Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 81

The endless 'pseudoscience' lead discussion
Every time I get involved here, I become distracted by something else and the thread rolls off the page into the archives.

Continuing the discussion above, and restating something that seems to have been lost: I have no problem saying that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience. I do have a problem with seeing that community's view stated in Wikipedia's voice, as if the Wikimedia Foundation were taking a position on a contentious issue, which it emphatically does not. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no argument that the scientific community regards ID as pseudoscience (and as part of that community I agree).
 * There is, however, a serious WP:NPOV problem in stating a contentious viewpoint in Wikipedia's narrative voice.
 * Like the word "theory", the word "pseudoscientific" has a precise meaning to scientists, but not to laypeople. And the audiece for Wikipedia isn't the scientific community.
 * NPOV gives weight to expert opinion, and in the topic area of science the expert opinion is clear that ID is pseudoscience: tiny minority or unrelated views need not be shown. We have to be clear at the outset that ID is, by any normal definition, pseudoscience: something claimed to be science which is not science. Do you have alternative proposals for conveying this information concisely? Note that we have to avoid giving "equal validity" to fringe non-scientific views of what science ought to be. . . dave souza, talk 06:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be saying that ID is a pseudoscience in WP's voice. We should be saying something like, "The AMA (or whoever) states that ID is a pseudoscience".  It's more neutral and in line with our policies that way. Cla68 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those who claim that ID is evidence supported scientific theory can hardly complain when it is described in precise scientific terms.--Charles (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about Wikipedia policy and how best to implement it for a wide audience, not to speak to a wide audience in another community's voice, and not to appease a fringe minority. Bottom line, Wikipedia should simply report the scientific consensus rather than dictate it to the reader.


 * I agree that "pseudoscience" must appear in the lead. Its current application as an adjective rather than a noun is deliberately provocative, causing a neutral, non-scientific reader to form an impression that Wikipedia is biased. Has anyone ever wondered why we have thousands of such accusations of bias in the archive? It's not what we say, it's how we say it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So here's a proposal. I have copy and pasted the current lead paragraph and made only two minor changes: (a) moved "pseudoscience" into a second sentence, and (b) re-ordered existing sentences to group together the scientific and proponent views, which nicely leads in to the final sentence about who the proponents are: Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] The scientific community rejects this view as pseudoscience.[1][2] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[4][5] while conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory.[6] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute.... Anything wrong with that? I have changed zero words, just inserted a second short sentence and rearranged other sentences to improve the flow. For all intents and purposes, this would be regarded as a WP:Minor edit in any other article.

My idea here is, any time you stick an adjective in front of a noun, you make the sentence appear subjective, regardless of how factual it might be. Neutral presentation typically allows nouns to stand alone. Adjectives can be converted to nouns, making for a stronger statement while remaining neutral. Just call a spade, a spade! Instead of referring to "pseudoscientific view", just refer to "view" and then describe it as another noun, pseudoscience. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My own view would be to do what I suggested above but have been too lazy to do yet myself which is to find the most philosophically neutral reference sources and more or less do what they do. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That proposal makes it sound as if only the scientific community rejects ID when most of the population, more so outside the US, rejects it. The existing lead works better without giving equal validity.--Charles (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My feeling is the word "pseudoscience" is distracting from the fact that the advocates of ID do not claim to have an explanation/thery, but only (taking their "definition" literally, and by observing their practice) that there is an explanation/theory (as yet not formulated, with no interest or prospect in formulating one). As such, the label "pseudoscience" is granting it a "status" which it does not "rise" to, the status of pseudoscience. I realize that I have no chance of getting that being reflected in this article, but I just want to get that off my chest. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles: You have a source for your claim? The sources currently used to support the word "pseudoscientific" in the article do so in the context of the scientific community, not "most of the world's population." We shouldn't be misrepresenting sources. If you have one, please offer it.

Okay, then how about this very minor tweak to make the word more inclusive. Again, a very minor edit a before, basically moving the single word "pseudoscience" to the next sentence and swapping two sentences for improved flow: Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Rejecting this view as pseudoscience,[1][2] educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[4][5] while conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory.[6] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute.... Any objections to that? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your proposal, TomS. IIRC, I had something to do with inserting "pseudoscience," so feel I may be heard in moving it. (Yup.) Moving, not removing. Here's my suggestion:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] The scientific community rejects this view as pseudoscience.[1][2] Educators, philosophers, and scientists have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument--a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] While conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory, proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science.[4][5][6] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute.... Yopienso (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine too, although not much different from my initial proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As always, this is rooted in the strange theory that "scientific" and "real" are somehow distinct. They aren't. I oppose any change that softens the description of ID as a form of pseudoscience.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kww. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. There is no theory here or even an implication that scientific is distinct from real; where did that come from? And there is no softening whatsoever going on here. Please don't make unsubstantiated assertions and stick to the topic &mdash; we are not writing for an audience of scientists, we are not discussing changes to content, we are discussing the fact that we are using a contentious adjective, which we may as well substitute "bullshit" as far as lay readers are concerned, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, which contravenes WP:NPOV. Changing the adjective to a noun makes a stronger statement, all the more so because it eliminates any possible perception of bias while retaining the exact same message. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Amatulić, it is not a contentious adjective. We need to state, unequivocally, in Wikipedia's voice, that intelligent design is a form of pseudoscience. That's what WP:FRINGE would have us do: " Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". The controversy needed to not do that is defined one sentence later: things "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point". There isn't any level of academic debate as to whether ID is pseudoscience, therefore we should unambiguously describe it as such. Your proposal makes it sound like there are reasonable views in which ID is not pseudoscience. There aren't.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're saying a guideline trumps a policy? No, it doesn't. WP:NPOV is the issue here. WP:FRINGE is already addressed abundantly and adequately by my proposal.
 * My proposal unequivocally states that ID is widely regarded as pseudoscience. I'll I'm doing is moving one adjective, which did not exist in this article for several years, when we were arguing over whether to call ID a 'view' or a 'proposition' or a 'theory' or whatnot, without an adjective. No content is changed. I am not seeing why you think changing an adjective into a stronger noun somehow weakens the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that your interpretation of NPOV is incorrect. People holding your incorrect interpretation were the reason we had the pseudoscience arbitration decision. That's why WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is a subsection of WP:NPOV. NPOV is not a reason to present pseudoscience as anything but pseudoscience. Your proposal presents the notion that there is some valid view or context in which ID is not pseudoscience. There isn't one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Amatulić, if you remove the "scientific" aspect from ID, you have removed a core property of what it is and why it exists (which would fail NPOV). ID isn't merely some philosophical view. It was crafted (per 'cdesign proponentsists') to specifically address the findings of Edwards that creation science wasn't science. Dembski's work, similarly, was about finding ways to scientifically demonstrate design. Behe wrote (in DBB) about the importance of ID creating its own research programme if it wanted to be taken seriously. Equally important, however, is the fact that ID is not science - it has the form of science, but not the substance. We can either call ID science (and go against NPOV and verifiability) or we can follow high-quality sources and call it pseudoscience. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, these versions introduce a new supposition that the "view" is "rejected" as pseudoscience: the "view" is a religious argument presented with the claim that it is science, and it's that package that educators, philosophers, the scientific community and the Kitz court have shown is not sceince, but rather pseudoscience. These proposals hint at giving "equal validity" to pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 03:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Going from "pseudoscientific view" to "view" creates a misleading picture of ID. I'm not a fan of calling is pseudoscience - I'd be honest and call it what it really is. But that would create too many hurt feelings. The idea that ID is a scientific "proof" of the existence of God is the central reason it exists - as a wedge to bring down "materialism" and a way to get around Edwards. While ID was presented as science, it failed to adhere to the norms and methods of science; hence, it is pseudoscience. Again, its proponents tried to come up with a way to redefine science (drawing on Plantinga) to include the supernatural. But in failing to redefine science, ID remains pseudoscience.

