Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 74

What's the problem with "theory"
Can somebody explain to me what the problem is with emphasizing theory? I understand it not to legitimize ID as a scientific theory, but to focus on the elements of what ID proponents promote, as opposed to the ID movement. Do we not need to make a distinction between ID theory and the ID movement, just like one differentiates between the promotion of something, and what it actually is? BabyJonas (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas, I think your question is very much to the point now given the responses to my draft, so I hope you don't mind me splitting this out for focus. As far as I can see there is only one editor who is attempting to make the argument you mention, that this article is not about intelligent design theory, and that is Dave Souza. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I see no evidence that any other editor is following Dave's reasoning and the discussion he had with me above. So let me summarize my discussion with Dave the way I read it:
 * He has one source (Padian and Matzke) where the first sentence of the abstract says ID is not science but creationism. This source, critical to Dave's definition of what this article is about, concerns textbooks. (Hence I put the textbook debate into the lead more openly to explain how it is an aspect of our subject term. Other editors now seeing this openly apparently find it undue, but they apparently do not realize how critical this is to Dave's whole position.) This is Dave's source for "ID is a form of creationism".
 * But Dave apparently apparently accepts my concern that "creationism" does not define, because it is vague. For example it can just mean "argument from design", so this sentence (from a poor source for a general definition BTW) does not clearly even disagree with our sources which say that intelligent design refers to an argument from design.
 * Dave then needs to synthesize in order to create a new definition of a creationism which is not "argument from design" and which he then claims to be what the term "intelligent design" (the subject of this article) refers to.
 * To do this WP:SYNTH, Dave then trawls through culture war articles pulling out any description of ID and cherry picking the ones he wants to then use to be part of how he defines what "intelligent design" supposedly means.
 * But Dave can find no source which uses the term "intelligent design" in a clear way to refer to anything other than the argument from design or the movement.
 * Also Dave can given no rationale for ignoring the words of our clearest sources, or the fact that "intelligent design theory" both redirects here and is what several of the sources being cited for his lead are clearly talking about.
 * If I am missing something in the above description, someone should say. Because our next step can be to take it a broader community discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief..Andrew, you have got to cut down these immense monologues. Simple/sweet. I objected here, not Dave, to the proposal to change "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of..." to "Intelligent design (ID), or Intelligent design theory is a form of..." for reasons I already stated once.  "Intelligent design (ID), or intelligent design creationism (IDC), or intelligent design movement (IDM) or intelligent design theory (ITC) is a form of..." are all EQUALLY CORRECT; IDT is not more correct than ID by itself, nor to the exclusion of IDM, and IDC, and it is neither necessary nor useful to squeeze all of them in the introduction, nor is it valid to choose just one to the exclusion of the others.  And I fail to recognize much else you've said here to be remotely accurate to the body of sources or points raised thus far on this page. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Professor marginalia, I can not do miracles. The position of Dave is complex, and despite what you say he is the only one who has given a clear reasoning that refers to the real SOURCES (which I suspect no-one will agree with if they ever understand it). Secondly, I consistently being asked to explain things I already explained. I believe that this dilemma can best be resolved by assuming good faith and answering.
 * IDM has its own article and does NOT redirect here. Our sources consistently find it no problem to distinguish it from the other meaning of ID. If we make this article ambiguous that would be purely voluntarily and original on our part.
 * IDT DOES redirect here, and our sources (the ones being used before I got here) use that term as well as vanilla "ID" both to mean argument from design (ie whenever they are not talking about IDM they are clearly defining what they mean as IDT). We are using a definition of IDT to open our article.
 * Question. Do I understand you that your only objection to including this redirect term is the extra words? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two issues about Pandian & Matzke @Professor marginalia: You seem to disagree. You think ID-theory and ID-movement should be the same. Why? By rejecting this difference, don't we end up with one hodgepodge article? In fact, we already have a separate article on the ID movement. BabyJonas (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Padian & Matzke source carries an appropriate weight of one published paper in a biochem journal, whose response-papers are not taken into consideration. It's not consensus. I don't mind giving it more weight contingent on an explanation of their methodology- what is the reasoning behind their claim and which criteria do they use? Is it based on conceptual analysis or just an example of ID-hate or culture-warring? If someone like dave souza can help me out here, I'd appreciate it.
 * 2) Padian & Matzke's claim don't contradict us calling ID a theory. As far as I am aware, ID is not being called a scientific theory. And even disproved scientific theories are still called theories (see Atomic Theory). The benefit of referring to this article as ID theory is that we can make a very useful distinction between ID theory and the ID movement. The latter describes the politics and activities of ID-proponents. The former explains what ID is. This is a beautifully useful distinction to me because having them two together in one article will make it a total hodgepodge.
 * (ec)The Redirect isn't compelling argument for me. All these redirect as well: Creationism and intelligent design ; ID creationism ; ID vs evolution ; IDeist ; Intelligent design creationist ; Intelligent design debate ; Message theory ; The science of Intelligent Design .  Like Intelligent designer, the Intelligent design movement is a sub-article because they go in-depth of a particular aspect of ID, not because they are independent topics or distinguished in their own right from what you call ID theory.  The theory isn't severable from the movement.  The movement, which arose from creation science and McLean v. Arkansas/Edwards v. Aguillard, conscientiously crafted the theory.


 * I have been actively involved with this article and others directly related to it for 6 yrs now. The claims in the article are not only already exhaustively sourced (too exhaustingly if you ask me), but there's an overabundance of equally sound sources just like them that aren't also cited because no reasonable person needs a hundred citations when a single good one will do as well. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has done due diligence objectively researching this subject. Dave's not the obstacle you think he is--this vast body of authoritative references are.


 * So I don't agree that the factual content itself is an issue. Where I see room for improvement is in eliminating repetitiveness, and toning down the tug-of-war over tone that's unfortunately drifting from the talk page to the mainspace.  There's an undercurrent of tension between the accusative voice and the preemptive, defensive voice woven into the text.  But otherwise, the quality overall, content-wise, sources-wise, is very, very solid imo.


 * @BabyJonas - ID is a subset or intersecting set of creation science, a form of creationism. Take creation science--creation science movement redirects to creation science, not because unlike ID they're the "same thing", but unlike ID there isn't so much step-by-step detail about activist activity to warrant the WP:SPINOFF.  But like ID, creation science theory is inseparable from the creation science movement.  Both ID and CS are products of the religiously motivated campaign against evolution, chiefly the unchallenged teaching of evolutionary theory.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor marginalia, so you don't see a difference between what something is, and how it is promoted? BabyJonas (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please can we keep our eye on the ball? Because we're wandering off into "beside the point territory" again. Here's the proposed change at issue:
 * "Theory" is not just exaggerating ID to mean "ID theory" interchangeably in the opening phrase, but it describes the "ID theory" and "ID creationism" to mean the same thing even though the author himself disputed that conflation in this thread! It doesn't define the theory but instead circles back to describe the "movement", flips back again to define it amid a tangle of "movement"/"theory" word usage, only to assiduously avoid the term theory completely when talking about "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" (as ID proponents do). And unlike ID, the terms irreducible/specified complexity never appear used in the sources as interchange terms that also mean "irreducible complexity movement" "or "specified complexity creationism".  It feels forced because it is forced, and creates problems later on all through the article-creating new problems to solve a non-problem.
 * Our readers aren't stupid. They'll follow along just fine if we concentrate on keeping our usage consistent with how it's to be used in a sentence, paragraph etc--exactly the way the sources do. ID is a form of creationism with a "theory" (more than one, really), a targeted agenda, movement leaders, affiliates, believers, blue-prints, publishing, outreach and action plans which in both common and academic usage get rolled up under the one umbrella "intelligent design".
 * I don't see reason to belabor this even further. We should focus on consistent usage within the text and not artificially and narrowly constrain this article's focus as if ID has as "theory" having significance apart from the rest.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Professor marginalia, when people talk about Intelligent Design, they are typically referring to the ideas of Intelligent Design as opposed to anything else. Just like when people talk of "The Whig Party" they mean the political party rather than any movement on it's behalf. "Pacifism" refers to the idea of pacifism, not any particular movement of pacifism. Common usage sits nicely here.
 * As for "ID creationism", I have no idea what that means. Google and Wikipedia talk page suggests only you and Robert Pennock do. Sounds like non-standard terminology.
 * I actually agree on ID movement references needing to be toned down or moved into the body, although I will take this as a stopgap.
 * No idea what you are saying about irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Nobody calls them theories because they are seen as phenomena in the context of ID-theory. Much like red shift is not called "redshift theory" or "redshift expansionism". The status quo doesn't need to follow that sort of nomenclature.
 * Most of what you want: Mention of a targeted agenda, movement leaders, affiliates, believers and the like fall nicely within the ID-movement article. Besides, like has been said before, this article would be too bloated if we merged ID-movement with ID-theory. Do you have any other reasons not to keep this article specific to ID theory? BabyJonas (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Professor, I fully agree with the aim of consistent usage, but of course all of us including me need to keep in mind what other editors think the usages are. (My draft was not based on my preferences.) As I think you realize one concern I have in this regard is the confusion between movement and argument which is in the present article. (For me concerns see the box here.) The inclusion of the word "creationism" is not my demand, but I do not see it as creating any logical problem of the same order, because clearly the term can apply to both the argument and movement. But for example only a movement can have an agenda or strategy, whereas I have shown that even the sources we cite treat "intelligent design" as a term for argument from design, and not limited to the movement. Can I ask you to clarify your position: you say this article is about the movement?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design covers this type of creationism, which can't be divorced from the statements and actions of its leading proponents. That's why this is the main article, which should cover the various aspects in a reasonably concise way. Where there are subtopics such as intelligent design movement, the information here should be summary style, with the detail in the sub-article. . dave souza, talk 20:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You possibly find your own reasoning on this obvious, but other editors need to be able to follow. So may I please ask you to explain how that we should understand that the "intelligent design movement" is a subtopic of "intelligent design creationism". This is not self-evident is it? A creationist movement is a part of "a creationism"? Please help others understand your position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You possibly find your own reasoning on this obvious, but other editors need to be able to follow. So may I please ask you to explain how that we should understand that the "intelligent design movement" is a subtopic of "intelligent design creationism". This is not self-evident is it? A creationist movement is a part of "a creationism"? Please help others understand your position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa dave souza let's not make accusations about me (and Andrew either). I can't speak for Andrew except to say I respect his commitment and his ethics as I do yours and others. On the issue at hand, I'm going by the available facts. (1) ID theory makes no mention of the supernatural/religion in the literature. (2) Many ID-opponents declare ID is explicitly religious. (3) Many ID-opponents see ID as an attack on evolution/science and are engaged in a culture-war to defeat ID. (4) If you agree with 1, 2 and 3 then you see how it is fair to conclude that many people who declare ID religious without explanation are simply editorializing or culture-warring. (5) Thus we need to separate this from what we can consider encyclopedic facts.

I have no problem acknowledging the religious connections to ID in the article. I agree that ID has some relation to the teleological arguments, especially Paley's version (though taxonomically it's not a subcategory but a variation). But to explicitly declare ID as religious or appealing to the supernatural is in clear contradiction to much of the available material on ID-theory (the theory of ID as expounded in the concepts of irreducible complexity, specified complexity, the work of Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Dembski etc).

What I want to see is balance and objectivity in the article. Tell the reader what ID is and what it says, then go into the criticisms and it's perception in the scientific mainstream. Wikipedia should not endorse the position that ID is religious, or it appeals to the supernatural. It should merely report that (a) many proponents of ID are religious (evidence: ID movement, DI, wedge-document) (b) the theory of ID is related to the teleological argument and thus has roots in religious arguments (c) ID proponents often overlap with proponents of creationism (d) a large portion of the scientific community thinks ID is religious. There should be wide consensus on (a) through (d).

