Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 77

Pseudoscience demarcation
While we've several sources noting that ID is pseudoscience, they were compiled a while ago and newer sources are now available. One example that looks useful is.

While I've got limited access, see page 148 on varieties: "Second are paranormal belief systems that begin within a religious tradition… that existed long before there was the contemporary version of a science. … Creationism is a prime example here.. In 1987, in 'Edwards v. Aguilard, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science was "nothing but religion dressed up as science" (Larson 2004, 24), thereby mobilizing supporters of creationism to generate its offspring – Intelligent Design. … Creation science and its progeny, Intelligent Design, are classic examples of pseudoscience."

Also p. 2 gives a "ballpark demarkation of pseudoscience'… "if a theory strays from the epistemic desirata of science by a sufficiently wide margin while being touted as science by its adherents, it is justifiably branded as pseudoscience". Probably useful, worth a look. . dave souza, talk 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes this is the reference Garamond Lethe used for "form but not content" in the FAQ (words which do not however appear in the book as I understand, nor are they similar to anything in our article). Any suggestions on relevance to this article Dave?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that page isn't the reference for "form but not content". After reading three of the chapters and getting a rough sense of the current state of research into the demarcation problem, I chose "form but not content" as a fair summary and pointed to the book as a whole for further reading.  Had you searched for the word "falsifiable" in the book, you would have found a supporting citations on pages 54, 109 and 167.  If you'd like to question the relevance of a cited book, you might want to read a few chapters first.  Garamond Lethe t c  21:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked through it online for some time today. Maybe my question should have been a bit more specific. Undoubtedly the book mentions Intelligent design, but is there anything novel in it which we do not already have multiple sources for? My reason for asking is that in our current article, sentences touching on this type of thing (which is a side issue for the article as such) often have half a dozen references attached to them already, which is too many. Coming back to form but not content, I think these words are unclear and also very atypical compared to most sources we have. Your explanation above sounds like an admission that they are SYNTH. Most of our sources refer to the use of hypotheses which include untestable causes, often specifically described as being "supernatural". In other words, the clear common theme (simple, so relevant to FAQ), as also in our article, is that intelligent design is not empirical or "evidence based". More nuanced discussion is of course possible, but anyway, please do try to gravitate back to things relevant to the article. Remember WP:NOTFORUM. Maybe you and dave can discuss with more freedom elsewhere and come back when relevant things come up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, Dave, but check out page 109 (contrasting Kuhn and Popper): "Thus astrology is a pseudoscience not because it was unfalsifiable but because it could not sustain a normal-scientific puzzle-solving tradition.  A similar response would apply to today's so-called creation science."
 * Scientists who know nothing else about philosophy of science know "unfalsifiability" (and "paradigm shift"), but it has fallen well out of favor among philosophers. We're on solid ground in saying the scientific community has rejected ID because it is unfalsifiable, but I recall the philosophical response being far more nuanced.  Doesn't matter for the FAQ, but it does illustrate why pulling single quotes out of P&B needs to be done with care.
 * The best chapter I read was Hansson's "Defining Science and Pseudoscience" (starts on page 61). After reading that I gave up on the idea of a specific summary.  Garamond Lethe t c  21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick aside, but the demarcation problem isn't resolved by any means, and so I think it wise to heed Garamond's advice about pulling single quotes from the book. There is a good section in the Intelligent design and science article that discusses oft-accepted characteristics that contribute to the "scientific-ness" of any particular theory.  For the record, I actually liked the phrase about ID having the "form but not content of science".  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I find it vacuous to use the words form and content in this way. (Try using different words instead of pseudoscience and science. Eggs have the form but not the content of a lemon. Politics has the form but not the content of organized religion. A painting has the form but not the content of what it represents. A pseudo-chicken has the form but not the content of a chicken.) But anyway whatever we think of the poetry, we are not supposed to be inserting what we like personally in to the articles here. WP:V, WP:NOR. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ID is presented as science, but it's not (as our article states). Hence, it has the form, but not the content, of science.  Seems rather straightforward to me.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. Science has many common meanings (the scientific method, the body of knowledge obtained through the scientific method or application of it, the act/career/quest for knowledge using scientific tools, knowledge and methods, the conglomeration of people/organizations/equipment/books engaged in science, the application of a combination of sound logic and scientifically-found information to analyze/assess things)  And mistaken meanings (any of the above not arising from the scientific method)    At the core of it is the scientific method. I don't think science has a "form" in common with ID, and I don't think that ID has any of the above.   I think that some instances of ID have the appearance of science to some. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, clearly the words "presented as" and "has the form of" are not the same in any obvious way. Just for one thing, presenting implies an intention by a "presenter" (in this case the IDM, intending to present itself as science), and it also implies that what is presented, what is intended to be seen, might not be seen that way by viewers (like scientists). Form is a much vaguer word, being used in a metaphorical way here. But it vaguely implies an appearance that everyone sees, not a merely intended appearance. Therefore I agree with North that one obvious way of reading that ID has the form of science is that it really uses scientific method. So if you think that the sourcing tells us that we can say "presented as" then we should use the words "presented as" (or something similar). Clearly we should make sure that the article lead and indeed scope are clear and coherent and that we can explain them to ourselves and others in normal English. So: What do you find that the sources tell us most clearly that we should say?
 * Please note: Editors of this article had better decide what they think about this point. As I understand it, intention to present as science + failure to be accepted as science by relevant experts is what most editors on this article have insisted upon as the "diagnostic" for what makes ID "pseudoscience" (at least for Wikipedia). I have followed that logic. Garamond Lethe now appears to say this "diagnostic" is wrong. So now we have an FAQ which disagrees with our article and even calls into question the local working assumptions about the definition of our article scope. From what I personally can see, the older consensus here makes more sense from a Wikipedia point of view because Wikipedia always defines things depending upon what experts think (in this case scientists). But this is precisely what Garamond Lethe is objecting to, it seems, by saying that this "is wide enough to include controversial science such as (back in the day) plate tectonics, which is why that kind of definition is not accepted by either scientists or philosophers". (Seems a bit odd to me that this implies that scientists do not accept their own opinions on this matter.) That is a very different way of defining things than we normally do on Wikipedia, and different from what we do in this article. Just making the words vague does not make the disconnect between Garamond's FAQ and the article go away.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this also affects Q2 in the FAQ.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, no, form is not being used metaphorically; that's exactly the literal meaning of that word. And Garamond is correct, merely failing to be accepted by mainstream science doesn't automatically make a particular theory or hypothesis pseudoscience.  The demarcation problem, as I said previously, is not solved by any means, and thus, it will be impossible to choose any one factor that necessarily qualifies something as pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, you now write of a "literal meaning" of the words "form of science", which equates to something being "presented" as science. With all due respect I do not think there is such a literal meaning, and anyway why not just use the word "presented"? Secondly, this is, to remind, just an FAQ question about one point related to the words "intelligent design", whereas the definition of science is a subject that could be counted among philosophy's "eternal problems", not something possible to define uncontroversially in the detailed way the discussions in this thread seem to be attempting. Thirdly, you are missing one point I have been trying to make: this is a Wikipedia FAQ explaining a Wikipedia article topic delimitation, and no matter what philosophers argue about, we do have our own practical way of defining what is pseudoscience, and that is based on what expert reliable sources say. Hence my drafts refer to the reader to our policy pages. So ANYWAY in my newest draft I have tried to avoid ANY final definition of science or pseudoscience, partly because no final exists, (except for the Wikipeda version, which is however variable depending upon how the field changes, and does not claim to be final). Please consider that new (hopefully) pragmatic proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are clear from P&B and cited sources that ID is not science, but is pseudoscience. The demarcation problem can be linked, but isn't the place for tortuous philosophising. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless I misunderstand, I think I agree 100% dave. Thank you for admitting some common ground.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delighted to have your agreement. Minor issue: "admitting some common ground" hints that you've misunderstood my previous comments, glad that's resolved. . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources requested
In discussions at two editors have made claims of confusion over the phrase "intelligent design". Garamond Lethe requested a "best example of a WP:RS anticipating this kind of confusion? I was looking around for verbiage like "previous versions of intelligent design" or "past", "older", etc. and I'm not coming up with anything interesting.  I'm concerned we're engaged in WP:OR here:  if no WP:RS thinks the pre-DI use of the term is confusing, then I don't think we need to worry that it's confusing, either.  [ Garamond Lethet c 10:36, 1 December 2013 ]

Responses lacked sources, and North wrote that the article should not imply "that the closely-related uses of the term outside of this article's division do not exist". For clarification, I repeat that sources are needed for the supposed definition[s] of other "common meanings" of "intelligent design", not just examples used for original research. What exactly is this "other intelligent design", and what evidence do we have of any confusion? . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, you are distilling claims from a group of posts, taking comments way out of context in a way that is hard to follow, and which distorts the discussion immensely. Let's try to find that common ground:
 * References to confusion by myself are in some cases referring to the history of this article. We all know that there has been a history here, right? When readers and editors get confused, we as editors should aim to communicate more clearly, right? That is not an RS issue is it?
 * References to other uses of the words "intelligent design" which are potentially confusing have been discussed to death, and you both know they exist (diffs available), and you must know that they do cause confusion and problems on this article. We are not talking about references to designer metallic mouses for example.
 * The importance that you place upon the concept of a "term" (as opposed to words, phrases etc) is possibly the problem you have with North's posts. Arguably, you are both the ones performing original research on this matter (do any of you have sourcing for "Intelligent design" becoming a "term" or a "term of art" in 1989?), but more to the point (a) I do not think that any of us see the reality of the sources differently, so this is just a discussion about how to explain clearly; and (b) your arguable position on the word "term" is being used in the FAQ.
 * Being practical, there seems no point starting a thread asking people to explain positions which they are not arguing about with regards to any proposed edits? If I misunderstand your point, please forgive, but please clarify.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's follow what Dave said and delete the unsourced material Step one will be to delete all of the current FAQs. The alternative would be to carry on a real conversations without trying that trick. You need sourcing to support what is in the article / keep material in, you don't need sourcing as a condition to discuss unsourced statements as Dave is demanding. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that a demand for sourcing concerning some of these types of comments on a talk page are not normally needed, but I strongly disagree with any idea to delete the FAQs. Consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:DEADLINE. You have said that you think the article is mainly ok, so incremental improvements are, as usually on WP, to be recommended, and the only practical option. If there are specific problems with the FAQs, #6 has a thread above, and I think problems with the others should be addressed with new threads where we go through the concerns and try to resolve them bit by bit: defining everything clearly (concerns, proposals, the way we are using words, etc). But I recommend focusing on one thing at a time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right. And you have the patience of a saint! I was really pointing out that actual LEGITIMATE demands for sourcing (supported by policy) would work against the folks who try to invoke it in areas that where such a demand is not really legitimate and has no basis in policy.  North8000 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but I think we should focus on sourcing when it is relevant to a concrete proposal. My secondary point is that as these cases are addressed one by one, the real question will sometimes not be about who is right or who is wrong, but how to find the words which explain the reality of the sources we are all looking at and often seeing the same way despite our different words to describe it. There are some real challenges of course and as usual on Wikipedia sometimes the sources do not tell us exactly what to do. For example Garamond Lethe's use of the term "term of art" is not I think in any of the sources, but seems helpful (if not perfect). I guess you are pointing to that same principle but I just want to re-affirm it with that more positive example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew,

The source for "term of art" is (Matzke 2006): "However, the Discovery Institute only established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996. Of Pandas and People, which is the first book to use the terms 'intelligent design' and 'design proponents' systematically, and which presents all of the modern ID arguments, was published in 1989." If you want to quibble that "term of art" is not systematic use, go ahead. We can substitute "systematic use" easily enough.

Your citations show the phrase "intelligent design" being used for teleological arguments, but did not show any author disambiguating earlier and later senses of the term. If I'm wrong, just point me to the cite and the quote. Given the fact that there are thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of primary, secondary and tertiary reliable sources out there, the absence of any such disambiguation tells me the term is not ambiguous.

As to the prior confusion here: show me. Don't just point to the archives. Which editors, and when, experienced the confusion you're trying to prevent? A handful of diffs over several years will be sufficient to establish your case. I suspect, though, that you and North8000 are the only ones to have brought this up.