The scientific community does not 'reject this view as pseudoscience'. The demarcation problem isn't a problem for scientists, it's a problem for philosophers of science (Ruse became famous for this in the Edwards case- or was it McLean?) It's not the view that's rejected as pseudoscience - when ICP says "Fucking magnets, how do they work?", their view isn't rejected as pseudoscience. ID is pseudoscience because its proponents attempt to pass of their arguments and methodologies as science that leads to "rejection of ID as pseudoscience". Guettarda (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It does appear that the scientific community members are the ones most vociferous and vocal in the labeling of ID as a "pseudoscience." So, I think Amatulic's proposal is a good one, accurate, and more in line with WP's policies and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that astronomers are particularly opposed to astrology, but how does astrology conflict with astronomy? TomS TDotO (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Guys - suggest y'all just go with the cites and not have to debate it. I see a lot of assertions and proposed edits or debates, but none of it based on new cites and much is just confusing.  Seems to me that,
 * cite says "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
 * cites predominantly say rejection, sometimes say creationist (e.g. Kitxmiller, or NCSE), generally not pseudocscience,
 * I have no idea why there is question of scientific debate over this -- mostly scientific venues do not talk about ID- ditto I do not know see how a vague pejorative being in the form of an adjective or a noun would matter, or how 'science vs real' came in ... Mostly it seems searches find advocacy groups rather than major scientific or theologic bodies, but if y'all just go with what the cites say you can maybe not argue over wording. Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kww, Dave souza, and Guettarda. In the QRB article, which is the first reference, it in no way qualifies the use of the term pseudoscience with ID.  ID is pseudoscience.  ID is not a view that scientists have carefully considered and reached a consensus view that it is pseudoscience.  This never happened.  From the point of view of the scientific community, ID simply is pseudoscience.  So, to correctly represent the sources, we have to stick with ID is a pseudoscientific view. I am One of Many (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Jimbo's comments here are germane:
 * NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV.  If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so.  If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so.  And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.
 * and
 * There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat." Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.
 * we do indeed need to be more sophisticated than that. ID has pretensions to be a scientific field of endeavour and so it needs to be judged on that basis.  How it is regarded in the scientific arena by scientists is the only test that matters.  Even if every non-scientist in the USA thought that ID was completely true (and it should be remembered that ID is pretty much a USA specific phenomenon) it still would not matter a fig if, as is actually the case, it is rejected as it is by virtually all practising scientists in the relevant field of study.  NPOV does not mean we give equal weight, it means we give due weight.  ID is pseudoscience by definition and is referred to as such in sufficient of the relevant scientific and academic sources that using the term with Wikipedia's voice is entirely justified.  In fact, I would argue that it would violate NPOV to not call ID pseudoscience. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WIW, this most recent discussion as resolved it for me. Myself, if I were giving my own opinion in my own words, I would not use the word "pseudoscience". (If anyone were interested in my opinion, ID is not a contender to the status of science, but is a social/political movement seeking support from religious feelings, and has no interest in offering explanations or accounts of the world of life. Therefore it does not rise to the level of pseudoscience, if there is any meaning to the word "pseudoscience".) But I cannot allow my own opinion to be considered here. Scientists agree, as expressed by the major science bodies, that ID, as a would-be contender to scientific explanations, is a pseudoscience, and scientists are the only authorities on that.  TomS TDotO (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True; it is pseudoscience, which is why I supported inserting the word right at the beginning. However, in the interest of article stability, it seems to me to be a Franklinesque (wise, non-dogmatic, conciliatory) move to first define the term according to proponents' views and immediately afterwards identify it as pseudoscience. Note the persistent changes still being made, which require constant patrolling and invite endless discussion. We can give due weight without being aggressive. Yopienso (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not being aggressive. We are stating well sourced facts. Persistent trolling is not a good reason to water down the integrity of an article. Rather the reverse I would think.Charles (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is stable. the only thing that is not stable is just some persistent vandals that want to remove the word pseudoscience and replace it with science. Why because their little crazy ID idea is not represented as the science that they want it to be. For the rest the article has been stable, except for months ago the change in the lead that people gave their consensus for, which invoked the myriad long winded responses AndrewG which no one supported. Also on weighing in the issue. Yes, wikipedia has a voice that mostly is bias towards science. Yes, wikipedia is accused of being bias so what? It is. And why come to the ID page, and why not bring it up at the pages of evolution, or spherical earth, etc. Where wikipedia states as fact that these things exist, and last but not least we are not here to vindicate vandals of articles. NathanWubs (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * TomS TDotO Tom - please provide cite(s) you refer to of 'major science bodies' using the word 'pseudoscience' and we can move along. I suspect that was your honest impression but will find that it is other groups (advocacy groups, journalist sources, and philosophy) that uses the word, and major scientific bodies language to be more sedate or precise or just sticks to scientific topics.  Otherwise this relatively recent add would not still be a topic.  Markbassett (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design make it clear that ID is not science. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which also shows NAS ans AAS not using the word "pseudoscience" -- again, I suspect it just was not a science body using such phrasing. Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW and I know some may say this is biased on my part I agree with Yopienso's proposal above. Use the first sentence to give a basic definition and the second to describe it as definitively pseudoscientific. I do not say this as a supporter of ID, because I'm not one, but because I think we do ourselves no good, and very possibly reduce our own credibility to the ill-informed readers who might have heard of the topic but not yet drawn conclusions and raise some possible NPOV concerns, if we allow any group of nutjobs to be apparently somewhat defined by their adversaries. I would say the same about white supremacists and other groups I frankly detest. We do ourselves no service if we make it too easy for such to think of and describe themselves as "martyrs" of some sort. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, I agree. I have said so in the past, but because I played a large role in the most recent, large edit to the lead, I decided that retaining pseudoscience in the first sentence was a compromise I had to accept (and why I haven't participated in this discussion).  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And if I had written precisely what John Carter has (and I have), I would be accused of being one of those "pro-ID nutjobs" (as I have been, repeatedly and falsely). The difference is that some of us can recognize overt bias, even when it comes from those with positions on the same side, while others cannot seem to understand that their own shit stinks just as much as that of the "nutjobs".  Even though we all see this sorta thing (ya know, partisan echo chambers) all over in partisan circles in the internet, I haven't come upon another Wikipedia page where the bias was so overt and those putting such bias so strongly insist on their bias remaining so overtly placed in the article. 71.169.180.130 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think people here need to read the information about the Arbitration Committee decision that is prominantly displayed at the top of this talk page. ID purports to be science but is obviously bogus - it has no theory, makes no tenable hypotheses nor predictions and is not the subject of any actual debate within the scientific community - thus it clearly comes within the bounds of item number 1 and no further debate is needed to apply the term pseudoscience. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that the serious contributors to this discussion are not debating whether "to apply the term pseudoscience" to ID, but when.
 * A number of us feel it is more encyclopedic to first define the topic as its proponents do, and afterwards identify it as a pseudoscience. This is not to give equal weight, but to first define it in its own terms. Such style is predominant in the WP articles on pseudoscience; click on the hyperlinks at "Examples of pseudoscience concepts" and you'll find only two that immediately define the topic as a pseudoscience, and a few never do. Most do as I suggest we do for ID. I clicked on all 38 articles in the incomplete list from acupuncture to Velikovsky's ideas, and found only Ancient astronaut and Phrenology labeled the topic a pseudoscience in the first sentence.
 * Our job isn't to make sure nobody believes ID is legitimate, but to tell what it is and what it isn't in a professional, encyclopedic manner. Yopienso (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed text simply describes it as "the view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." This is misleading, because it's not just a "view", and it's not just "some things are too complex..." The very essence of ID is scientific-proof-for-God. That needs to be front and centre. Guettarda (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, excellent point. Would it be more palatable to say, "the view, presented as a scientific theory, that 'certain features...'"?  Or presented as science?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, it should say "presented deceptively as a scientific theory". Which is what the article currently says (albeit in slightly more polite terms). Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, if the article currently says what it should say, what is your argument?
 * Your response of 12:40, 8 July does not address my point that standard writing in WP articles on pseudoscientific topics first define the topic in its proponents' terms and then identify it as a pseudoscience.
 * You assert that ID is not just a "view" but do not support that assertion. The cites (currently 1 and 2) call it a pseudoscience and also a view:
 * Page 2 of the QRB article quotes one Ariel Roth: "Creation and various other views . . ."
 * Page 175 of the Pigliucci article says two school board members "are perfectly free to advocate any view they may hold on the origin of life and its history."
 * I don't understand your objection to using the word "view," but changing it to "belief," "concept," "assertion," etc. would be very acceptable.
 * The "some things are too complex..." phrase accurately refers to the notions of irreducible and specified complexity, not to the whole ID concept.
 * I welcome your opinion on why this article should deviate from the WP norm and call ID a pseudoscience before defining it in its own terms. Yopienso (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To Nick Thorne  et al: on the other hand ...


 * Pseudoscience exaggerated or misread the top here. At point 1 and FAQ Q2 it  says avoid stating as science or theory as it is not accepted by the relevant bodies as such, and to use words like concept or assertion.  Pseudoscinence goes beyond that.  The tail end bits from Arbitration Committee are only highlights from their guidelines not as obviously findable as FAQ and [WP:PSCI] it's not specific to ID or wording.  This topic is about having added Pseudoscience to view goes beyond or outside of those guidances so it needs ordinary Wiki reasons to do so.
 * Pseudoscience seems simply not the word that scientific community labels ID. The most frequent and prominent scientific body positions seems simply to reject it as not science, and outside of them the label in general use seems creationism.  There are other parties or minor mentions of pseudoscience, but it seems undue weight in this prominence and incorrect attribution to portray that as the wording from scientific bodies.
 * Adding the pseudoscience label is a relatively recent edit with wiki Talk history that makes it look like just something editors pushed in from their desires rather than from cites or article accuracy. The points you are stating also seem reasonably supporting the position, but that you have to means it is a conclusion not a simple fact or something that would be usable for wiki article as from common use or prominent outside source.
 * In article construction, the wording pseudoscience has two article construction issues. First, the label 'creationism' is used initially, so pseudoscience comes off as a discontinuity, and following that with demonstrated as religious argument is even more confusion.  Second, the article stripped the theory phrasing which conforms to guidelines but perhaps should have said claims to be a theory as now a core issue is MIA since in article ID comes off as a reasonble questioning of science rather than something seeking to be treated as science.
 * hope this helps pull discussion back to better sources and some edits ... Markbassett (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No it don't help. It is just very difficult to read.Charles (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I see two opposing consensuses here: The word was added fairly recently. There seems to be some misconception that we are discussing removing the term. We are not. My original proposal that started this section was explicit that we are here to discuss not whether to include the term, but when, in the context of existing policies.
 * Use the adjective 'pseudoscientific' in the lead sentence. (,, , , and others I may have missed)
 * Have the lead sentence define it as proponents define it, and use a separate sentence to call it pseudoscience. (,, , , , possibly others I missed)

I contend, and continue to do so, that we are violating WP:NPOV by using Wikipedia's voice to label ID with an adjective that appears deliberately provocative and derogatory to a lay audience. The participants here aren't laypeople, so it is understandable that there would be contention over the use of a word that has a precise meaning to us. However, usage of adjectives (as well as adverbs like 'deceptively') will almost always appear biased to someone.

We comply with WP:PSCI by clearly describing ID as pseudoscience; there is no undue weight by doing so in a separate sentence, and no requirement to do so in the same sentence. The best way to remove any appearance of bias is to avoid using adjectives and adverbs, particularly in a lead sentence. So we should simply say (1) ID is a view/concept/proposition/whatever, and (2) it is pseudoscience. In separate sentences.

There's also a problem of sourcing. We basically have one source calling ID pseudoscience. The other just says ID is not science. A more widespread use of the word on the context of ID would be needed before we can justify using it as an adjective in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I could also support a longish first sentence which might include a philosophically neutral or nonjudgmental description (not necessarily a self-description) in the first clause, with the word or description of pseudoscience following later in the section. I can understand and even agree we would not want to mae it too easy for us to be misquoted or misrepresented elsewhere, but do wonder just how many people who might be interested in this almost exclusively North American topic won't be able to pull up the article here directly. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does the idea come from that we have to describe pseudoscience in its own terms as a priority? WP:PSCI is clear that "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read this comment and have to wonder if we're reading the same discussion. Nowhere is anyone proposing to give equal weight to two opposing viewpoints. In fact, I have proposed to add a whole extra sentence devoted to the fact that ID is pseudoscience. How exactly does moving one word into its own sentence somehow constitute "equal weight" while the existing version using "pseudoscientific" as a weak yet provocative adjective doesn't? There is no undue weight being proposed here, yet if you read this thread, you see people expressing unfounded concerns not only about undue weight but also removing the word, none of which has been proposed.. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave, for me the idea of describing a pseudoscientific topic (not pseudoscience itself) in its own terms comes from common sense and precedent. You can check those 38 articles like I did to see our own precedents as well as the  Encyclopedia Britannica, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in a signed entry by Michael Ruse) and HowStuffWorks, as I've pointed out numerous times.
 * None of those articles use the word "pseudoscience," either, though I'm fine with using it since many--not just one or two--scientists do call ID pseudoscientific.
 * Our suggestion to first define the term as its proponents do and then characterize it as pseudoscience fully complies with the spirit and the letter of the text you quoted.
 * I suppose the idea also springs from a sense of propriety, or the "more polite terms" Guettarda referred to above. Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my position with respect to Amatulić's last paragraph, I don't think we need more or better sourcing to justify using the term pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. Pseudoscience is "a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."  ID is presented as science, but is quite clearly not, as established by myriad reliable sources (see the list I posted earlier).  From there, we need only make the necessary assumption.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c)@Dave: I find it rather remarkable that by your statement above you seem to almost be perhaps suggesting that all topics described as "pseudoscience" should unequivocally be described as such first, last and foremost, almost as if they were undifferentiatable or even interchangable. I also regret to say that there seems to me to be an almost WP:IDHT refusal to possibly even consider the possibility of presenting a philosophically neutral description first, or actually providing some degree of description of the idea as a specific idea before labelling it pseudoscience. Neutrality does not necessarily equal equivalence. But it does, I regret to say, seem to me that there is perhaps a tendency on the part of some here to I think believe actually clearly identifying the idea is somehow of secondary importance to labelling it as pseudoscience, even in the very first sentence. I think it might not be unreasonable to go to WP:ARCA regarding this, because, honestly, I find it hard to believe that ArbCom intended the ruling to take priority to even basic common sense. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What wording are you proposing? Any wording has to meet WP:PSCI, and presenting the pseudoscientific view in its own terms risks WP:GEVAL, so alternative options have to take care over the initial presentation to meet WP:STRUCTURE. . dave souza, talk 09:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I very strongly suggest that perhaps at some point, if you don't find it unduly onerous of course, you perhaps make a more visible effort to perhaps actually read the comments made by others on this page. I have already suggested on multiple occasions I believe that the best definition of the subject would be one used in a philosophically neutral reference work on this subject, and I beieve I even pointed out a few possibilities. I actually did, presumably presumptuosly in light of subsequent events, assume that those who have been curators of this article for I believe several years now might already have attempted to find such themselves, and I apologize for jumping to that apparently unjustified conclusion. At this point, it seems to me the top priority would be to seek clarification from ArbCom regarding how precisely that ruling is intended by them to be applied, rather than the way certain individuals who have been very close to this topic for some years now have chosen to interpret and apply. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles using the term pseudoscience
There seems to be a part of an argument that suggests that WP articles do not use the term pseudoscience in the first sentence. I don't know what weight such numbers have, but I did a trawl that produced 24 articles that use it in the first sentence, and another 14 that use it in the lead.

