 form of creationism whose leading proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. 

"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.
 * "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country". In:
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute".   It is a contemporary adaptation of the argument from design for the existence of God, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".  The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute".   It is a contemporary adaptation of the argument from design for the existence of God, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".  The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute".   It is a contemporary adaptation of the argument from design for the existence of God, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".  The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.
 * "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute".   It is a contemporary adaptation of the argument from design for the existence of God, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".  The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.

Whoops, forgot to sign... -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How 'bout  "whose leading proponents are mostly associated with the...."   instead of   "whose leading proponents are all associated with the..."  North8000 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But that's not what the source says; that'd be OR.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the the article (not a quote)  And "all" is a much farther reaching statement (and one that conflicts with sourcing) than "mostly" .  ? North8000 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That may be, but we don't have a source that says "most," we have a source that says "all." And where does this claim conflict with sourcing?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very strong statements require very strong sources. If you are working with little sourcing and there are reasons to doubt strong wording, we can easily avoid it just by naming the Discovery Institute as leading proponents. Why do we need to go further?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you would suggest simply removing the word all, and letting the sentence stand as: "It is a form of creationism whose leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, [...]"? If so, that'd be fine by me.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, avoiding absolute wording is normal on Wikipedia, and encyclopedias generally. I really wonder why there are such objections to it on this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * MisterDub, one good thing about your previous draft was that it made the link correctly between the words you now have in the first sentence, and the words you now have in the second sentence. Those words are the same ones which are "based upon". In my adaption I tried to strengthen that link by converting your "It" into a "This". That creates a flow from one sentence to another which is of course important in its own right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Third point. I believe you have a sourcing problem by starting with that quote and saying that it refers to "intelligent design". The source that those words are "Ingelligent design theory". If this article is, as I seem to keep hearing, about that subject, and if redirects come here, then of course such a term should be included at the header, like I proposed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design is a theory, which is why the source says, "[t]he theory of intelligent design," not "intelligent design theory," as you continually claim. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The extra word means something. Plus it clarifies and removes ambiguity and is very common in our sources. Intelligent design also refers to the movement very commonly, so our sources do this for a reason. We should, like them, be interested in clarity. Also it is normal to put the most common terms and search terms as alternatives in the opening lines anyway. I keep having the same question about discussions like this on this talk page: If it is already what it says. Then why can't we just tweak it to remove ambiguity?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Our sources are clear that it's a branch of creationism, and not a theory in the scientific sense even though it is claimed to be scientific. Below, a suggestion for a tweak to remove ambiguity. . dave souza, talk 16:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already agreed that the word creationism has many meanings. You have ONE very poor source where creationism is used in the way you want to, and you deliberately choose to use it. Wonder why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW our sources do not say the theory is not a theory. They say it is not scientific. There is a difference, which you, not our sources, are deliberately ignoring. It has already been admitted on this talk page several times that what you are doing here is trying to help our readers by protecting them from the word "theory" because you think it sounds scientific. This in itself clearly shows how un-sourced based your motivations are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The status quo tried too hard to discredit ID at the expense of being an encyclopedia article. It's certainly a mark of improvement when this adapted proposal, right off the bat goes into telling us about what ID claims to be- something that readers will actually want to know. I can consider that fair. I'm wondering if the scare-quotes in the second sentence are helpful. Perhaps just "It is described by proponents..." has the same effect as the current adapted proposal without the scare-quoting? There does need to be some mention of the views that "ID is creationism", "ID is religion in disguise", "ID is unscientific" etc. Some of these have been alluded to in the second paragraph of the lede. Maybe in future versions that can be tweaked to better represent the range and depth of positions against ID. Thank you MisterDub and Andrew for your work. Overall, the adapted proposal is the best I've seen so far. BabyJonas (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Iti's not a question of discrediting ID, it's a matter of giving due weight to the clear majority view in both science (it's represented as science) and in religion, where most denominations reject it for reasons shown by Ayala. The definition is a quotation, hence should go into quote marks: if we leave out those quotes, we should reword it to avoid plagiarism. I remain concerned about putting this artful definition up front rather than saying what ID is as shown by secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've tried discussing sources and we've seen that you have none for your claims. You are not using sources at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Multiple sources describe ID as a form of creationism, Ayala disputes its religious validity as does Haught, see also Papal pronouncements, the CofE archbish calling it a "category mistake", and the Clergy letter project. . . . dave souza, talk 19:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what are you talking about here? Once again you switch subject whenever confronted. Do we need to mention the pope and the church of England? Were they an issue somewhere? I think you are deliberately trying to give a false impression of the sourcing discussion above where you came up totally empty. (Maybe you've rushed to get this draft out as a result of that.) Concerning the word "creationism" my position remains the same: it is a word with lots of meanings. We can use it but if it is the only word we use, then we are failing to explain in a way our sources do not require us to. So responding to me as if our discussion was about me contesting that the word creationism can be sourced is thoroughly dishonest. It is the material that you ADD to the usefully amorphous "creationism" which is your own personal effort to right great wrongs and ignore what the best sources say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See and  for further confirmation that ID is creationism. The bish was discussing creationism in the context of disputes over teaching young earth creationism and ID, the full interview confirms he thinks "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories." There doesn't seem to be explicit mention of ID in the interview. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I think if anyone is creating a wall of words it is you and your repeated posts about the word "creationism". I do not see how it addresses any of the concerns raised by anyone???--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Rethought proposal