If this line of questioning is unique to the two of you, both in the archives and reliable sources, then we don't need a faq entry.

Garamond Lethe t c  02:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think my summary above can save time, and bring you to the end of the discussion as I understand you. But to indicate how we get there, please note the obvious point that the quote you select does not use wording anything like "term of art". This is your synthesis. But then the question (about this and similar questions) is whether it is acceptable "obvious" synthesis, and I at least am arguing that it is acceptable. North is pointing out that this is at least as debateable as saying that there is not only one definition of intelligent design as a term, and has a point. I have argued that this approach creates a circular discussion which is not necessary, and in turn that the more important point is to define our terms however we use them. If you look at the point where FAQ writing started, you will see widespread agreement with this approach. But trying to argue that there is not even any possible confusion about the words, even mistaken confusion, like you now seem to want to do, is really demanding people to accept an alternative reality that we all know is not real. You only have to look at the history of this article and talkpage. Pretty much everyone has admitted that such confusion/disagreement is understandable and/or common at different points, in various ways. But recent events have now also raised the question of why you took over the FAQ editing if it was based on something you apparently felt unjustified. I guess you know what it looks like. The new question we have now is what is this thread about? It has the form but not the content of a sourcing demand, but there is no edit being proposed, so what can be discussed? What edit are you proposing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, if there is no edit being proposed, then we can cease these discussions. When you want to propose an edit to the article, be specific, show exactly what sources you want to cite, and suggest wording. As for "any possible confusion about the words, even mistaken confusion", this seems to be entirely a synthesis put forward by yourself and North, and a secondary source is needed for any discussion about it in the article. If you want to change the wording to overcome supposed potential confusion, make specific proposals with sources, as above. . dave souza, talk 15:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I've decided not to pursue changes, but please quit the insulting crap like you just hurled. The discussion arises from the obvious, that there are other closely related uses of the term, and it is YOU who are defending an unsourced implausible assertion that they do not exist. And this crap of accusing people of synthesis, lacking sources etc.  for pointing out unsourced assertions is exactly backwards with respect to Wikipedia policies.  Please read wp:nor and wp:ver more closely, particularly wp:burden. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, verification needed if you want this speculation to affect the article, the WP:BURDEN is on those proposing material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it. Looking at your suggestion above about deleting all of the current FAQs, I do hope you're not going to be WP:POINTy. . . dave souza, talk 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible, at some point, to mark as disruptive any editing that seeks to obfuscate ID by claiming that it is anything but creationist pseudoscience? I was trying to get North8000 and/or Andrew to start a RfC so they would have to face the facts that they don't have consensus, but it seems that this avenue has been abandoned.  How do we stop this never-ending, unproductive discussion?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is under WP:ARB/PS. You may try putting in a request at WP:AE.  A few weeks ago I had intended to start helping to try to eliminate unproductive discussion and possibly unproductive editors per the AE Discretionary Sanctions this article is under, however I got too busy with other stuff to follow through on that, sorry about that.  Theoretically any uninvolved admin can apply discretionary sanctions here, including short-term topics bans.  Unfortunately it seems like no admins willing to do that have been stopping by.  Consider making a request at WP:AE to get some attention.    16:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already bowed out of any effort to further change it. My post is about false statements about editors and insults to editors and to say quit making those. And Andrew is content to just expect civilized discussions on small areas.  So it's very simple...the only "hot topic" open is abuse of editors, and only when people choose to do that.       North8000 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't see the "false statements about editors and insults to editors" that you're alleging in response to a request for [secondary] sources to support what otherwise appears to be original research. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your three times over wrong accusation against me. Even if I DID say that (which I didn't) and even if it were in article space (where, unlike talk pages, synthesis is defined and not allowed) it wouldn't be synthesis.  Stop! Comment on content and the discussion at hand instead of triply-wrong false accusations against editors.  North8000 (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with North. This particular thread seems to have no other purpose than disruption and distortion. It is not aimed at improving the encyclopedia. MisterDub, what edits are you referring to which seek "to obfuscate ID by claiming that it is anything but creationist pseudoscience"? And if there are none why are you asking what to do about them? Why should we waste time discussing alternative realities? And even more to the point, why do you want someone else to demand an RfC about this very thing which you apparently would find objectionable? You appear to be too locked in to old battles. Move on?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you requested a new thread, "For what? Please, if there is a clear question, please start a new thread, with the question clarified. I will do my best. Concerning sourcing for my current concrete proposals to improve the current Q/A#6, I hope you will continue to insert more specific remarks/questions etc above. I thank you for efforts above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)" but instead of providing the requested sources as best example of a WP:RS anticipating the kind of confusion you've postulated, and providing sources for for the supposed definition[s] of other "common meanings" of "intelligent design", not just examples used for original research, you and North have thrown up a wall of words. The clear inference is that your concerns are based on original research or unsourced supposition.. . dave souza, talk 08:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, I did not request a new thread. I asked you to stop filling a working thread with digression, and please note my words "if you have a clear question". But your questions are basically just demands that we keep going over the same ground, with no clear connection to any proposed edit. I think it is sufficient to note that you and Garamond have written things which make it clear that we understand each other on the relevant point. Take for example the opening words of the current text of FAQ#6, which you and GL wrote and which several other editors clearly felt a good idea. Basically what you are now claiming to dispute is apparently exactly that aspect of what I am saying which comes from you both, and which North is sceptical of: the idea that the distinction between a term and a phrase (as you would put it) is a good way to explain certain disputes here. And that the article has had many such discussions over years is something that we can all see and for example MisterDub and Obsidian Soul have written upon emphatically recently. We are not here to research a talk page anyway, so can we get back to the discussion above about improving the new FAQ?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Results of archive trawl
Hi Andrew,

I took your advice and spent the morning trawling through the archives, from ~2005 until Dec. 2012 (when I started participating here). As best I can determine, earlier uses of the phrase were discussed only twice over the course of seven years: here and here. The two discussions were resolved quickly and amicably.

I'm not able to reconcile that with this: "'You only have to look at the history of this article and talkpage. Pretty much everyone has admitted that such confusion/disagreement is understandable and/or common at different points, in various ways.'"

Believe it or not, you're not the first person to make the mistake of not checking your assumptions (for example, see this clueless noob). If you're willing to let this drop and you take a break from this article for a bit, then I think we can let bygones be bygones. Or we can take this to AE. Your call. Garamond Lethe t c  17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For most of the last few years there was a much more severe version (claims that all ID is DI) of that issue and many many people expressed concerns. The more severe version of the issue was resolved some months ago. So prior to that such concerns took the form of "All ID isn't necessarily DI".   Subsequently someone else (not me or Andrew) raised the concern about the now-lesser version (claims that all ID is pseudoscience) of that issue.  What I describe above is all in the talk page and its archives. I think that Andrew was trying to put it diplomatically / with extra empathy when he called the above concerns "confusion".  I think that he was also referring to difference even between folks on your "side" of the issue regarding the related historical uses of the term.  Some (including the FAQ) have said that they are also pseudoscience and thus within the scope of the article, and others have said that they are not within the scope of the article.       I am not pursuing a change but hope that this info is useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of where "many many people expressed concerns"? Of course if this is a dead issue, no need to provide diffs if you agree that no further discussion is needed. . dave souza, talk 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What I said is that I'm not working on or pursuing it. I never said any of the stuff that you just said.  Again, you are claiming that I said things that I never said.   Pleas stop. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North, that was helpful. Garamond Lethe t c  19:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the second thread in a row where Garamond Lethe and dave souza have started a digression to discuss the wordings of sentences on this talk page. Neither have any clear connection to any edit proposal at this time. Above however, there are 7 concise and clear proposals for adjustment of FAQ#6, which Garamond Lethe has basically only attempted to disrupt, and dave has ceased discussing. Several have not been commented on at all. Can we please focus on that improvement-oriented discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a subthread, responding to requests that we search the archives rather than wait for you to provide requested sources for your suppositions. In future, please provide a link to the archive section concerned. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence Garamond has pulled out of context was clearly not a request to "trawl" the archives. And this whole digression is built upon pretending not to understand something which was clear in context, and clearly agreed. (See for example the discussion leading to GL making the first draft of FAQ6.) It is clearly easy to say "I did research and did not see anything", but also very uninteresting. Dave, please also note that this is probably more accurately described as a sub-thread of a sub-thread of a digression coming from a side remark. Trying to track back to any connection to anything to do with editing the article leads to nothing. You and Garamond seem dedicated to keeping creating new side discussions about nothing, going around and around. I have 7 concrete proposals above, plus a request for explanation of a revert. Back to work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet again, rather than providing requested information or making a clear and simole statement, you ask us to look through extensive previous discussion to guess what you intend. Doesn't work, please provide clear self-contained statements in future, if need be with links to specific statements. . dave souza, talk 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you to do anything, except stop these digressions. You are making this talk page "extensive", and pulling things out of context to make them seem confusing. But they are not. What you done in the past is ask me the same questions over and over, always demanding new sourcing discussions and then accuse me of creating a wall of words, and using it as an excuse for no longer being able to give straight answers to anything. Please do not do it again?
 * The 7 concrete proposals, which you clearly know:
 * The revert waiting for an explanation (which you recently placed a note on, so you clearly know it):
 * The start of the FAQ drafting is also easy to find:
 * I trust you can find the current version of FAQ#6, and concerning tracing back your long chain of digressions which build upon each other it is by definition time consuming and pointless to give all diffs.-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have provided three links, but each goes to a wall-of-text with no clear purpose. That's why people have said they are waiting for an RfC which needs a focused issue, and which can move towards removing this constant back-and-forth about nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq (and all) Folks may not realize the current state here which is that the current topics are just a few NEW narrow/ smaller  areas (e.g. FAQ #6) that Andrew is trying to work  on.  And (possibly partially due to Andrew not distilling/clarifying) folks are (inadvertently or otherwise) avoiding carrying through on coherent conversations on those items, via going off on tangents, changing the subject etc. (or in some cases, worse).   My gut feel is that some folks are mistakenly thinking that the current discussions are a part of some big old debate, and as a result (respectfully) may still be caught in a "battleground" mental mode. An understanding of what the current situaiotn is may help or resolve this.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Principles for lead writing
Here are the opening sentences of our Science article. "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge'[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, 'science' also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied." This text has been stable for a long time and is in a well-attended article. I request comment here about whether this style of opening breaks any Wikipedia policies. Constructive feedback can help define what types of consensus may or may not be possible, and is therefore not a waste of time, as long as it is treated in good faith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with it. Are you getting closer to an actual proposal?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I see no policy problem with the current lead.  Garamond Lethe t c  05:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So I am registering that there is no problem mentioning potentially confusing related concepts in article leads. That is the main thing I wanted to discuss, because it is one more guideline for future edits, and a discussion we do not need to keep having. Proposing a single edit is less important and without any common ground concerning rationales (as has been typical here) just becomes a subjective argument between beauty contest judges, meaning that every proposal is as difficult to discuss as the one before.
 * Maybe we should put something in the article FAQ. (eg Doesn't the term "intelligent design" refer to different kinds of theological concepts than are described in this article? Yes, but Wikipedia splits discussion of topics up into reasonably sized and logically coherent articles, and this one is about the type of intelligent design most strongly associated with that term. Also see the hatnote.)
 * If we consider this question clear now, making any draft concerning lead changes makes a little more sense, but still for now my main concern is whether it would get answers with sourcing and policy rationales. If not then in effect demanding a draft would just become another method of obfuscation. I am considering ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Working on a FAQ entry now. Garamond Lethe t c  15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a WP:BOLD addition (Q6) to the FAQ that reflects my sense of the current consensus. Comments are welcome.  Garamond Lethe t c  17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good change, Garamond. Thanks!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, basically a very good addition to the FAQ. A quibble, the term of art was first published in the first edition of Pandas in 1989, so have amended it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO Looks good and informative.  The article would be a good place for it. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we're happy with Wilkins as a source that might warrant a brief mention in Origins of the term. A spot of history: his article takes as an example a letter published in The Republican, Volume 8, No. 1, Vol. 8. London, Friday, July 11, 1823, written to the publisher Richard Carlile whose address at the time was Dorchester Gaol. In 1829 his "infidel home missionary tour" reached Cambridge Uni and caused uproar: historians suggest this would have influenced a young student who was there at the time, Charles Darwin. . . . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Garamond. I guess A2 should be A5. More generally obviously I agree with the principle, but I have doubts about the details. It is long, and I note that the term "term of art" is heavily relied upon, but not really saying what we need it to mean. I note that this is a term especially used in legal contexts for any specialized term in general. I think we all understand what it is trying to say because we know the intention, but... I think FAQs are for non-specialist readers? I gave a simple example text above. I am not saying it is the best text possible, but it is short, and simple.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since ID is largely a legal strategy to evade constitutional law, that seems reasonably appropriate: could wfy as term of Art but don't think that's too useful. The main thing is that it's become a term or label with specific meaning in its field (of creationist jargon) and is not the descriptive phrase that commonly appears in earlier theological literature. Or indeed "9. An Intelligent Design system" in CAD. . dave souza, talk 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No constitutional law that I'm aware of, just local legislation and judicial decision, mainly the latter. Yopienso (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, I believe dave souza was referring to the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution's First Amendment. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he was, but it does not apply to ID. The Scopes Trial found the Butler Act was constitutional. It was rescinded in 1967, but never ruled on by a court. Religion was taught in U.S. schools for over a century. I personally was taught more from the Bible in public school than in Sunday school. One example; and yes, this was before my time! Certainlyy the Constitution allows legislation and decisions to reinterpret it, but I think it's important to realize it never says there can be no religious expression in the public square. Jefferson and Madison allowed church services in the Capitol and attended them. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point.  I think that "constitution" was the wrong word.  I think that what it actually sought to circumvent was prohibiting teaching religion/faith -based creationism in the context of it being anything other than learning about that religion / faith. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ID sought to circumvent local or state legislation and rulings against creationism. Those laws and decisions are based on Engel v. Vitale, an interpretation of the Constitution never imagined by its framers, but arrived at constitutionally. Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yopienso, that's interesting: I was not aware of Engel v. Vitale, but have it on good authority that this does indeed involve the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