Here are the 24: Phrenology; Biorhythms; Crystal healing; Magnetic therapy; Melanin theory; Cryptozoology; Psychic surgery; Terence McKenna; Torsion field (pseudoscience); Ancient astronaut hypothesis; Sun Language Theory; Pyramidology; Indigo children; Leuchter report; Atlantis: The Antediluvian World; Bioresonance therapy; Energo-Chromo-Kinese; The Beginning Was the End; Energy field disturbance; Pseudophysics; Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine); Radium Ore Revigator; Mental literacy; Ontogenetic depth. Also New Chronology (Fomenko) uses 'pseudohistory'.

It seems to me that many more articles could have used a pseudo word in the first sentence, but don't happen to do so, not because editors were following some rule, but because it reads better that way. See Pseudoarchaeology; Homeopathy; Radionics; Quantum mysticism; Dianetics; Erich von Däniken; Baraminology. Plus, Pyramid power and Psychokinesis have 'alleged' in the first sentence followed by 'pseudoscience', while Palmistry and iridology have 'claim' followed by 'pseudoscience'. I wonder how many more articles have words like 'alleged', 'supposed', 'claim' etc. in the first sentence, which the proponents of such ideas would not have "in their own terms".

Also, several articles use 'alternative medicine' in the first sentence, by which editors seem to mean 'pseudo-medicine'. Myrvin (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But what is the point you want to make? My response so far is "So what?" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will need to read all of the previous section for this to make sense Roxy. There are people who think that, because 38 articles appear in a page about pseudoscientific articles, and yet many do not have the word 'pseudoscience' in their first sentence, then THIS article should not have 'pseudoscience' in its first sentence. So, I produced a list of 24 articles that are just like that - and a few more that are close. Have fun. Myrvin (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Myrvin, for helpful digging. One small error: pseudoscience is not in the first sentence of Biorhythms. So we've turned up 26 articles plus this one that use the word right off the bat.
 * As you pointed out, "many more articles could have used a pseudo word in the first sentence, but don't happen to do so." I question your ability to know why they don't. I know of no rule other than common sense that would require us to tell what a topic is before explaining why it is pseudoscientific. This is demonstrably the encyclopedic way to present a topic, as evidenced in the Ency. Brit. and the SEP. Dr. Johnson's droll 18th-century definition of oats as "a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people," may amuse us today, but there is no place for such cuteness in a quality 21st-century reference work. We cheapen WP when we insert our derogatory opinions into definitions.
 * The US National Institutes of Health do not equate "alternative medicine" with "pseudoscience." Note the matter-of-fact, non-judgmental approach taken by this reputable source. Yopienso (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, the SEP essay is clear from the outset that ID is a subset of creationism, and in particular largely repeats creation science arguments. That's a straightforward matter of fact.. . dave souza, talk 08:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? Totally off-topic; my question is not at all about whether or not ID is a subset of creationism, but why WP should not follow the example of reputable tertiary sources in initially defining ID as its proponents do and then explaining how it fails to be scientific. I'm beginning to think it's because Wikipedia is a pseudo-encyclopedia. Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An extensive discussion on this talk page culminated in April with agreement on revisions to the lead, changing the opening from "Intelligent design (ID)[1] is a form of creationism,[2][3] the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," presented by its proponents as a scientific theory. to "Intelligent design (ID)[1] is the pseudoscientific theory[2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Proponents argue...". . . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then perhaps you shouldn't pseudo-participate? You have absolutely no consensus for your proposed change, that much was made really obvious in the above thread. Time to drop the stick. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm truly participating, Gaba, and not insisting on incorporating into the article what I see as the appropriate wording. I'm asking my fellow editors to explain why we should not follow the lead of reputable tertiary sources. If you missed it, I wrote this under the edit summary "I will graciously defer to the consensus, but am involved enough to ask for clearer reasons, please":
 * ''Obviously, the overwhelming consensus is that my proposed text won't fly, but I respectfully request some sound, logical reasons for your rejection. Please explain to me why:
 * ''WP should not follow its own norm wrt pseudosciences as evidenced in 35/38 articles linked to above.
 * ''WP should not be a sober tertiary source like those I've linked to but must clearly telegraph the disgust felt by a small group of editors.
 * Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Yopienso (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps phrasing it as a wife-beating question is why people don't think you are being serious. Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience is certainly the norm: being the norm doesn't require 100% adherence. Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience also doesn't prevent us from being a sober tertiary source. Perhaps the primary distinction isn't that they are "sober", but that they are commercial. A commercially supported source has to worry about offending people that might otherwise buy their product. We don't.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kww, for giving a reasonable answer to my question. Dave avoids the question; Gaba and Myrvin just tell me to be quiet and go away.
 * I don't see how I'm falling into the wife-beating fallacy by contrasting our approach with that of sources that are held in higher regard by academics.
 * I disagree with your opinion of why EB and SEP use more objective language than WP wrt to ID, but I greatly appreciate your sharing it . (My opinion is that they are written in an academic register by experts while this article in WP is crowd-sourced by people who aim to debunk rather than describe.) I hope other editors will candidly share their reasons. Yopienso (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to scale back the "academic register" bit, which applies only to SEP. EB is for a general audience and HSW is even more casual and not necessarily written by experts. I find all three adopt an objective tone, while WP adopts a dismissive tone.
 * Please, fellow editors, share your opinions on why we should not follow those examples. My concern is not to refute your opinions but to hear them. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Yopienso, my understanding of policy and opinion of the right approach is that we have to be clear from the outset that this is a minority religious view that lacks any credence in science. SEP achieves this in an essay, rather than the brief definition we're seeking for the lead, by showing ID in the context of its creationist predecessors. As discussed in April, introducing ID as pseudoscience rather than creationism also works well. I've certainly not ruled out other approaches to the same end, but in each case the wording has to be considered carefully. . dave souza, talk 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Yopienso (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite right on the Biorhythms. It still leaves a lot that were missed when the WP precedence argument was used. Does this mean we can move away from WP precedence? I don't think the Johnson reference helps your case. He might have been deadly serious. The argument also suggests that WP should never say anything is pseudoscience, since it would be 'derogatory' wherever it goes. Myrvin (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer above Myrvin. I was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog&oldid=601666962#User_warning templated] once for categorising Occult as pseudoscience, which surprised me, and use of the Pseudoscience Category has been substantially altered since. It is a difficult area, as true believers in whatever brand of woo don't like the label, but it certainly belongs in this article. Remember that we are obliged to frame articles from a mainstream scientific pov, and are under the ARBCOM discretionary sanctions ruling on pseudoscience. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd agree that Occult isn't pseudoscience, as it's clear in that article that it's an alternative based on mystical "inner natures" with no claims to be science. Both creation science and ID have persistently been presented as science, particularly with the aim of getting these religious views taught in science classrooms. That's what makes ID pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 10:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Myrvin, I don't care to move away from the WP precedence argument; many or our articles do not call the topic pseudoscientific in the first sentence, and there is no compelling reason why this one should. The example of real encyclopedias that do not do that compels me to believe a good encyclopedia should not do that.
 * Boswell quotes Johnson thusly: "Why, I own, that by my definition of oats I meant to vex them [the Scotch]." That is precisely the attitude I perceive in the insistence of defining ID as "the pseudoscientific view that . . . " Yopienso (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This latest version of your argument can't work both ways. Earlier, you were using WP precedence to argue a case for not using PS in the first sentence (because other articles don't do it, we shouldn't). Now there are counter-precedents you say precedence is NOT a good reason for doing so. (I think Sam was joking to Boswell, not when he wrote the def.) I think you are only left with your "real" encyclopedias (all two of them). I hope this isn't a No true Scotsman argument: WP isn't a real one because it uses 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence. Myrvin (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me (and Johnson, too--read Boswell for context). I'm still saying precedence IS a good thing to follow--many articles do NOT slam the topic in the first sentence.
 * There are lots of reasons why WP is a wanna-be. Academics do not recognize WP as a RS, though many admit it is a useful mine for sources. Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaba is right. It's time to drop the stick. Myrvin (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh, are we already in the "WP sucks" fase? Time to move on then. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He is right although it seems to me the person who should "drop the stick" is the person who seemed to base this whole section on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I believe there is more than suffiient basis for a request for clarification. Who wants to file it? John Carter (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oo, is that me? I didn't try to argue that because 38 articles didn't do what this one does, then this one shouldn't. I did counter it though. Let's do WP:Ignore all precedent and move on. Myrvin (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we end the endless discussion?
Here is a proposal for the lede:

Intelligent design (ID) is the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] The scientific community has roundly rejected the argument as pseudoscience.[1][2] Educators, philosophers, and scientists have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument--a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] While conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory, proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins." Yet, it abrogates the methodological naturalism upon which modern science is based.[4][5][6] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] They state that ID is not creationism and avoid assigning a personality to the designer; many, however, express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]
 * 1) This calls ID an argument, not a view, hypothesis, or theory.
 * 2) It concisely defines ID as presented by its proponents.
 * 3) It immediately identifies ID as pseudoscience, rejected by the scientific community, which is the only sector or society that matter in demarcating science and pseudoscience.
 * 4) It identifies ID as a religious argument.
 * 5) There is no OR; the POV is neutral; the requirements of WP:PSCI are met.
 * 6) The lay reader is quickly apprised of ID's claims and why they are not legitimate.
 * 7) It's true, verifiable, well-cited, and well-written.