Here's an idea I've been thinking about, with the aim of indicating that the older argument also commonly invokes "intelligent design" and avoiding any confusion on this point. The "branch of creationism" follows the wording of creation science, and avoids confusion with the widest definition of creationism. To meet MOS:BEGIN we should be clear from the outset about what ID is, as shown by [almost?] all of the third party sources, and in relation to WP:BEGIN we have the problem that the definition provided by the DI is a primary source which is obscure and to an extent misleading. It also clearly does not define the generic argument, which is not inherently opposed to natural selection. . dave souza, talk 16:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this is still at the concept stage, and wording is subject to review. . . dave souza, talk 16:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think other than a few grammar tweaks, this is fine. I doubt you're going to get any support from Andrew or North on this though.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Too much focus on creationism right at the top of the lede. "a branch of creationism, a modified and relabelled version of creation science". The second sentence seems a bit awkward, particularly the "an analogy with human design"- what is this supposed to be referring to? The third line goes right into what looks like a substantive definition of "theological argument from design". This proposal spends more time discussing creationism and theology than the actual subject of the article. The DI confusion is still present- it misleads the reader into thinking ID is limited to the Discovery Institute and nobody else. Needs a significant amount of work. I couldn't in good conscience sign off on this. That being said, if you mitigated the above problems, I'd certainly take a second look. BabyJonas (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas, it took me a while to understand the statement about the analogy as well. The point is that teleological arguments use references to artificial objects (human design) to support the claim that the natural world requires an intelligent being to have created/designed it.  I think this could be clarified by rephrasing it though.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, thanks for explaining. Readers of this article would have to know about teleological argument in order to make sense of what is being said. I think it creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding what ID theory is, don't you? I've said this before- I think there has to be some reference to the relations between ID and various arguments from design. The question is how and to what extent, considering we are talking about a lede here, not the body of the article. BabyJonas (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I thought my proposal was pretty damned good (not to toot my own horn :P), but I'm willing to work with others who have expressed concerns over it. I really don't see a problem with putting the DI's definition first, as I don't think there's any controversy over this aspect (aside from masquerading as science, which is why the word theory was removed).  I definitely agree that the "analogy" bit needs to be rephrased, as it was even confusing for me, but if that's what other editors feel needs to be in the lead, I can deal with it.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub your drafting efforts were in a good direction, much more likely to reach a consensus that was has been proposed below. I would like to request that you continue those efforts. Maybe the counter proposals of Dave and I can help you make a new draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Third party sources are consistent that this is a form [or branch] of creationism, specifically creation science relabelled. Perhaps "a modified branch of creation science creationism" might work better? It is openly theology presented as science, with the theological argument from design its central argument. While the "analogy" is accurate and concise, another version could be: Its central concept is the theological argument from design, which proposes that in the same way that complex machines show human design, complexity in nature demonstrates intelligent design by God. ID is presented….. The rewording is to make it clear that "intelligent design" is a feature of earlier versions of the argument from design, though not one of the primary common names of that argument. ID is essentially promulgated by the DI, with a few fellow riders: do you want to get into it being initially instituted by creation science advocates? . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave souza, I'm sympathetic to the view that given one type of taxonomy, ID can be considered a form of creationism. That being said, this claim is typically used for culture-warring. Labeling ID as creationism is a common tactic to try to discredit it, and I don't want this article to be a platform for culture-warring. If we are going purely by facts, the question becomes, "are there any commonalities between the theories of creationism and the theories of ID sufficient to make ID a subset of creationism?" About the only commonality is the appeal to an intelligent agent. Creationism says it is "God", ID says it can be "any intelligent agent, whether aliens, human beings, a mind of some kind, etc". Fundamentally, while creationism is centered on religious claims, ID theory (despite claims by opponents) relies on non-religious arguments. All this considered, I think it is fair to say that ID has similarities with creationism. But properly speaking, the differences do not allow us to state, as a matter of fact, that ID is a form of creationism.
 * I know it seems we do a lot of back-and-forth over this, dave. I hope that it helps us find some consensus on the issue. BabyJonas (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources state that ID is a form of creationism, and its central argument from design has been a religious argument since Plato: the distinction is that creation science had already promoted the idea that this was science rather than religion, and ID took this a stage further by omitting explicit biblical references. As well as the generalised definition, proponents also make statements such as "ID is part of God's general revelation". These aren't lies, they are deeply held beliefs: they consider that religion and true theistic science are the same. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another source: Peter Bowler is an independent and well respected historian, not a "culture warrior". His 2003 Evolution, The History of an Idea p. 375 has a section on Creationism which says "Even the more sophisticated version based on a revival of the argument from design has no positive research proposals..", and on p. 378 continues about "the 'intelligent design' theory" which "abandons the young-earth position and concentrates purely on a revival of the argument from design." He says that many scientists counter that "once again, the creationist position is purely negative. It can never be part of a research program because all it can do is set up the claim that something is impossible… The supernatural can never be the basis for a scientific investigation because in principle we cannot use natural evidence to throw light on how a miracle, or a supernatural guiding hand, works." Note that this was published two years before the Kitzmiller case revealed the origins of ID in the Pandas drafts. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources say a lot of things. It's up to us to interpret them carefully, especially when claims contradict. For example, creationism is characterized by religious assumptions undergirding science, while ID is characterized by non-religious arguments (irreducible complexity, etc).
 * To be clear- I have no problem with the idea that creationism and ID are related- they do have things in common (inclusivism towards intelligent agency and a rejection of metaphysical naturalism). But to claim one as a sub-category of the other has too much conflicting evidence to dismiss. A good compromise would be "scientists widely believe ID is simply creationism in disguise" or "ID is often associated with creationism". Whether this deserves to be in the lede, or have it's own section in the article is another question. I hope we can move forward on this. BabyJonas (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My main focus is the degree that we are reducing or eliminating the claim/definition that ID is limited to DI-related. All of the proposals make at least some improvement in this area, to varying degrees. We should also clarify to ourselves that what we come up with here and put in is still a work in in progress after that. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're noting that the phrase intelligent design is part of the general argument from design (or intelligent Design if you're Darwin), but ID is definitely DI related. It predated the DI, but all its earlier practitioners became associated with the DI. . dave souza, talk 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your wording is all over the place: "part of"? "all its earlier practitioners became associated with the DI"? Earlier practitioners refers to who here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks worse than the current version surely? There are fewer and fewer links between what our sources say, and what Wikipedia says. It continues to look as if it was written on a very obsessive blog. The link between the term "intelligent design" and what our best sources tell us it is, an argument from design, has been willfully hidden behind a wall of repetition, excess mumbo jumbo, and deliberate ambiguity.