All: I've made another pass through and tightened up the wording significantly. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 01:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:North8000: I have no objection to the text being added to the article.  Where would you like to include it?
 * Dave: You know this area better than I do; I've dropped the cite to Behe.  I wikified "term of art", feel free to revert if you don't think it adds anything to the current formulation.
 * Andrew, I disagree that ID "refer[s] to different kinds of theological concepts". ID refers to one group of contemporary religious ideas; the phrase has been used to describe many other, older variations of the underlying idea.  Your formulation would allows for "contemporary ID", and that's a non-starter.
 * MisterDub, thanks!
 * Yopienso, may I gently refer you to the principle of charity.
 * Thank you for your opinions and your gentility, Garamond. I do not regret pointing out the history of the issue. A5 in the FAQs says it well: "The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion." (Emphasis added.) Yopienso (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes--thanks for adding "Term of art" to the FAQs. Good job! I've fixed a minor typo there. Yopienso (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what we have is too long and original, almost like an attempt to slip a mini-essay in to Wikipedia, where it is outside normal OR rules. I agree with Garamond that my little example has a problem of containing something non-obvious, but I would extent the same reasoning to any version of an FAQ. Potential discussion could go on forever about whether the later members of the IDM started using the term before 1989, what is a term, whether there is any specialist field who really treats this as a term of art, whether all arguments from design (Al Ghazzali? Xenophon?) are specifically Christian, whether Paley would think of himself as a scientist, and on and on. But why worry? We do not need the FAQ to say too much. An FAQ's aim is to inform people who do not know background. Also, I am not totally against saying "term of art" but only if we first say it another way, and do not rely too much on the jargon to inform what we mean. (Jargon when best used should be defined first in a text.) Finally, there are too many unnecessary words. One thing which is also maybe missing, and which can help give readers a quicker handle, is reference to the theory of evolution. Is there any problem with this proposal for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe could I try to open discussion by asking if the shortened version actually hurts the Q&A by distorting it or removing something essential to it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, Andrew, I've gotten after you to make concrete suggestions, and you did, so let me give you some concrete feedback.


 * tl;rd summary: The difference between your version and my version is about five drafts.


 * The largest problem here, and perhaps the only problem, is that you didn't obsessively, repeatedly go over your draft, asking how each sentence contributed to the thought you were trying to put across. What I'm expecting from your paragraph is an understanding of why Paley isn't considered pseudoscience.  Here's what I get:
 * ID is pseudoscience because of form/not-content.
 * Paley & company is prior to modern theory of evolution
 * Paley & company did not present their results as empirical scientific research


 * This raises a few questions in the mind of a reader who hasn't digested the talk page archives yet.


 * Which modern theory of evolution? In grad school I was taught there were at least three, the earliest being the Modern Synthesis back in the 1930s and 1940s.
 * What's the relationship between an argument being pseudoscientific and when the argument was made?
 * The Discovery Institute, like Paley, did not present their results as empirical scientific research.


 * The first problem is adding words because they sound impressive rather than providing a tighter focus to your intended meaning. "Empirical scientific research" sounds beefier than just plain "scientific research", but it also (unintentionally, I think) excludes theorists (and the DI folks were nothing if not theorists).  If making that distinction between empirical and theoretical work was your intent, then it's not clear to me why that distinction is important.


 * I understand how you might think it reasonable that pre-scientific thinking be excused from the pseudoscience label, but as you don't know where sources draw that line you're just hoping that Paley falls on the correct side of it.


 * "became a term with strong and specific associations". This is wordy.  I'd write it as "became associated with".


 * Now turning from the writing to the merits: I don't think your rationale is correct.  Given the assumption of science and a supernatural god, reasoning about the attributes of the god is perfectly respectable theology, and that's what Paley was doing.


 * I've expanded the entry and added several more sources. I'm not that worried about the length.  Now that more of the information is sourced this might be added to the article or make up a "History of Intelligent Design" article in its own right.


 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 22:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Garamond, you might personally not be worried about the length, but I am registering a concern. As mentioned in my first sentence, I believe that we should not be writing a mini-essay here, but rather something which sticks to a very tight core of things that are most easy for the most active watchers of this article to agree upon. Does that principle not sound right to you? Turning to your detailed remarks:
 * Actually, by definition my version is at least one draft further ahead than all yours. And I think it is normal that more finished drafts are more compressed and show less sign of "scaffolding".
 * The form/not-content distinction comes from your version. I did not add it?
 * Paley is prior to ALL modern theories of evolution, and I think there is no ambiguity about Darwin's being the starting point to them all collectively, so I do not see any "disambiguation" necessary. However Darwin could be named relatively easily if really necessary. On the other hand, you do not say whether you think it is a good idea to mention the relevance of the theory of evolution. I would be interested.
 * The link between being pseudoscience, and the time wrt to the Theory of Evolution is explained, I hope, by the new words "specifically aimed at trying to create scientific-seeming criticisms of the theory of evolution". In other words the link is that the Theory came before the anti-Theory, and next came the new way of arguing against the theory which was to pretend to be scientific.
 * I do not understand what you mean by suggesting that a "reader" will think, "The Discovery Institute, like Paley, did not present their results as empirical scientific research." The DI is not mentioned in either version, and indeed the two versions are similar in what they say. Can you explain a bit more?
 * With all due respect I did not use the words because they sound impressive, but thanks. "Empirical scientific research" were words chosen carefully based on (1) an understanding of the ambiguities which the word science can give and (b) reading the arguments on this talk page and in the article, and especially in the sources cited concerning the word science. In particular our article emphasizes (I would almost say it is built around the fact) that (a) the IDM sometimes argues, for example in the Kitzmiller discussions, for a broader definition of science which does not demand reliance upon empirical evidence, and (b) our whole theme, following the court ruling, of using the term "pseudoscience" (which is the subject of this FAQ item) IS in fact based upon them not having testable hypotheses. We are in effect saying that being theorists is not enough. We should be careful not to go off on a tangent here, but the word science can be used to refer to theories developed without evidence, which is what creationists argue for sometimes, but in modern contexts such theorizing is also often not considered to be science in the truest sense of the term, which is the position the court accepted. If we would use the broadest sense of the term science, we would not have any good reason to call ID, "pseudo science". Having said all this "evidence based" (the words used by the DI themselves) means the same as empirical in this context and might be better because less distracting?
 * "I understand how you might think it reasonable that pre-scientific thinking be excused from the pseudoscience label, but as you don't know where sources draw that line you're just hoping that Paley falls on the correct side of it." Actually, you are misreading my intentions. My sentence aims to leave it open as to whether Paley would be considered a pseudo scientist today, whereas the sentence I propose to replace does seem to me to attempt to speculate on this in a wishful and original way. "You have: 'As most earlier teleological arguments (including those advanced by Paley) were limited to theological and philosophical arguments, they are not classified as pseudoscience.'""I just state facts and draw no conclusions: 'Other well-known teleological arguments (including those advanced by Paley) were developed before the modern theory of evolution existed, and are not presented as empirical scientific research.' If there is an implied conclusion then it is 'in the eye of the beholder' but if we can neutralize it more, good." The point is that I think it is you who is setting a speculative "what if" boundary our sources do not define. We do not know where Paley would sit if we could bring him to our time with a time machine, and I do not think any of us should be speculating on this in the FAQ. I just want to say that this person was not even alive during the controversy which the subject of this article is intrinsically all about.
 * I can certainly agree with "became associated with". It is shorter. I was just trying to be careful about positions people might think are controversial, and weakening that association might be seen as controversial. Maybe not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to speculate about time travel—Q6/A6 in the current FAQ explains why Paley's arguments are not regarded as pseudoscience, while those of the DI are. The "proposal to shorten" misses the point. Brevity is great, but the proposal is not helpful: What does " are not presented" mean? What does the theory of evolution have to do with Q6 or its answer? While of course ID is intended as the ultimate criticism of the theory of evolution, it is most definitely not presented as a "criticism"—it's supposed to be a scientific theory. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, Our article currently, and in many past versions, is quite clear that ID "specifically aimed at trying to create scientific-seeming criticisms of the theory of evolution". There is sourcing in the article. So I see no problem with this? What I do not see in our article, or any source I am aware of, it a clear definition of "why Paley's arguments are not regarded as pseudoscience", and I imagine there is no simple mainstream position on such a thing. (Certainly philosophers such as Hume, Kant, Al-Farabi and Avicenna have argued that arguments from design are all unconvincing. [ADDED: ie, invalid, so they can't really be scientific]) As mentioned above, I think we should not be trying to slip original essay-like material into the FAQ. The explanations about differences between Paley and the IDM are in the body of the article and can not be easily summarized in an FAQ without a lot of original synthesis. It seems to me that for this FAQ the most important point is that Paley is simply not the subject of this article. Does that not make sense? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Paley is simply not the subject of this article
 * Excellent, we are making progress. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we? All I was stating was the original idea of this FAQ, which was something I proposed. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the "who said what" in this discussion. The text of Garamond Lethe ("As most earlier teleological arguments (including those advanced by Paley) were limited to theological and philosophical arguments, they are not classified as pseudoscience.") seems to me to go well beyond what we have been able to source over many years in the lead, so shortening it is not just good style but also necessary given the aims of an FAQ, which I think include being non-controversial and very solidly sourced. (Also note GL's own post 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC): "None of the sources I consulted qualified the term "Intelligent Design" to limit its scope to the DI. I assume the authors thought the meaning would be clear from the context given. Those authors may well be wrong and readers may indeed now think Paley was practicing pseudoscience, but if the reliable sources we have aren't making that distinction/qualification, I don't know how we can do so without hitting WP:OR.") Shortening my proposal further, based upon whatever controversy it could cause, would also be fine, but then please help me out on that. Communication is not going to get easier by throwing more mud. In the meantime, does anyone have a source for the sentence of Garamond Lethe I have pointed to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Second draft shortening
After discussion of the first proposal, I am trying to remove any potential source of controversy from this Q/A, and get it down to the hardest core possible. Discussion of details is for the article body, where sourcing discussion can also be more clear, and surely the FAQ should never go beyond the details and sources in our article. (Surely we do not want to start cn tagging our FAQs, and having secondary debates about them.) Are there any controversies still in this second proposed shortening?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, your new version is weaselly at a point where we've got well sourced evidence, misleadingly saying "the words are now most strongly associated with the Intelligent design movement". Far better to state clearly that the use of the phrase as a label for creationism began with Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989. Also a bit misleading to say "other uses of the same words in other theological contexts", as ID is presented as science rather than theology, and is mainly criticised as not being science but rather pseudoscience. Also rather rubbish saying "The intelligent design movement is classified as pseudoscience because it claims to be "evidence-based" science, but it is not accepted as such by the scientific community." It's ID that's classified as pseudoscience, not the movement, and the classification is not because "it is not accepted" but because it presents supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable by science, and has failed to present a scientifically testable hypothesis. For starters. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I count 4 points of criticism, and I agree with 1 and think the other 3 rather odd.
 * I have no strong feelings about whether to mention Pandas and People, but I think your definition of weasel words is odd. It is just a detail we do not need in an FAQ. The name of the book does not help explain to a reader why William Paley was not a pseudoscientist does it? I also recall discussions on this talkpage where in fact there were doubts expressed about the idea that the IDM really first used the word in that book, so the wording needs to be more complex. It was the odd way they used it which was a major turning point, not use simply. It was not just a "label for creationism" (indeed it was not that in most cases). It was more precisely a replacement of words related to "creation" with wordings related to "intelligent design".
 * If it is misleading to say that the general context of intelligent design is theological, shouldn't we remove the word from our lead? I think not. You have argued, correctly I think, that sources are clear that the context is theological. I gave myself the aim of following our lead.
 * I agree: IDM can be replaced by ID.:
 * I think all those words, "presents supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable by science, and has failed to present a scientifically testable hypothesis" does not make anything pseudo science, although it is a reason for the IDM to be "not accepted" as practicing "evidence based science". To be pseudo science there also needs to be a false claim to be science. The key thing for WP, which we are explaining in our Q/A, is that the claim is considered false by the appropriate experts. The details should be in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much why I think the present wording it better and more specific. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Never ever a straight answer Dave? I was trying to answer you in good faith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, "Never ever a straight answer Dave?" looks like a personal attack, please desist. I was trying to concisely point out that I think the present wording is better, without getting into all the detail which so frequently bogs down discussions. As below. . dave souza, talk 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No dave, it is a description of the lack of straight answers, and that is what bogs down discussions. I am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and can not bullied by alphabet soup. Please stop writing about editors. Please keep to topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you're spectacularly wrong here. The plaintiffs in Kitzmiller managed to convince Judge Jones that ID was Paley warmed over (see pages 89-90 79-80 of the decision).  That was the point:  pseudoscience is perfectly constitutional in American public school classrooms; rebranded theology (usually) isn't.  Paley wasn't a (pseudo)scientist.  He was a theologian.  (His writing books with titles like Natural Theology kinda gives that away.)