Wikipedia should not be a platform to wage a culture-war, or a soapbox to profess philosophical views as facts or psychologizing opinions on unpopular ideas or people. After all, Wikipedia, as a matter of protocol, does not endorse any opinion on Westboro Baptist Church, George W. Bush, George Zimmerman or Kim Kardashian. My position shouldn't be all that controversial. All one needs is a commitment to accurate depiction. BabyJonas (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has to give due weight to majority expert opinion, so we show what third party sources say ID is in accordance with WP:V. We immediately follow that with the DI's own most prominent definition, and note that they say it is a scientific theoy, not religious. We must accurately and proportionately describe ID, not represent its pseudoscience as equal to scientific views. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dave nothing you say is wrong, but I do not see any sign that you have understood BabyJonas's point, which is equally aimed at trying to follow WP policy. Points similar to his were made at the successful PA review some years ago and have continued to be made here.
 * @BabyJonas I think your point (2) "Many ID-opponents declare ID is explicitly religious" over-simplifies the best sources, but it is more or less the impression WP gives. Apart from just noting the personal religiousness of its proponents, ID opponents when writing carefully (a) make the distinction that ID explanations are outside of the scope of normal modern science (like religion) and (b) that claiming to see evidence of intelligent design is in reality inseparable from claiming that there must be an intelligent designer. Probably you both realize this, but I thought it worth going over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dave, I really would like an answer to my above question: how should we understand that the "intelligent design movement" is a subtopic of "intelligent design creationism"; and that a creationist movement is a part of "a creationism"? As mentioned above, it is not self-evident and I would add that no source explains it this way. I really want to understand your idea of what this article should be about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not just oversimplifying sources, in some case I think the sources themselves are not making factual statements but rhetorical ones. For example, a natural component of this article has to explain why ID is not science. But very few if any of the sources actually give any detailed explanation of how they arrive at their conclusions. BabyJonas (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

draft proposal for the opening
I hope it helps discussion. A major point for consideration: there is nothing in this draft which violates WP:NOTADICT or WP:UCN. I've tried to handle the complexity of terminology in a way I believe is very normal on WP. (And I think the way it is handled here is very special.) If these policies keep getting stated as the reason we may not edit in this direction, then we can perhaps take such discussion to specialists in those policies. So if we can put that problem to one side, can we discuss what other concerns there might be apart from those two policies?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, once again you're trying to change the topic of the article, making it a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia, and giving undue weight to your own claim that the occasional usage of the phrase to refer to the TA is the main topic, when that's clearly not the case. Others have also disagreed with your arguments, and have confirmed that the topic of this article is this version of creationism relabelled to avoid legal restrictions in education. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave that was too quick! Please TRY to understand. I have based this draft on all things you have been saying about what this article is about. There is no attempt to change what the article is about! Believe me! I'm just trying to write a tidier lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Trying to answer in GOOD FAITH:
 * Referring to potential confusing secondary meanings of a term is normal good writing for any lead and not contrary to NOTADICT. (And pretending there are no secondary meanings is just wrong and not demanded by any policy.)
 * The current opening lines strongly (and confusingly) already implies that the main topic is an argument from design! ("Intelligent design (ID) is [defined by the DI as] "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.")
 * Our article does not clearly say now that "the topic of this article" is "this version of creationism relabelled to avoid legal restrictions in education". If that is what it should say, then we should say it more clearly!
 * How can it be wrong to just say things more clearly? In effect that is what you are demanding. There is no policy which says we have write things in a confusing way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, here is what you write above in answer to the Update Question: "this ID article is covers this specific subset of both the TA and creationism". That seemed quite clear to me and it helped me write the draft you took 5 seconds to reject. Over a span of just a few weeks, there have already been many occasions on this talk page where you have rejected your own past words, no matter how clearly you seemed to believe them at the time. (Consider your recent surprise at finding out your been saying this article is about "intelligent design theory".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, took some time to load this section. Doubtless you did your best, but your proposed wording fails in that aim. Calling it a term goes against good practice and isn't how this is presented in good quality sources. . dave souza, talk 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give a wl for this not being good practice so this can be considered quietly over a weekend? :) My basic understanding is that there is no WP policy which ever say we have to make things unclear because of "good practice" or UCN or NOTADICT.
 * Concerning what good quality sources say I think you are twisting logic here because "term" is just an English word, and often quite necessary to use if editing an article in English that puts together materials from different sources. I think it is especially normal to use this word on Wikipedia when we are dealing with words with over-lap and potential confusion. Most of your culture war sources such as blogs and biologists talking about Christianity, and so on, are quite sloppy in their word use, and indeed we probably should not use them at all, but of course you will not be arguing that we have to copy them even in their ambiguity right?
 * On any Wikipedia article, we always have situations where different sources word things differently and we have work out if they are talking about the same thing and so on, and sometimes we have to decide not to use the weak sources. It is normally not quite this difficult. That is exactly the type of conversation I believe was desired here, and which I have tried to promote here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I think has been said before, you're welcome to start an article on intelligent design (term), but generally ID is what this article says, as do multiple reliable sources. The fact that it's sometimes used as a synonym for teleological argument is already covered in that article, and is mentioned in an appropriately concise way in this article. . . dave souza, talk 07:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Andrew's research of sources has shown that saying that it's just the DI-related aspects is an artificial construction by Wikipedia editors, that the Di related variant is a special case. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we collect and list what sources we're talking about in one spot? It's like hunting for Easter eggs to find sources scattered about in past threads and archives. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Professor: I've been away for the weekend, but I intend to indeed try to do that. Probably at least some editors will then complain that I've made the wall of words worse. I think that concerning the wall of words there are problems with the way threads are being answered in several places at once, and very often (most often?) not in the right thread, leaving questions and answers stranded and isolated.
 * @Dave: In the meantime I do still request that someone give a real link to anything that tells us that the word "term" is bad practice. (That is my request above, which has become one of those easter eggs, like so many of my straightforward questions to you.)
 * @Dave: your last post is frankly tendentious. You know I am presenting sourcing and rationales based on problems in THIS article, and I think it is clear to many editors by now that in any case there have been a truly remarkable and concerning number of times in this talkpage's history when editors wanting to talk about this article are given bullying remarks like this and effectively suggesting that they go start a POV fork. Can it be a coincidence that there seem to be many? I think this way of working does not improve articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your request, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for," "is a word that means," "refers to," with the very simple "is". I regard the second half of your remark as unwarranted comments on other editors, please focus on article improvement and try to be concise. . dave souza, talk 09:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Dave I think complaining about editors being told to go make POV forks is not unwarranted and clearly points right at the heart of what goes on upon this talk page. Your reference to WP:NOTDIC is tendentious because it is clearly not relevant to the problem we are talking about which concerns overlapping word use, but just refers to sloppy English where words are used unnecessarily.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources relevant to first paragraph
A quick start [ADDED: the bolds are mine--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)]: 1. The Discovery Institute itself gives us (already being cited in our footnotes):
 * ''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.
 * NOTES:
 * This is simply a generic argument from design.
 * I guess this is the main way they use the term. In other words I think "intelligent design movement" is only used in commentary and so the movement is named after their "theory", in other words after their argument from design, obviously encouraged by the fact that they use the term so much, most famously replacing the word "creationism" for it in textbooks.
 * In my pursuit of a definition of what defines the subject matter of this article according to defenders of the current version, I have been told very many times that it is "intelligent design theory". Our present second and third sentences also seem to confirm this, and to confirm that this means it is about the argument from design of this movement? [ added by Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC) ]
 * It's not simply a generic argument from design, the words "not an undirected process such as natural selection" are clearly an anti-evolution statement. Paley had no knowledge of natural selection, Asa Gray defended natural selection as consistent with the argument-from-design. The very next section of the FAQ you quote answers your question: "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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." We've summarised that, the first section is also cited to another source. Their "theory" is pseudoscience, and has to be shown as such. . . dave souza, talk 17:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding the words "such as natural selection", and being opposed to the theory of evolution, do not mean that intelligent design theory is not just an argument from design. That is like arguing that if we add the words "such as a watchmaker" we no longer have an argument from design. The basic core of all arguments from design is generic. What people do from there has always been very diverse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, arguments can share a generic core, but are diverse and distinctive. Thus Plato's version differs from that of Paley, and the argument presented by ID differs from both of them. That's why this article is about ID, and links to the generic argument which itself has subsections for different versions. . dave souza, talk 07:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That there are many different variants of intelligent design does not mean that they all require individual articles, and certainly does not mean that the most common one "wins" exclusive coverage in the article named "intelligent design", and even more certainly it does not mean that this article needs to be written in order to imply that all intelligent design is that one "winning" type. Come back to the original question: I take we agree that the definition the DI gives of "Intelligent design theory" is a generic argument from design? Adding words like "such as" does not change the "genetic core".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a specific variant on the generic argument, and adding these words changes it into anti-evolution creationism, as does the next point claiming that it is science. . dave souza, talk 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are confusing a description for a definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What ID is goes beyond a definition. . . dave souza, talk 07:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds deep! What it comes down to is that you want to cherry pick notable facts about a subject and make them the defining characteristics. The only problem is that we'll need to convince the Wikipedia community to change its basic core content policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2. The Kitzmuller ruling which we also cite already, Ruling, p. 24.
 * ''ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.
 * ''This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley [ added by Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC) ]
 * You're quoting from a section headed "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", and before p. 24 it outlines the historical context of religious tactics, including “creation science” and “scientific creationism”, noting that "The court concluded that creation science 'is simply not science' because it depends upon 'supernatural intervention,' which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable." As Haught states, "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument", contradicting a central feature of ID and of the earlier "scientific creationism". . dave souza, talk 16:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see your point. No one here is arguing that arguments from design are scientific. The ruling says ID is an argument for the existence of God, doesn't it? (Can you edit your double posting?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As numerous sources attest, ID is centered around arguing that their argument from design is scientific. Will add more when I've had my tea, and edit conflicts permit. Possibly we should move the point that it's claimed to be a scientific theory immediately after the form of creationism. (double posting resolved} . dave souza, talk 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This belief of yours may well be a useful issue to bring out into the open more as it seems it is very important in your overall position, but I do not think most editors here have realized what you mean. I see you have a placeholder below where we can discuss further. Please enjoy your tea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your thoughts are at variance with what many editors have said and are saying. Whether ID is science is a central question.Tea was nice, thanks, will return to comment on your other sources in due course, probably not today. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is good to hear Dave. Please help me: Is a central question the same as a definition of something? I think not. For example I suppose textbook preferences are another central question of the movement, but that does not make textbook opinions a part of what good sources refer to as defining "intelligent design".
 * To take another apparent central question on your mind (you will give no official list?) do we have a source anywhere which says "fish with scales" is part of what defines intelligent design. No, we do not. We have sources which say it is a position taken by the movement which is distinctive compared to other types.
 * The ruling says that intelligent design is the same argument for the existence of God as Aquinas used. Unlike your very creative interpretations of biologists talking about theology, this is clear. And your wikilink points to a part of the ruling which could probably equally apply to Aquinas, except he was not selling textbooks and did not live under US law. Now that I mention it, dealing with US law is a central question of the IDM, so maybe it is also part of the definition of intelligent design? (I am of course joking in order to try to help you see what I mean.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ho ho! Yes, understanding ID needs some understanding of U.S. constitutional law and the series of court cases that led to ID. As for centrality, Haught's report p. 2 "The main issue is whether the idea of 'intelligent design' (hereinafter abbreviated to ID) is inherently scientific rather than religious". On the other question, the definition in Of Pandas and People is "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."Forrest. . dave souza, talk 07:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Also, noting your bold remarks, the ruling says that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. . . dave souza, talk 07:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. "The main issue" was referring to the issue he was reporting about of course, not the "main issue" for the definition of this subject for WP, or for ID proponents etc. AGF tells me I should understand you are joking.
 * For your fish with scales thing you are citing a culture war blog? And the word "means" does not always equate to "defines" especially in casual texts, and so clearly this passage can be interpreted to mean "the intelligence design movement" and its general actions and intentions. I am quite "liberal" about avoiding arguing against sources, but I do have to express concern if such sources are stretched, cherry picked and used for WP:REDFLAG positions. May I take this one to WP:RSN or are you likely to then say it was a misunderstanding? Concerning "fish with fins" I see you are citing a blog which discusses how in their textbook they swapped "Intelligent design" into a sentence which used to say "Creation". I still don't see why it is relevant to point out that the DI fundamentalists visualize creation this way. And clearly, given the context which has been to be a deliberate deception, we can not take this edit as evidence of the organizations considered definition of "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of information, the "fish with fins" is cited to the Kitzmiller testimony of Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy. The publisher is TalkOrigins Archive, which is accepted as a WP:RS in this topic area, but the testimony is also available from the NCSE and presumably from the court. . dave souza, talk 09:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I struck my first reply after looking at it more closely. I stick by my second reply, the last two sentences being the two key points: not relevant, clearly not a useable definition. We can take it to RSN if you want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On your last point, just to repeat, all arguments from design are not scientific by modern standards, and considered theological in modern terminology. No one is arguing against this. It seems irrelevant so I do not know why you keep mentioning it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's essential to show it in the lead, as the ID strategy depends on this repeated claim to be science, and this is disputed in the secondary sources including Haught who clearly sees it as a defining issue. . dave souza, talk 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An MOS:INTRO should clarify definitions and terms and NOT drop readers into something confusing. The "intelligent design" with a strategy is the intelligent design movement which has its own article, and mixing up word usage on purpose in order to "right great wrongs" by saying something between the lines is kind of like, well, like what the DI do in their strategy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC
 * 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. WP:BEGIN requires any definition to put the article in context for the nonspecialist, the DI's definition is deliberately confusing and obscure for non-specialists. . dave souza, talk 07:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * DI's definition of intelligent design theory is actually not controversial or unclear, but is a quite typical variant of an argument from design. I have not seen any of our sources complaining about that, nor do any of them claim that the DI do not really believe in it. So following the logic you mention we should be making it clear in the lead that "intelligent design" means an argument from design. I am quite confident this can be done without using the word "term", but using the word "term" is not your concern, right? You simply do not want it mentioned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That cite source is Haught, not the judge or ruling Just pointing out that the cite of pg 24 is where the judge says We initially note that John Haught [said the following].  So it's a noted phrase or summary and attributed to Haught given as background for the ruling, not actually part of the ruling nor is the source the judge.  Markbassett (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