 * Intelligent design (ID) is a branch of creationism,
 * In much recent discussion Dave has agreed that creationism is a vague word. So this bit does not yet start helping much and that is clearly the aim. It is not how good sources write. The new word though is branch, making "creationism" one organization? Or what is the point? Why not just a type?


 * a modified and relabelled version of creation science.
 * Where is this from? This means we are talking about the intelligent design movement and/or creation science and/or neo-creationism, which all have there own articles. Until now everyone seemed to agreed that this article was not another one about that same subject, but was rather about intelligent design theory? Furthermore, "re-labelled" implies that "intelligent design" is a word the movement chose for the movement (the "strategy" which Dave demands to be present in this lead, as discussed above), which is not from sources. NOTE: What was relabelled were a whole bunch of creation related words in one book. Do you think our readers will read that between the lines??


 * Its central concept is the theological argument from design, an analogy with human design which proposes that complexity in nature demonstrates intelligent design by God,
 * First of all the word "central concept" is vague and has no source and is clearly meant to replace meaningful comment about how the movement is named after a term it popularized for the argument from design. Secondly, this now defines ALL teleological arguments on the basis of one Discovery Institute sub-argument: Arguments based on complexity only is certainly not accurate, and not even a fair rehearsal of the Discovery Institute's definition. As always: deliberate ambiguity about who said what.


 * presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
 * As usual in all these pro-status-quo versions there is a deliberate confusion about who is doing what. This direct quote apparently comes from all proponents of teleological argument. That is not true.


 * It is promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, which says 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."
 * Second mention of Discovery Institute in a short space, and now we see that their generic definition of their intelligent design theory, which is a far better generic wording for a teleological argument, is cited without explaining that the Discovery Institute are here defining what they and others including critics would call "Intelligent design", the subject of this article. We just mention it as something they happened to say, and make no link to the article title or the previous definition. This is willfully misleading and plain odd.


 * All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. The most prominent arguments for ID are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which claim that certain biological features and information, respectively, are too complex to be the result of natural processes.
 * All or nothing language. We do not have sources strong enough to use this type of language, as discussed over and over. It is not encylopedic. Insisting on this looks obsessive. Sorry but I can't find a nicer word.


 * The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable, supernatural causes.
 * This comes from older versions but seems not to have been thought about. Has no one noticed that "offers no tenable hypotheses" is a pretty strange thing to add when we are already saying it lacks empirical support and is untestable? Why these extra words? Again, it looks obsessive.


 * Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science.
 * This sentence also, adds nothing in the context of the sentence before and the sentence after. Why keeping adding adjectives and repetition and odd comments about science which makes it sound like an cult with membership rules? This is already unacceptable in the present version.


 * The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.
 * Could be said with half the words, much more clearly. Again, why make strange metaphors about extending science or change its membership rules when all we need to say is that science rejects it supernatural explanations? Why use the term "methodological naturalism"? Again all these added words to say nothing, but to sound serious about this "serious" subject which we must expose. It makes WP look like cultist mumbo jumbo. WP should not be in the business of politics. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still see no reason to change what's currently in place but dave souza's proposal is definitely better than the two presented above by Andrew Lancaster. As for Andrew Lancaster's comment above, please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes a detailed analysis is always something some people will automatically criticise. Of course, unlike writing online encylopedias, such a reaction requires almost no thought at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit difficult answering points when they're in a block, so will add your sig to allow threaded comments if time permits. Taking all the above into account, here's my revised suggestion. . dave souza, talk 08:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have posted this draft into a newer thread, should we not try to discuss it one thread only? Please? I will review my comments and make them easier to answer, in that new thread.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point: Please discuss this new version under below. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To repeat, Please discuss this new version under below. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another draft: please be thoughtful
Before posting any knee jerk rejections, please read the above properly. Quick remarks: If there is something missing or wrong, please say so. But if all replies are in the direction of diversion (complaints about wall of words, + demands to post all sources once more, etc), and demanding less clarity and more ambiguity, then I guess it will confirm something. Such reactions would represent one more example of this talkpage being blocked up so that it can not function. At a certain point this will become a signal concerning whether we need to go to the broader community about this article, and also get it reviewed for its FA status.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is easy to source. I simply think it better for the talk page not to keep re-posting the sourcing discussions. I've tried much harder than others to stick close to real sources, looking to their strength and to what they agree upon most.
 * Intelligent design theory is redirected to here and is a common term, so it should be a term at the top. (Intelligent design creationism goes to Neo-creationism.) Also the current version and nearly all drafts have included the definition of that theory in the lead already. My main concern is to avoid mixing theory and movement. But of course I have removed my previous suggestion of saying it is a more specific term.
 * I have tried hard to focus on the demands of others, including Dave souza, and to really try to respond positively to any valid demand, except that I continue to insist our aim is clarity and explanation, and that no policy demands us to ignore word meanings and contexts, and certainly not based on google searches.