 * Yet somehow you think that adding "Other well-known teleological arguments (including those advanced by Paley) are not associated with this debate." to the FAQ is not only correct, but uncontroversial?


 * You never quite got around to reading that Kitzmiller decision, I guess. Or reading any of the dozens of books or articles that analyzed the case, the decision and its aftermath.


 * As an aside, I've continued to work on the FAQ entry. The most recent version was up 24 hours before you posted your proposed revision.  If you want to continue tilting at this particular windwill, please compare to the current version.


 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 20:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond Lethe, I want feedback but there is very little on-topic or clearly directed at what you are replying to, in anything you write to me. There is nothing in my short proposal about Kitzmiller or constitutions, and if there is lets get it out. The sentence you point to is just basically saying that Paley is not ID, which is what the Q/A is about. Maybe the wording needs a tweak? Give me a hint. I get it that for some of you guys this subject is very deeply felt and you are proud of the long hours you have spent on it over many years. See me then as a non-expert proof reader trying to get what is obvious to you. You can tell the proof reader that he knows less than you, but what do you gain from that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew, if I'm understanding you correctly, you honestly don't see a difference between "[Paley's arguments] are not associated with this debate" and "Paley is not ID". Most of us here would consider that chalk and cheese.  Paley arguments are not ID&mdash;I recall writing a FAQ entry to that effect.  Paley arguments are intimately associated with ID, as Judge Jones reminds us:  "[ID] is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level." (pg. 80)


 * Tweaking is not the problem here. You're trying to write a FAQ entry on a technical topic without having first read the relevant literature.  Rather than bringing you up to speed by endless back-and-forth here, I went ahead and wrote a FAQ.  You didn't like it because it was long and unsourced.  It's now longer and sourced.  Could I interest you in telling me which bits of it aren't clear?  Here it is:

<tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 21:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond Lethe, we can argue about whether it is a tweak, but your first paragraph (not the rest) is on topic and correct. See below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Third draft

 * I have taken into account what feedback I could get - in good faith. It makes it a bit longer, but still...
 * I have looked at the new and even more expanded Q/A (now inserted in the comparison table above) and I am strongly opposed to this expansion trend. I must say it almost seems like WP:POINT-scoring now, deliberately trying to be awkward. This is now much more clearly an original WP:ESSAY. Great to hear that the essay can be sourced then this effort can perhaps be transferred into the article (if written in a less op-ed style). In any case an FAQ is not for writing essays. Details are for the article. The Q/A is about one simple issue, and it is possible to stick to it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you've disregarded the clear feedback I gave you, which still stands. I don't think this try is at all successful. Garamond, I think your version is developing in an interesting and useful way, but as a FAQ it needs to be more focussed and concise. Will comment further as time permits. . dave souza, talk 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear dave, above I counted 4 points you made and commented on all of them. You did not want to reply and explain further so there are open questions from my side, at your choice. Nevertheless I have made changes to accommodate what I could understand of the 2nd and 3rd points. Why now pretend I disregarded you? That does not help anyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you gave a long screed missing the points I'd made, my view is they still stand and life's to short to answer every misunderstanding you throw up. It's useful and informative to be clear that the label ID dates from the publication of Pandas, and is the topic of this article The lead doesn't say "that the general context of intelligent design is theological", it specifically states that ID is a version of the theological argument from design, presented as science. Sorry if you don't see that distinction. . . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So I am not presuming that you have not read the new draft Dave?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ADDED. Just to make sure it is clear, the words you quote are not in the draft you are supposedly are commenting on. I would still like thoughtful feedback, but you should read what you are commenting upon first. Concerning whether to mention the book, your comments are also not to the point. The question is not about right or wrong, but why do we need to mention a book title in order to explain why Paley was not conducting pseudo science. It is clearly a significant digression from the question being answered in this Q/A.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch: I was comparing across two tabs, and looked at your statement in the wrong section. So, you've changed "other uses of the same words in other theological contexts" to "other uses of the same words in similar creation-related contexts" – what contexts? In modern language, "creation-related contexts" implies creation-science, which we do cover in outline. As for the book title, it's needed as context: we can't expect readers unfamiliar with the topic to register why we date the start to 1989. The answer necessarily involves noting the time periods of Paley and ID. If you think it's a digression from the question, would you propose rewording the question? . . dave souza, talk 11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for that. Concerning creation-related I am not yet clear from your comment whether you see a problem with it? Do you prefer "creation science context"? Concerning needing to mention the book if we want to mention 1989, I would ask why we need to mention 1989. Of course we should explain it in the article, but this is an FAQ question which is specifically asking why for example Paley is not ID for the purposes of our article. I thought the answer was to do with his different approach, and not date as such? (We do not want to say "because it is before 1989", right?) BTW keep in mind my remark of a few occasions that these types of arguments do not die with individuals. I think we are not only saying that Paley is not ID for this article, but also anyone alive today who agrees with Paley. Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your definition of pseudoscience (claims to "evidence-based" science not accepted by the scientific community) is wide enough to include controversial science such as (back in the day) plate tectonics, which is why that kind of definition is not accepted by either scientists or philosophers. The volume on the philosophy of pseudoscience I cited discusses this demarcation problem at length.  Making up your own definition, even in a FAQ, is WP:OR.  As an aside, it never occurred to me that I might just make up my own definition of pseudoscience.  So, silly me, I tracked down several articles on the current scholarship and read them.  The FAQ reflects this.  If I can make that effort, so can you.
 * Paley is, of course, very much "associated with such disputed claims to be practicing evidence-based scientific research", and that association is now memorialized in case law.
 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Garamond,
 * Your first bullet is criticizing something which comes from our article: the matter of being evidence based, and accepted by science or not. I did not invent this working definition of pseudoscience that our article insists upon and indeed it has come up for frequent discussion here. You mention that you found a definition of "pseudoscience" but does it mention words such as "the form but not the content of science"? If so maybe you should cite it, but OTOH, how do we know it is applicable to Intelligent Design without WP:SYNTH? Also, those words are not clear English because the "form" and "content" of science are subjects philosophers argue about (and some would deliberately not use) not fixed points of everyday English.
 * I get your second bullet and really wonder if anyone would ever read my words this wrongly. But I think it can be fixed. How about: In contrast, authors such as William Paley are sometimes associated with notions of "Intelligent Design" but these are not subject to such disputed claims of practicing evidence-based scientific research. BTW, it is not true that all "earlier teleological arguments took both science and the Christian God as givens". Feedback please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If this definition of pseudoscience is used in the article, then it needs to be fixed. Can you give me a pointer to where you found it?
 * One of the beautiful things about WP:RS is that I don't need to debate with you if something is true or not true. I just need to show that it's sourced.  In addition to the two citations I've now deleted, I have "The natural theologians argued from the appearance of design in the world to the properties of the deity.  Modern designism argues from the appearance of design in the world to the existence of the deity, and then tries to show that the design is irreducible, in Kant’s sense." (Wilkins, 2013, emphasis in original).  Wilkins might be wrong, but I'll let you take that up with him.
 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to pseudoscience, first please note that our article does not use the word definition, but also my draft does not. It is you who has pointed to an implied definition between the lines. What I am claiming is that those words come from the article. My words: "it claims to be "evidence-based" science, but it is not accepted as such by the scientific community". Article says "The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses." Talk page discussion shows that this is intended to be linked (some of us would like that link therefore made more clear) to earlier words which are (again) intended to distinguish the subject of this article from other types of teleological argument: It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God presented as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". See for example dave's recent proposal to move the one so it followed the other.
 * With all due respect I think you might be misunderstanding what the community thinks about the RS policy, and you might also be misunderstanding me. RS just tells us what sources are acceptable if editors all agree they are appropriate in terms of other aims. And I am not arguing about what is true in my opinion (which is more WP:V anyway). So in a case like this where we want simple clear words, then just saying that one source use specific unusual words is not a valid reasons for saying we need to follow suite. The aim has to be clarity for readers who have not spent years fretting about Intelligent Design, like me. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm coming to understand how much of the problem here is your imprecise use of language. Let's look at your words:
 * "is classified as pseudoscience by reliable sources because it claims to be "evidence-based" science, but it is not accepted as such by the scientific community."
 * You've (inadvertently?) made a very strong claim here: arguments which make certain kinds of claims and are rejected by the scientific community are "classified as pseudoscience".  What you intended to do (based on your comments above) was paraphrase the article, which does indeed mention a scientific community rejecting pseudoscience, but does not turn that into a diagnostic.


 * So that's interesting, and I think it's part of a larger pattern. You have a certain understanding (and let's assume that understanding is correct), and when you reduce that understanding to words the words look like a decent approximation of your understanding.  The rest of us then read those words as philosophers and biologists and end up interpreting them far differently than you intended.


 * So from your point of view, you've paraphrased the definition of pseudoscience in the article (and you certainly had no intention of doing anything else). In my view, you've created your own definition out of whole cloth and not provided any citations to it.


 * Unfortunately, you're words are going to be held to a higher level of precision than you might expect. But I think it's helpful to know that this is going on.