3. John Haught
 * ''Historically, it is impossible to separate ID from the religious and theological tradition in which it was born and nurtured over the course of centuries.
 * ''The contemporary notion of ID is historically unintelligible apart from the religious agendas of Paley and Aquinas.
 * ''Historically the notion of intelligent design has persistently been taken to be the Creator God of a theistic faith.
 * NOTES:
 * This is a theologian giving an expert opinion on the ID movement. So he is an expert in this field of arguments from design.
 * He clearly states that ID is not new but has a history, and he uses the same name (ID) to refer to the historical versions.
 * I think some of his words have resonance for WP editors trying to work out how to make something intelligible: he says we can not make ID intelligible without understanding the historical ID.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Haught is both a theologian and a published expert on the relation between science and religion. Where does he use the same name (ID) to refer to the historical versions? He consistently uses ID for the modern version, which he relates to "the religious and theological tradition" and Paley's "version of the argument from design" (his italics). He also states "ID proponents claim that ID is a scientific explanation, but it is not." He notes that Dembski claims that ID differs from Paley's argument in that ID is supposedly based on empirical evidence rather than deductive logic, but Dembski also states that one prong of the ID program is a "sustained theological investigation that connects the intelligence inferred by intelligent design with the God of Scripture". . dave souza, talk 07:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He refers to the "contemporary notion" of ID and the "historical notion" of ID. Same term for both. Once again concerning all your repeated emphasis that sources say that there are differences between different types of ID, and that they are not scientific bu theological. No one is debating this, so why do you keep repeating it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He doesn't use the same term for both as far as I can see: please give an exact quotation with page number. The ID strategy depends on this repeated claim to be science, not religion. . dave souza, talk 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are direct quotes above. The same term is "ID". WP:IDNHT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you didn't hear that, the quotes don't look direct to me. The nearest I can find is on p. 4, the "contemporary notion of ID" compared with the old argument from design, and "Historically, the notion of intelligent design has persistently been taken to mean the Creator God of theistic faith." Same notion, but not using the abbreviation ID which he keeps for the modern variant, while reaffirming that it cannot be separated from the theological tradition. Didn't read that the same way as you appear to, if that's your reference. He follows that up by highlighting distinctive features of [modern] ID: "ID tries to squeeze what is undeniably a supernatural cause, intelligent design, into an explanatory slot where only natural causes are methodologically possible." Which reaffirms the significance of ID being presented as though it is science. . dave souza, talk 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Got me there. The direct quotes do not put the adjective "historical" next to the abbreviation "ID". But whatever: it is clear enough. Pretending to be scientific, pretending not to be using a theological argument, I put those things under "strategy". Strategy is something the movement has and can be discussed in the body. It describes something associated with intelligent design theory, but it has never been called intelligent design theory. You want to slip that implication into the opening lines as part of an effort to right great wrongs. You want to avoid people defining terms and context in the intro as part of this effort also. Distinctive features or associated concepts are not always part of how we define things, and that is clear to any human being with the power of reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

4. Francisco J. Ayala. "The Blasphemy of Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse. The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest; Paul R. Gross Review by: Francisco J. Ayala History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2006), pp. 409-421 Published by: Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn - Napoli Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23334140 .:
 * ''The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument. The first prong asserts that the universe, humans, as well as all sorts of organisms, in their wholes, in their parts, and in their relations to one another and to their environment, appear to have been designed for serving certain functions and for certain ways of life. The second prong of the argument is that only an omnipotent Creator could account for the perfection and purposeful design of the universe and everything in it.
 * NOTES:
 * He is a biologist and philosopher and ex-priest, and gives quite a valuable perspective because he is not apparently mainstream on either side of the debate but he is apparently qualified on both sides (the biology and the theology). The sentence above agrees with Haught in seeing continuity between "intelligent design" and other arguments from design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ayala's perspective, as shown in that opening sentence, is that the generic argument is the argument from design, now called ID: a clear indication it wasn't generally called that before Pandas. Having discussed historical versions, he says that, in the 1990s, ID authors "have revived the argument from design. Often, however, these authors sought to hide their real agenda, namely that ID could be taught in the public schools, as an alternative to the theory of evolution, without incurring conflict with the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the endorsement of any religious beliefs in public institutions." This article is about this specific "revived" version of the argument-from-design, with its strategic avoidance of mentioning religious beliefs . . . dave souza, talk 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, it does not matter that the term ID for arguments from design became popular AFTER the 1980s. It is now a general term, even if the most talked-about version is the DI version. The "real agenda" of the intelligent design movement is something for the article body, not for trying to shove between the lines of the lead. Again, we have no policies telling us we must ignore word meanings, not UCN, not NOTDICT, not MOS:INTRO. They tell us to do the opposite.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The commonest general term remains argument-from-design, as you seemed to agree earlier. I agree that the phrase intelligent design has been used to refer to older versions of the argument in the context of discussions of modern ID. . dave souza, talk 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we know what the commonest term is? Just googling? Difficult to trust that because what is clear is that the term has increased in use as a general term recently. Anyway it does not matter: both are common terms now and to remind you of the point: none of these policies you keep mis-applying tell us to ignore the meanings of words, or that applying UCN on the basis of google searching is more important than clarity. Good editing = good explaining.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

5. Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). "Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks". Biochemical Journal 417 (1): 29. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. pdf
 * ''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…
 * NOTES:
 * This is clearly our source for the sequence of words "ID ... is ... a form of creationism".
 * The above excerpt, as I understand it, is presented by User:Dave souza as the justification for rejecting any edit proposal which suggests that the term "Intelligent Design" is a term used by the movement (and outside the movement) for arguments from design, or that the movement is named after its word for its argument from design. I can not see that it makes any remark about ID not being an argument from design. (Creationism is certainly not the opposite of an argument from design.)
 * The ID which is "purveyed", and which is like ambitious "Paleyism" sounds like it must be an argument from design (Paley's term).
 * Re WP:RS, the authors are biologists mainly known for their participation in anti-ID debate, the journal is a biological journal, and the title and contents of the article make it clear it is about the textbooks debate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A debate about what can be taught in US schools, which is central to ID: for example, see the outline explanation in Kitzmiller pp. 18–24. These are experts on the topics of creationism, ID and biology, which are all relevant to the topic. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be relevant to aspects of the topic, but what you most want to use it for is pretty much exactly their weak point. You want to use it to define a major discontinuity in arguments from design compared to the past, which is a theological subject. What expertise do these authors have on PRE-DI "fish with scales" debates? Because that is what you are using them for. WP policy is clear on this I think, but we can take it to WP:RSN.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the paper, I'm confident this is a reliable source for this info. . dave souza, talk 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have a copy so if you want me to read it, can you send it to me? For now I rely on the quotations which you give us and which you say are relevant. Concerning their reliability your comment is deliberately vague. I said they will be reliable for "aspects" you say you are confident for "this info". Which info? If you make that clear, we can discuss, and potentially take to WP:RSN. I have given a definition of something I think they are NOT RS for: i.e. historical comparisons of different types of Christianity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Link to a copy of the pdf added. They are a reliable published source with expertise in the field of the history of science and creationism, including Paleyism. . dave souza, talk 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. Whether we have a sourcing disagreement concerning this source is not clear to me. If it is one of the sources for using the word "creationism" I think my point is clear: creationism is ok, but it does not distinguish between argument and movement. Are you using this source for anything other than the word creationism?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 quick notes relevant to our discussion I think: First the article's wording about ID being creationism not science is sourced by them to the Kitzmiller ruling, which of course also very clearly says it in terms of ID being an argument from design traceable at least back to Aquinas and Paley. Second, on page 33 they specifically distinguish "your father's 'ID'" and "The DI's version" or "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI". So there are different types of ID, and not all are purveyed by the DI.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

6. . See xvii. After noting that there are different ways of defining creationism, Sedley says that what he intends is...
 * ''the thesis that the world's structure and contents can be adequately explained only by postulating one intelligent designer, a creator god. This is indeed the primary issue which divides modern "creationists" from their Darwinian critics. It also divided the greatest thinkers of antiquity.
 * NOTES:
 * This source is a very respected classicist in a well-received book-length study. His preface informs us that the American culture wars are on his mind in writing this work, and he is clear that he feels the central questions remain the same (the library of congress has categorized it accordingly), but after reading through it now in much more detail he remains impressively neutral in his style, as anybody trying to explain philosophy should. (My personal impression is that he is sympathetic to design arguments but finds it hard to accept at least most of them.)
 * Obviously I also post it so that we can consider Dave's apparent understanding of "creationism" being a word which can not mean the same as "argument from design". It clearly can.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As discussed earlier, Sedley on p. xv he describes a portrait of Paley, "author of the classic version of the Argument from Design.' [his capitals] making it pretty clear that he uses argument from design as the generic term for Paley's argument. While the phrase "intelligent designer" is used in ID, it's not a term for the argument, it's a descriptive phrase. Sedley discusses Darwin's destabilising "Paley's confident arguments for intelligent creation": another term, correct as Paley refers several times to an "intelligent Creator". On p. xvii Sedley describes the Stoics as having developed the battery of creationist arguments broadly known under the label "The Argument from Design" [his quote marks], confirming that he uses that as the generic term. . dave souza, talk 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that creationists in the broadest sense are divided from "Darwinians"? Ayala clearly disagrees with that. However, in the "American culture wars" the word creationism is mostly used to refer to the anti-evolution movement, primarily OECs and YECs. Source: Numbers. . dave souza, talk 16:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point about contrasting Darwinians and creationists is something I do not believe you will find consensus on in sources, and it is not relevant here. The point is that creationism can be equated to "argument from design". See our first sentence and your interpretation of Padian and Matzke. BTW there is no necessary conflict between Darwinians and arguments from design in a generic sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sedley gives his own definition of creationism "for the purposes of this book", it clearly differs from the sense set out in detail in Kitzmiller. The point that it can be used in this specific sense in one context doesn't make it general, and note his quote marks around "creationists". In the context of the place and time he gave his lectures, see Ron Numbers who outlines the shifting meaning of creationism, so that "by the 1980s the flood geologists/scientific creationists had clearly co-opted the term for their distinctive interpretation of earth history." He gives more detail on p, 299 of his book The Creationists, 1993 edition. . dave souza, talk 18:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But I am not arguing that this one case defines all cases, only pointing out how big the range of possible meanings is in the source you are now apparently hanging everything on: the first sentence of the abstract of Padian and Matzke. What you are doing is however trying to come to a strong conclusion from a vague sentence. BTW Sedley is clearly talking about the same thing as Kitzmiller. Sedley points forward in time and makes the link. Kitzmiller points back. Their definitions of the "argument" and the general text context also make it clear.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed several times to the multiple meanings of both creationism and argument from design, the specific variant as promulgated by the DI fully meets WP:NOTE, unlike your assertion that "intelligent design" is a generic subject other than teleological argument. The point about ID being a form of creationism is covered by other sources shown in this same thread, and is also shown by sources that predate Kitzmiller. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No you have not Dave. Creationism does have multiple meanings. Argument from design has one meaning. I do NOT assert that this is "other than teleological argument". It is the same. And because creationism is a term with multiple meanings it is a problematic word for a first sentence, if that is we are aiming to clarify and explain. (Which is what we are supposed to be doing.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, which is why it is useful to show clarification that ID is creation science relabelled. . dave souza, talk 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the way I see it, that is indeed one valid meaning of the term intelligent design, but a derived one, and also one already covered in other articles. OTOH carefully written sources consistently distinguish "the intelligent design movement" and "intelligent design" as such which is in turn consistently defined as the argument from design. It is clearly a very widely accepted and used distinction. In any case: this article should be about some one common thread which is more than simply a shared term, and the text, talkpage, and various related dabs and redirects should all line up and hide nothing. Clearly the article as it stands is failing to do this. (See my box of concerns here.) I do not see any consensus for your proposed change of focus for this article, and clearly this will once again raise the obvious proposal that we should logically then merge this article to the intelligent design movement and neo-creationism articles. But at least if you make a more clear proposal to the community that might bring discussion forward one way or another.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

More sources
7.
 * p. 53 – ''Intelligent design (ID) theory represents a relatively new brand of creationism that reached prominence on the scene in the mid 1990s.
 * p. 66 – ''Once science accepts the supernatural into its domain of explanations, anything goes. An old cartoon shows two scientists...
 * Note: the cartoon description matches one by Sidney Harris, though Pigliucci has "God did it" in the gap. These quotes cover ID as a new brand of creationism: better wording than version? and the supernatural: there's more on that topic later in the book. . . dave souza, talk 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave with all due respect using the word "brand" would keep up a tradition of using journalistic wording and expose WP to continuing justified criticism of having a hateful tone (as I saw it on one of the ID article talkpages). The implication is clearly that these religious people are just being cynical, even about their religion. That might even be true but we are writing a neutral encyclopedia. We should report what accusations have been made and what replies, in the most neutral language possible. Do you see anything in this source which clearly indicates that the creationism being referred to is not argument from design and is not the movement? For example, all arguments from design demand a supernatural explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

8.
 * p. 138 – ''In the 1990s [Behe, Dembski and Johnson], amongst others, revived the argument from design. Often, however, these authors sought to hide their real agenda, and thus, typically, avoid direct reference to God, so that the "theory" of intelligent design (ID) could be taught in public schools, as an alternative to evolution, without incurring conflict with the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the endorsement of any religious religious beliefs in public institutions. The folly of their pretense, namely that the ID argument is scientific rather than religious, is apparent to anyone who takes the time to consider the issue seriously. As Judge John E. Jones III titles one section of the Dover decision: "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".
 * p. 139 –''Opponents to teaching the theory of evolution declare that it is "only" a theory and not a fact. . . . . These claims arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science and how scientific theories are tested and validated.
 * Note: these quotations are relevant to discussions below on the lead. . dave souza, talk 08:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "'theory' of intelligent design (ID)" and/or "ID argument" here appears to be argument from design. The term "intelligent design" is not used as the subject having an "agenda". Instead, individuals are named.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