 * In fact I think I may have made some of these demanded things clearer than they have ever been recently. For example, I have even included the word "strategy", but not as a definition of intelligent design, but rather in an appropriate description of something real and notable about both the movement and the common use of the term this article is named after. (Indeed it is notable that this matter about strategy was between the lines, confusing things, but never explained in previous drafts and versions. It is important as per MOS:INTRO, because this accounts for some confusing use of this term, such as Dave's "fish with fins".)
 * A big part of this is in the new second paragraph. I note that in effect this paragraph brings key points up from the very wordy third paragraph, which we have not started working on. Probably if the above was ever used, we could shorten it a bit.
 * I have removed un-necessary extra words, which was frankly easy, especially in the third (previously second) paragraph about the scientific community. Please do not complain that I have removed actual information just because it is shorter. Please read it first.
 * I have as per normal WP policy removed absolute words such as all or nothing or always. None of our sources for such claims are strong enough, and it adds nothing but a ranting tone. It is not encyclopedic.
 * Please think before you write: this draft changes meanings, is ungrammatical, and once again you seem to be trying to change the topic to "intelligent design theory" rather than the simple overarching term "intelligent design". If anything, it confirms that you're flogging a dead horse. . dave souza, talk 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate some good faith Dave. Your post claiming that such a draft is a dead horse implies pretty strongly that your own very recent draft was cynical? I spent quite some time trying to explain my concerns about it, but indeed the lack of serious replies does create obvious concerns about whether it was really intended to help the discussion (which was very much alive before your draft).
 * Firstly, the article is already about intelligent design theory, which is not only a term which redirects here, but is also the thing being defined by the source which is consistently being quoted for a definition at the top. You have yourself said dozens of times that this article is about intelligent design theory on this talkpage.
 * If on the other hand you are now saying that this article should be about one "overarching term" which means distinctly different things, then the whole article should be changed. Clearly we do not write articles which combine different subjects just because they share the same name. That really would be a NOTDIC problem, LOL! But you can't seriously be saying that? There is one thing which unites the meanings here, and that is not only a term (and not the movement which has who knows how many articles already). Don't you agree? That is what I have tried to encapsulate, and although your positions on this talk page are a moving target and studiously vague, I have looked especially closely at them.
 * Please name the meaning changes. Are you referring to places where I tried to remove ambiguity?
 * Please name the grammatical problems. That should be easy to fix and would be an odd reason to declare a draft a dead horse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thumbs down. Overemphasizes "theory", overly equivalates ID with 'argument from design', polemically over-stresses the DI-the-Deceiver angle, and trivializes the scientific position as if it were mere preference ("Modern science avoids such explanations"?) as well as the legal conclusion. "Status quo" version superior/ subsequent revisions to the middle proposal are more current for consideration here, not this "1st proposal". We need to stop replowing old ground. Brevity would be much appreciated. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ''Overemphasizes "theory", overly equivalates ID with 'argument from design',
 * See reply to Dave. =>Sources.
 * polemically over''-stresses the DI-the-Deceiver angle, and
 * Better back between the lines? Let's cut the BS. We cover it clearly or we do not. This is not a tabloid.
 * ''trivializes the scientific position as if it were mere preference ("Modern science avoids such explanations"?)
 * I just copy-edited that part to make it less adolescent, less redundant in wording, and more encyclopedic. I can see that versions of this paragraph travel down through the editing history like a sacred fossil, building up repetitive dirt. I doubt any proponents of the status quo have read it for years.
 * ''as well as the legal conclusion.
 * Would help if you add some words here. LOL. Concise though!
 * '' We need to stop replowing old ground.
 * Says who? I can point to several occasions since I started trying to help here on 20th August (not so long ago) that active proponents of the current version have admitted that they have to totally change their way of explaining what this article is about, and their understanding of the sources. It is not strange in such a situation to then also consider the text in mainspace. I am also not the only person to have proposed a draft ... but my drafts get these reactions. The constant demands discussions must stop really are remarkable, and meaningful. No one demands that you participate in this discussion if you do not have time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Professor marginalia so I oppose the new versions proposed. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be good if you could show some sign of having read something in my opinion. Right now, despite having posted several times to register "votes", I see no real reason to believe you have any idea what the discussion is about, although presumably you do? Presumably, other members of the community reading this discussion will be in the same boat as me. So it would be good to hear your more detailed opinions. It can always be the case that I have missed some obvious problem in my understanding and then I will be happy to learn. Please understand that this article showed problems before I recently showed an interest. I am not very ambitious. My aim here is simply to try to delineate what this article is about so that everyone can edit properly and the article can perhaps stabilize and perhaps keep its FA status. It certainly does not deserve it now. I've tried to gather opinions here about what the article is about and base my proposals on responses, trying to get things out from between the lines and make something encylclopedic which can be worked on properly - but the definitions of what this article is about keep changing. Frankly, no one in the status quo defense team seems to want to improve this article, or even allow discussion of the possibility, and that is very remarkable. If I misunderstand then I apologize but I ask you to consider how else I should understand the discussions since the 20th of August.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to repeat what's been said over and over and over again. I see absolutely no reason to prefer your version over the status quo and you clearly have a problem comprehending that other editors can and will have different opinions from yours. Requesting that editors comment thoroughly on every quite lengthy proposal you make (and you've made lots) will only lead to what is happening right now: you'll get less and less engagement from editors who get tired of addressing the same points time after time. As for your proposal below, the same comment applies: I see no reason to prefer it over the status quo which I regard as a perfectly acceptable construction. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaba WP is not a democracy. If you can not show an understanding of the sourcing problem Dave and I discussed above then just saying you disagree is not very useful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He mentioned he was doing this at your request for a draft. It was nice of him to oblige your request, and I think it's only fair you make your criticism specific. Engaging is the only way to get a version that you are satisfied with. BabyJonas (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas: 1- I asked for something like this "This is my[28] proposed, concise and reliably sourced edit[29]" and what I got was the behemoth up there simply repeating Andrew's position yet again. 2- I am engaging and the version I am satisfied with is currently in place so I see no reason to oblige Andrew responding with detail to every one of his walls of text. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No you show no sign of having read anything. My reply to the post you mention having written was 3 words long but I see no sign you know of its existence. My longer posts have been drafts or sourcing information explicitly demanded by yourself and others. Please stop filling this talk page with circular diversions, and allow it to function.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to be concise: please everyone also do not forget the listing of quite straightforward concerns with the PRESENT lead, here (in box). Why may we not attempt to confront those concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dub's proposal in the middle is the most accurate and least-skewed for partisan convenience. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In many ways I prefer it also, but even MisterDub is no longer proposing that draft, so apparently it has no chance of success? I only included it for comparison because I wanted to show that I was deliberately trying to cover the concerns of those who reject that draft. My draft is not meant to be my personal preference. (I suspect this point has been missed.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But note: I believe my third paragraph is simply better than MisterDub's second, which I think is actually just from old versions. So if no one can see any real reason not to, I think that this replacement can already be done and then we can focus on the beginning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see one: you do not have any form of consensus to edit that in. So don't. Remember this? About time to put it into effect I'd say. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The paragraph I mean has hardly been discussed! Only here, here, and now below. (Basically all posts by me with very few responses.) I've certainly made enough effort to ask for feedback to justify making that edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, so you "only" raised the same issue three times in less than 10 days. Regarding this edit, you are changing completely the meaning of that sentence, there's no "copyediting" here. Also, have a look at WP:BRD please. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I raised the same issue 3 times in less than 10 days, and no one has raised any major objections. Are you saying that is irresponsible editing?? Discussion continues below now with Professor marginalia. Concerning your latest double revert, I can only repeat once more that you show no sign of understanding anything being discussed. The section I was copy editing has been recently changed by several authors, mainly Dave souza, who noted himself that it was clumsy, so it has not yet achieved the status of holy text I think. I frankly do not believe you identified any problem with the meaning. (It would require comparison of the text to the discussions above about this section.) Your revert was WP:POINTy. If you wish to contribute to discussion please do, but otherwise stop trying to disrupt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I make an edit changing from the status quo and it's reverted, that's fine by me: it's then time to discuss the specific edit with reference to sources, proposing any alternative formulations, not time to issue a barrage of vague uncivil accusations that tend to contravene WP:NPA. Copy editing does not involve changing the meaning of text. As discussions continue below, that may be a more fruitful place for detailed comment. . dave souza, talk 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Answering Andrew:
 * 1- Once again: you clearly need to give WP:BRD a read. If your edit is reverted you go to the talk page to discuss the issue, you don't revert the edit back in like you did.
 * 2- The problem with your edit and it's summary is clear: it was not a "copyedit" like you called it, at all. This is an actual copyedit of that same sentence. See how the link to Creation Science is not dropped? See how the word theory is not subtly introduced? See how the meaning of the statement as a whole remains the same?
 * 3- I actually do think it is borderline disruptive to open 3 different threads for the same issue in less than 10 days, yes. You need to learn to drop the stick my friend. Bludgeoning the talk page with long winded walls of text over and over again is not very likely to gain you much love, not on this TP nor any other.
 * Regards. Gaba  (talk)  09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave and Gaba: B, R and then D. If there is no D, then you can be ignored. Any member of the public can come here and make edits without explanations. Please allow me to use this talkpage for its intended purpose: the D, aimed at improving this article. Stop trying to bully people off. You mention changes of meaning and contravention of NPA. Please explain these properly if you think they are important. Otherwise it looks like you're just trying to block discussion with false accusations. (NPA accusations would normally be better on my talkpage.) Use the talkpage properly and this will reduce the wall of words problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I would still happily work on my proposal if others feel it is a good starting point. I'm leaving on vacation fairly soon, though, and won't be around for a few weeks. Have fun arguing! :P -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a great time! I am sure you will miss it though. I have already told you that I felt your first proposal for the first paragraph had potential. It was a reasonable stripped-down starting point that felt like a true attempt to be neutral and to avoid using the same old accretions. I strongly recommend you to have a look at the discussion it provoked and see what you can come up with. Maybe when you get back you'll find your provided the missing link.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The origin of concept need for copy edit
Once again discussion about another subject gets placed in front of a discussion about the lead, so I split this out in a sub-section. The claim is that my edit changed the meaning, unlike the later edit of Yopienso which is a "real" copyedit: People can make their own mind's up about why I have been accused this way. Anyway, I have a problem with the verb "seeks" being compared to the noun "openness". We are comparing apples to plucking apples. Can someone please fix this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design theory has a version of Paley's religious argument from design at its centre, but whereas Paley was open to deism, whereby God works through laws of nature, the intelligent design movement attempts to presents this argument as scientific confirmation of repeated direct miraculous interventions into the history of life.my reverted version.