 * You started off by saying "it is not true" and are now saying "I am not arguing about what is true in my opinion". I've paraphrased accurately a reliable source; absent any sources to the contrary I think we can leave it at that for now.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond Lethe, concerning your second bullet I think this is confirming your misunderstanding of me, connected to a tendency to cavalier misreading, and not any self-proclaimed high level of precision at all. Your remarks also imply some problems with your interpretation of our core content policies. First please note that my words "it is not true that" were in a sentence starting "BTW", and hence not applying to the main body of my post as do my later words that you contrast them with. But more importantly, when you make that comparison you read straight past the "in my opinion" which are the key words for Wikipedia. On Wikipedia what is important is what is sourceable, and clearly the BTW remark I made is sourceable (as you and Dave have admitted below). WP:V was never intended to say that accuracy is not important for an encylopedia and its wording has been refined over the years to make that clear. The kind of truth we are not supposed to use is our own personal original opinions. The kind of truth-claims WP does want us to produce are ones which are verifiable in reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond Lethe, I wanted to spend more time considering your first bullet. It is promising in the way that it apparently, at least in a couple of places, grants (perhaps for the first time) that my comments might possibly be based on a good faith reading of the article, its sources, and its most active editors. But from there you once again break off into a digression about you and me, before really having grappled with the points you started to glimpse. In most of your post you appear to be expanding on thoughts already fixed in your mind independently of anything I have said or done. The point you do make is about rejection by mainstream science being "diagnostic" for what makes something pseudoscience (on Wikipedia, and in the sources we use). You say this is not correct, and you claim it is not the intention of Wikipedia generally or the local active editors on this article specifically.
 * Please first note my point of reference is not only to the current wording of the article, but also to the history of those words (past accepted and controversial versions), and the explanations given on this article by the most active "local" editors. See for example these recent discussions, which were in mind when writing:, . This is Wikipedia, so I try to keep all these things in mind while working and so should you. (Hence my repeated requests for better explanations of rationales.) In some cases you may find that you even disagree with the local consensus or feel that it has not stated its points well, and then maybe we should look at the article text. But this here and now is an FAQ discussion, and we should base the FAQ on the article, not write original essay-like material.
 * Concerning the current wording in the article, if it is understandable and not stupid for me to read it wrongly, I see no point in you trying to criticize "bad reading" and to proclaim how self-proclaimed experts like yourself will read it in a more correct way which lesser minds possibly can't even distinguish. Geniuses who communicate badly are still bad communicators. We are trying to write for people outside the circle of editors here, and so we should aim to make it easier for inferior minds like mine to read it correctly, surely? You make it sound like an ugly thing but there is nothing wrong with trying to "reduce that understanding to words [that] look like a decent approximation of your understanding". You should also be doing that.
 * But anyway, key point, you have not at all demonstrated that there is a big difference in meaning between what I wrote in my draft Q/A, what the article has now, and your more preferred wording. You are quite right above to say that such a difference would be interesting and that we should pay more attention to such stuff, so the next step is to make your actions match those words. So please go beyond vague generalizations, and with the aim of getting something in simple clear words. (It will not be a viable solution to turn this Q/A into an essay on what science is.)


 * With the above comparison before our eyes I want to point to one of the most obvious things you are missing: as quite often, your wording is vague and therefore hard to compare and contrast to anything. More importantly, it is not doing what it should be doing, which is communicating. Trying to convince me that it was created by a philosopher genius is besides the point, because it is still bad writing. No point blaming the reader. Also see dave souza's remarks below on your latest draft.
 * Finally, your content/form wording is apparently only sourced to a work which does not apparently use those words to refer to intelligent design's type of pseudo science. So this questioned wording appears to be WP:SYNTH,and the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Please try to use wording which can be derived from those sources without too much original thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this conversation has reached the point of diminishing returns. I'll leave it at that. You're welcome to have the last word. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortened version of current draft
Comments welcome!

<tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC) While the use of the phrase "intelligent design" in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s,[1] Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People.[2] Both formulations of ID (irreducible complexity and biological information)[3] are classified as pseudoscience, not because of their scope or conclusions, but rather because the arguments have the form but not the content of science.[4] Older teleological arguments differ from ID in that they argue for the properties of a presupposed Christian God rather than ID's argument for the existence of a non-specified creator.[1] As these arguments took both science and the Christian God as givens, their use of science to reason about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology, rather than pseudoscience.
 * Thanks Garamond Lethe. Comments from me:
 * As has been discussed a few times here in recent months I think there are reasons to doubt Thaxton (or sources reporting his recollection) can be used as an WP:RS on this matter. Note how our core content policies allow us to use sources which describe themselves except when they might have a reason not to be fully honest. And in this case we know of such a reason. I think there is also evidence that the movement started playing with the term earlier.
 * Do we have a source saying that "irreducible complexity and biological information" are "formulations of ID"?
 * See my comments above (third draft section) concerning your form and not content wording.
 * Concerning the two last sentences see my remark above about the same sentence (under discussion of my third draft). There are Greeks, Romans, Jews and Moslems associated with the argument from design and the term "intelligent design" in reliable sources. Furthermore many of them clearly would not have agreed with the modern "materialist" concept of science at all, as is mentioned quite often by modern Thomists in their criticism of Paley for doing so. Haught's wording, which was more the basis of my wording, covers things more simply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this short version looks better to me. While I can live with "the arguments have the form but not the content of science", my feeling is that it's clearer and more informative to state something on the lines of "the arguments invoke supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable by science". . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the use of Thaxton's recollection, we've got a better source that the use of the phrase as a label for creationism began with Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989. As for "presupposed Christian God", probably better to put "presupposed deity" as broader. While some might dispute whether this covers a demiurge, said demiurge wasn't very intelligent so that wouldn't be intelligent design;). . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * [n.b. These were replies to Andrew, not Dave. Replies to Dave below.]
 * Thaxton's recollections (as reported by Witt) are considered reliable enough to be in the article (see footnote 34), so I assume they're good enough to be in the FAQ.
 * We do indeed have a source for formulations of ID. That's what the "[3]" indicates.  The link is to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 * The ancient history of arguments from design belongs in the teleological arguments article. Prior to the 1700s we don't have much in the way of science going on, which implies not much in the way of pseudoscience, either.
 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple responses:
 * I would agree with dave's preference for something mentioning untestable hypotheses, or otherwise, as mentioned below to Garamond Lethe, we should change our lead.
 * Concerning the Matzke paper, Dave can you point to where it says that "Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People." I think this is the wording being proposed.
 * Concerning Matzke's rhetorical use of the words "label" and "relabelling", which works in context, I have mentioned above how this does not work out of context. What he is talking about is replacement of one group of cognates with another group, and this is clear if you read the article but not if you read those words on their own.
 * Dave, Plato's demiurge is intelligent. The common term I have seen is intelligent agent of creation, but intelligent creator means the same.
 * Garamond we cite Thaxton with attribution, not in Wikipedia's name.
 * Garamond, thanks for that reference, but I do not see the word "formulations" there? Sorry if this is a dumb question but I am genuinely interested to know where.
 * Garamond I agree that we can cover other teleological arguments in other articles, but that is not relevant to the point of trying to answer a reader who asks whether William Paley, who lived after the 1700s, was practicing pseudo science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, Matkze is fine. I don't mind giving up "form but not content" but I'm not comfortable with "invoke supernatural", as the DI did make an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt at avoiding supernatural explanations (while busily winking and nodding). I'd be more comfortable with that if we could also cite to Behe's (?) admitting ID was all about the divine. Was that at the Dover trial as well? As to "Christian God", I think we can read Wilkins to support the wider generalization. No problem. Will pick this up tomorrow. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 03:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 03:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Matkze quote is "'Of Pandas and People, which is the first book to use the terms 'intelligent design' and 'design proponents' systematically, and which presents all of the modern ID arguments, was published in 1989.'"
 * As to "formulations", the IEP article section two is entitled "Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument", with 2a and 2b being, respectively, "The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity" and "The Argument from Biological Information". I wouldn't have split them up that way, but they didn't ask me....


 * Garamond Lethe, I think the gorilla in the room which you keep reading past is the question of why we want an FAQ which contains digressions and footnotes. In this spirit, I obviously agree with removing excess claims that all require more and more additional wording to make them clear. So I agree about removing "supernatural", but why stop there? Concerning the Matzke quote I was of course aware of what you cite, but this is not quite the same as "Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People." As you say above, we should be careful about wording. (It seems to me that this FAQ discussion is helping you see that.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: I've removed the quotes from the phrase intelligent design and put it in italics, per WP:MoS. I've also removed the italics of the word phrase which, due to its proximity to intelligent design might have been confused for part of the term.  Thanks!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 18:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, the changes you asked for are live. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks good. A quibble, "their use of science to reason about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology" suggests they were using modern scientific method: from what I know of Paley, better to say "their use of scientific findings to support their reasoning about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology". I've just realised that you've cited Pigliucci & Boudry, who I've quoted below. I think they're worth using in the article on the pseudoscience issue. . dave souza, talk 19:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Quibble fixed. I read several of the chapters in Pigliucci & Boudry.  The scholarship is first-rate, but the collection is (as best I can tell) highlighting the diversity of pseudoscience definitions.  I have no doubt we should use it (and I'll be picking up a copy), but I'm hesitant about citing one chapter over another.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. From what I saw, the demarcation issue affects borderline cases and ID is firmly on the pseudoscience side, as in the wording I've quoted below. However, good to check if other chapters present different opinions on ID! . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear guys, I am requesting some kind of justification in Pigliucci and Boudry for the choice of words being cited from them. Where do they use those or similar words? I have also questioned the bigger issue of having footnotes in the FAQ of any kind, and especially ones which go beyond our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Next round of drafts for this Q/A
My new draft attempts to take account of every concern that was made clear so far. I am not personally sure about the description of the context which unites ID and teleological argument, but I am taking dave souza on good faith that he felt it important to not mention "creation-related", so I now have "about the the cause of order in nature", which adds a lot of words. I prefer "creation-related"! Concerns about current version:
 * I think the aim should be zero footnotes, but rather references to what is in the article being explained (and possibly some wikilinks to other articles and policy pages). The latest version has 15 footnotes, 5 just for this one Q/A! And this is clearly because it is going beyond our article. This seems like mission creep to me.
 * The Question. The second sentence quotes Paley but the quote is not a good example of how "intelligent design"-like his language was. There are many better ones such as his talk about "an intelligent and designing Creator". I propose at least a change to "Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he wrote of evidence in nature for "an intelligent and designing Creator"? But as in my own draft I also suggest not only mentioning Paley.
 * A small point. I know that it occurs sometimes in sources, but actually "teleological arguments" is a questionable plural, and certainly not the way all sources write. I believe it is most correctly "the teleological argument" just like "the argument from design". In any case it makes the English awkward.
 * As registered in previous discussions, I see no reason why an FAQ distinguishing Paley et al from the subject of this article needs to mention Pandas and People nor the year 1989. (It is not enough to say it is "informative". It is not relevant to the distinction. It is a digression.) The important thing is that the IDM version of ID exists, not the history of it.
 * "Both formulations of ID". This means that there are only two. The source being used does not do this, and I can see no justification. Better would be "Formulations of ID such as...". But I see no reason for this digression either.
 * The new definition of pseudoscience. We now have "unfalsifiability", again being referenced to Pigliucci and Boudry. But from what I can read online the work seems to explicitly say that this is NOT a good enough definition of pseudoscience. That's a problem obviously. (I would say this is an avoidable problem coming from the ambition of trying to put so much creative stuff in this Q/A.) If I am not wrong, this needs to be changed. Please see the proposal in my draft, which I think is far simpler.
 * This sentence has several issues: "Older teleological arguments differ from ID in that they argue for the properties of an assumed creator rather than ID's argument for the existence of a non-specified creator." I request a statement from the editors involved about what this is trying to say. Specific issues:
 * It is sourced to a recent blog, and specifically one which mentions Garamond Lethe, the main editor of this Q/A!! I think we all realize that is "not on".
 * Compared to the source, it compresses several sentences into one, and is now ever harder to read, unclear and general poor writing. Parsed and reconstructed so that it focuses on ID, it says that ID is a newer teleological argument which argues for the argument for the existence of a non-specified creator. We are setting our bar low on copyediting if we consider this acceptable.
 * These are apparently the words we source from: "The natural theologians argued from the appearance of design in the world to the properties of the deity. Modern designism argues from the appearance of design in the world to the existence of the deity, and then tries to show that the design is irreducible, in Kant’s sense." It is not clear that we are getting all the meaning here, nor why we would want to in an FAQ. I think it needs a lot more words to do properly, and is a major digression on what seems to be a fine point, sourced from a blog.