9. abstract
 * quoting Dembski 1999: ''"Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes, an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy, and a way of understanding divine action.
 * ''Long before the ID movement arose, creation scientists constantly invoked design arguments.
 * examples from 1965, following Design as an argument against evolution has historically been a constant theme in creationist periodicals such as the Creation Science Research Quarterly''
 * The concept of design thus is central to both creation science and ID. Although ID claims to be agnostic on much of creation science, such as the age of the Earth, Noah's Flood, and the like, when it comes to design, creation science and ID speak in one language. This language is that of William Paley, whose argument from design in his 1802 Natural Theology'' proclaimed that structural complexity of biological organisms was evidence for the existence of God
 * ''Like the irreducible complexity argument, the other prominent claims made by the ID movement, and often the specific terminology, trace back to creation science.
 * ''The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science, but it is a common misconception that ID advocates accept common ancestry and “macroevolution.” In fact, the vast majority of ID proponents deny the common ancestry of humans and apes. Behe is the only significant exception..."
 * Note: info here is also relevant to origins of the concept. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dembski quote would need specific discussion about its original context and the context of the citation. I note that this source sees no discontinuity between "ID" and "William Paley's ... argument from design". The last paragraph, about other "agenda" is again specifically not about "intelligent design" per se, but mentions individual proponents, who apparently differ in their opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

categorization as an argument from design
Hi Andrew. I've been thinking about it's categorization as an argument from design. One of the reasons for my ambivalence towards this categorization is that for arguments from design (or teleological arguments), the purpose of these arguments as well as the conclusion points (dare I say always?) to the existence of a deity. In fact I think the very term argument from design is understood to be a contraction of argument from design for the existence of a deity. If this is indeed a necessary component of arguments from design (I imagine you could argue it isn't) then ID does not fall under the argument from design. ID theorists make it a point to leave that question completely open, and in principle, ID can avoid a theistic conclusion by positing, for instance a quasi-panspermia situation, as some ID theorists do, according to one source.Source Let me know what you make of my view. BabyJonas (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas, this indeed one of the gorillas in the room which makes it difficult. Let me put it this way: the DI de-emphasize the link between argument from design and religion itself. Their opponents emphasize the logical and practical link and criticize them for obfuscation. How can we give an encyclopedic summary? The way I see it though, this particular point is not too difficult if we would stick to normal WP ways of handling such cases. I say this because there clearly is a common ground: (a) I do not see any serious controversy that the "intelligent design theory" after which the movement is named, and which forms the core of what is promoted by the movement, is basically just an argument from design (b) I do not see any of the IDM's opponents using the term "intelligent design" to refer to anything except this argument (and its accountrements such as irreducible complexity) on the one hand, and by extension the movement itself in a general way. For example IDM opponents say that IDM proponents must believe in miracles, and that their public promotion of the argument from design is intended to obscure this. But they do not call believing in miracles "intelligent design", because even opponents of IDM accept that there is a difference between "intelligent design" (the publicly promoted argument from design after which the movement is named) and these other beliefs. Dave seems to disagree with many editors on (b) and wants us to write as if part of the definition of ID is believing in miracles? But I can not see how he can claim this. In the pursuit of better discussion it would be interesting perhaps to see what Dave thinks of my summary here and the one below in reply to your remarks about culture war sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ID was labelled as such in a strategy to introduce sectarian religious views into U.S. science classrooms, and its dissembling about the "designer" follows from that. Paley didn't refer to "intelligent design". . dave souza, talk 16:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And Thomas Aquinas did not refer to "argument from design". In fact he did not even speak English. So should we correct our articles to make sure that we say he had no argument from design?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Paley used the words "argument design" and that has evidently become the most common term for it, then that's a reasonable option. . dave souza, talk 18:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? How could you possibly justify that position? That would be using SYNTH in order to make WP say something directly opposed to the best secondary sources. It was indeed the parallel I was trying to make but I did not expect you to say yes! I thought it would help explain how wrong it is to work this way. Have we misunderstood each other?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ID is the name given to DI's neo-creationist thesis and as has been thoroughly sourced the term was consciously chosen with an aim to separate their theory from any link to God, theology, creator or religion. They chose for themselves a name they thought would NOT identify it as a religious view.  It would be self-defeating if they were to select a well-known common name for Paley's well-known natural theology or related proofs of God.  They carefully focused on a name that would not recognize their theory as a religious theory.  Independent sources who examined the theory and the movement recognized that despite the new name (intelligent design) and claims to be "scientific", it was the same in kind as Paley's natural theology (as well as familiar arguments from creation science).  I don't understand where all the complications are coming from because the secondary sources are so extraordinarily consistent on this.  Professor marginalia (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, claims that ID is a sectarian religious view or a cover for religion are not borne out by ID theory itself (which, given the theory seems to be outside the scope of ID theory, like abiogenesis would technically be outside the scope of evolutionary theory). If we are going to link ID with religion in the article, we need to make it clear that this is not a view borne out by ID theory itself, but it is what opponents of ID assume about ID. There are two key questions here: "What does Intelligent Design say about religious themes?" versus "What do opponents of Intelligent Design say about religious themes?" I want to add in my response here, specifically to Andrew Lancaster, that whilst the opponents say it is an argument from design, what specifically from ID theory itself supports this claim? Aren't all the sources typically opponents of ID? BabyJonas (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources say what ID is. They reflect what DI and supporters say it is, and they reflect the consensus of opinions by opponents and those held by independent experts and authorities. We say what the secondary sources say.  We aren't invited here to judge the quality of the secondarily sources based on how we think they should understand what ID means.  Secondary sources judge what ID is, we don't judge secondary sources based on how well they align with what we think ID means.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To further explain, it's against policy for editors to insert themselves or their own opinions regarding any disputes involved. That's why the "not borne out by ID theory itself" is irrelevant for editors here. Reliable sources (see WP:RS) do make judgments about the theory, and we defer.  There's a distinct difference between judging references based on how well we think they came to a proper conclusion and how representative the sources are of mainstream opinion in its particular discipline. And no subject on wikipedia is granted special deference to establish their self-definition as the default position. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing this issue in another subtopic below this one. One of the problems I'm seeing here is the high degree of editorializing and culture-warring that (whether intentionally or not) seeps into this article via the sources. It's important to be able to differentiate between factual, encyclopedic content in secondary sources versus editorializing. In fact, one of the reasons this article has deprecated so badly is precisely because of a failure to make this distinction thanks to excessively rigid and uncritical citation of secondary sources. See the subheading below on culture-warring in sources. BabyJonas (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @BabyJonas concerning identifying the "intelligent design theory" as an argument from design, I believe we have a wide range of secondary sources, and not just sources involved in the "culture wars". In fact I think that some DI creationists would also accept this designation with perhaps the rejoinder that by logical definition, an argument from design does not actually say anything about the intelligent designer, only the intelligent design. They are actually kind of right, but only in a very meaningless way. I think this little debate on a fine point should be mentioned somewhere, and I believe it is?
 * @Professor as I have shown using good sources, the DI have deliberately popularized the term and (accidentally I presume) made it a widespread name for arguments from design generally, whereas it used to be one of many names. The most common meaning of "intelligent design" is now very unclear, and partly because the 2 or 3 most common meanings are used in highly overlapping ways in many sources (such as happens on this talk page). All the meanings are MOST frequently found in discussions about the American education related debates of course, because of the mass of verbiage created there. Here are the most common meanings:
 * You will often see sentences which say something like "the DI claims to see evidence of ID in the complex structure of this organ". In this sentence, ID is being used in its original sense of a well thought out scheme, but the claim itself, which is almost inseparable form seeing the evidence, is also an argument from design, and arguments from design are also called ID. So that accounts for 1 or 2 meanings. Please note that many non-culture war sources refer carefully to "intelligent design" as proposed by the DI specifically as "intelligent design theory". Perhaps that is what this article should be called.
 * The second meaning refers generally to a movements and its acts, but we constantly see a mixing of referents. We see things like "ID claims not to be religious, in order to be allowed in schools". In such examples we are clearly not referring to the terms in the first bullet above. Again, careful sources tend to use a specific term such as "intelligent design movement" (whch has its own WP article).
 * Often we see these two meanings switching so quickly and ambiguously (especially in culture war sources) that it is clear that the authors are hardly aware of it. BTW "Intelligent design creationism" and "neo-creationism" are also terms found in the sources, but I think these terms cover all the above in a general way? (The movement and the theory; and are NOT therefore words which help delineate context.) So anyway see my MOS comment below about how we should act in such a situation.
 * @Dave (and anyone interested in the original discussion above): my original question seems to be lost. Should we remove all mention from Wikipedia of Thomas Aquinas having an argument from design? I think not? Can we put Dave's answer down to a miscommunication? I hope so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew, taking your stance must entail that arguments from design or teleological arguments are not necessarily arguments for theism. Is that your position? I would respectfully disagree based on definition, but I will gladly lay this issue aside for now so we can focus on other, more important issues with the article. BabyJonas (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I get your point, but if it is about my "kind of right" then please note the continuation is "but only in a very meaningless way". I guess Aristotle might say it is like trying to separate the convexity and the concavity of a curve. All I meant to say is that it is something which gets discussed, but I see it as a side issue to be handled maybe by just reciting the claims and counter-claims somewhere in the body. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries I'll open up that can of worms later. BabyJonas (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your sources don't support your claim that "ID" is a prominent name for anything outside of the creationist pseudoscience. ID is a teleological argument and therefore shares a lot of the phraseology.  Perhaps this is what's confusing you?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in a bit more detail? You use the word "prominent" to keep your remark from being an absolute (which is appreciated) so does that mean you accept that I can find examples, but you do not think I can find "lots"? So in other words is this a return to the "WP:UCN fundamentalist", google-OR types of discussions which have apparently guided a lot of past discussion concerning the present article in the past? If that is your point then what is the number I have to hit in this new round of OR contests? One of the problems I have in this discussion is the difficult of pinning down a clear definition of any rationale :).
 * But maybe this is a side issue: I do not deny that usage of the term "intelligent design" is dominated by sources talking about the circus in America, but you could say the same thing about arguments from design, and our argument from design article is not only about the Discovery Institute.
 * Maybe (just a thought) if we did some casual googling someone could prove that even the term "theory of evolution" is "most prominently" used in discussions about creationist pseudoscience. Luckily, WP:UCN and WP:NOTDICT were never intended to be used in a way that would allow someone to then say that our evolution article should be about the DI! We are not supposed to IGNORE what words mean and how they are used in over-lapping and inter-related ways.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You characterize my position as one that seeks to entirely remove ID's relation to the teleological argument, and I believe I have made it clear that this is not the case. I do not want the argument from design deleted from this article, and I even helped with your suggested proposal to add to that section.  If you have a problem with how UCN is applied here, start a RfC, but please stop trying to obscure ID.  I think it's become abundantly clear that you aren't going to accomplish what you want otherwise.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Drop the NASA
"Thraxton choosing term ID" got discussed. It wandered around some so thought I'd check that summary was Conclusion: Drop the NASA  The position just did not check out when searched in NASA or Science pubs. Please vote below, and please keep it down to vote not other topics:

Delete It's not substantiating so appears untrue, and seems minor side-light where it came from Markbassett (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It should stay. Thaxton's the author of term, that's where he said he got the term, and we have attributed the claim to him.  That's exactly how it should be done here.  Unless you find any significant controversy about this exists in the published literature, it's way beyond our job description to create one all on our own here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Putting aside various other doubts, the reports of Thaxton himself make it clear he does not claim to be the author of the term. According to him he knew it existed before he got the idea to use it. And indeed we know it did. So this is also something for the body, not the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Author of the term in Panda's...which is where the NASA reference is mentioned in this article--in the Panda's section, not the lead section. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and that is ok, but for better worse I was commenting more generally also on how important this claim is. It has been raised in the on-going discussions about the tone the lead should take.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Professor marginalia that this should stay. It is an appropriately attributed, uncontroversial claim.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that makes the voting me delete as looks false, marginalia keep unless someone outside wiki critiques that item, lancaster delete as Thaxton directly reports he didn't originate the term, and MisterDub keep as cite is properly formed. Markbassett (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll appreciate any further votes and especially someone offering an independant source or substantiation re selecting the phrase, it currently still fails validity check and seems tied whether to delete or not. If nothing affirmative shows up I will cite [this Talk] and delete the line. Markbassett (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Markbassett. I can not really follow what you are saying. Apparently you are asking people to vote for keeping the article you made? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note, Markbasset, we don't vote here. Wikipedia is driven by consensus. You should read through both those pages. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't even see what the proposal is. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is that mention of Thraxton getting the term from NASA and Science magazine in this article be dropped. For the third or fourth time explaining -- there is no such entry in Science or NASA pubs, the claim just did not check out. Since I see no other source to put this forward as the inspiration, and no independant source saying something similar, it looks factually wrong, so I think it should be dropped. The Talk discussion wandered away from talking about NASA so I've reintroduced the issue again -- please Talk in this area sticking to the topic of drop or not, and if you can come up with an independant source of the wording that would be better. Right now it seems like drop. Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A reminder of those sources for the lead
As discussed above at far more length:

1. The Discovery Institute says that 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.

2. The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling says ''ID is ...is rather an ... argument for the existence of God ... traced ... back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century ... This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley.


 * Number 2 is the Judge summarizing Haught as background for his ruling, so it is somehat confusing since it is not the actual ruling or originating from the Judge. Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

3. John Haught writes does not give a definition but writes of "the notion of intelligent design" "historically" and says we can not explain the contemporary type without explaining that historical type.