Comments? Can we move it into the article? Yopienso (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest changing the second sentence to "It is presented as science by rejected but the scientific community as pseudoscience ." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a consensus to call ID pseudoscience. The 3rd sentence indicates it is presented as science. Yopienso (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yopienso, my bad... that was in my brain, but didn't make the translation to text. I have amended my previous post to include the term.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While my immediate response is that this looks less coherent and clear than the current opening paragraph, it will take a while to analyse and consider the differences. First point is that ID isn't just that argument shown in the proposed first sentence: the argument as stated is the teleological argument with a twist of explicit opposition to the process of natural selection. The central point about ID is that it's a theological argument or group of arguments, a religious belief dressed as science, and it's the latter point that makes it pseudoscience. Will comment further as time permits. . dave souza, talk 21:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take into consideration my response to you above at 23:10, 8 July 2014.
 * I agree with MisterDub's suggestion and see my last two sentences as needing some stylistic improvements. Yopienso (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose moving it into the article. I prefer the version in place as I see no real improvement with this one. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent job. It capture very well the state of the literature and how ID developed in the 1990s to the present. I am One of Many (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was too hasty and careless in comparing it to the current lead. While it does capture the state of the literature and how ID developed over time reasonably well, it is subtly too weak.  The term "argument" gives it a status it really doesn't have.  The term pseudoscience is watered down by moving to the second sentence.  For scientists, ID is by definition pseudoscience, so it was never rejected as pseudoscience. I am One of Many (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This moves too far towards giving equal validity. Wikipedia does not self-censor to avoid offending some people who have alternative beliefs. The present lead is just fine and in line with the Arbcom ruling. However far we go to appease the creationists and cryptocreationists who waste so much time on this page they will always demand more. Are we going to end up changing every article about a fossil to say that it is x million/circa 6000 years old?Charles (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that over the years here found several times the atheism/"scientism" crowd even more endlessly evangelical of their "beliefs" than the sometimes more rational religious editors they look down on and criticize. One of the best examples is the Historicity of Jesus article, where the followers of the atheist "prophet" Richard Dawkins seem to be constantly attempting to promote his assertion that Jesus never existed, despite the fact that I believe several academics who actually know something about the subject have said that the relevant academic community virtually uniformly disagree with him on the subject. Evolution is another such article, and I believe this one probably is as well. I have said before I had serious doubts about whether the ArbCom decision was meant to apply to the first sentence, but seem to find that argument continuing. Therefore, I repeat that I think a clarification of the ruling is probably in everyone's best interests. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And with all of that I have to vehemently disagree. I suspect that by "the relevant academic community" you mean Christian academics. Sorry. that doesn't work, especially when you seem to denigrate another source by giving him that evil label "atheist". Of course ID is pseudo-science. For a rational entity like Wikipedia it's critical that its pseudo-scientific nature be mentioned right up front. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 may himself be one of the best "cases in point" of what some might call "dogmatic atheism" I can imagine, although I am pleased to see he isn't actively blocked for the moment. I suppose there is no point in asking him if he thought a rational editor would ever be bothered to actually look at the Historicity of Jesus talk page where a recent quote from the agnostic Bart Ehrman to the effect that virtually everyone in the field accepts or "believes" Jesus existed, because he obviously did not bother to look. Such atheists often hold their own preconceptions even more zealously and fanatically than many religious zealots, because of their "worship" (for lack of a better word) of what they personally think of as "science" and their inability to even acknowledge that self-described "science" proponents are often less scientific and poorer researchers than those they love to look down on. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a bad faith, irrational and off topic post. Because of that third point, I won't discuss it any more here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Based on my above comments. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Charle's argument is way off base, since using an inflammatory adjective in Wikipedia's voice to a lay audience clearly violates WP:NPOV even if compliant with WP:PSCI. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of policy to adhere. For the proposed lead, I suggest tightening up the wording; i.e. change "has roundly rejected" to "rejects". I don't care if it's called an argument, view, proposition, or whatever, any of those words are fine although I am partial to "proposition". I do agree with John Carter that ArbCom should clarify with respect to the first sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My name is not Charle and there is nothing inflammatory about the adjective "pseudoscientific". It is a statement of fact not a perjorative term. Once again we do not censor in case some people may be offended. Some people will always be offended.Charles (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like you? John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Inferior to present lead. I'm beginning to suspect a topic ban is becoming necessary for Amatulić, given his unwillingness to accept that his interpretation of WP:NPOV is incorrect.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle, black. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No WP:KETTLE violation at all. Your interpretation is the one that has been specifically repudiated by the arbitration on pseudoscience, by the plain text of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE (a section of WP:NPOV), by WP:VALID (yet another subsection of WP:NPOV, which states that "pseudoscience... should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship") and by our guidelines. There isn't a even a grey area left where your views can live.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Waters down the appropriate description of ID and gives wiggle room to the science deniers. - Nick Thorne  talk  04:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed first sentence is just the teleological argument, and ID is not just the teleological argument. Even "in its own terms" ID claims to be a scientific theory, so the first sentence must say so. It cannot say "ID is the scientific theory that ....", because (by WP rules?) it isn't. It could say "ID claims to be the scientific theory that ..." with something to say that WP thinks it isn't a scientific theory. By then, it might as well have said "ID is the pseudoscientific claim that ...". (BTW "abrogates" seems the wrong word. It means annuls or rescinds - "denies" might be better.) Myrvin (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Partial - think the structure is better but drop the 'as pseudoscience' as that's usually not what was said so comes off as false [WP:LABEL] and [WP:UNDUE] and it's a bit of disconnect in the general thread of saying creationism. Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Further weakens the accuracy of the lede. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose we should not adhere and placate to Creationists/IDers on this page as their ideas are ludicrous and, flying in the face of almost every scientific principal know to man. The new wording is also not succinct compared to the wording we have now. Also "Can we end the endless discussion" is a mis-normer. As it was ended several months ago when the lead was changed to the current lead. However, people like to beat a dead horse. NathanWubs (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although we are all of course gratified to see inherently judgmental and prejudicial comments as the last above, I ask that editor to maybe read WP:CCC and suggest to him that maybe it might be a good idea to look at some directy relevant reference sources that have apparently ignored to date first? John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, it has not at this point, so your point is moot. Please if you have relevant Pro-Id reliable sources to share with us, please do so. After all I am sure all people here including me would not mind us changing our mind about ID/Creationism if things are backed by relevant reliable sources. NathanWubs (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose rush to straw polling as a possible attempt to game the system based perhaps at least partially on an unconfirmed interpretation of the ArbCom ruling. I asked the former Science Apologist (I forget his new name) about reference sources regarding pseudoscience some time ago. He indicated one work by Randi was among the two best but also that one of those I added to WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is the other he thought of as the best in the field. I couldn't find Randi's, but given his particular interests I'm not sure it necessarily deals with this topic. Most rational editors would I think ensure such sources, and others apparently not yet consulted, were examined before rushing to judgment and I am rather surprised at that not being true here. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, I think it's unfair to assume that your fellow editors are ignorant of the proposal. Please try to remain civil, even when consensus disagrees with your position.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Because IMHO, IC does not rise status of pseudoscience. A pseudoscience proposes a hypothesis/concept/theory/account, where ID, as the definition shows, does not describe an alternative, but only says that there is some alternative. I would therefore say, if I were writing my own article, that ID is a political/social/religious campaign, not a pseudoscience. But I recognize that this is a minority opinion, and therefore must reluctantly agree with the original wording.   TomS TDotO (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Maybe we've all been sucked in by the claims from the proponents of ID that it is science. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, ID tends to fall into the class of not even wrong, but so long as its proponents package it as a form of science, who are we to set minimum standards? Certainly a lead of "Intelligent design, a proposal so vapid it technically fails to qualify as pseudoscience ..." wouldn't be more satisfactory to those that wish to change the lead.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow!
I never expected such a response! Here I'll briefly respond--in small print to save space--to some assertions on this page that I find unconvincing:


 * The term "argument" gives it a status it really doesn't have. (User:I am One of Many) Many terms would work here; view, concept, hypothesis, theory, proposition, proposal have all been rejected by hairsplitting editors. I'm least amenable to theory and hypothesis.
 * so it was never rejected as pseudoscience. (User:I am One of Many) That means, "It was rejected because it is pseudoscience." But I'll propose clearer wording.
 * This moves too far towards giving equal validity. (User:Charles) I interpret it as showing ID has no validity and that the scientific community will have nothing to do with it.
 * Are we going to end up changing every article about a fossil to say that it is x million/circa 6000 years old? (User:Charles) Irrelevant comment; nobody's suggesting anything remotely like that.
 * there is nothing inflammatory about the adjective "pseudoscientific". It is a statement of fact not a perjorative [sic] term. (User:Charles) Yes it it. WP: "The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science." SEP: "Throughout its history the word has had a clearly defamatory meaning." CSI: "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term . . ."
 * Waters down the appropriate description of ID and gives wiggle room to the science deniers. (User:Nick Thorne) How does "The scientific community has roundly rejected the argument as pseudoscience" do that?
 *  Further weakens the accuracy of the lede. (User:ArtifexMayhem) What, specifically, is inaccurate?
 * [The endless discussion] was ended several months ago when the lead was changed to the current lead. (User:NathanWubs) Not so; check the history.
 * Sorry, I can't really make sense of User:TomS TDotO's, User:Kww's, or User:HiLo48's comments.

Sadly, not one person has responded to my points above at 23:10, 8 July 2014; I'll paste in the main ones here: (Added


 * For me the idea of describing a pseudoscientific topic (not pseudoscience itself) in its own terms comes from common sense and precedent. You can check those 38 articles like I did to see our own precedents as well as the  Encyclopedia Britannica, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in a signed entry by Michael Ruse) and HowStuffWorks,'' as I've pointed out numerous times.
 * ''None of those articles use the word "pseudoscience," either, though I'm fine with using it since many--not just one or two--scientists do call ID pseudoscientific.
 * Our suggestion to first define the term as its proponents do and then characterize it as pseudoscience fully complies with the spirit and the letter of the text you quoted.