 * The final sentence is unsourced, and dubious, and does not really seem to be needed: "As these arguments took both science and the creator as givens, their use of scientific findings to reason about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology, rather than pseudoscience." As I have mentioned before Thomists such as Edward Feser insist that Aquinas did not take what modern science as a given at all, but rather insists upon untestable, metaphysical final and formal causes, a la Aristotle. Compare to the sentence in my draft though, which possibly achieves the aim of this sentence, without the problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE NOTE ON SOURCING: Just to make it clear, in the above list of concerns are several related to Wikipedia core content policy, where the onus really is on defenders to fix the problems or point out my error.
 * Pigliucci and Boudry are apparently being used for something they argue against;
 * The Wilkins blog entry, used twice, was initiated by Garamond Lethe during the course of these very discussions so WP:CIRCULAR;
 * The final unsourced sentence makes an assertion clearly disputed in reliable sources;
 * The iep source does not say there are only two formulations of ID.

If there is continuing discussion needed we can take it from there to specialist noticeboards for broader community input, but they all appear straightforward cases, and several can be fixed rather easily, so I urge pragmatism. My first attempt to keep clear which questions these were was to tag the sentences in the FAQ, but these tags have been deleted three times. Hence I place this note here as a marker instead, to make sure we do not lose sight of this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any problems here.
 * P&B are included as a note, not a citation (the clue being the words: "For an extended discussion....").  I didn't think the sentence was particularly controversial, but I'm happy to add a cite to Why Intelligent Design Fails (p186–187).
 * WP:RS states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." As a historian and philosopher of science, Wilkins has published peer-reviewed work on both ID and creationism (you did look at his CV, right?).
 * The final sentence makes the uncontroversial claim that one cannot be charged with scientific error while practicing theology. Sourcing this will be problematic, as writers aren't paid well to state the bloody obvious.
 * The IEP source does not say their are only two formulations, and neither does the FAQ entry. Addendum:  Oh, wait, you're still thinking that there are other kinds of Intelligent Design.  Secondary sources don't list any such animal, and the consensus here appears to be you've misread the handful of primary sources you cited.  But you knew that.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 11:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's much more that needs to be said, but I'm probably not the best person to say it.... <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 11:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IDNHT.
 * P&B, an RS, apparently says that what you say in the FAQ is questionable. You say you can find another source which says what you want. That is not the right approach, obviously. If we have a strong source which says this is wrong, we should not be saying it as if there was one clearly defined consensus. But to be more practical: there is no clear and simple unified single definition of pseudoscience. You clearly know that, and so to try to insert a definition here in the name of Wikipedia where it is not needed at all (you only need to say that whatever the definition, it is not accepted as meeting it) is mission creep, and quite wrong surely?
 * Yes Garamond, I realize this is a published expert but you are ignoring the point about this being a blog written in response to a Wikipedia editor participating in this exact discussion (you); WP:CIRCULAR. Again being practical, presumably you do not even need to use this source? If the material on this blog is only on this blog, then the community has a bigger problem with blogs for that purpose; WP:REDFLAG. Source strength is not only dependent upon the author but also the type of publication, because things like blogs and interviews express less carefully formulated and checked ideas.
 * Garamond, as I pointed out the last sentence says more than that. For example it says that "these arguments took both science and the creator as givens". I have explained to you why this is obviously questioned in reliable sources. (Nor do I see anything obvious at all about saying that "one cannot be charged with scientific error while practicing theology". Nor is it even relevant. Is pseudo-science the same as "scientific error"?)
 * Concerning the IEP, again can't you just be practical? Are you truly going to deny any understanding of the way in which the wording "both formulations of X" implies there are only 2 formulations of X? "Formulations" is also a non-negligible tweak away from "versions" in my opinion. Please just fix the words to remove the error?
 * Concerning your addendum, I think you are trying to formulate a caricature for rhetorical purposes. Try to stay on topic.
 * Will you respond to any of my points concerning non-sourcing issues above? I think we should all want to avoid that this article remains one of those where the defensiveness is so bad that even straightforward wording concerns are insisted upon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my vIew this Q&A could be split and refoussed, but Garamond's version is clearer and more informative than Andrew's proposal. Why the evasive "in discussion about the cause of order in nature" instead of clearly stating this is about occasional use of the phrase in the design argument? On demarcation, Kitz p. 69 puts it well: "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." From that we can state that ID is not science, and P&B it's seen as a classic example of pseudoscience. Will come back on further points. . dave souza, talk 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi dave:
 * I think we're ultimately just going to delete the whole thing, as there's much less here than meets the eye. If you're not ready to do that yet, what kind of split are you considering?  I'm thinking:  6:  Are teleological arguments prior to Pandas considered to be Intelligent Design? and 7: Are teleological arguments prior to Pandas considered pseudoscience?  If that's close enough to what you were considering, let me know and I'll knock out a draft or take a look at yours.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 18:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The FAQ had potential for resolving incessant talk page arguments, but that may not be achievable. However, it introduced research which could be useful for article improvement. It's clear that the phrase was used for what God (or a demiurge) did, as an alternative to "design" or "intelligent cause", then in Pandas the words were introduced as a term or label for creation science. . dave souza, talk 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dave in answer to your question, I used those particular words only because of your post above (which is where they are from), but as I noted, I am not confident that they suit your preferences or mine. See the previous draft for another alternative.
 * @Dave I do not say it is beautiful, but I think the Kitsmiller quote you mention is much more typical of the majority of our sources, and what we have in the article, than what we have in Garamond's draft. My draft just tries to avoid the subject because it is clearly not something directly needed, nor something obviously easy to do simply. I still propose that it should be an aim to keep FAQs simple, as non-controversial as possible, and easy to relate to what we have in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [ADDED.] I think the practical decision about whether to mention Pandas and 1989 is whether it is preferable to mention the intelligent design movement as relevant to what defines our article scope. So which would help readers more? I do not have a strong preference, but my draft uses the movement, and it seems a bit better to me.
 * [ADDED.] More concerning the IEP citation. I note that "biological information" is not one of the two "concepts" mentioned in our article lead, which is not helpful if the FAQ is helping readers understand the article. We have "specified complexity" instead. Furthermore, the IEP mentions three, not two, specifically "contemporary versions of the argument from design", the third being "fine-tuning". (So we are really twisting that source, by saying it mentions two!) Practical: Maybe the IEP source is best first discussed in relation to whether to use it this way to change our article, before using it in the FAQ? (I think we need no source for something already in our article?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Garamond, concerning your proposed split, the problem is that we do not have clear enough unanimity or wording in our sources on how to answer 6. So we need to leave it open. 7 is the same as what we are doing now, only it specifies a tense (prior), and we do not have sources for that definite specification of past tense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew, we work with consensus, not unanimity. Based on the "contemporary ID" !vote we had I'd say we have a clear consensus that ID begins with Pandas and all ID is pseudoscience.  I'm comfortable with the citations we have to that effect.  We don't need a FAQ for something this well-attested.  (The FAQ was to allow you to drop the stick.  It didn't work.)


 * So, what's your endgame?


 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 06:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond I think Dave souza's comments are very much in line with what I see about the "endgame" of this Q/A: defining a hard core of common ground for future editors and readers. That unambitious common ground is the simple idea of helping readers see how the title of the article is being used as a specific "term" even though the same words are found in confusingly close contexts. I see no "stick" of contention there, and indeed you were part of formulating it. Please allow this thread to be about improving upon the work done on that basis first. The concerns I have raised are basic editing issues which should be easy to fix, as I think Dave also recognizes. If you have different things to discuss, can you please start a new thread? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Garamond puts it well: "ID begins with Pandas and all ID is pseudoscience". Andrew, do you have specific proposals for improving the article? .  .     . dave souza, talk 12:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well as you know I am focused on this FAQ#6, and concerning this there are a whole bunch of proposals immediately above, many of which are minor, but some of which seem quite necessary to fix. Concerning the words of Garamond Lethe which you cite, they are correct if we understand (as I think we may) that ID means the "term of art" which is the subject of the article. And then (to remind) the only thematic concern I have registered is that we try to help editors and readers who are constantly being confused by similar-seeming non-random uses of the same two words. (I object to this being referred to as a dead horse: I believe no one seriously denies that there are such usages of the words, and that they do cause constant problems here. I believe no one will argue openly that they want to create misunderstanding. So I do not see this "compromise" as very controversial at all.) So that was how we came to this FAQ.
 * I want to emphasize that this common ground was already found, and this can be seen in the similarity of the two drafts above concerning the critical words. We should not throw away that common ground surely? I think it would be folly for us to exaggerate the differences between the two above drafts by, for example, insisting upon keeping the incorrect "both", or the unsourced and un-needed comment indicating that all old arguments from design accepted the separation of science and theology, as if these were some sort of well-considered and widely agreed red lines that are part of some long running "battlefield" here. Whatever you think of those specific issues, can you agree that these are not part of any historical battlefield issue on this article? I think we should look at each in isolation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being practical, the above means that I propose we keep improving this FAQ together, with no particular agenda except making a clear hard core consensus explanation which will be an investment to help future editors here. I could attempt another draft but I am not sure where everyone's concerns lie at this moment because of the lack of feedback. More feedback would be helpful. Perhaps you would be interested to make the next draft?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When I look at the current one and Andrew's proposed one, on about 90% of them I see it just being "different" in nuanced ways that I think would not be disputed. But the 10% resolves a  claim that is unsourced, unsourcable and conflicts even with itself, and I think even conflicts with the preferred scope of the article preferred by Dave and MisterDub, and a conflict with the person that said that ID started with Pandas.....a claim that even the historic purely theology-based use of the the term is pseudoscience. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Since I'm late to this conversation, can you point to where the problem is? As best I can tell, if ID starts with Pandas (and the sources with an opinion are unanimous that it does), then Paley isn't doing ID, and thus (obviously) isn't doing pseudoscience.  If you're willing to require that ID involves a little more than the use of the words "intelligent design", I don't see where the problem is.  So, where's the problem?  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 22:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The whole point of this FAQ is that there need be no continuous argument about "historical intelligent design", as long as we define our terms in order to help delimit the topic of the article versus potentially confusing uses of the same words. This whole thread is about separable editing concerns in the text of the new Q/A, despite efforts to distort them into something else. Given the repeated questions, I list out the open proposals/concerns in a numbered format...
 * 1. The point about whether to define in terms of time (being post Pandas 1989) or in terms of association with the movement is a fine point, but I consider the second a better definition. Please just consider and let's choose an option. {Andrew}
 * ds response: the time of ID starting is well sourced and clear. the "movement" overlaps with CS and is ambiguous. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AL response. OK by me. I presume you say this because CS is older?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Forrest's comment on start movement pre label. . dave souza, talk 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take it that this means "yes"? Forrest has written a lot, can you tell me where to look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. ID is in Pandas in 1989.  The Center for Science and Culture doesn't begin until 1996, and the DI's embrace of ID doesn't occur until some time later (there is no mention of ID in the wedge document).  Defining in terms of the movement cuts out the origin of the idea out of the definition and reopens the debate about multiple IDs, despite the fact that both the argument and the personnel are unchanged.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 00:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond, are you equating the DI to the whole IDM? Anyway I see no connection to "the debate about multiple IDs" in any of the wordings under discussion. Please do not try to link everything to that debate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. The use of the term "teleological arguments" to describe the context found at least as far back as 1766 seems on the verge of non-obvious to me, so I suggested "creation-related contexts". Again, it is a fine point, but please consider this and let's decide.{Andrew}
 * ds response: that's sourced expert opinion, "creation-related contexts" is unclear and ambiguous. . dave souza, talk 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AL response. Just to confirm, do we have an expert source on that 1766 quote we are mentioning, calling it a teleological argument?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rechecking Wilkins. prob best to say "use of the phrase intelligent design in natural theology dates", of course NT was centred on teleological arguments. . dave souza, talk 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilkins mentions both arguments from design and natural theology, but does he describe the quotes either way? Wish we had a better source. Being more practical, some philosophy-focused sources refer indeed to broad concepts of natural theology, teleological arguments and creationism which are hard to tell apart. I have no strong preference, but I suggest using whatever readers can best understand. To me, "natural theology" and "teleological argument" seem not to be everyday words. Creation-related (not creationism-related) seems as broad and simple as I could think of. Why do you say creation-related is unclear and ambiguous? What else could creation refer to other than creation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Idea: we could use the term we use in the opening sentence of the article and refer to "theological contexts". What do you think dave?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'm going to disagree with you here. 1766 is an obvious teleological argument; what's obvious or non-obvious to Andrew isn't particularly relevant to this faq.