4. Francisco J. Ayala. in his 2006 review article writes that The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence (is) now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID)

5. Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009) write that ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism\


 * Now, Number 5 is vague but not controversial. Problem is that it does not help us. Consider we could change the name of this article here to Intelligent design creationism and so what? OTOH, why are we not only ignoring but writing AGAINST 2, 3, and 4?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the proposed edit here? Please be clear, concise and use as many WP:RS as possible to back it. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope the intention of my summary of sources post with regards to the draft lead discussions immediately above, including by me, is obvious. You could not be more concise, nor more RS based. But you may not have read either the post, nor the section above where there are many remarks referring back to recent sourcing discussions? OTOH which part of the article, and which RS, are your posts concisely about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, not obvious to me at least. This is what you should do:
 * This is my proposed, concise and reliably sourced edit
 * You do this for a given sentence and wait for comments. If you don't get consensus, you let it go and just move on. If you get consensus for the edit, you apply it. How about that? Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  21:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree this is there's just too much verbiage, diffusion, and repetition for so little clarity and progress. 800K long talk page? 60K+ and more added today alone? I say we proceed thusly: make a focused proposal, take an up/down, see where we're at, proceed accordingly. This needs to be closing in towards a resolution, not going round-and-round. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should see if anyone cares enough to work on any of the above suggestions and, if not, call it a dead horse. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At last, something we can agree on. Good intentions do not excuse disruption, and normal standards should apply—make a comprehensible and self-contained proposal, with sources, then wait for responses. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Once more we see this really remarkable tendency for editors to intervene en mass with lots of off topic nonsense to try to shut down discussion and make it more wordy and easier to ignore. There is always this really striking hypocrisy of people complaining that they want to see sources, drafts, and clear complaints, while at the same time saying that there are too many. This was clearly a long term unstable and controversial article when I arrived on 20th August; and clearly this is part of the reason.
 * @Gaba: your links go nowhere?
 * @Professor and MisterDub: both of you have recently specifically asked for summaries of sources just like what is being swamped here. Most strikingly, MisterDub posted his request above about the same time I posted this summary. Perhaps a little bit after?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned before, (2) Dover vs Kitzmiller needs to be parsed carefully as a source. A lot of the claims about the ID movement are being erroneously applied to ID theory in this article because editors don't make this distinction when reading the transcripts. I'll probably look at the other sources later. BabyJonas (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gaba and Johnuniq: you have both specifically asked for a concrete draft proposal from me, and so I have made a new one below. As you know, sourcing is here in this section where it can be discussed separately, so I propose not copying it again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to be able to work on two things at once
We have branched off into discussing addition things and away from what is covered in the first few sentences an lost our discussion on that. I'm going to be semi-bold and put in MisterDub's proposal (the one with the box around it) with the for the very beginning. If we can't agree (no it won't be unanimous) on even that then I think it's time for an RFC on that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you mean by MisterDub's proposal, his 4 September sandbox version has been put in various boxes above, but Andrew seemed to think MisterDub had withdrawn that, and User:MisterDub/sandbox1 currently shows a more complete first paragraph. I've also been suggesting possibilities, and have now revised a proposal in light of various comments. The original and these proposed versions are shown in the box below. . . dave souza, talk 08:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Update: see for MisterDub's revised proposal and ensuing discussion. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That change was rather premature, was broken, lost all the refs, and wasn't MisterDub's more considered version which is at least more acceptable. There certainly wasn't a wide consensus for that change, so have restored the lead back to as edited by Loriendrew at 19:13, 16 September 2013. There are useful continuing discussions below, and I think we can get to something more generally acceptable. . dave souza, talk 04:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Various options

 * In my version, ID is described as creationism as verified by reliable third party sources to meet MOS:BEGIN. It is shown as a variant modified from creation science, making it clear that it's not the generic version. The design argument is described using the phrase intelligent design, indicating the history of these words and briefly outlining the argument. The paragraph next explicitly shows the ID suggestion that the designer could be natural, before showing the definition provided by the DI in its context, as required by WP:PSCI and WP:BEGIN. I've included irreducible complexity and specified complexity in this paragraph as part of the ID argument, with a concise second paragraph showing the relationship to science. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a handy link to the sourcing discussion relevant to the lead, way above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that link and for your detailed comments, that's very helpful. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, as discussed above, I will post NEW (and shorter) comments after looking at both this and your previous similar draft.
 * ''modified from creation science.
 * This implies that it is no longer creation science?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It shares many of the arguments as shown by, but differs in being less explicit about biblical literalism, is a "big tent" including old earth as well as young earth creationists, and omits any reference to Noah's flood. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So it is not creation science?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's say it evolved from creation science, and the two currently co-exist as distinct forms. . dave souza, talk 08:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can say that without writing too much. But everything you add in that first sentence pushes the following sentences further from sight. Is this essential for the first sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ''based on the
 * Actually our sources, in their most definitive looking sections clearly choose to say that it IS a teleological argument, not that it is based on one - and it is not even a term restricted to the movement. I think there is no getting around this problem by ignoring it. Even Padian and Matzke use the term this way (in places). This meaning [ADDED: it really seems like the central meaning] needs to be at least mentioned very close to the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguable, in some ways it's got features different from or missing in the generic argument, but it is fair to say it's a variant of the teleological argument.. dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed how our sources define the term, including the Kitzmiller ruling. Even Padian and Matzke, writing an action packed account of their victories, clearly accept this as an over-arching meaning (Your father's ID) that exists independently of the textbook controversy and the DI (the ID purveyed by DI).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which why I've come round to "This is a version of the original intelligent design argument," it's got the distinctive claim to be non-religious which prevents us from saying "This is the design argument...." though guess we could say "This is the design argument for the existence of God, with the proviso that the designer could be natural. Proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"." . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then it is a question of wording. You can see my draft below, which I think says a similar thing. Let's discuss below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ''the theological argument from design, the concept that since complex artificial objects show design by humans, complexity in nature demonstrates intelligent design by God.
 * This is not a correct general definition of the argument from design. Complexity is not enough. It has to be a certain type of complexity showing planning and intentions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried to cover it briefly, but perhaps better to quote Haught from the Kitzmiller memorandum. . . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that quite a wordy explanation rather than a pithy definition? And again, it seems avoidable to give two definitions right in the same paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ''which defines ID as a scientific theory 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."
 * Their definition is actually a better generic wording for a teleological argument. Even though you just mentioned another one, you do not compare to it. You also do not explain 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. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point about them identifying ID with this definition, the main differences from the generic version are the definition as science, and the opposition to evolutionary processes as secondary causes or divine laws, which ties in with irreducible complexity and specified complexity. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think I tried to cover that in my draft below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is some way to fix this concern and the previous one and the following one, by making a "flowing" comment which kills multiple birds with one stone. (Liking the idea of a stone that flows.) Can we give one definition of an argument from design, and one introduction to the DI?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My first thought that it was worthwhile to show both, but I've tried merging them and that may work better. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In many recent drafts, showing them both has meant explaining less in a sense. The two versions appear but we do not explain the relationship. It can also become a distraction. There must be a way to simplify?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ''The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.
 * If we could avoid it, flow would be better if we did not have to "introduce" the Discovery Institute as a "new" subject twice in a few lines.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried rearranging these points to form a more compact group and improve flow: in my Mk3 version I've left out the promulgated, that could go in the third paragraph. . .dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the formatting of these draft tables so that the columns are the same and we can see if we are succeeding to be concise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! dave souza, talk 08:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ''conclude that these features show design.
 * evidence "of"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, my current thought is "and conclude that these features therefore are evidence of design." A central point is the false dichotomy this presents, which I think could be covered in the second paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed intelligent designer is supernatural or unknowable, and so cannot be scientifically tested:
 * When we say something like this, we should make it clear who says it this way. But don't our sources normally say it in a more neutral way: i.e. that the movement do not explain it but leave it open, while critics interpret it that any intelligent designer is "supernatural or unknowable"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * quotes Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box writing of imperfections, "the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are", and Ayala says scientists and philosophers have responded that this "destroys ID as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides ID with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions." Kitzmiller p. 69 cites the NAS on ID proposing supernatural interventions which are not testable by science, this point is made by multiple sources and in the context it would give undue weight to the minority to present it as he said/she said. Kitzmiller p.81 notes "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen", we cite some examples of these statements by ID proponents. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your own response shows the problem? Behe does apparently say unknowable, but we say more than that. The rest of your response is citing critics. In my "playing" draft below I tried hard to avoid confusing the who said what. I honestly still do not see you attempting this. I feel this is a WP core content policy issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The core policy is that we don't present fringe views as equal to mainstream views, but it is fair to be clearer about which are the ID views: your suggestion below could be one way forward. From the DI's website for students: FAQ: Who designed the designer?: "the scientific theory of intelligent design cannot address the nature or identity of the designer but merely detects the products of the action of an intelligent designer", there are other examples cited in intelligent designer. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "unknowable" is already telling our readers a lot in good straightforward, and in contrast while you and I are used to using the terms supernatural and metaphysical as neutral terms in certain methodological discussions, many people see them as an emotive distraction. I am not saying we should avoid using them where appropriate, but we should avoid misquoting the DI using these terms?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ID proponents propose redefining science as theistic realism or theistic science to accept supernatural explanations. Kitzmiller p. 69 notes the IDM's stated goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science", and cites the NAS on supernatural interventions not being testable by science. . . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes it sound like redefining science a formal process one can go through? I think I am right in saying this is in reference to something they argued in court, right? Also, once again I think it is not their own words, but we make it seem like it is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnson is a lawyer, and in his own words in 1996, long before Kitzmiller got to court, "Unless we have a priori knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot rule out the possibility that supernatural action may have affected the history of life, and that evidence of that action may exist… A theistic science starts with an uncreated creator; a naturalistic science starts with something like particles and natural laws… My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." See also Johnson in 1999. Kitzmiller p. 69 notes the IDM's stated goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science", and cites the NAS on supernatural interventions not being testable by science. Perhaps "replace" works better than redefine. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are getting my point. In my playful draft below I have tried to show what I mean. We can of course show that they argue for a new conception of science, but the way we have been saying this is a bit strange.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, this really is where their aim of defeating materialism comes in but that may be a concept too far for the lead. . dave souza, talk 08:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So once again, anything requiring a big diversion should maybe be moved down the lead a bit or maybe even into the body? (Often in such cases I would put some kind of "tag" sentence in a lead which tells readers this is a subject for the body. For example things like "X is the subject of controversy.") And also the other theme: we should be careful to make the context of our sources clear. We should not confuse readers about who said what, and concerning whether it was in a court case or a published article for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses open to the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science.
 * I personally think it is good that this bit is getting shorter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That provides room for a mention of critiques and the false dichotomy issue!. . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really do think the lead should be kept short and should stick to the least controversial core of what needs to be said. The temptation to fit too much typically leads to distorted explanation that is very hard to understand for readers and editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, was beginning to feel it was over-short, still a word about rebuttals is probably needed. . dave souza, talk 08:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With the adjusted columns your efforts in this regard became more clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am just playing with Dave's version (I moved things around a lot but still I was started with his version while thinking about my concerns posted above).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Compared to my comments above one more is perhaps needed: I replaced the concept of "creation science" with the descriptive "anti evolutionary". Why? Because in discussions between us I have come to understand that some people see creationism as always implying this, while others (such as me) do not. So it is a way to use straightforward adjectives in order to reduce ambiguity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC) NOTE: I only worked on the first few sentences. Please no one complain that I am proposing massive deletion.:) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) [ADDED: now made an attempt at the rest.]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It also avoids implying that ID is limited to the DI. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but it only allows for the possibility (which defenders of older leads seem to sometimes admit as the correct approach in principle), and I really think my playing around draft gives a very strong emphasis to them still.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a very good idea to specifically say "anti-evolution creationism", it remains important to note that it's modified from creation science which is shown in several sources as a crucial point. . . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I believe it would help clear discussion if you could point to problems with my playful draft. Otherwise it is hard for me to see which things are just wording ideas of yours and which things are points where you think I am mistaken. (If I am mistaken I really want to know.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems rather wordy but generally correct. On point catches my eye: the DI is shown as the leader in some sources, but it's actually a part of the DI providing resources and funding to a group of leaders: Forrest's analysis is good, including "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." Your second paragraph is an improvement on mine, but don't like starting sentences with but. It does have good ideas, even where I disagree about phrasing, will try to reexamine it. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple more variations, going further in identifying ID with the design argument on the basis of Ayala. . . dave souza, talk 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Dave, thanks for your more recent efforts on this, but as a first reaction for today I would like to point to a common problem in Wikipedia leads: they try to fit too much in the first words, leading to "over adjectivization" (if I may call it that). It is creationist, it is anti-evolution, AND it is "modified from creation science". My vote is to move that last one out to the body or lower in the lead. :In this compressed form it is not really clear anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, it could fit better in the third paragraph, so have changed that as Mk3.1. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A thought on the second sentence:
 * This is a version of the original intelligent design argument, the theological argument from design for the existence of God. Modern ID proponents suggest that the designer could be natural, and present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
 * Could shorten that to:
 * This is the theological argument from design for the existence of God, with the proviso that the designer could be natural, presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
 * More concise, loses the reference to "the original intelligent design" but maybe that was trying to put too much in. . dave souza, talk 09:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid that adjective "original". We have no definition for an original one. I am also not confident that "with the proviso" (contractual language) gets across the real point you intend to any reader who does not already know what you mean. The DI controversially claim that they can use this theological argument in a scientific way (although it would require a different definition of science). I accept that my draft above is a bit wordy in this respect but I think it makes this point more clearly, and the same sentences are covering several issues at once in their "flow".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see above, you do not like sentences starting with "but" although it could be really handy here (theological ... but ...science claim). We want to show the contrast. What about "however"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, the "Discovery Institute only" meme is unsourced, has now been seen to conflict with sources, has no consensus, and would certainly not survive an RFC which would be the next step. It's time to let that part go and I request that you do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure we are all looking at the same draft, Dave's latest one here (as opposed to the latest mainspace edit) is "All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute". A step in the right direction North? (BTW I agree with you that less sourcing in the lead would be more normal, and should be an eventual aim. It should be possible if we use a lead that is less controversial.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It still seems like a far-reaching unsourced statement, but much better than the old one. I'd be fine with putting it in in the spirit of compromise. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this help? Note: the last para has sentences and words moved around, so do not be too shocked by its different appearance. I do think the term "tweak" is appropriate.
 * One thing not discussed previously being "open to" methodological naturalism is not a clear description if applied to a theory rather than a person or movement, so I tweaked a bit harder on that.
 * Something I did not touch, but which I doubt the value of in its current position is "The basic ID claim that evidence against evolution is evidence of design is a false dichotomy." It does not seem to fit here, and it is not clear what the aim is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(As a sidebar, the status quo is mis-stated.)   Both of the new ones IMHO still overstate the DI, but IMHO are good enough to go in as a compromise. IMHO Andrew's is slightly better / more balanced. Since I don't believe in ID, I'm not the best one to try to balance the scientific discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if someone would mention that "side-bar". As the current version has changed a few times today I was leaving the word "status quo" but under a vaguer meaning of a recent no change or less change version for comparison. A criticism of my tweak is that reads a bit like a tweak still, as does Dave's version 3 to a certain extent, but if the meaning is about OK we can round the edges off more easily. So the big question is whether it gets the facts basically right. By this I mean that good stable leads tend to be a kind of "lowest common denominator" or core of information (which also allows less footnoting). So for example if we at least remove all or nothing wording, we can hopefully achieve a lead that helps readers move on to either the body or the appropriately linked articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perfection is the enemy of progress. My inclination is to just put Dave's in as a compromise (because as the writer he has already tacitly supported it) and consider it a starting point for future work.   Even though I think that yours is slightly better.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really think the section in the middle of the first paragraph should be tweaked a bit and Dave was also proposing this above. For example the word original should be removed and that sentence should flow into the others with less repetition. (So in that sense my tweak is closer to Dave's most recent comments.) A reason for caution is that such changes also touch on the wording of the DI bit, which is obviously a sensitive issue. But obviously both drafts above are close to each other now as you say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andrew and North. I hope that we can now replace the first paragraph with something very close to Andrew's tweak. If I can propose minor tweaking,
 * Intelligent design (ID) is a form of anti-evolution creationism presented by its proponents as the theory 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". This is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, in which contemporary ID proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of this version of the argument are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and they believe the designer to be the Christian deity. The ID concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity propose that certain biological features are too complex and improbable to be the result of evolutionary processes, and conclude that these features therefore are evidence of design.
 * The bold highlights a change to the first linking wording from "although" to "in which", removal of "On the other hand," and a change from "this claim" to "ID". The last change is the one I think necessary, the others are minor changes in emphasis. If you find this acceptable, I could restore the references and change to this agreed wording. In the longer run it may be better to make sure that the references relate to the body text and reduce referencing of the lead, but I think they have valuable content that should not just be discarded. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Amended as suggested below, dave souza, talk 19:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First paragraph. I hope these are small suggestions:-
 * I would change "modern" to "contemporary". (For some weird people like me, modern begins around 1500.) This is a minor thing, but I've seen it done often on WP in "history of idea" contexts.
 * I really would request the new ID to switch back to "this claim" or "this version of the argument" or something similar. I hope this is acceptable. I think this would be a critical point for a lot of editors who have posted here over time, and I honestly do think it is logically necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, "this version of the argument" works for me. I've also made the change to "contemporary" with some reservations, as to me "contemporary" means at the same time as something else, so could be around 1500, but it also has that early modern "contemporary furniture" look so everyone should be ok with it in context. Some author, I think Ayala, was using it to mean 1980s but to me there was a little ambiguity in that usage, guess I'm in a minority on that. . dave souza, talk 19:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've rethought Andrew's second paragraph to try to make the issues clearer: here's my draft –
 * In any argument from design, the proposed intelligent designer is unknowable, and so cannot be scientifically tested or observed. The scientific community therefore considers intelligent design a pseudoscience, which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and it is a false dichotomy to argue that evidence against evolution is evidence of design. From the outset, ID proponents have sought to overturn the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, proposing that it be replaced by "theistic realism" or "theistic science" in which ID presents a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
 * Sources for the last paragraph: Kitzmiller pp. 68–69, and the DI's Wedge document. Hope that clarifies points, note that theistic science and overturning materialism was an aim of ID from very near the start. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts over the last 2 days Dave. I appreciate the AGF and hope I've responded accordingly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andrew, I very much appreciate the contribution you're making here. Unfortunately I was rather rushed for time earlier, glad we're overcoming mutual misunderstandings. . dave souza, talk 20:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My main concern is eliminating or dialing back on the "ID is all DI" claims. In that respect the drafts above aren't ideal, but good enough to put in. Also that we start making at least some progress. Other than those two things, I tend to like Andrew's draft but anything that he does not object to I'm cool with. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North8000, that's very helpful. Given Andrew's broad agreement, I'll aim to make the changes shortly, we can continue to make mutually agreed improvements to clarify as much as possible that intelligent design predated the DI's ID version. . dave souza, talk 20:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, that's it done now. I've not had time yet to check that all the inline citations are in the right place, particularly in the second paragraph, so will return to that when I can find time. Thanks again to both of you for your help and cooperation, . dave souza, talk 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how the "Center For Inquiry" are a good source to define what ID is? Are they not an organization committed to promoting anti-theism? Do we not have any explicitly scientific sources to cite? Who selected this source, btw? BabyJonas (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy with considerable expertise in creationism and ID, the publisher is the Center For Inquiry, an organisation promoting secularism which is not "anti-theism" except in the sense that they presumably oppose theocracy and hence oppose the social aims of the IDM. The source was added to supplement Padian & Matzke so can be removed if we only want one source for the statement that ID is a form of anti-evolution creationism, not sure who added it but you could look through the page history. Are you content with just Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). "Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks". Biochemical Journal, which is explicitly scientific?  . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BabyJonas, maybe an extra remark: it might be important to distinguish between a sourcing concern where our text needing sourcing seems controversial (controversial claim from inappropriate source) or if it is a case where the claim itself is not controversial, but you just don't like the source. If it is the latter, then often we can just remove footnoting, particularly in a lead. So is there a part to our wording we should focus on for sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not good sources for definition. Sources for defininiton should be first-party where available, which means it should cite what DI defines ID as.  CFI or Forrest would be reasonable secondary sources as notable parties, particularly due to the bulk of their expertise being anti-ID works and having notable influence on events.  Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Folk, I made a few minor copy edits to the new lead and removed a duplicate REF tag. I think the last sentence still needs some work, but I'm not sure exactly how to make that sentence flow better at this time.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows where I'm coming from, the aspect that I am highly concerned about is getting "ID is just DI" statements out of the article. I think that it has been clearly shown that such would bring it in line with sources & remove unsourced assertions in that respect. I'd be happy to help in other areas but they are not a part of what I am highly concerned about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is wording in the latest version which I think is new "leading proponents of this version of the argument". Does this not remove the all or nothing language to at least some significant extent?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that is a pretty good compromise for that part.   But "ID is just DI"  statements are implicitly or explicitly elsewhere in the article as well.   Starting with the disambig/hat.  Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The hat
North8000 raised this. Currently we have:- Indeed this is an unusually specific dab, and the same can be said of the wording at Intelligent design (disambiguation). But if we accept that this article is only about one type of creationism, how else can we name it? From discussions recently, perhaps the key defining attributes are (a) anti-evolution or anti-Darwinian and (c) contemporary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ''This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).'