Obviously, the overwhelming consensus is that my proposed text won't fly, but I respectfully request some sound, logical reasons for your rejection. Please explain to me why: Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)\
 * WP should not follow its own norm wrt pseudosciences as evidenced in 35/38 articles linked to above.
 * WP should not be a sober tertiary source like those I've linked to but must clearly telegraph the disgust felt by a small group of editors.
 * Due to a copying an pasting glitch, both here and above you've linked to howstuffworks where you obviously intended to link to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (in a signed entry by Michael Ruse). . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops--thanks for catching that; I've changed the links. Yopienso (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume some of that is meant to be sarcasm, but it's impossible to know how much. It's a dangerous approach on the web, where verbal emphasis and body language clues are missing. I've made several comments. That you "can't really make sense of" them is not helpful. I'd be happy to expand, but I have no idea what to. Your whole post is cluttered and bordering on being too long. Can I suggest you rewrite it without the sarcasm please? And perhaps respond to individual posts where they have been made, rather than dumping everything in the one post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HiLo48. There is no sarcasm in my post.
 * I thought it would be handier to answer in one place rather than threading through the discussion. That's why I hyperlinked to each contributor. I realize that made it long, but think it's a good trade-off for convenience. You could be right that it would have been better to insert multiple comments throughout the discussion.
 * You wrote, And with all of that I have to vehemently disagree. I suspect that by "the relevant academic community" you mean Christian academics. Sorry. that doesn't work, especially when you seem to denigrate another source by giving him that evil label "atheist". Of course ID is pseudo-science. For a rational entity like Wikipedia it's critical that its pseudo-scientific nature be mentioned right up front. I didn't hear User:John Carter arguing that ID is not pseudoscience. I did not understand his label "atheist" as you did. I did think his label "prophet" was denigrating, but then, I found his input unhelpful and ignored it in my response.
 * You wrote, Oppose Based on my above comments. I don't see how the comments I've just copied make an argument against my proposal; you seemed to be responding to John Carter.
 * You wrote, Weak Oppose Because IMHO, IC does not rise status of pseudoscience. Yet you had previously said, "Of course ID is pseudo-science." (I assume you meant, "does not rise to the status of.") Your stance is unclear.
 * You wrote: Maybe we've all been sucked in by the claims from the proponents of ID that it is science. Nothing in my proposal nor in TomS's comment suggests that; how does your comment relate to the discussion? Yopienso (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Amended Yopienso (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have misread. I did not write 'Weak Oppose. That was another editor. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies--I have just undone that post for that reason and am reworking it. If you prefer that I restore it and strike my error I'll gladly do so. Yopienso (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh rats--I saved it without realizing I'd already pasted in part of my text to rework. I'll make this right. Yopienso (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC) ✅
 * I don't think that this is the place to discuss this sort of thing, but I think that courtesy demands that I explain my point briefly. Pseudosciences like astronomy astrology have a story that they tell about things. In that way, they are like science. Although they differ from science in important ways, their substance is their account of how things happen. ID does not have an account of what happens, where or when, or how. What they talk about is that there is something wrong with evolution, and how they should they should be treated. Therefore it is more like a movement intended to change behavior. Astrologers spend most of their time talking about astrology; they don't spend all of their effort on how astronomy is wrong, or how astrology should be taught in science classes.   TomS TDotO (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) A correspondent has kindly pointed out my embarrassing typo "astronomy".   TomS TDotO (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your courtesy and clarification; I agree with your sentiments. How, exactly, do they apply to the wording of the lede? Yopienso (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dawkins has repeatedly been discussed as an "authority" on the early history of Christianity and the question of the existence of Jesus by editors here at wikipedia, despite having absoutely no qualifications in that matter other than being an opinion leader of the atheist community and someone whose statements other atheists repeat without apparently much thought, which is pretty much the definition of a prophet. The best and most neutral as well as most "academic" definitions probably would be found in reference works which don't treat the topic from either "side," and the Stanford meets that standard quite well, and could serve as a good model. Britannica, with all due respect, is a little too general for purposes such as the definition of a rather involved term. I don't know the other that well. Using the Stanford and similar philosophy reference sources' definitions and those from some of the specialized reference sources I've indicated seems to me the best option, along wit finding out exactly how ArbCom intended their decision to be applied. John Carter (talk)
 * Glad you like Ruse's Stanford article, it is clear that ID is a variant of creationism. Specifically, "philosophical arguments are central to the thinking of the leader of today's creationists, Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson", who, in respects, "just repeated the arguments of the Creation Scientists" but "stressed that the Creation/evolution debate is not just one of science versus religion or good science versus bad science, but rather of conflicting philosophical positions", producing a false equivalence trying to justify teaching creationism in schools. This article did have an approach more on these lines, but to meet recurring complaints it was refocussed more on the agreed point that ID is at best pseudoscientific. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, thanks for your helpful comment wrt Stanford and Enc. Brit. The Britannica is the gold standard in general ref encyl. that Wikipedia is measured against; I think the article I linked to may be just the abbreviated free one. (Not sure on that.) I maintain it is unencyclopedic to disparage the topic of an article. I support asking ArbCom to weigh in on this matter. Again, Dave, I don't understand why you're going off-topic about creationism when the question is why we should include the word "pseudoscience" in the first sentence while "real" encyclopedias don't. Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Britannica is very good but even it has space constraints which more specialist reference sources at least sometimes don't have to the same degree. That can and sometimes does makeit less exact than some specialized reference sources. And I guess I should make it clear in tge light of some commentsabove that seem to be at least bordering on soapboxing as per WP:SOAPBOX and maybe WP:TE too that so far as I knew this discussion was about the definiton of the term, and even "central" concerns do not necesssarily relate tomatters of the definition of theconcept itself. Who wants to file the request for clarification. I believe at minimum it should include a request regarding the use of the potentially perjorative use of the word pseudoscience and whether that specific word should be included in the first sentence, whether it should be the first meaningful descriptive word in that sentence, and some indications as to what circumstances should prevail to indicate such usage. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like characterizing ID as a pseudoscience because it it is not like a pseudoscience in an important way. That explains the weakness of my opposition. (However, I do not propose that my opinion is important enough to influence what is written here. That explains my vote to oppose.)  TomS TDotO (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(outdent)I have checked a few other highly regarded reference sources on philosophy, but don't see any with specific articles on ID. But both the 2007 Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion do. The article in the first, by William A. Dembski (I have no idea who he is, but he says he is one of the "[l]eading proponents of intelligent design"), who includes 3 of his own works in his 20-item bibliograhy, has as a first sentence "Intelligent design studies features of objects that signal the action of an intelligent cause."Its third sentence talks specifically of proponents of ID, who "purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically". Its fourth sentence concludes ID could "be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence." The full article, about 2½ page, does not use the word "pseudoscience" once, but under the circumstances that doesn't surprise me.

The EoSaR article by Howard J. Van Till of Calvin College, who sems to have written most of its articles related to creationism, starts "Intelligent Design is the concept that some things―especially some life forms or parts of life forms―must have been assembled (at least for the first time) by the direct action of a non-natural agent." The second of its three sentences relates specifically to "[p]roponents of intelligent design."

In both cases there seems to be differentiation between general ID and specific ID proponents or proposals. The longer has a page-long section "Defining signs of intelligence", a 1 column section "Biological design," and a 1+ column "Intelligent Design and Religion," which includes a statement that ID's main tie to religion is the design argument.