 * Like Creation Science, intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument from design, but unlike Paley's openness to deistic design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life.Yopienso's version
 * Please someone? It hurts my eyes. "Unlike Smith's openness to soccer', Jones seeks rugby". Aargh?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both creation science and intelligent design are centered on Paley's religious argument from design, but while Paley's natural theology was open to deistic design through God-given laws, intelligent design is aimed at presenting scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life.. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you understand the question, but I suppose I now have an excuse to use your wording "while Paley's natural theology was open to deistic design through God-given laws", which is quite similar to my reverted version "whereas Paley was open to deism, whereby God works through laws of nature". LOL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a quick suggestion,, not a question. You're welcome to use the wording in its entirety, including "intelligent design is aimed at presenting scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life" which is the essential point. . dave souza, talk 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just the last part in isolation
I doubt anyone on this talkpage will give a constructive criticism of the proposal, but it seems worth memorializing the above basic copy-editing in isolation. I am quite handy with discussions about scientific methodology and honestly the old versions looked either like deliberate pseudo-poetic mumbo jumbo or else like words put together from elsewhere without full comprehension of the mumbo jumbo. I will admit it makes a change of tone because less repetition of negatives looks more grown up. (I note how many passers by feel that our articles in this walled garden give a feeling of hate, and personally that concerns me. Presumably it makes some people happy.) Maybe the only point worth discussing is the change from "rejects" to "avoids". Avoids is more correct: the existence of laws of nature requires metaphysical assumptions, so science can never reject them all. But hey who cares? "Rejects" gives a more full-blooded culture war flavor of two religions in combat, one being science, which is sadly probably unavoidable. So if you put rejects back in what is the difference in meaning? Anyone actually read these things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look good. None of the points in the other versions were omitted, and it is very well written. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Repeating, it is not a question of "avoiding" vs "rejecting" as you've juxtaposed here. The original says nothing about rejecting "metaphysical assumptions" yea or nay. It describes the rejection of "metaphysical explanations"...principles, evidence, findings, conclusions...because the method (science) is incapable of yielding any (metaphysical explanations) which have any meaningful scientific utility or validity. ("And then a miracle probably happened" is not a scientific explanation.) So just to avoid potential confusion, scientific laws are limited to properties observed in nature but in no other intelligible sense do they serve as "assumptions", and certainly not metaphysical assumptions, nor are scientific theories which behave even less as "assumptions". Your trivializing these distinctions in terms of pov-pushing, "culture war" partisanship of wiki editors is way off the mark. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources include above, with particular reference to Sidney Harris. . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? I do not see anything in this particular discussion requiring sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Once science accepts the supernatural into its domain of explanations, anything goes – "And then a miracle probably happened". . . dave souza, talk 16:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course my comments about culture war tone are not to do with defending anything you are talking about, but concerning other changes I made, reducing repetition and mumbo jumbo. So in summary, your concerns would be met by changing "avoiding" to "rejecting", and "explanations" to "assumptions"? I do not believe these changes are correct but on the other hand I see no big problem with that. But perhaps "speculations" is better than "assumptions"? Is there any other correction needed in order to avoid changing meaning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you appear to be tone trolling. Please provide references specifically relating ID to this alleged "culture war". . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dave I can not follow you here. What are you talking about? The term culture war was in what I was responding to, but I think it is not too confusing. Are you demanding sourcing for a word being used without problems on a talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you've repeatedly made references to "culture war". If this has any relevance to the article and is not just a figment of your imagination, then there will be sources: otherwise, it's irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 09:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is just a term in the English language, and I am not the only one using it. I also do not think that knowing what it means is relevant here, because I have explained myself in different words. The repetitive and exaggerated style of the current paragraph looks, I have said, both like no-one has looked at it for a long time (I analyse it detail above) and also like it is deliberately pointy. I have described its style as adolescent and infantile, and I have pointed out that passages like this expose us to accusations of allowing a hateful tone on WP. We should be concerned about such accusations, even if we have no sympathy for creationism as such. Do you disagree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it reads better than your suggestion. Will respond in more detail when time permits. As for "culture war", if it's not relevant to the article then please don't use the phrase, looks like jargon. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is just an English word for something in the real world Dave. It has been used here for weeks with no apparent misunderstanding. Mostly I mention precisely what I mean every time I use it. But why are you changing subject here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor marginalia, I sympathize with your view. How would you reword the new proposal in line with the points you have raised? BabyJonas (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While the existing version covers this pretty well, we could look to reliable sources as the basis for specific improvements. Please show ideas in isolation rather than as a large clump of newly written material, and sign between each section to allow threaded discussion. . dave souza, talk 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave covers what pretty well? Have you posted in the wrong place? In this section there is a specific draft under discussion for a small clearly defined block of text. The proposal is to make the text simpler without changing meaning. Such editing does not require "sourcing". Please allow the talk page to function.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your proposal changes meanings, to it fails in its intended aim. Theistic science is a prominent part of the claim that ID is science, and modern science doesn't "avoid" supernatural or metaphysical causes, they are explicitly outwith its domain of explanations, per Pigliucci 2002. We need clarification, not obfuscation. . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are already past that issue Dave. We can switch the word "avoid" out, although it is more correct, and avoid a discussion about the philosophy of science, and how your wording makes science sound faith-based. (As if laws of nature are not metaphysical assumptions, but really known.) Very easy. By the way, I also noted that Pigliucci used the word explanation. Professor marginalia seems concerned with that word, but I think that this can also be fixed easily. Anything else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we"? I've certainly disagreed with their removal, and a quick search doesn't show any other agreement. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The people in the conversation were before you have started swamping it were myself, BabyJonas, North8000 and Professor Marginalia. What is the "their" in "their removal" Dave? What was the "large clump of new material" you mentioned above? When you started inserting off-topic posts this morning this was a short clear threaded discussion. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To keep it short and sweet: I don't have any "concern about the word" explanation. My concern was about introducing "metaphysical assumptions" anywhere into the text or our decisions about how to word it.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. That was not in the text I proposed though? Does removing the word "avoid" fix it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your presumptions are showing. Scientific laws of nature are not metaphysical assumptions. Was reading about that recently, can't find the source just at the mo so will come back on that in due course. . . dave souza, talk 10:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please no! I am not going to argue about this side issue on this talk page at least. We can simply change avoid to reject. Is there any other change of meaning please Dave?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So don't raise side issues: it does have some relevance to whether ID is science, but probably too detailed for the lead. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not raise this side issue Dave, you did. It was already agreed to change that word in the draft long before you posted here about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dave and @Professor Marginalia (and everyone). Beneath all the above OT posts, the outstanding question was this: apart from the word "avoid" (to be switched to reject) can you describe any other change of meaning between the draft and the present version?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Such changes are described in my post below: what in your draft means the same as "Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena"? . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science." This is an essential point: ID proponents have the aim of defeating materialism and redefining science to accept supernatural explanations, and ID involves theistic science replacing modern science. . . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * " The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism," perhaps this should be put more strongly: science inherently involves methodlogical naturalism, a point discussed by Ayala and Pennock. "Modern science avoids such explanations" as "scientifically untestable, supernatural or metaphysical causes" is false: modern science cannot deal with or accept such explanations. . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave: straight question now show some good faith with a straight answer. If the new draft changes the meaning, please just state how I have changed the meaning. I know there are lots of words in sources, but we do not need to reproduce them all. First let's see if the meaning is the same, and then we can talk about which words are the coolest ones to put in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What in your draft means the same as "Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena"? . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The bit is: "Modern science avoids rejects such [supernatural or metaphysical] explanations". Does it not mean the same thing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it does not mean the same thing, as MisterDub has pointed out below. You're going offtopic, please focus on basing proposed improvements on sources, and specifically identify the sources you propose. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mister Dub points out nothing below. Please do keep on topic. How is this different?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "so yes..I'd say both meaning and substance were changed". . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so you meant someone else, who was not talking specifically about this particular sentence. Help me understand Dave. Professor marginalia's gives no explanation like I request from you. For example can you give an example of a type of theory which modern science would reject differently according to the two wordings?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't mean to interject into someone elses conversation, but this is patently false. There is nothing in ID theory (the arguments and theories propounded in their work) that necessitate the designer must be supernatural. Nothing is said of the designer, and none of the claims in ID imply by necessity the existence of the supernatural.
 * It seems the people who you are going to for your research, dave, are less interested in what ID is actually saying, and more intent on discrediting ID by associating it with religion or creationism, and this is borne out by your non-factual claims here.
 * I don't know who you go to for research, but when you see open contradictions like this, you need to be more skeptical. We cannot have misinformation creep into the article like this. BabyJonas (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See and  above for sources showing that ID is a form of creationism that invokes supernatural explanations. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas this is the same side issue I felt Dave should not throw in here. It is clear that the boundary between "nature" and "other stuff" (call it supernatural, or metaphysical or whatever) is not something there will ever be consensus on (it effectively means defining the undefinable) and so certainly in the lead of this article it would be ambitious to try to achieve it :). I think the only approach we CAN use is to say that modern science draws the line in a specific way, and the ID movement do not work within that line. This is BTW also how the court apparently handled this aspect of discussion? Is this not a way everyone can agree upon? That is more or less the sentiment expressed in our current version and to be honest my main aim here was just to copy edit it so that it would be more clear and less repetitive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? The various mainstream sources listed above go to great lengths to show what is and isn't supernatural, have a look through Pigliucci for starters. Both Andrew and BabyJones seem to be trying to give "equal validity" to pseudoscience, see WP:PSCI for handling such issues. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No Dave, I am quite obviously saying to BabyJonas what I said to you: metaphysics is a side issue. That does not mean I am giving "equal validity"! Could your attempts to misinterpret people be a bit less disruptive please? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding, glad to have your agreement that we show the scientific understanding as such, and show the ID view as a minority view. . dave souza, talk 20:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of. My aim is WP:NPOV, and not defeating anyone. I find it worrying that you expose WP to accusations of being petty with your insistence on such a tone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Per request of BabyJonas, I'd propose something like this:
 * The most prominent arguments intelligent design proponents cite as evidence of an intelligent designer are irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These arguments have been thoroughly rejected by the scientific community as suffering from a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.  Intelligent design is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Science is confined to the study of natural processes according to the principles of methodological naturalism and is thus limited to explanations that can be observed, tested, replicated, and verified. Intelligent design proponents have sought unsuccessfully to extend the current definition of science to encompass theistic or supernatural explanations."