 * (If we're still talking about having it about only one form of/ initiative regarding creationism, then we still have the big issue open.   I thought we were inching past that, with the sourcing that you have found indicating that that should be done.) I think that having no hat would be best. A minefield to design and not very useful.   Or possibly one to the ID movement article for the DI initiative.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Time for a recap I guess. What we have now is an article about arguments from design generally (teleological argument) and this one which is still more focused contemporary anti-evolutionary argument from design. That situation is certainly debatable, but personally my first concern has been making sure that this boundary of convenience on Wikipedia did not become portrayed as a clear boundary in the real world. Both articles share the theme of argument from design, and arguably this always means a type of "creationism" and a type of belief in teleology. So even though it is possible to believe in an argument from design PLUS evolution, there is a natural overlap between argument from design, and anti-evolutionism. Thus my emphasis on things like dab's and removing all or nothing language which went beyond sources.
 * Concern: If we would remove the hat entirely we remove the strong link to the more general discussion of "intelligent design" in teleological argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cla68 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's an unusual dab to go along with the unusual article start with constraints -- it was saying oddly 'form of creationism' (making for the question of how so and what distinction which was not then spelled out), and 'as promulgated by Discovery Institute' (making for wondering 'what other ID is there and who else promugates'), and at one time did not even mention a definition at the start. I think it's it's article changes that should drive any hat changes. Markbassett (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they need to get linked. I think that we could start with either. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ''This article is about the contemporary anti-Darwinian "Intelligent design". For more general discussion about intelligent design arguments, see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).


 * Good effort. But I think that having no hat would be even better. First your research has shown that it is not just contemporary.    With any hat we will inevitably be trying to characterize ID which is a minefield in quicksand.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But North removing the hat entirely would imply that the other two articles do not refer to subjects sometimes referred to as "intelligent design" wouldn't it? That would only make sense if we merge at least two of the existing articles? That is not going to happen quickly and so does not seem appropriate for now as far as I can see. Please help me follow your point here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you are thinking about the bigger picture (making everything organized between and work between the related articles) and I'm thinking about the smaller picture of letting this article be about where the sources (such as you found) take it. And knowing that that would then raise new questions, such as the ones that you just mentioned.  Or maybe we should trying tackling the big picture now and see if we can avoid getting too mired down in the complexities of it?   Or else I could go along with any hat that doesn't create an artificial distinction/definition for ID.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to offer these arguments for completely deleting the hat: Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The current hat is untenable.  It is essentially somewhat an "ID is just DI'' statement which we have seen is unsourc4ed and contrary to sources
 * It is an incorrect statement of the the scope of the article
 * It sort of "squats" on the broader term "ID" and assigns it to the Di
 * (if it matters to anyone) It is the last big concern I have with the article, and I think one of the main 2 concerns that have been expressed by many others
 * With any hat we will inevitably be trying to characterize ID which is a minefield in quicksand.
 * Due to the plethora of closely-related and semi-overlapping articles, any 1-2 places that we point to would be an arbitrary and not very helpful pointer.  The ID template does a much better job.


 * My main concern is pretty simple, so maybe you can find another solution. Presently, the article does not mention in the opening lines that "intelligent design" can be a term for ANY "argument from design", and that this more general subject is covered more generally in another article. To me the hat is like a potential safety valve on that problem. I think it is hard to respond to your points very well because the gorilla in the room is that whatever our preferences might be, this article DOES "sort of squat" on the term ID, without actually covering the full common thread of the meaning of that term.
 * BTW my recent proposal to simply change the hat was based on discussions had here first and then reverted. But I do not recall anyone raising any actual objection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this article is somewhat term-defined, I have no problem with 70% of the article being DI-related, but I do have a problem with statements that imply that ID is just DI.  Here's something that might resolve it.
 * "This article is about uses of the term "Intelligent design" with respect to the origin of humans, life, the earth or the universe. Much of this has been by the intelligent design movement, led by the Discovery Institute. For broader coverage of the underlying concepts, see Teleological argument"
 * North8000 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But then we are not distinguishing the subject matter of this article and teleological argument at all really - certainly not in a clear way: the hat would be pretending this article is NOT mainly about the intelligent design movement, which it basically is, for better or worse. Also, I am not so sure that the opening lines still do really say that ID is just DI. It is certainly more weakly implied than before. Thirdly, your draft hat does not say that "intelligent design" also means argument from design. Arguments from design are not all about biology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I acknowledge that my draft need fixing. But on the underlying topic, strictly speaking, I think that the only real differentiation that exists is covered by my draft. That this is a term-centric article about the uses of the term (and the closely related meanings as defined by the "lens" of those uses), and TA is the main article about the underlying concept. Unless we acknowledge that, they really aren't different.   I think that you've shown that the DI ideology is just TA with a few items unspoken to fly under the legal radar, I.E. it is not a distinct topic. And we have 2-3 other articles that cover the DI initiative.    And you've also shown that it is unsourced and in conflict with sources to say or imply that ID is only DI.   And IMO, a hat that says that the "Intelligent design" article is just about DI does just that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My ideas about the hat are based on how the article really is. Are you proposing changes to the article first? Or maybe you should make a more clear draft proposal. Sorry if I am missing stuff.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the core question, my thought is that the article (which IS taking dibs on the broad term "ID") is about 70% about DI, and that's fine. And the hat says it's 100% about the DI.  This claim is inconsistent with the article.   So fixing the hat does not require changing the article.  I'll make another try at a draft.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that tweaking the hat is the most obvious next step. I might be wrong of course, but to me that seems like an easy way to reduce concerns one more step, without creating too many new ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My next attempt:

What do you think? North8000 (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To me this still does not distinguish this article from teleological argument. It covers too much? Trying to narrow it down, to me this article still appears to be the one specialized in (a) contemporary (b) anti-evolution intelligent design?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The hat is necessary. Its purpose isn't to satisfy involved editors who sharply scrutinize every line or for religious activists looking for a battle line. Its purpose is to help the average user who wants to look up intelligent design in the world's biggest and most accessible encyclopedia. Some users will be looking for a centuries-old philosophical idea and others for the DI's ID. Part of our job is to make it as easy as possible for them to find what they are looking for, and as little frustrating as possible. Yopienso (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Andrew, IMHO if you base it on the underlying topic, this is no distinction between ID and TA, and (per commonName) the TA article and several others should be merged into this one. But if you allow for the fact that an article can be about a term (yes, that is true), then IMHO  there is a distinction and I made it in the draft....that this article is about the term.   Then we don't have to merge 3 articles in order to move forward.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that we can split up subjects different ways. This is often badly done on WP in my opinion, but it can be acceptable if there are the right redirects etc. However at the moment this article does not appear to be about the term on its own (the common thread)? For better or worse, that description is actually closer to our teleological argument article, and so we need to make sure people can find that. We should not make a hat based on how we want the article to be in the future?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with 100% of everything that you just said. But I don't see how it disagrees with my last draft. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting anti-evolution
Reverting line 1 as contradiction. Thanks but no thanks -- screen 9 of We need to be able to work on two things at once suddenly inserted the phrase "anti-evolutiion" which contradicts the article being about directed evolution and was not adequately discussed in that one day side-mention. If Dave or someone wants to say anti-evolution then they also have to edit the creationism table describing what ID is and to justify how interventionalism suddenly became young-earth creationsim with some DI involvement citation. Right now it just looks contradictory to the rest of the article so rather than revefrt all edits (don't think can) will just revert the word. Markbassett (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The other proposal was anti-Darwinian. Would that be better? (But I am personally not confident about the practical importance of "directed evolution".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would at least not be contradicting the article text which portrays ID as saying an Intelligent Designer (God) was intervening at certain points in the universe and living things (at "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.") And the creationism article matches to the God driving evolution line, so seems much would have to change in two articles and would leave one with it just being young-earth creationsim so saying that there is no separate concept just a new label ????  I think 'form of creationism' is enough and saying anti-whatever is describing the members of the DI, (anti-science, anti-secularism, anti-evolution, or anti-Darwin) not the topic of what ID itself is. I'll try again to remove that word, but will see.   The lead actually seemed better about a month and many edits ago. Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any part of ID which accepts any portion of evolution, directed by god or otherwise. Yes, there are versions of creationism (in particular old earth creationism) that accept evolution in some form. ID's purpose is explicitly to circumvent evolution within public schools. Describing it as explicitly anti-evolution is important to accurately separate it from any other form of creationism which may not be. Once again, this article is not about some broad philosophical concept; it's about the DI.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have heard DI members make the claim over the years that they do not reject evolution but I took it as PR tactic to make themselves seem credible/less crazy. Going from memory, I recall a video shot shortly after the Kitzmiller decision of a DI member telling the press that ID is just misunderstood and in reality is congruent with modern biology.  Of course, pandas and people [and more importantly, the courts] would disagree.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jess (sidebar, not weighing in on the main topic) the "purpose is explicitly to circumvent evolution within public schools" would be applicable to the DI initiative, not accurately a statement about ID overall. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem is that it is still not entirely clear where the boundary to this article lies with respect to articles about the Discovery Institute, Neo creationism, Intelligent design movement on the one hand, and teleological argument, on the other. It seems different editors have different ideas about this.
 * North if I understand you correctly you would tend to see this article as logically merging with teleological argument? At one point also Dave souza and MisterDub seemed to argue that this article is like a sub-article to that one, about one branch. I personally still this as most logical and connected to this I find that much of this present article is purely about the creation science movement as a movement and repeated in too many articles. However, the higher priority has been to make sure basic things are not misleading.
 * OTOH I think that the position of some other editors is such that it is hard to see why they think this article should not be merged with the movement articles.
 * At some point in discussions I might be wrong but I think Dave souza was expressing the idea that this article should be a kind of overlap article showing the connecting themes that are then being handled in more detail in daughter articles, almost as if it is a sub-article to two groups of articles, but also the "main" article. That is not really the normal way to do it on Wikipedia, at least the way it has been done so far, because it means we have a whole garden of articles which overlap to a very great extent.
 * Probably all 3 positions are not completely thought through and need discussion. Anyway, for now I think the hat should reflect whatever the situation is now, and discussion about other aspects is likely to take more time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you are thinking farther ahead / bigger picture than I am at the moment. I'm just one step one, which is fixing several significant problems with "this" article.  In shorthand (and evolving from my previous similar analogy), this article is basically the "automobile" article saying "An automobile is a 4 wheeled vehicle of the type purchased by the people who live in Texas".  The two problems are artificially limiting its meaning to Texas purchasers, and also inaccurately implying that the type purchased by Texans is a distinct type of automobile.   IMHO this article needs only a few more tweaks (including/especially the hat) to resolve that problem   I say "only a few more tweaks" because IMHO it is OK that so much of it is DI related, because that reflects reality. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the "bigger picture" discussion, we'd need to start by listing the articles that potentially significantly overlap.  As is commonly the case in Wikipedia, I expect that the simple hierarchical framework that ( I believe)  you discuss would not be usable.  The first two ideas that come to mind on the medium-level question are:


 * Move more of the DI related material to the ID movement article. And leave this as a smaller article about the closely related set of meanings named by the term, with some  encyclopedic coverage of the term.


 * Move more of the DI related material to the ID movement article, and then merge the TA article into this one. TA is a great article with a poor choice of name.
 * North8000 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I can see how you separate the "big picture" problem out from your concern. I'd say my emphasis has been on a smaller picture still: just making sure that at least the "automobile" article refers to the "car" article, so to speak. OTOH I guess one thing I feel we must be "big picture" about in our thinking is that every edit should improve Wikipedia, and any edit which ignores that there is another article called teleological argument might not do this. We need to keep that other article in mind. If we cut this article off from that one (or obscure the link) we are creating an obvious problem for some readers? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My "little picture" is mostly just avoiding false statements and false distinctions. But again I think that the article is just a few sentence tweaks and a hat away from having that fixed.  Your work here has always been brilliant and of course you are right to look at the big picture.  I'll start something below.    North8000 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jess, the reverting out "anti-evolutioary" is because that label is contradictory to the article and also the creationism article. This article provides the definition that ID claims some things are better explained by intelligent design than natural selection, which is advocating swapping of mechanisms within evolution, and that ID "seeks scientific confirmation of repeated miraculous interventions in the history of life".   That's ID saying evolution is done by other means, not anti-evolution.  It's also in the citations on both sides in this article from Discovery.org Top Questions which has "there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory", rather it is disputing that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected; and from Barbara Forrest Understanding the Intelligent Design etc we have it based on "periodic acts of special creation by God"  and "All believe that the limited power of evolution must be supplemented by Gods acts of special creation. (Scott 2004)".  Besides that, we haveunder Creationism  at Types of Creationism ID mention of Behe "accepts evolution from primates".  So articles contents is saying ID is a God-directed or God-assisted evolution, not saying evolution is bad or saying evolution does not happen.   I'll note that "anti-evolutionary" is stating a stance which wold be human or organizational and not concept, so that would be a feature of individuals or DI or IDM rather than a feature of ID the concept, and there are certainly places that say proponents are various anti-s like anti-science or anti-secularism and anti-Darwin and anti-evolution.  But that's people not the stated concept and seems an ad hominem thing to avoid in NPOV articles.  Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, the points you raise are well covered at the Forrest paper you cite. “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator—as a purported scientific alternative to evolutionary theory..... the belief that nature operates according to both natural laws and periodic acts of special creation by God.... Some, such as Michael Behe, accept the common ancestry of humans and apes. However, virtually all reject natural selection as the mechanism of significant evolutionary changes. ID proponents, like earlier creationists, accept only a limited amount of evolutionary change within the borders of a species". You seem to be mistaking that limited acceptance, and ignoring the clear point that ID is opposed to evolutionary explanations being taught. Hence, what scholars call the anti-evolution movement which became anti-evolution creationism. While for many readers the term creationism is now synonymous with anti-evolution, it's ambiguous as there are other meanings of creationism, and clarity is needed. . dave souza, talk 17:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave I know anti- is what you want to say, but that is contrary to God-assisted evolution that Forrest wrote and what Behe wrote and what is lower in th article and on creationism article.   Just looks like either making a mental mis-leap here or are putting in the name-calling of personal motives where defining the concept should go.   You can be sure there are folks out there who believe God drove evolution to make us so ... are those folks now not ID because we've defined ID as excluding evolution ?  Markbassett (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ID is indeed contrary to God-assisted evolution which is commonly known as theistic evolution: TE accepts the scientific findings on evolution, ID like creation science before it requires miraculous exceptions to evolution. Behe accepts some degree of common ancestry, but still requires divine intervention to create new types of malaria. For the designer's inscrutable purposes, as usual. Other ID proponents go further, and take a YEC position, but are included in the big tent: all take issue with evolution and want ID taught as an alternative to science. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible change to lead sentence
As discussed above, Andrew seems to read something into the lead which is not explicit and which I don't find there. It might clarify things if we reconsider the following sentence:
 * It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional 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".

My first stab at rewriting this follows:
 * It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument that complexity and purpose in nature demonstrates the existence of God as a designing intelligence, presented by its advocates as "not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory".

I'd like to see a several comments on this, ideally with suggestions for improvement, before any such change is implemented. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave thanks for being constructive. I am also looking at the lead and trying to develop ideas for minor tweaks that can make it less confusing. Two points to begin with:
 * Breaking it down, our opening paragraph is a series of more-or-less parallel sentences, saying quite similar things in different ways. This is normally a sign of a problem where different people are trying things between lines. The large number of complex footnotes in an opening is also a sign of problems. And to me it seems clear that just simplifying what is said would make the passage less controversial and simply better in every way. Your proposal makes a difficult-to-parse passage just that bit longer and more complex.
 * But then I think I see the problem this will hit: the first sentence is the most obviously difficult one. It is not directly based on any source and it directly contradicts even the sentences which come immediately after. The simplistic equation of all things called ID with a very specific form of creationism is a real barrier to progress. It is clearly artificial and unnecessary to do this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Without going into other detail, it is essential to cover this specific form of creationism in this article, which is the predominant use of the term, and not get distracted into trying to expand it into the subject most commonly known as argument-from-design. TTFN, . . dave souza, talk 12:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh this is one of those "details" which we shall not bother with? But wait. If the judge is wrong, like you seem to be saying, then why are we cherry picking from wrong sources? On the other hand, why do you say he is wrong? Oh, and sorry to raise it, but what is the real source for the first sentence as it now stands? I can not imagine how to write an acceptable draft if I am being told that just changing the order of sentences, or making a paraphrase more accurate, is so controversial! It does not seem to be a detail? Please please give a straight answer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One obvious detail that is misleading is the "rearrangement of words" that labeled ID as the traditional teleological argument, which is flatly wrong. The cite to the Kitzmiller ruling is taken out of context. The selected sentences are under the heading, 1. 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. That's why I reverted that change. Yopienso (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, those are not my words. These are still in the article. I just moved them around. I was trying to find a way of editing which might not be attacked. I was not aiming at the perfect article, just a small marginal improvement. I do not deny that there are differences between the movement's ID, and older types. (But there are differences between the older types also.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which are not your words? Which are still in the article? When you "simply moved some sentences around," you left the first sentence saying, Intelligent design (ID) is a traditional theological argument for the existence of God, also referred to as the "argument from design" of "teleological argument". That's not true. Yopienso (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you have been convinced by the editors of this WP article that the term "intelligent design" was not used before the movement came into existence, and certainly not with the same meaning as the ID movement's definition (appearing in our sentence two). Correct? But it is not so clear if you look at the relevant types of sources, indeed it appears to incorrect. The term was not uncommon and the definition they give is quite standard. Their appeals to complexity are also not new. (Where they are dishonest is in saying they can believe in such an argument for scientific reasons, and that no "creator" is implied.) Therefore can you tell me any source you have which proves that the first sentence is correct in its assertions? I believe we are wrongly describing exactly where the IDM movement is being dishonest, and our sources are not justifying this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand me correctly. I have argued on these pages long ago that we should include Darwin's own use of the words, and I don't entirely agree with the defense "not a dictionary." Yet, clearly Behe's and Meyer's and Dembski's ID is not identical to those former usages.

As I have just noted below, pp. 18, 31-35 substantiate our first sentence.Yopienso (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I can't find where I wrote this: Yes; see pp. 18, 31-35 of Kitzmiller "Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID."
 * I certainly agree they are not identical but do you understand that being identical is not the point? If there are two different types of human race, that does not mean we should have a Wikipedia article called Human race which is only about the race most discussed on google? For our first sentence to be acceptable, we need more than proof of a difference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But, Andrew, your edit that I reverted said, Intelligent design (ID) is a traditional theological argument for the existence of God, also referred to as the "argument from design" of "teleological argument". Is. No, ID isn't the a traditional argument, even though it is related to it the traditional arguments . ID is "a form of creationism based on the argument from design," which is what I reverted to. Yopienso (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there one traditional argument from design? I presume when you say "the traditional" and "it" (something I think was not anything I wrote) you must mean some sort of common thread which all the different "old" arguments from design shared? Do you agree, or do you say that all old arguments from design were exactly the same?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're just arguing, or, to use Wikispeak, being disruptive. I do agree; now tell me just which traditional argument you're saying ID is. And please also tell me how an argument invented in 1987 can be called a "traditional theological argument." Perhaps foolishly, I'm striking my insignificant errors and inserting more accurate words, underlined to distinguish them. Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yopienso. It is very rewarding to answer your questions. LOL. Please note what comes after our current first sentence: "The Institute defines it 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 contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God". So:
 * Our article gives a definition of the intelligent design argument: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". This is the same argument as the one found in Aquinas, Xenophon, Paley, etc. There is only one "argument from design" or "intelligent design argument" or whatever words we want to use. (We do not write different articles for different terms referring to one thing.) To the extent there are variations it is always in (a) the observations of nature which lead to the argument and (b) the conclusions which lead from the argument.
 * I did not add the word "traditional", it is in our article already. It also does not come from the named source. What our source says is "old religious argument". The wording is not great in either and I wish we were allowed to try to improve it. Presumably the points needing to be made are (a) that the argument existed before the movement (b) that it is not science and (c) it is associated with religion. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm if this is same in qoute: This is the same argument as the one found in Aquinas, Xenophon, Paley, etc. :unquote ... then there would not be separate citations.  There has to be some differences between things for there to be new names and historica recognition of the person as important.  So these can be related or in the same vein, but they cannot be same.  Markbassett (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, why did Dave Souza's initial post turn into a long argument? I'm just going to comment on Dave Souza's post. Perhaps Dave wanted to emphasize the word complexity and that the word design alone doesn't imply complexity. In that case, go ahead and make the change. ID and creationism (same thing) is basically saying it is so complex that you need something even more complex to create it and let's call that complex thing our god or let's not call it god so that we can teach this in biology classes. Vmelkon (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the post of almost 1 month ago (2nd Sept)? The discussion did move on from there, and changes were eventually made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A source for reference
I think I never noted this source on this talkpage but only at teleological argument. However it is not only relevant to historical matters. You can for example search for "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

List of closely related articles, not clearly a sub-article, where major overlap with this article is present or very possible
Please consider this to be an editable list and, in this subsection, just the short list per the title. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design
 * Teleological argument
 * Creationism
 * Intelligent design movement
 * Discovery Institute
 * Creation–evolution controversy
 * Creation science
 * Timeline of intelligent design
 * Intelligent designer
 * Intelligent design in politics

Considered but excluded

 * All of the others in the ID template. The appear to be specialized / well-defined enough to be more cleanly separable.