 * Andrew, you are not competent to evaluate technical sources. The 1766 review is of Reimarus.  The German version of the book is Von den Vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Natürlichen Religion, which is cited by Tufts (1892) as follows:
 * "Wolff gave the method of the popular teleology of Kant's contemporaries as appears from the latter's account of the common method of physico-theological argument. As representative of the general method, Kant mentions Reimarus whose work, Von den Vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Natürlichen Religion, gives a good view of the prevailing dogmatic method, but add no new principle to the discussion of the subject. (p. 11)"
 * I've neglected to provide the title of Tuft: The Sources and Development of Kant's Teleology.  The chapter is entitled Teleology in Modern Philosophy before Kant.


 * But hey, why bother looking shit up when guessing is so much easier (and gets you the answer you want)?


 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond, in what way are the bibliographical details relevant to the point Dave and I were discussing? I don't see that I demonstrated any ignorance on this. Please read what you reply to more carefully and try to stay on topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. In my proposal above, I still propose describing a bit before relying too much upon the term "term of art". Fine point maybe, but practical. The aim is to communicate.{Andrew}
 * ds response: so make it "specific label or term of art". . dave souza, talk 18:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AL response. Does not seem to fit so well or improve either version? If you have time for a spelling out of the words you mean, would be easier.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We're talking about this, right?
 * "While the occasional use of the words 'intelligent design' in discussion about the cause of order in nature..."
 * These are just writing issues, I think. "Phrase" is better than "words", and "occasional" isn't consistent with the sources we have.
 * "'...the words are now most strongly associated with...'"
 * This implies there's another association. There isn't.
 * <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed this is basically just a wording issue, and so I do not understand your final sentence which appears to be trying to link to some other "point" which is not really relevant here. Obviously the FAQ already says that the words/phrase (as opposed to the specific term of art) are not always associated with the IDM. They are sometimes associated with people like William Paley, and the teleological argument in general. I do not think we disagree about that, and the question is indeed how to say it best. Can you follow what I am saying?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 4. Concerning "Both formulations..." I have dared to fix it. It was simply wrong, and easy to fix. But as a secondary suggestion I believe that we should adapt this sentence to list these formulations in a way which matches our article (and in that case just remove the footnote). Anything really controversial about this?


 * If reliable sources think there are two formulations to ID, then we report there are two formulations to ID. We do not have a reliable source that implies there are more than two, so "among the formulations" is wishful thinking WP:OR.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You should read your source. It does NOT say there are two formulations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE ONLY: this has moved on a bit, after an attempted edit and revert, and is now being discussed below --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 5. The definition of pseudoscience as being unfalsifiable, with a footnote referring to a book which says this is questionable, should be easy to fix. For example: remove the footnote, and use wording based on what our article says. See dave's comments above. Even simpler: refer to Wikipedia's policies on what defines something as pseudoscience. In any case delete the digressive footnote.


 * We can discuss what the book says or doesn't say after you've read it. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice try. No I looked and explained what I saw. Onus is now on you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HELPFUL LINKS: dave souza's last proposals on this are elsewhere:, .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 6. Second last sentence is clearly needing a fix. "Older teleological arguments differ from ID in that they argue for the properties of an assumed creator rather than ID's argument for the existence of a non-specified creator." This is an unusual description, sourced from a blog and twisted in the process. It should be easy to replace it with something more typical of our best sources and our article (and better English).


 * If you want to impeach the source, then make that argument. If you want to argue against the summary, then do that.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are your try to fill space with these non-answers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ADDED: Just to make clear: there is no logical reason to say that I must pick one concern only. There are multiple concerns, which are not mutually exclusive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 7. Last sentence also really does need a fix. (Because older arguments from design "took both science and the creator as givens, their use of scientific findings to reason about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology, rather than pseudoscience.") Obviously they did not all take modern understandings of science as a given, and obviously that still would not matter for this article. We only need to say (a) they are openly religion-related and theological and (b) they are not associated with the accusations of being pseudoscience which are part of what defines this article.
 * The last two concerns are the biggest, though they should be easy to fix. This has nothing to do with disagreement about how to delimit the topic of this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the Douglas Adams quote? "[T]heir fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws."  I have no idea how "modern understandings of science" wandered in here.  I think I'll leave it at that.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond, the words you chose are "took both science and the creator as givens, their use of scientific findings to reason about the characteristics of God placed them well within the boundaries of theology, rather than pseudoscience." We take it that one Wikipedia when we give no other adjective, we are referring to a modern mainstream understanding of a word, right? Why relevant to add them in? Because for example Aquinas would not, and neither do his modern followers necessarily. Anyway, you have not responded to the issue at hand here at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

I'm not arguing to try to change your mind (well, that's not my metric for success, at least). What I'm doing is putting down a marker that each of your proposals is controversial, and making an argument that I think will convince a neutral editor. Having looked at each of your responses, I believe I have the stronger argument in each case. If any of these came up in an RfC, based on what I know now, I'm confident that I could gain consensus on my preferred version.

Further discussion would only serve to validate your position, so I'm putting down the stick and walking away until such time as you raise them at an RfC (whether formal or informal).

On a not-wholly-unrelated note: You talk a lot about "common ground" and such, but I can't recall you ever asking another editor to improve your work or to point out its weaknesses, or ask them what kinds of arguments they would prefer, or if they think you're working on a problem worth solving. It's hard to get consensus when you're telling people what the consensus has to be. You might want to consider asking (privately) other editors who disagreed with you at the "contemporary ID" RfC what they think you should have done differently. After all, those are the people you're going to have to convince.

<tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 06:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Garamond Lethe I frankly think you are not paying attention to the details of the discussion. Your posts show almost no connection to anything in the posts they reply to. All I am trying to do is to get this FAQ consistent with what most editors of this article have already agreed to, and indeed what is already in the article. Please consider whether you might be the one flogging an irrelevant horse here, trying to twist every little editing proposal into the latest round in some ancient battle (as you apparently see it). Please just answer straight questions with straight answers above, concerning the 7 points (and indeed the reversion of my proposed Paley quote for the Q). What is your point? It is obviously not enough to just declare that you have proven something is controversial, by announcing it. What is controversial? If there is any sense to what you are declaring you should be able to give simple straight answers. From what I can see, most or all of the proposals are about basic sloppy editing and imprecise wording. Please open your mind and look calmly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break the second
Hi Andrew, What's your best example of a WP:RS anticipating this kind of confusion? I was looking around for verbiage like "previous versions of intelligent design" or "past", "older", etc. and I'm not coming up with anything interesting. I'm concerned we're engaged in WP:OR here: if no WP:RS thinks the pre-DI use of the term is confusing, then I don't think we need to worry that it's confusing, either. <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 10:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond, that gauntlet that you are proposing is not right on several levels. The "confusion" is generated by the (be it actual or pushed-for, and be it a good or bad idea) division (including exclusions) of the common related meanings of Intelligent Design made IN THIS ARTICLE  and the wording in THIS article that implicitly implies that the closely-related uses of the term outside of this article's division do not exist.   And so you are in essence laying out an incorrect gauntlet of finding a wp:RS that has covered the issues in THIS article,  North8000 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm late to the party. Which bits of the article are you talking about?  And what are your sources of other "common meanings" of "intelligent design"?  (I'm familiar with the sources where it is used as a descriptive phrase, but I don't see that as being a source of confusion and, more importantly, our sources don't either.)  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like the entire 30,000' view, the biggest long term problem with this article (equating ID to DI)) was solved several months ago. There is some question of scope, but that is not directly active because the one person (me) who clearly wants it broader than just the claiming-to-be science variants is not actively pursuing the scope issue.   There are 3 sentences in the article that implicitly claim that ID is limited to the claiming-to-be sciences variants.  I listed them a few weeks ago above. I decided to drop into a much lower gear here (including because the remaining problems are not that huge) and am not pursing repair of those, but I do plan to strongly respond if any bullying reappears and also if there are any unfair things done to people. So I saw your "gauntlet" as being unfair to Andrew  and so I commented.    Andrew (I think) mostly just wants to have some intelligent friendly, discussions that stay engaged to the point of reaching their logical conclusions and is content to do this with small areas such as his current effort on the one FAQ item.  I can tell that he gets frustrated that once a conversation starts going towards its logical conclusion, folks seem to disengage and change the subject. But this practice/issue has not blown up into anything and just tends to make the conversation progress much more slowly.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Link? Also, sources needed for the supposed definition[s] of other "common meanings" of "intelligent design", not just examples used for original research. What exactly is this "other ID"? . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please start a new thread if you guys really need to go over this again. But to remind, the circularity and uselessness of this discussion is based on not having clear definitions of the terms in the discussion. (If "other ID" means occasions when the two words appear together in a non random and potentially confusing way, no one able to follow this subject can deny such things exist. If "other ID" means ID that is ID as defined in this article and yet at the same time not, then of course it can not exist. It reads like a medieval debate, because it is like one.) Thomas Hobbes and Francis Bacon have some particularly beautiful passages on this type of discussion. Please, they would say, define how you are using your terms, even in talk page posts, and especially in the article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, still no sources? . dave souza, talk 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same answer as the repeated question below. So see there. Concerning Hobbes and Bacon though, if that is your interest, maybe contact me off this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond Lethe why did you take the initiative and start working on this FAQ idea, in fact actively and aggressively dominating it, only to suddenly announce that you do not understand the original idea? In my opinion we already had the discussion you are now asking to repeat. So please keep this thread here for what it is intended: improving what we have in Q/A#6. As is obvious, the differences between your version and mine show no differences concerning the point you now raise. In this thread, I have made, as requested, 7 proposals for changing your version of Q/A#6 and none of them have anything to do with this question you now raise. Most are small and/or obvious. Can I get some good faith feedback on those please? If no one can explain a problem with them then I see no reason not to fix them myself, but I am just giving you a chance (actually lots of chances) to respond. If you have other things to discuss, start a new thread please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As said before, Andrew, your proposed changes are weaselly and introduce unsourced and unnecessary confusion. As above, sources needed for the supposed definition[s] of other "common meanings" of "intelligent design", not just examples used for original research. What exactly is this "other ID"? . dave souza, talk 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave that discussion about my proposed changes is still underway. (I thank you for the two new replies you have made immediately after posting this.) Concerning your second and third sentences, the way you write them I see no connection to anything being discussed in this thread (despite the scare quotes) and the intention is not clear. If they are not connected to discussion of Q/A#6 can you please start a new thread and make your point more clear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, still no sources? . dave souza, talk 19:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For what? Please, if there is a clear question, please start a new thread, with the question clarified. I will do my best. Concerning sourcing for my current concrete proposals to improve the current Q/A#6, I hope you will continue to insert more specific remarks/questions etc above. I thank you for efforts above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert: please define "controversy"
Garamond Lethe has reverted a minor edit to this FAQ#6 marking it as "controversial". I request clarification because the edit involved two separate adjustments both previously discussed here, and both seeming very non=controversial to me. BR and then D. I will also note concerning the second part of the edit, that at the time I made the change, Garamond Lethe had written here on the talk page agreeing that the FAQ should not imply exactly two, and implying that it was not intended to be so. However after the revert, for whatever strange reason, Garamond Lethe appears to be insisting that the source does say there are exactly two - which is frankly a bizarre claim, surely? Explain please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First edit was changing the example which is given by Garamond of words by Paley which might sound like intelligent design. Garamond gave "There cannot be design without a designer". I suggested, and then inserted, "an intelligent and designing Creator" because it is much more clearly the type of wording a reader might have in mind. What was controversial about it?
 * The second edit was to change "Both formulations of ID (irreducible complexity and biological information)..." which implies that there are exactly two, into " Formulations of ID such as...". The reason, discussed first on this talk page, is that the source given certainly does not imply exactly two, and even mentions three. What is controversial here?
 * Minor clarification: this reverted one edit, when you say "First edit" you mean first point in the edit, ditto for second. . dave souza, talk 10:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * in the discussion of Wilkins' post, Matzke comments "The closest Paley gets is things like “intelligence and design” and “intelligent and designing Creator”, and “intelligent, designing author”. Mostly he uses “intelligent Creator” (9 times in the copy I am looking at)." So yes, we can use “intelligent and designing Creator” which raises the point that Paley is openly presenting theology about the Creator, but it's not really right to say "he claimed", so make it "Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? Note Paley uses the phrase just twice, p. 230 "In comparing the bones of different animals, we are struck, in the bones of birds, with a propriety, which could only proceed from the wisdom of an intelligent and designing Creator", and p. 432 where, having disputed Darwin's proto-evolutionary concept, says it's not atheism as it is "attributed to the ordination and appointment of an intelligent and designing Creator" . . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal, and suggest you adapt the FAQ on that basis. Thank you for your reply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording "such as" looks wrong to me, while the source highlights the two formulations, it also mentions the fine tuning argument without being very clear that it's used in ID, and cites other [non-ID?] protagonists. Since this is really about ID being pseudoscience, suggest leaving the "formulations" aspect and the source out altogether, and focus on the main point. . dave souza, talk 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my edit was openly not my preferred option, but meant to be a temporary minimal edit. My advice was to either, as in my draft, to remove reference to these variations or formulations (because they are not essential to the Q); or else at least use wording derived from our article lead just to keep it clear and simple. (If that article lead is wrong, then we should talk about that separately perhaps.) You do not spell out a final proposal here yet, but the reasoning seems correct to me. Maybe make an edit proposal or edit directly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think everything that can be usefully said has been said.
Johnuniq, dave souza, it's not clear to me that continuing the discussion with Andrew is not getting us to a better article. In my opinion, we have a consensus that Andrew's proposed edits do not improve the article, and discussion is not improving the edits. I understand and sympathize with the impulse to explain to Andrew why he's wrong (and I also sympathize with Andrew wanting to do the same to us). For this impulse to be productive, both parties have to share a common understanding of what makes an argument better or worse. We don't have that shared understanding here. We're not going to be able to argue Andrew into that shared understanding. So let's let Andrew have the last word and stop the argument.