From these 2 it seems to me at least implicitly that ID potentially includes "ET made me in the lab" creationism as well. I'm going to keep checking for other sources.John Carter (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do not know who Dembski is, that speaks loudly about your familiarity with ID as a topic. His name appears no less that twenty times in this article. Perhaps if you read past the lead you might understand why the lead refers to ID as pseudoscience.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Who would want to file a request for clarification from ArbCom, and what matters should be included? I believe I have already identified my own concerns above. Are there any others that should also be addressed? John Carter (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's your suggestion. You tell us what needs clarifying. I don't think anything needs clarification. Are you sure you'e not just forum shopping? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, if you ever read the comments of others you would see others agreed to request clarification. I was asking them. You might also look above and see that such comments as yours, which have nothing productive in them and violate WP:TE and/or WP:DE are potentially grounds for your being sanctioned again.John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Threats again, eh? That's not clever debating. I stand by everything I say. It did just "happen" to be you who brought this here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in asking ArbCom if WP even has "its own voice," or if, as a tertiary source, it merely repeats what RSs say. My interpretation of WP:NPOV is that WP has no voice of its own. I don't see how this article complies with the following:
 * WP:YESPOV: " A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
 * WP:IMPARTIAL:"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."
 * It is the disparaging tone evident on the talk page and leaking into the article that I wish to avoid. It is the impartial tone of EB, SEP, and HSW that I wish to emulate. Yopienso (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."
 * WP:GEVAL: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity".
 * WP:PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such."
 * Clarity on these points should not be mistaken for a disparaging tone: obviously the best way of acheiving all these aspects of policy is open to discussion and consideration. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points, to which I would request clarification regarding whether statements made in academically well-regarded reference sources directly related to the topic, including those I've included above and on the list of articles from encyclopedias of pseudoscience at WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles could or should be used to help determine such matters, and, if possible, how. Also, personally, I would inquire about possibly special exceptions in the cases of potentially damaging or dangerous or counterproductive medical, legal, and/or financial pseudoscience, although I don't know if either of the latter two really exist. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "how" is talk page discussion, with sourced proposals for improvement: why not? . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Dave. Wrt to GEVAL, we must remember that the topic of this article is a minority view, so it must be fully explained. My approach would be to first summarize the DI's answers to QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN on this page, and then, after giving a history of the term, explain why mainstream science discounts ID. My understanding is that you might do something similar after first making clear that the whole proposition is pseudoscience. Because such a large minority of Americans are unconvinced of evolution, it seems to me that immediately calling ID PS would be a turn-off, whereas if the topic were first defined in its own terms and then examined with a scientific lens, there would be more of a chance they would keep reading. And learn! It might also reduce discussion on and tinkering with the lede.
 * Perhaps ArbCom could give us the proper balance on the guidelines we each cited as they apply to this article.
 * For comparison's sake, I've looked up the article as it was the day it was featured on the front page. Yopienso (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c)@Dave:Only problem there might be whichever page here (I freely admit I never really checked on a lot of them) most directly relates to the article in one of the pseudoscience encyclopedia article on Lourdes. Really emotionally loaded discussions like that one could lead to really long sanctions lists and interminable arguments and edit wars. I've not yet myself had the guts to take that one on, and if nothing else some sort of indicators from how to avoid such potential bloodbaths, maybe even "try binding mediation comparatively early," might be useful. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yopienso I think this article is unrecoverably biased mitigated by that being obvious and seems about the best it will get, but will offer two Wikipedia reasons of just show me the cites or do not use it type to not use pseudoscience at the lead:
 * WP:UNDUE - top line use of that term is giving it undue weight as it is not prominent or common. AAAS and Kitz say 'not science',  NCSE and numerous books say 'creationism'.  Doing search counts for 'intelligent design' + creationism versus 'intelligent design' + pseudoscience comes out at google 959K:147K and at bing with 645K:69K.  And the article sections are repeatedly talking religion or creationist groups, so it is not summarizing major portion of the article content.
 * WP:LABEL - guidance says for value-laden labels "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt."  There is only cite of a teachers group, so again just do not have cites to justify putting the label in.
 * Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, Google. There's a carefully thought out scathing refutation if I've ever seen one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Markbassett - for as long as the proponents of ID claim that it's scientific (also mentioned in the lead), it's critical that the article highlights the fact that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That last is an interesting point but raises several questions. One is the usage of the terms "fringe science" and "pseudoscience" and other related terms. I remember how in recent books Brian Greene said bot string theory nor the multiverse theory have any real evidence to support them, just like this. Do they deserve to be described by the same terms? Dawkins has repeatedly said one of the motivations for his life's wor was to indicate the non-existence of deity. Should his I believe clearly declared motivations be given similar attention in content to his at best fringe meme theory and should the question of the "scientific" nature of that proposal also be highlighted? Also, I remember reading one of the early motivations for the proposers of multiversial theory was to try to get around the Big Bang and its creationist possibilities. How much attention should that get here? And, honestly, should we look for and describe the stated core beliefs of all scientists or fringe scientists elsewhere, giving particular attention to the sometimes inflammatory and prejudicial claimsof those who disagree with them on unprovable postulates? John Carter (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I wouldn't try to sell the point with anything about Dawkins. (We both know that he's more polemic rather than an intellectually honest scholar when he ventures from biology to philosophy - he can't quite admit that he's using circular reasoning, "cranes supported by cranes" instead of a "skyhook", to deal with infinite regress.)  That's a rat hole.  ID, even as folks as diverse as John Polkinghorne or William Paley understand it, is not science.  It's at a different philosophical place (like art or ethics are) than science. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While some people have called string theory pseudoscience, a more sophisticated approach to the demarcation problem will generally label it protoscience or something of the sort. There's an important difference which goes beyond the scope of what we can and should discuss here. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For our purposes however the fact that string theory has been called pseudoscience is enough. Also, if you read some of the comments above, intelligent, design, could qualify as a protoscience as well.John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not good enough. Reliable scholarly sources don't generally consider string theory pseudoscience. Non-expert blog posts aren't good enough. Similarly, while a few people have tried to argue that ID should be considered protoscience, those arguments tend to be made in blog posts, not scholarly works looking at the demarcation problem. When people argue about the demarcation problem, ID used is an example of obvious pseudoscience while discussing more arguable examples like alchemy. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * G, Lee Smolin and Peter Woit (and some others that agree with these physicists) do consider string theory and multiverse cosmology as pseudoscience. And they write books and blogs and are reliable and scholarly.  I consider string theory and M theory as protoscience or nascent science (which was the state of general relativity until the Eddington solar eclipse expedition), but it could eventually be discarded as "science" if it never becomes falsifiable. 70.109.177.95 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a pronounced inability to address the topic of this thread, and such irrelevant commentary is contrary to WP:TPG, and, as it were, potentially "not good enough" to perhaps avoid sanctions on this page. Please make somevisible attempt to stay on topic. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow dude. You're quite something. You go off on a tangent about string theory and pointless speculation about protoscience. All I did was indulge your rather pointless diversions. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good discussion (the whole Smolin thing about what science is contained in string theory, as well as multiverse cosmology), but outa the scope here. I agree with you, G, about that. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note about "not science": since intelligent design claims to be science, calling it "not science" is, in essence, identical to calling it pseudoscience. Calling it creationism, on the other hand, is not the same as call it pseudoscience, but neither is it different. Those labels are not orthogonal. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When it is understood as and directed toward biology textbooks, it's pseudoscience. When it's not, it's not.  In both cases, ID is "not real science".  The problem with this lead, and with the chronic bias of the article is that it makes Wikipedia look bad because it nakedly betrays (or portrays) that bias.  That's what you guys just don't get.  It's not necessary (to get the necessary information across to the reader) and it unmistakeably sets out the tone that Wikipedia takes a position against Intelligent design when it doesn't have to do that.  And we can still expose all of the bad people and their bad actions and the bad biology and we can clearly identify those that say ID is pseudoscience and quote them.  The article, without question, is identifying something that some reputable authors have used as a term and write about it authoritatively say is "not science" as "false science", which is decidedly "bad science" (The Harvard astronomy professor emeritus differentiates labels with "small 'i' small 'd'").  The lede in this article more clearly takes the position that "ID is pseudoscience" than does the lede of the Adolf Hitler article state that "Hitler was bad".
 * Not science is not the same as pseudoscience. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Not science", when portrayed as science is pseudoscience. And ID is portrayed as science. That is, quite simply, the reason it exists. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not portrayed as science by every significant author that has written of the term. You are not being intellectually honest about this. 70.109.183.128 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't always portrayed as science. It's generally portrayed as non-science, pseudoscience, or creationism by significant authors. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And non-science is not the same as pseudoscience. Yet the article unequivocally equates ID to pseudoscience and does not allow any representation of it as non-science.  Still skirting around the point (but at least not denying it at this time). 70.109.183.128 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's non-science. But ID's proponents claim it's science, and persistently push for it to be taught in schools as part of science. So, our options are non-science, pseudoscience, or science. The last one is bullshit. Please pick from the first two. I don't really care. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all writers, especially when you consider the historical use of the term (long before there ever was such a thing called the Discovery Institute) claim that it's science. But the article immediately and unequivocally identifies it as false science.  Just do the Wikipedia thing with it.  State what the concept (or "view" or "argument" or whatever) is, then show what different sources say about it.  Attribute the sources.  Do it the Wikipedia way and stop embarrassing the project.  70.109.177.95 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there are more options that just science, non-science and pseudoscience. To begin with, the whole demarcation only comes into play when something claims to be science. Literature and theology are non-science which don't purport to be science. Anthropology spans the divide between science and non-science. Among things which are presented as science, we have several options. Pigliucci (p. 18) presents a continuum from established science to soft science to proto/quasi-science to pseudoscience. And ID (like astrology and HIV denialism) are given as examplars of pseudoscience. The argument here, such as it is, is whether we should approach the arbcomm to rule whether something that is given as an exemplar of what pseudoscience is, should be called pseudoscience. It's an absurd question. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um I believe the last part of the above comment raises several dubious assertions, possibly, to the point of making the comment itself both absurd and inaccurate. To. my eyes, as the person who started the thread, the concern was about using the word "pseudoscience" as the first significant descriptive word in the article. Other concerns since expressed relate to using the word pseudoscience at all, and phrasing the initial description of a topic. Questions related specifically to the word psedoscience, and by extension similar terms, relate to how we should determine when such descriptions should be used. That ultimately relates to how we and the world at large should define the word science as well. A last final concern relates to how early to introduce in the text comments from outside, often opposing, views characterizing,often negatively, the motivations of proponents and possibly opponents of a given thesis.John Carter (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I presented a reliable, scholarly source that addresses the concern pretty directly. And somehow I did it without invoking string theory, Bart Ehrman, or the historicity of Jesus. You should try staying on topic. If you want to dismiss Pigliucci out of hand, you still need to cite sources. The mere fact that you admit to knowing nothing of ID (you admitted to not knowing who Dembski is) or the content of this article beyond the opening paragraph (again, Dembski is mentioned 55 times on the article page, 19 times in the main text) means that you are in no position to dismiss the opinions of experts (or even reasonably informed amateurs). Please don't substitute your opinion for reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And this thread as per the title and opening comment is about what to include in a request for clarification to ArbCom about the pseudoscience case. Please try to understand that. There honestly have not been and will not be at least from me any changes to the article proposed until that request is dealt with. Such has I believe been said or at least strongly implied several times already. Please do the admin asked to review this a favor by adding any comments not related to that matter in some other thread. If several days pass without response from him, or a statement that he chooses not to do so, I will ask another admin and so on until one does so. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? An improvement on the article being proposed? Anything? The pseudoscience discussion was settled above, the consensus is that the word stays in the article. If an editor wants to ask Arbcom whatever just please go and do it. Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards. Gaba (talk)  22:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaba Umm... the start of thread says it: going to ArbCom for closure.  I think Yopienso indicated interest in doing it -- maybe as a way to resolve whether the wiki should separate the definition from commentary, and/or if it is being a forum pushing "pseudoscience" term out of proportion to relative prominence so seeming contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL (show the cites or do not use it).   Maybe also get pointed to the words wiki suggests as neutral rather than the struggles with theory, view , or argument .    Meh, que sera sera.    Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You understand my interest perfectly, Markbassett. But I see this is getting out of hand and the best thing to do is leave the lede alone and move on. If I were writing the article by myself, it would be much different, but I'll take Ben Franklin's stance wrt to the final product of the Constitutional Convention, as quoted on my user page. Besides, I'm flying out to distant parts tomorrow.  Thanks to those who made helpful comments. Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I requested an uninvolved admin to review the thread on Saturday for summary in a presentation to ArbCo for clarification. Waiting for his response. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arb Com clarification
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just want to note here that the use of the term "pseudoscience" was discussed on the Talk pages of WP:WTW here. I think there is a pretty easy way to fix this, and that is to add a carve-out to the relevant section of WP:WTW. I am going to propose that now at WT:WTW. I do appreciate John Carter's desire to have Wikipedia be self-consistent. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jytdog, the discussion at WT:WTW is informative. . dave souza, talk 06:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
This issue has also been raised at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. . dave souza, talk 06:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thesis and theories and bias
I believe this article seems to do a very poor job in differentiating between the thesis of intelligent design and the theories of intelligent design. There are I think perhaps several other areas of what might be called "theoretical biology," such as parts of astrobiology, which also have a total lack of any hard evidence to indicate that they even have something real to study, in that case alien life. Also, again theoretically, if we were to find any alien life, and it bore some indication of "engineering" to outside eyes, that would relate to ID. There does not seem at least to my eyes any sort of good reason beyond simple name-calling to describe this particular thesis by such terms when it does not meet any criteria not also met by other theses and theories which we do not apply such terms, and I do not believe prejudicial and selective labelling by opponents is sufficient basis for us to use such terms. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * John Carter, I'm a little confused as to what you mean by distinguishing "the thesis" from "the theories of intelligent design." Do you have sources that support such a segregation?  I believe we present ID the way we do here because reliable sources consistently note that ID is presented as a scientific theory, despite its near-unanimous rejection by the community for failing to adhere to scientific methodology.  On the other hand, reliable sources do not cast investigations into things like astrobiology as pseudoscience.  It is not up to us to evaluate explanations and determine how scientific they are, but to report whether scientific sources accept or reject these explanations.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Religion article I mentioned above as I remember (I don't have access to it today) made a significant point about differentiating between the two. As that article describes its author as a leading proponent of ID, and he was chosen to write the article by its editorial board, I think it carries some weight. And I haven't seen the lack of sources regarding study of aliens you mention. The thing I do know is neiter encycopedia of pseudoscience at WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles gives a separate article or named subarticle to ID, which calls into question the consistancy you refer to. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John, why do you think an encyclopaedia of religion is an appropriate source for determining the characteristics of science? As you're referring to an article by a leading ID proponent, it's not just a primary source, but a source with a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. You seem to be attempting to give "equal validity" to this pseudoscience. As for the lack of a separate article, my recollection is that ID is, quite properly, treated as a sub-set of creationism or creation science. In other words, pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 21:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What dave said reretably seems to me to be a transparent attempt at a straw man argument and a very likely attempt at misdiretion as it sees to be saying that what is apparenty one of the leading proponents on ID should be considered less of an authority on what he says than outsiders are regarding the same subject. If you wis to tae it to RSN do so or if you wis to say that one of the apparently leading proponents of ID says about basically his own statements do so. Noting in passing the apparently continuing refusal to address conerns regarding apparent disregard for WP:WTW. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, Dembski would be a reliable source for his beliefs, but Wikipedia needs secondary sources from the relevant authorities to determine whether or not these beliefs constitute science. Dembski's insistence that ID is science would therefore need to be discarded or ascribed to him personally, as the scientific consensus is clear; I think the article already illustrates well this contention.  WP:PSCI states that "[t]he pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such".  I have to admit, I find it difficult to reconcile this policy with the WP:WTW guideline.  I am open to suggestions, but personally don't see a problem with using the term.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John, we know Dembski holds beliefs which are incompatible with science as properly defined. Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. You may think that's valid, the scientific community clearly disagrees with you. . dave souza, talk 23:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave, what's non-neutral in the POV of this article is that it allows Dembski (or Behe or Kenyon) to definitively tell the world what "Intelligent Design" is. instead of Paley.  and more so to totally ignore what current and credentialed scholars like John Polkinghorne Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich write about the very same term. 70.109.191.157 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * tl;dr: what dave souza said
 * I have a couple concerns regarding the Philosophy of Religion source: 1) why would a source about religion be reliable in assessing the scientific status of a proposition? and 2) who is the author? I searched for "Encyclopedia of Religion intelligent design" and found a piece written by the Discovery Institute's William Dembski.  I sincerely hope that he is not being presented as a reliable source.
 * I also fail to understand the relevance of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience or WikiProject skepticism. Does the absence of ID from these works constitute an authoritative view that ID is not pseudoscience?  I think that's a bit of a stretch.  As for consistent rejections of ID by scientific organizations, please see the List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design, which I have presented here before.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science states that "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology."  Pseudoscience is "a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."  From these two statements, one need only make the necessary, logical deduction.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MisterDub Hunh ??? WP:MNA??  Unless you have an article where discussing this belongs on more than the ID article itself, WP:MNA says cover it here.  Your having a logic you like contrary to what prominent cites use seems just evidencing WP:OR.   (p.s. It's also not supported by the current article wording since that stripped out "theory" for "view", so does not as prominently show proponents presenting as such, e.g. if it doesn't say theory, then how can it fit the 4 categories of pseudoscience that each start with "theory"?  Such usage exists, but since not shown in the article there is an apparent disconnect.) Markbassett (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Markbassett, I'm sorry, but I have a difficult time discerning any coherent message from your posts. Are you suggesting that we have to rehash pseudoscience here?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * MisterDub On your post above you ended with 'necessary deduction' linked to WP:MNA Make Necessary Assumptions 'there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page' and so I ask : what other page do you think better to cover whether ID is pseudoscience than the ID page ? Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood me then. I absolutely think we should make it clear, in this article, that ID is pseudoscience.  I pointed to WP:MNA because we don't need to explain pseudoscience here; it has its own article.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * MisterDub Nah, that's going into a personal position contrary to academic sources and editorializing. Only confuses the article too as it is largely saying religion except for the one line.  Got clear and prominent sources to report it has been vehemently rejected as not science and generally regarded ad form of creationism, got not much that goes this way.  Meh.  If it stays this way it's just a blivet more or less, but just saying that pseudoscience is a fringe view not due weight on topline. Markbassett (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not negotiable on this page. The guideline WP:FRINGE cites both creationism and ID as examples of pseudoscience.  See Fringe_theories.  The reasoning (stemming back to the policy, WP:PSCI, which the WP:FRINGE guideline elaborates) is explained in the guideline.   Markbasset you need to fight your battle there, not here. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, this over exaggerated the guide 'do not say it is science' into some uber-mandate 'must say pseudoscience on lede and should ignore all other WP guides and whether it fits with the rest of the article' -- just poorly presenting personal positions contrary to academic sources and is editorializing. Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Mark but a) you are not articulating a position based on policy or guideline, you are just making a claim; b) your claim doesn't comply with the WP:PSCI policy nor the Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jyt - me either... I'm getting a lot of ICANTHEARYOU (or convenient amnesia) over the points on "Pseudoscience" label pushed beyond WP:UNDUE weight and that passions in Talk are not usable in article .... Meh, I've pointed out flaws and aided debate as best I could but still seems it's unretrievably biased mitigated by being obvious about it, and maybe about the best this venue is going to manage. Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely concur. We do not actually need sources to specifically say "ID is pseudoscience".  All we need are sources for the claims that ID is science and other sources from the science community that reject that claim and that is sufficient to correctly identify ID as pseudoscience by definition.  We do not need to provide any sources that actually use the word pseudoscience any more than we would need to provide a source that the sky is blue. -  Nick Thorne  talk  09:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nick, arguing by unsupported assertion and re-presenting the OR is not useable for the article -- to put on article 'because Nick said so' just isn't good, and to say 'claims theory' not only isn't easy when 'theory' was expunged but it is still an OR construction. I do not fault your logic here, just fault that it is your logic rather than useable sourced material suitable for article content.  Shall we simply let the ARBCOM take it from here for article content ? Markbassett (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark, I'm not the one arguing by unsupported assertion. That would be you.  Time to drop this particular stick -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, arbom doesn't deal with content issues - it deals with "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve." See WP:ARBCOM.  Where they would get involved, for example if you were edit warring over this and wouldn't heed the consensus here.  so far there are no behavioral issues that i can see.  we are all just talking here and for the most part politely. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That opens up another can of worms, which we also do not need to work out on this page. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, what's non-neutral in the POV of this article is that it allows Dembski (or Behe or Kenyon) to definitively tell the world what "Intelligent Design" is. instead of Paley.  and more so to totally ignore what current and credentialed scholars like John Polkinghorne Freeman Dyson and Owen Gingerich write about the very same term. 70.109.191.157 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, I believe we've been through this before. The phrase "intelligent design" is occasionally employed to refer to the Teleological argument, which is the subject upon which Paley (and Polkinghorne, and Dyson, and Gingerich) wrote.  The other subject—the subject of this article—is a purportedly scientific theory named "Intelligent design."  Gingerich even makes this clear by distinguishing uppercase "I.D." (the purportedly scientific theory) from lowercase "i.d." (the teleological argument).  To equivocate these two subjects would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well said. I've made a similar point at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, others may wish to add their own statements. . dave souza, talk 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am confused by the distinction you are drawing between "thesis" and "theory". Can you give an example of the distinction in mainstream science? (real questions, i really don't understand what you are getting at)  i don't want to prejudice your answer, but want to say that in mainstream science (as I am sure you know) we talk about scientific theories from which you can generate falsifiable hypotheses.  ID is generally considered pseudoscientific because you can't generate hypotheses from it (you cannot prove that there is or is not a "designer"... this is the key thing that makes religion and science separate, non-overlapping fields of endeavor) The thesis/thery distinction ~sounds~ more like something philisophical... not scientific.  thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To an extent I agree with you and only draw the distinction between the thesis/theses and theories because the 2nd ed EoR article devotes its longest first section to the principles or whatever, and the existing article uses the word pseudoscience as its 5th word. BTW, having been putting together material on reference sources for some time, it looks like the EoR is one of the 10 or 20 most highly regarded non-general reference sources out there. And this whole recent discussion was prompted by the WTW concern. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you replying and ~trying~ to answer :)  So... you are unclear on what it means too.  Alright.  I just went and read the Dembski entry.   A few things.  He doesn't use the word "thesis" at all, and I don't find the distinction you are drawing in that source.  I would appreciate if you would point out where you are finding it.  Secondly, I point out that in the article Dembski names himself in the third person as a leading proponent of ID. I think we safely argue that this source fails WP:INDY and any content that we source to it, uses in-line attribution, to manage that problem.   Thirdly, the article itself notes that mainstream science has rejected it: "What has kept design outside the scientific mainstream since the rise of Darwinism has been the lack of precise methods for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones." (emphasis added)  Fourthly, as I wrote above, ID has no testable hypothesis.   Dembski writes "As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."  As other sources note (and as I noted above) you cannot generate falsifiable hypotheses from this.  (Just a tossed off note -- it is kind of funny that shortly after writing that, Dembski starts discussing Carl Sagan's work... but his fictional work, "Contact".  Can't really anchor ID in Sagan's scientific output...)  Anyway, those are ways I would handle Dembski's article. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said I don't have the book here - I'm not sure of the full equivalene of "outside the scientific mainstream" and "rejected" myself though, but this guy is clearly biased. And yeah Sagan would hate that. And I think the core WTW concern remains. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No source associated with Dembski could be considered to be an independent or neutral assessment of ID: he's one of the conspirators. John, this kind of source is precisely the reason that WP:V insists that we base articles on third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and why WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE specifically tells us that"the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." Dembski's view is the pseudoscientific view.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I just opened a thread to amend WTW here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch -- John I do appreciate your concern to have WP's guidelines be as explicitly consistent with one another as possible. (you are being a little anal, in my view, but you have a leg to stand on :) )Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea that one can distinguish the 'thesis' and 'theory' of intelligent design is puzzling. While I don't have access to Jones' Encyclopedia of Religion, there's an entry from 2003 (listed as 'forthcoming') on Dembski's list of writings on ID. Note that this is pre-Kitzmiller, and is typical of Dembski's writings of the time - Sagan, Paley and Kant. Assuming that this is substantially similar to the final version, there's nothing about thesis vs. theory.
 * Beyond this, John Carter appears to misunderstand the idea of "theory". There are I think perhaps several other areas of what might be called "theoretical biology," such as parts of astrobiology, which also have a total lack of any hard evidence to indicate that they even have something real to study, in that case alien life. No. That's not what theoretical biology is. Take a look at the TOC of the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Or try Acta Biotheoretica. Or even check out the journal Astrobiology. Theory isn't about "things that lack total evidence".
 * This entire section about 'thesis' vs. 'theory' of intelligent design appears to be based on both a misunderstanding of what Dembski was saying (pre-Kitzmiller, when he was predicting the overthrow of "materialistic" science and a department of ID at a major university within a decade) and a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference of what constitutes theoretical biology, and how it differs from unfounded speculation and science fiction. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