Discussion and ideas
Holy crap, what a big list / big mess! So I'll confine my idea to this article rather than try to tackle all of that:  Move more of the DI related material to the DI articles. And leave this as a smaller article about the closely related set of meanings named by the term, with some encyclopedic coverage of the term. A broad brief article that links to the others. The intelligent design template (and it's existence by that title) already follows this concept. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What an odd statement! See WP:SUMMARY. As has been explained before, this is the main article for ID, which itself is a subset of creationism, and is adapted from the TE, so features briefly in both these articles. Why can't you understand that? . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, in that on sentence there is insult built on 2 false premises, (that somehow wp:summary makes an answer obvious and I just don't get it), an obvious fact-free tautology ("this is the main article for ID") then 2 personal assertions by you, then a claim that someone who either doesn't agree with that whole string of things, or who sees that sting doesn't answer the question just "doesn't understand".  Let's try to just have a good discussion instead of that.  As I indicated, my main concern (false, unsourced and in-conflict-with-sourcesstatements that ID is just DI) are a few small tweaks and one hat away from getting resolved.  Everything else is just trying to help with concerns raised by others.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you get "ID is just DI" from what I wrote? ID is both a variant of creationism and a specific formulation of the argument-from-design which has at times employed the phrase intelligent design. As shown by the sources cited in the article. If you want to help, please discuss specific points in relation to the wording shown in reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I didn't say that you said that. And with a few minor wording tweaks in the text and a fix on the hat, the article will no longer say that.  And the immense amount of sourcing discussions have shown that "that" (ID is just DI) is unsourced and is in conflict with sources. Plus I agree with the statements in your second sentence.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just did those tweaks in the article, essentially changing "ID" to "ID movement" in three places. If those minor tweaks stay, the the whole article (except for the hat) is fine with me. Sincerely  North8000 (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000 -- Brief article and dump all that multiply duplicated stuff ... would you mean like the MisterDub sandbox ?  Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in that way......that is basically a DI article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then would dumping all the multiply duplicated stuff be desiring to wind up at about that size article, something like 4 paragrpahs and a dozen or so cites ?   That's basically just the header on the current 26+screens (which seems way too much) but maybe you hope abstract up to the level of ID generally (cutting DI-specifics) would also be small ?    Markbassett (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I think I've said before, we can reduce detailed coverage in WP:SUMMARY style, transferring the detail to sub-articles while keeping sufficient information in this main article to outline the relevant points, while maintaining due weight. We don't just "dump" relevant reliably sourced information. This article covers (as an overview) the anti-evolution creationism promulgated by the DI, outlining the teleological argument where necessary for explanation. We certainly shouldn't duplicate the TA article here. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your first two sentences. Then...  I think that what extensive discussion and sourcing has shown is that: 1. The article should not be and can't properly be limited to to DI 2. There is no DI that is distinct to DI.   There is the DI initiative, maneuvers etc. as covered in the ID movement and DI articles.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding what you mean yet. You're saying to not dump stuff here when it's replicated on the related articles and do not want to remove stuff here that is sourced.   That sounds like you are thinking to simply delete some content to a shorter summary form ... what or how are you looking to summarize to something small(er) ?  How small would it get?  What would it look like ? I see you are looking at DI and TA content and could envision really short like MisterDub the top plus just a few others (IC, SC, Kitzmiller), but don't understand what summarized would look like or how it would get there.  Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there is only one thing in all of these discussions that I am making an effort to change, and that is to stop explicitly and implicitly defining "Intelligent Design" as being just Discovery Institute. EVERYTHING else is just my ideas to help in areas where I am not making any particular effort.....where I'm not pushing anything, and where it would be fine with me if my ideas went nowhere. Conversely, my efforts to fix the "ID is just DI" problem should not be linked to those other suggestions.    That said, one idea would be to dramatically shrink this article by moving material to the ID movement, DI and TA articles. (so NO deletion of material).  And leave this as a short article with enclyclopedic article on the term "ID"  (usage, history, definitions) North8000 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're trying to create an alternative reality in which ID doesn't have its most common modern meaning. Doesn't work. . dave souza, talk 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a complete mis-statement of what I just said and of what the extensive sourcing has shown. I am saying that statements that ID is exclusively DI are false, unsourced, and contrary to sources. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What you say you're saying is heart felt, I'm sure, but wrong. ID isn't "exclusively" anything, but very little in real life is so absolute.  Same goes for the articles on wikipedia--very few are written to satisfy this absolute.  The "unsourced" and "contrary to sources" makes no sense except if one is looking for sources that say "ID is exclusively" and of course you won't find them because it's a strawman argument.  Few except contrarian editors here obsess over who "owns" the term almost nobody really used until DI coined it.  The cup spilleth over with sources all about the same ID described in this article. The non-DI centered ID? Few and far between, virtually all of them coat-tailing with the term in the wake of DI.  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Professor. I think you are both under-rating the "ownership" issues you mention the article has had (maybe not the right term, because we are talking a topic "owning" an article). You are also perhaps making a bit of a "counter-strawman-argument" if that is a term: I think no one is arguing against DI-style ID being a dominant theme in any discussion of ID. But there do still continue to be valid concerns with the way in which DI-related topics have been put in a "walled garden" of articles that "keep it simple" for the readers by not mentioning real links to messy reality that is not exclusively the DI.
 * @Dave. I think you also need to please try not to reinterpret things in such a simplistic way. At the very least we can say that you have no source for the "most common meaning" of intelligent design being "Discovery Institute creationism" and I really hope you are not going to insist on anything like that anymore? Can you please nuance your position a bit? Indeed our clearest statements about what it means all agree that it means "argument from design" and/or "intelligent design movement" (both of which are of course very much subjects which are linked to the Discovery Institute, but not exclusively). We have found no evidence in any source that the second of these two over-lapping meanings is more common than the first.
 * @North. I can fully agree that the article should not make any simple equation of "all" ID being DI. But apart from the hat, does the article really still say this? And concerning the hat, did my proposal not fix that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The hat 2

 * Hello Andrew. Answering your first question, the article no longer has that problem.  So the hat is the only problem.  On the next point, if I (now) understand what your idea is, I must confess that since I don't think it was on the talk page and it only existed on the article for a few hours, I completely missed it, and I thought you were talking about something else. And now that I see it, yes, it sufficiently solves the problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was an attempt to be uncontroversial, so should we call a little vote on that hat?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #1 Yes. (of course, not specifically a "vote") Just to be clear it is to replace the hat with the following (drafted by you)


 * Support This removes the unsourced (and in conflict with sources)  implicit assertions that Intelligent design is limited to the Discovery Institute and that belief/ argument promulgated by them is unique to them.  And removing that assertion of exclusivity aligns the hat with the current article.  The article can remain largely as it is.   In fact, IMO, with respect to this, the article can remain exactly as it is today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It is meant to be an improvement that it is hard to argue against.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment' the phrase anti-Darwinian "intelligent design" creationism introduces a new term with its own multiple ambiguities, it should be rephrased in line with the lead as anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. The second point, "intelligent design" arguments more generally, would be more precise as generic arguments from "intelligent design". . dave souza, talk 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK with me. To keep crystallized, I would rather not derail the process. If all of the other supporters of #1 (currently just Andrew) is/are OK with it, suggest we immediately change the proposal to what you suggest.  Otherwise I'd like get #1 put in and then (if most others are OK with it) put in the changes that you recommend, and I'd support the changes that you recommend.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1b
 * So with Dave's changes that would be: (?) North8000 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems ok to me and we could make that Proposal 1b for example if it resolves Dave's concerns. For the record the reason I proposed anti-Darwinian was because of Markbassett's concerns, but they do not seem to be widely shared? (And I am not sure that the draft resolves his concerns.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #2 Keep the hat as it is today.


 * Oppose It has all of the problems described in my "support" of proposal #1. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Indeed this clearly gives the impression of a strict equation of ALL ID with DI, which long discussion here has found no clear defenders for. The main article text is now already adapted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: There was an obvious typo in proposal 1 which I fixed, and I have added the text for proposal 2.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep more as today. I appreciate the article as defined has demarcation issue of it excludes prior ID or later ID or ID promulgation by organizations other than DI, or if DI changes their name, etcetera.  Yet the common meaning of the term seems along the lines of article as currently stated, perhaps more precisely from the period of Pandas from Kitzmiller.  So it sounds like the question is how to deal with period after or before or side -- things that say intelligent design but not fit the hat scope.  I don't think we'd be helping scope or lessening work by making it "anti-Darwinian ID creationism" because it's making more and worse issues (a) adding specification in definition implies there are forms of ID that are not anti-Darwinian or creationism that would then need to be addressed, and (b) it starts putting dependencies onto other articles.  The added 'more generally see' would not be too bad, but I think that's more acceptably handled in article text having wikilinks and a See Also section.  Markbassett (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are (or should be) "dependencies" on other articles. Consider WP:WG and WP:BUILD. The common meaning of intelligent design is the same theological or philosophical meaning before the period of Kitzmiller and after, as the rulings and witnesses themselves argue very clearly, and that meaning has never been exclusively linked to the Discovery Institute except in Wikipedia. Furthermore we have already changed the lead, as per drafts finally done by Dave souza, and so what is being proposed here merely adapts the lead to the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, if I understand your post correctly, I believe that you are saying that the scope of actual article as-is is preferable, and are feeling that proposal #1 would change that. IMO proposal #1, along with fixing two significant problems, is designed to accept the scope of the article as it is and bring the hat in line with the scope of the article as it is.   In short, I think that proposal #1 agrees with what you just said. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, basically the hat as-is seems preferrable. From structural to value view, it seemed to me the addition of yet more qualifiers as in Proposal #1 hat is not a way to broaden subject area to help the demarcation question of non-DI ID or more generally of what to do with things of the same topic label that the hat explicitly excludes.  The more qualifiers seem to me just more lines of demarcation and connection to struggle with and more wording choices to fuss over.  I'd think that - fewer - qualifiers to be more abstract would cover more generally but have no ideas what that wording would be.   The dominant current meaning of the label ID does seem roughy what DI put forth and from the era of Pandas to Katzmiller, so the current hat seems not too awful or wrong.  (The content is .. many many other topics)  That this hat is not allowing all the meanings of that label does seem a gap, but I think the other way you'd wind up with say maybe some of DI does not fit or is questionable if fits, and folks would like that even less. Markbassett (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the question of this and related articles and their titles is so immensely tangled that no possible any will resolve it.  Here we are just trying to take a baby step of a way to get the "ID is just DI" statement out of there in a reasonably good (but inevitably imperfect) way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to comment on the hat proposals? North8000 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As above, anti-Darwinian "intelligent design" creationism should read anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. . dave souza, talk 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be slightly bold and put it in as modified by Dave souza. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Let's consider it to be open to further evolution based on results of discussions of similar scale. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not find this bold at all. The lead was changed after much discussion and the hat adjustment simply fits. Great efforts have been made to get discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, changing the specifier makes new questions about boundaries or intent so I will ask for explicit clarification of the different lines of hat 'This article is about contemporary anti-evolution "intelligent design" creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).' Specifically, please insert any clarifications for these or add more questions if you want : Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When is 'contemporary' ? Is it the last 10 years or 30 or 50 or what ?
 * Does 'contemporary' exclusion mean some other non-contemporary item exists or should ?
 * In particular the Intelligent Design (historical) had AfD partly saying it should go here -- should 'non-contemporary now be created ?
 * Does 'anti-evolution' specification mean to focus on parts of ID that are anti-evolution or ways ID is so ?
 * What other ID that is not DI will now be added ?
 * Should content DI now be reduced to summary with pointer to DI article ?


 * Well, I'm back from vacation and have to say that I'm quite displeased with this new hatnote. "contemporary anti-evolution 'intelligent design' creationism"?!  Sounds like we're trying to hard.  1) Why limit this article to any specific time period?  Remove contemporary and let the article stand for all ID.  2) Why say anti-evolution?  All creationism opposes evolution; this is just redundant.  3) Do we really need to tell people that they're on a page for "intelligent design" when they're staring at the intelligent design page?  I have since removed these adjectives as they are completely unnecessary.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My answer to both is that the understanding is that it is subject to and very open to further changes and evolution, except for going back to claiming / implying that ID is just DI. So let's discuss any ideas for improvement that either of you have. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Dub's edit in the hat is fine with me except I think that we need a process where significant changes in the hat have at least some discussion first. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)