Andrew, I can explain to any other editor here why your proposed edits don't improve the article, but we don't share enough expertise for me to give you an explanation that you'd find convincing. I suspect other editors feel the same way. I understand that you want to put off an RfC until you have enough support for it to pass, but after three months of discussion that support still isn't there. At some point you're going to decide that your efforts are better applied elsewhere. Perhaps if folks here stop arguing with you we can get to that point sooner rather than later (and without the bother of WP:AE).

<tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 14:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What an unpleasant tone and haughty condescending style you have decided upon! Just to register what it is: a deliberate extended personal attack, and an attempt to give yourself an excuse for not answering good faith questions about obvious things such as mis-statements of what sources say. You are basically now just defending the article from copy editing.
 * Anyway, the constant push to do RfCs here is odd. Although I did, at the constant urging of editors here, try some time back to formulate some relevant questions for discussion into an RfC I think that exercise only made it clear that RfC's are not a suitable format for such discussion, for example about trying to use your term/phrase discussion as a way of trying to define the article scope better. RfC's are more for cases where there are two options. Currently I have no RfC proposal in mind that would help this article. The discussion about the new FAQ question, has been more practical I think, and several editors have registered that. I thank you for the short burst of help you gave to that endeavor, and I really wish you would drop the stick and stop mud slinging.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Garamond Lethe, I totally agree. The purpose of this page is to discuss plausible improvements to the article—convincing each participant is not necessary. The amount of circular and pointless discussion and meta-discussion occurring here is highly disruptive as it drives away good editors. No individual is responsible for that because it is entirely reasonable for an editor to reply to a reply. What is required is for other editors to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq if that had been what Garamond Lethe posted above, I would also fully agree, as long as you do not mean to say that editors should even stop replying to things like proposed edits. Hope this helps clarify: I agree there is far too much meta discussion here, but I would add that there is not enough normal editing discussion.
 * But the reality is that this is at least the third new Garamond-driven thread in quick succession that has no connection to any edits being proposed. Garamond's post is also notable for being not only "meta" but basically purely ad hominem in its intention. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

number of footnotes in the lead
Just noticed that after a recent attempt to change the lead, a new mid-sentence footnote has been placed in the first sentence, on a word (creationism) which already has 3. I see nothing wrong with the footnote as such, added by User:TomS TDotO, and indeed maybe it is the best one to keep, and I would be interested to hear what else the OED says. But as a more general question can we try to reduce the number and complexity of the lead footnotes down to one per sentence, and can we try to get most of them on to the ends of the sentences? (Concerning complexity, we have both footnotes (5) and references (19) in our lead. Several of them contain up to 6 references a piece.) I think people who try to delete words like this will not be counting footnotes anyway? Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Just a few comments. First of all, I am reluctant to reproduce the full entry from the OED, out of respect for intellectual property rights. Second, I am reluctant to delete other footnotes to at this point, but I would not object to someone else doing it. Finally, I have no excuse other than inertia for not including a full citation for this entry to the OED. It should give edition and other information, but I don't want to go through the work if it's just going to be deleted. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New post
Note to all: This entire article, as it stands currently, is nothing more than anti-ID nonsense. Whoever is responsible for this tripe should be ashamed of yourself(s). Visit the official ID group on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/) to get your facts straight. This article and many comments here are dishonest and a major shake up is necessary. (by 92.232.108.69)
 * Well, you have to try to think about this in terms of what Wikipedia can do, and can not do. For example:


 * Wikipedia tries to be completely based upon what is published elsewhere, and never original. But it can not base itself upon a facebook page. Instead this article does actually make an attempt to mention the ID movement's understanding of itself, sourced from www.discovery.org in the first paragraph for example.
 * Wikipedia can obviously not ignore the criticism of ID, and in fact we also can not be neutral about it. What biologists say about biology needs to be given more weight than what lobby groups say about biology.
 * So in summary trying to reduce the weighting of what scientists think about science is not going to be accepted here, but for example if you know of a better source for the IDM's ideas than the discovery.org site, this is potentially maybe something worth discussing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While not entirely anti-ID nonsense, the article certainly does rant on a few dozen pages more than it should have for goodness of the article or to appear reasonably sane rather than strongly biased.
 * Wikipedia did take juvenile anti-ID blogs and advocacy group webpages so Facebook seems not a qualitative stretch. Simply getting the DI definition of ID was actually a struggle, although defining the topic and origin seems basic and follows wikipedia guidance.  Article had to say 'creationism' a couple of times first and 'teleological' though.
 * No biologists are here, it's just a different advocacy group trying to get special rules as part of political games. Really, to judge the honesty and quality of the article it would need outside reviews i.e. from journalistic viewpoint -- try a librarian, configuration managment specialist, and an accountant to review if it's honestly and clearly stated both sides.


 * Having obvious issues is not that horrible a thing -- folks can see clearly from this page and a couple dozen more articles in the general area that it's a contentious topic and that article content has a lot of material but is not entirely reliable on either side. That's probably about as good as it is going to get.

Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Markbassett, your post is basically making a general statement that the article is biased and then taking vague swipes at it.   Lacking anything more specific, (especially / eventually specific proposed changes) that basically does zero in Wikipedia terms. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup generally stating article has bias, yep gave vague caveat bullets to the prior poster vague bullets, and my editing Talk suggestion actually is do zero to this junk, poor seems as good as it can get so hopefully folks will instead work other topics where they can actually accomplish something good that can last a while. Markbassett (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

IP user edit warring on Intelligent design article
Just FYI, I have reported the IP user who continues to engage in edit warring to the AN/I and requested a block of the IP address. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs)
 * They did semi-protection of the article.  Hopefully we can take that off before too long.  North8000 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be disappointed if it stayed permanently; this is a rather contentious article to be open to non-registered users as well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We would then need to change the prominent statement on WP's main page which says, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we wouldn't. At the most, some folk might need to review the Wikipedia policies on protection.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are implying that something somewhere in that policy supports your thought. You're going to have to be more specific than that.  North8000  (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Cause actually taking a minute to read it is too much of a hassle??? "A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time or may be indefinite."  "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)."  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I always say that where somebody points to an entire policy and claims that it supports their assertion. About half the time it is not the case, and someone would have to read and refute relevance of every sentence in the policy in order to refute their statement or accusation. Such creates an unreasonable situation.   My statement was not a reflection on the particulars or people here.   Sincerely, (North8000) 16:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion MisterDub, but I was also tempted to respond very negatively to your post above. Of course you can say I do not understand policy if you want to, but I think this article can only be improved by having it accord to more standard Wikipedia norms. Your rhetorical point relies on confusing "contentiousness" with standard vandalism, and by contentiousness I understand what you are talking about is people trying to edit the article who you disagree, and I understand this is what you are more concerned about trying to avoid. This is just my impression, but I add it here given that the conversation continued and you seem to express non-comprehension of how anyone could disagree with you and not be simply misunderstanding policy. Let me put all this another way: what you are apparently misunderstanding is that this community has a pretty good consensus that special restrictions are emergency measures and not desirable for dealing with things like debates between experienced good faith editors. I would add that straw polls and democracy in general, avoiding discussions of rationales, is also frowned upon by the general Wikipedia community and seen as allowable but not desirable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your impression is wrong. Please assume good faith in the future.  Thanks!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not exactly between the lines (in this case or in other examples) that you and other editors of this page cite policies, page statuses, etc, which are clearly more intended for vandalism and very poor editors, in the context of good faith "contentious" debates with experienced editors. The most obvious recent example being the invocation of WP:Competence in order to try to avoid rationales discussions (not by you in that case, but I think your remarks suggested broad agreement on that position). I am not sure if the good faith/ bad faith distinction is relevant either, because that would imply clear intentions and on this particular issue my best guess is that you are not really seeing the issue. Indeed I am only mentioning my thoughts on this because of the very fact that it might help you see through the eyes of another, and in the longer run, anything which helps editors understand the positions of others is generally going to be good for the encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anyone" as used on the main page doesn't include coma patients or people with no internet access, and we don't deny usernames when people want to sign up. The biggest goal we have is to build an encyclopedia through collaboration, and frequent disruption is contrary to that goal.  On articles where IP's commonly initiate that disruption, requiring "anyone" to get a log in ID is consistent with the main page's statement and would enhance our ability to achieve the holy grail of collaboration with minimal disruption.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that taking the word "anyone" literally is a straw-man. It generally means that when in doubt, we lean towards inclusiveness.  And protection of this type is generally for vandalism, or particular incidents of IP edit warring.  I think that two issues here add complexity, weighing in on both sides of that question.   On one side, this article sitting at a collision point between religion and science means that it is more likely to get highly-charged out-of-process edits and editing.   On the other hand, the history of this article has been of being a walled garden and having a certain degree of "ownership" problems which has caused problems, and that context should be taken into account.  North8000  (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there has been a history of scurvy, accepting any old flavor of ice cream doesn't really address that problem.  Even if some users appear to have exterted ownership in the past, that problem will remain unaffected whether we do, or do not, attempt to reduce disruption at flashpoint-type articles by requiring good faith users to have a user name. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said "that context should be taken into account" I meant it more broadly than you are interpreting it. Other than that partial clarification, I think I would take issue with a few of your points, but that's a broader discussion, probably too big for here.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)