arbcom results
didn't see this posted anywhere, but arbcom ruled on the request for clarification on the pseudoscience decision that raised. It is here. They did not agree to strike the principles they used in 2006, and said that the principles just provided context for the 2006 decision, and should not be taken as policy or as setting precedent. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To refine that a little, they did not see a significant actionable issue, and so declined the request. They did restate that "principles are not remedies and are not authoritative. Those that are citing them as policy (in distinction to guidance) should stop." See also Arbitration/Guide to arbitration on principles. . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What does this mean for this article? Are people going to stop arguing to change the first sentence, or what? Myrvin (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted the result here, since the request for clarification was brought up here. I don't know what those who have been arguing against use of the term will do.  is currently blocked until mid-August and he was the main one recently concerned about the use of the term in this article and he mentioned the arbcom proceeding.  From my perspective, the use of the term "pseudoscience" in this article is allowed, perhaps mandated, by the policy WP:PSCI which says "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such" and by the guideline explaining that bit of policy, WP:FRINGE, where intelligent design is actually used as an example of pseudoscience.  So from my perspective, the arbcom ruling doesn't change anything with respect to the content of this article; the policy and the guideline would have to change, before we would change this article. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, from what I read nothing really has changed. Maybe just cannot be cited anymore in certain context but that is it. Also I think before the end of the month there will be another topic about the word pseudoscience. NathanWubs (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the Encylopedia Brittanica article on Intelligent Design declare that it is a pseudoscience in the first sentence? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Two responses. a) why should we care? b) more importantly, if you intend to open a discussion of the use of the term, please do so in a new thread.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems nothing changed yet - maybe not going to
 * I am not sure ARBCOM is done yet: the general principles of 2006 related decision has a preliminary part about a week later and then final (longer) part a couple months after that
 * Seems headed for no specifics: They seem just looking at if the general guide from astrology etcetera decision needs a mod and disinclined to change without major need, and certainly not going into specific rulings for this one case.  So *all* our disjoint opinions remain -- such as that 'pseudoscience' is simply not in the academic literature so it matches description of WP:FRINGE view for this topic and WP:OR so should not go into the article; or that lack of cites only means it is not WP:GENERALLY CONSIDERED PSEUDO so must be WP:OBVIOUS PSEUDO instead ...
 * Stay tuned Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved From Roxy the dog Talk page
Okay, show me the section where it's stated that the ID proponent said that

Remember that the article was written by the natural selection proponent. Here are the parts I could find where an acknowledged ID proponent is being quoted:


 * “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” (direct quote made in article)


 * “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.” (direct quote made in article)


 * I mentioned in the debate that I thought this difficulty—acknowledged as it was by other ID theorists—was the deepest and most interesting challenge facing ID. But Meyer assured me that this is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory (paraphrased in article as here)


 * The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like. (paraphrased in article as here)


 * My presentation [...] was dismissed as a “bunch of pictures—characters from The Simpsons (a cartoon of Homer evolving); a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs (ambulecetus, a well-established and very significant transitional fossil connecting sea mammals to their terrestrial ancestors); and a pretty picture taken at [my] vacation home.” In contrast, my debate partner’s presentation was “sleek, professional, and chock-full of evidence and data.”


 * [...] Meyer’s presentation was very technical, although anything but “chock full of evidence.” My rather serious claim that ID had no theory and thus no evidence at all was dismissed, not addressed. The ID folk are now assuring their readers that their guy won; my defense of evolution was apparently pitiful: “Where was the new evidence?” the reviewer asks. “Where were the cutting-edge studies supportive of [my] view?”