 * I tried to maintain all key points, tried to detail what is referred to by "methodological naturalism", tried to avoid insinuating the barrier against the "supernatural" explanations is an arbitrary rule, and to eliminate some of the overemphasis that repetition may bring to it. Dave's correct that science can't accept such explanations, not that it won't.  Super-nature by definition refers to that which exists outside any predictable order in nature.  If a natural phenomenon is such that science is useful in understanding it, it would have to be observable, testable, replicable and verifiable.  If the phenomenon were capricious and inscrutable then there's no means by science to explain it, and if the phenomenon is observable, testable, etc it is by definition a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural one. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Professor marginalia I was trying to move in smaller steps, given the difficult of discussion on this talk page. I have no problem with more ideas, but can you respond to my question about whether the above draft changes the meaning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't introduce "more ideas", Andrew. It comes direct from the text you've proposed revising and retains all the key points from the original. I don't even follow where you're trying to take this. Your "avoid" changes the meaning, you've left out mention of methodological naturalism entirely, you've omitted irreducible complexity and specified complexity - ID's chief claims as "scientific support", so yes..I'd say both meaning and substance were changed. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood me. I have only been proposing a new second paragraph. "Irreducible complexity and specified complexity" are in the first paragraph now. No problem that your draft joins them, but I simply was not focusing the first paragraph. I simply left out methodological naturalism because it is saying the same thing as our other words. Such extra ways of describing things is more for the body? (We also do not put in terms such as deism and natural theology in the lead.) See the part in the draft which says "Modern science avoids rejects such [supernatural or metaphysical] explanations". Does it not mean the same thing? Please help me understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Just to be complete: the new bit in your draft is your last sentence. I have no problem with it, but it is a new detail.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

General comment about "supernatural" - please remember this is not exercise in providing our own stamp of approval on the conclusions and opinions of sources. Those who want their own opinions to be given more weight than that given to the sourced views here have to get their opinions own published and endorsed by the consensus of experts in the real world first, and only then will they be given weight here. "The experts have it all wrong" won't do here. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. But of course if we want to fit a well-sourced discussion on this point in our lead we will need other types of sources and quite a lot of words. See my suggestion to BabyJonas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "If we want to fit a well sourced discussion we need other types of sources"? What? What are you trying to say we need then, sources other than these hundred+ refs already cited that actually do carry the day in real world science, education, the judicial system etc? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Professor marginalia. I made the same point several times now so perhaps I made it too quickly this time. My main point was that I agreed with your post. My secondary point which apparently concerns you is that we should not be having a large digression either in the lead, or here in this talk page discussion, about the definition of terms like supernatural and metaphysical. We are not writing an article about such definitions, and I see no real disagreement between us about the relevance of the point to the textbook debate. It is a side issue. Again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your making the effort to explain this to me. Exactly so...our job is to reflect, describe, incorporate sourced consensus, not to peer review or critique it. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with what you say, and just to make it clear, I do not believe this article is doing a good job of achieving those aims. For example we are overwhelmingly using sources which are specific to one legal case concerning textbooks, and then generalize them into being sources for the big picture without mentioning the original contexts of our sourcing. We are also cherry picking descriptive sentences and treating them as definitions, while ignoring the definitions our sources give. But concerning the short paragraph under discussion here it is my honest aim is simply to try to shorten it and/or to understand how you and others read it yourselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Professor marginalia, generally a thoughtful draft. "Intelligent design proponents have sought unsuccessfully to extend the current definition of science to encompass theistic or supernatural explanations" isn't really new, it's a rephrasing of "Scientific acceptance of intelligent design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science", with the addition of unsuccessful. I don't think that works so well at the tail of the paragraph, and we need to show that ID proponents are trying to change science to theistic science to allow ID (and "defeat materialism"). The points about irreducible and specified complexity match the current wording, but I think we can improve on that by noting that they present negative arguments alleging flaws in evolution, then rely on a contrived dualism to conclude that if evolution hasn't got an answer, the explanation must be an inexplicable [supernatural] designer. Will review sources:  covers some of this, including the two main sub-argments and testability,  outlines issues with supernatural explanations. . . . dave souza, talk 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree. Maybe we could improve the IR/SC discussion economically by taking the "number of conceptual and factual flaws" passage a little further along the lines of: "number of conceptual and factual flaws, including a, b and c".  It's too vague without some detail or example. I'm not real happy with the last sentence there either, but wonder if the "defeat materialism" aspect confuses the picture again in that science paragraph since it pulls the discussion into the metaphysical domain again, rather than methodological naturalism domain. I'll also review the article - can't recall where or how it's discussed now. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, I think rather than "number of conceptual and factual flaws" we can aim to summarise Scott & Matzke: "The design inference and irreducible complexity consist of two components: an extensive negative argument against the plausibility of evolutionary explanations, and then a brief attempt at a positive argument relying on an analogy between biological adaptations and human artifacts", noting that the negative arguments are flawed, and the analogy assumes that any gap is filled by an untestable 'designer' (that aspect is covered more in Kitzmiller and I think elsewhere). While IDers do keep going on about defeating materialism, that's probably a bit much to cover concisely in the lead. Will try to think about this. . dave souza, talk 22:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave/Professor "Intelligent design proponents have sought unsuccessfully to extend..." obviously contains new information which was not in the old version. Two things are new: first it says proponents sought; second it says they failed. But I continue to be concerned that this paragraph relies so much upon "repetition for effect", and also upon talking about science like it has membership rules. (They sought this? How does one seek such a thing?) In the context of the original sources, the effect is quite different because they are clearly talking about a specific legal argument. We are acting as if you go to court to propose changes to the definition of science. I believe my concerns are still valid. You are extrapolating from cherry picked lines in sources which are all about the textbook case, (they lost, they lost, they also lost) but we are not placing them in context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion has been deflected from the simple task it had. (Here is how it looked before Dave started swamping the discussion with OT posts.) Above, there is a straightforward proposal for a simplification of the current second paragraph. Until now no one has been able to explain any change of meaning in the draft with the possible exception being the preference for the word "reject" over "avoid" which was therefore immediately changed back. Please understand: Even if we do not use my draft, my question is important as a starting point for any further discussion. If we can not explain the reasons for a preference then something is wrong. Here is my present understanding: there is no change of meaning, but there is a change of "tone" and what is between the lines (described by me in my post immediately above), and this tone must therefore be important to the defenders of the current version. If I am wrong, then please help me see why. If I am right then let's please discuss this tone more openly to see if there is a consensus that it is appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Calm yourself Andrew. Stop obsessing about Dave.  All of us should be focused on the article.  And none of us are expected to adopt your vision of what it should say as "given" and have to justify to you why we're deviating from it.  Maybe if you adjusted your own objectives from these discussions you'll be in a better position to interpret the feedback you do most certainly get. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodness Professor I think your are reading too much between the lines! My question was very simple and unambitious. I proposed a straightforward simplification of a short paragraph. I then asked if anyone could describe any change of meaning. This is a very small step in trying to get a real discussion so why not just make a good faith attempt to answer? (And same question to Dave.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did read too much between the lines. But then, perhaps you've been tone deaf to all the legit feedback being broadcast to you on those channels. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe yes, or maybe not. Maybe communication is just difficult sometimes. But will you please describe any difference of meaning you see between the shorter draft and the original? It might help me get it. Why would you not want me to understand you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)