 * My debate partner in Virginia was articulate, educated, likable, and familiar with a vast range of relevant scientific research.

Unless I've missed some parts of this article (please correct me if I did, but do so reproducing a quote from the cited article, or provide an alternative reliable source supporting your statement), the amendment, "conceding that they have yet to [...] have any kind of scientific evidence" cannot stand as nobody in the cited article conceded such a thing. The point here is that nobody has been quoted as explicitly conceding that they have no evidence. This can therefore not be adopted into the article.

Let me make a few further points about this:


 * 1) We must avoid original research. Our job is to collate material from reliable sources, not to interpret them. That, by contrast, would be the job for an essayist such as the one referenced.
 * 2) I'm not sure how relevant it is to reproduce what can be seen as slips of the tongue of one proponent or another, as this has happened to both sides. Particularly the lede of an article should represent a consensus view of a subject. I'm aware that ID proponents are sometimes quick to latch on to any ambiguity or unfortunate phrasing. However, what may or may not be common practice by the proponents of one theory cannot also become the basis of Wikipedia's style.
 * 3) The reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is more important than any role - forced upon us, it seems to me, but perhaps inevitably so - as a soapbox in debates. This is made very clear in the policies that we as a community have given ourselves.

I have no interest in what views you or User:Dr.Brock.Schuman hold. I will simply ensure that Wikipedia's contents accurately reflect what its cited reliable sources say. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you could change the article to a version that complies with our policies and the cited sources. As the article receives close to a thousand views per day, I expect a swift response.

Thanks in advance,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Read WP:DEADLINE and the source for that sentence. Its there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ALSO it might be a good idea to be a little more polite in your demands, especially when you are in the wrong. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just show me the line. The request is pretty simple. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The above exchange stems from my recent edit to the article restoring a well sourced (and cited) sentence that Samsara had removed. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction. It stems from an edit made by User:Dr.Brock.Schuman which changed a longstanding version of the article to include a statement that is not supported by the cited source. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it stems from my edit, reverting yours. Did you read the cited source? (thanks for restoring the link at the top of this section btw) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Samsara asked me to take a look. I've read the source, and it's pretty clear that it does not support the current statement that ID proponents "[concede] that they have yet to produce a coherent scientific theory or have any kind of scientific evidence"... nor even that the author of the piece would claim ID proponents concede that, as written. Samsara's version is accurate (although I would argue that even that is marginal for including in the lead... an account of one debate by an ID opponent who is not well-versed in the political and theological complexity of the ID movement is not something to base a high-level overview on.) I'm going to restore the more accurate version.--ragesoss (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Two questions. First, where did Samsara WP:CANVAS you? and did you read the cited source? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Samsara pinged me on IRC for a second opinion, since I'm familiar with the topic. (It probably should have been done on my talk page instead for the sake of transparency, but the response would have been the same. For transparency, here's what Samsara said to me. "would you be interested in looking at a dispute on intelligent design? it's a pretty simple issue over whether a source did or did not state sth". As noted in my first reply, I did indeed read the source.--ragesoss (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ragesoss regarding the quality of the source used to support such a bold claim, and would support its removal. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 18:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with ragesoss that samsara version "conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory" is closer to the cited material, that the source is marginal, and that it is questionable whether it is suitable to put in the a high-level summary position at article top. Markbassett (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that folks are saying here that Stephen Meyer is not an authority on ID. The guy is head of the Discovery Institute. Ditto the two people who are quoted. Do you have sources that say they are ignorant of ID ideology? Moving on... I am going to quote from the article here: "ID, in fact, has no “theory,” despite its proponents’ claim to the contrary and their propensity to call themselves “theorists.” Meyer’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute are, in fact, quite open about this. I quoted ID theorist Paul Nelson, who wrote: “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” The retired Berkeley lawyer, Philip Johnson, considered the founder of ID, made similar comments: “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.”" I think that paraphrasing this with the word "concede" is reasonable, in a context where ID is proposing itself to be science. I would be interested to hear thoughts about better ways to paraphrase than "concede". I just removed the adjectives from the sentence, which I think simplifies things and should remove the barb that folks are objecting to.... i hope. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems I'm outconsensussed. I think JD has improved the sentence though. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I hope you are not referring to me with your first sentence. One of my biggest concerns with this clause is that the source also has Meyer stating that they do have a theory... at least now: "But Meyer assured me that [the lack of a theory] is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory, although whatever it is appears to remain a well-kept secret."  So did they actually concede that they didn't have a theory?  Or, rather, does the claim, as is, imply that they still do not have a theory, despite Meyer's protestation in the exact same source?
 * Honestly, I think Jytdog's edit was for the better, and I don't care much whether the claim stays in the lead or not. These are just my thoughts.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The current wording covers that: "conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory". While Meyer says they now have a theory, they've yet to produce it in public: unpublished invisible theories don't belong on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless they are supported by reliable sources. The sources are the experts, not us, in spite of how smart we think we are, and that includes me. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog -- it's a marginal material, not really suitable for top-level or summary, and is not a fair portrayal of the overall DI position or of the discussion so far.  The phrasing discussion concluded 'fully worked-out' was closer to that cite than 'coherent' and 'any kind of scientific evidence', with one person mentioning that 'nobody said conceded'.   As to the word 'concede", the cite noted two ID folks, phrasing it as one who 'wrote' on lack of 'full-fledged' or 'general theory' and the other in 'comment' said 'fully worked-out theory'.  So 'comment' would be closer to the cite, and alternative wordings that seem more neutral and accurate to the cite to me would be 'express', 'state', 'appraise', or 'view'.   The overall base ID view seems that it is a theory, as given in cite #3 in article that ID is "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."  Markbassett (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Classification of ID as a theory requires sourcing far beyond the claims of its proponents. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Arti -- That's not the discussion. An edit was made that's not faithful to cite provided and incorrect portrayal to other cites.  Talk to show that what was just done is mangled is the cite.  Really I'd mainly suggested drop that part of the line (or the whole line) as not top-worthy.  The saying that edits are no longer following the Talk so far without 'fully worked out' is kind of moot if it's just dropped.  Markbassett (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This article does not have a neutral point of view
This article has stated that intelligent design is pseudoscientific and it is reminiscent of creationism. However, most advocates of intelligent design do not give reference to biblical creation. In fact, they use scientific evidence in biology (ex. Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, William Dembski to name a few) to argue for intelligent design.

This article, however, claims that intelligent design is unscientific. As a result, much of the article is clearly biased toward methodological naturalism, and states all theories must have a naturalistic cause in order to be scientific in the first place. Actually, intelligent design is based completely on causal adequacy, which states that the explanation for a past event is most likely true if present events closely resemble that explanation. In intelligent design, advocates of the theory argue that the information in DNA, the complexity of organisms, and the resemblance of nanotechnology in molecular biology supports this theory because the design in nature closely resembles intelligence. Not once do intelligent design advocates give reference to the Bible for scientific validity. To say otherwise is to spread lies about this theory. As this article doesn't address, intelligent design is actually not pseudoscientific. The scientific method is 1) Form a question 2) Form a hypothesis 3) Test the hypothesis 4) Analyze experimental results 5) Form conclusion 6) Communicate results.

Advocates of ID have asked questions about the validity of Darwinian evolution, have tested the theory for its validity (whether DNA mutations do in fact create new genetic information over a reasonable amount of time), have analyzed the results (Douglas Axe had found that DNA mutations accounting for new genetic information run into a problem called combinatorial inflation), formed a conclusion (According to the scientific evidence throughout biology, Darwinian evolution is not a valid explanation for the evolution of animals; intelligence also serves as the best explanation due to causal adequacy), and communicate results. Strangely, however, the results are suppressed by the scientific community, and schools are not allowed to teach the scientific evidence that supports ID. This leads to a lack of an open mind, and violates the whole general definition of science itself. Because of this, this article fails to address these problems and merely categorizes intelligent design as "pseudoscience". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerosheet (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming and talking . However, as per the Talk page guidelines, this is not a forum for discussing the topic in general, but rather, a place to discuss the article, and sources to use in building the article. What you write above is some OK rhetoric, etc.  But this is not the place.   To discuss content, you need to a) understand the policies and guidelines that govern content and b) understand the kind of sources that we use to generate content.  I left some notes on your user Talk page.  Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Aerosheet, your account of things is flawed on many levels. But what matters here is what we can document with reliable sources. There's no conspiracy to keep the "scientific evidence that supports ID" out of schools - there's a court ruling, which the article discusses. You may see the ruling as bogus, but Wikipedia isn't the place to right that wrong - the courts are. Similarly, your statement of what is science is simplistic - if the answer was that simple, then the philosophers of science who debate the 'demarcation problem' would have packed up and moved on half a century ago. While your arguments are based on misunderstandings that are easily debunked, this isn't the place for that. Just bear in mind that we can only report what reliable sources say about the matter. If you can find sources that meet our standards, feel free to present them and suggest ways in which they can be incorporated into the article. That's the starting point for discussion here. Your assertions here, even if they were accurate, are useless from our perspective because they are not based on reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While it is true that the article is not wp:NPOV and has not been for at least 8 years, Aero, you need to let the science community decide what science is and is not. The reason why this article is not neutral is that the editors who control the article are so blatantly anti-ID that they refuse to acknowledge the history of ID preceding the likes of Dembski and Behe (dunno who Meyer is or what he wrote/said, I'll have to look him up) and the Discovery Institute.  There are clearly some ethical problems that are associated with DI and the "ID movement", especially when they try to shove their understanding of ID down the throats of public school kids.  The reason why public schools can't nor shouldn't teach out Of Pandas and People is because it's a thinly veiled attempt to inject a particular religious explanation of apparent design into the class when there is no widespread agreement among the science community that there is such design.
 * But the article is biased. It is blatantly biased in content and in tone.  And as such violates the 2nd-pillar of Wikipedia.  It could be made to be much better if only those editors who own the article (they deny that they own it, since no one is supposed to own articles) and the admins who back them up would allow such.  But even with such needed reform, you Areosheet would likely be unsatisfied with it. 74.114.16.8 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(Accidental fumble finger revert corrected, sorry) Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * {u|74.114.16.8}} - interesting post. Can you please describe more concretely what makes this article biased?  Your description above is too general to be helpful. It sounds like there are certain thinkers whose ideas are not represented, or maybe certain strains of thought?  And you maybe you find their absence to cause the article to be biased?  I am intrigued. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See the box at the top of the top page for advice on the sections of WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article: the comments above suggest that 74.114.16.8 does not follow neutral point of view as defined in Wikipedia policy. . dave souza, talk 18:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought that at first too Dave but when I re-read what 74' wrote, it does not seem to be the usual "ID believer" protest. 74' seems (to me) to be saying that the article is biased because it doesn't describe the full range of ID approaches... a different kind of issue. I am curious to hear more.  Or maybe you know what other ID approaches '74 has in mind? Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to be a mix of wanting the article to cover previous instances of the teleological argument instead of focussing on ID, and unsupported assertions that it's biased or not neutral as it doesn't give equal validity to fringe views or pseudoscience. Without specific proposals and good reliable sources, this doesn't seem to be something needing action. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been, and I'd think always will be, claims of "bias" by those that believe ID is anything more than the political ruse it was designed to be. Obfuscation by conflating ID with the teleological argument being the apparent goal. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog -- 74 seemed to be looking for ID of before the DI and currently outside of DI. I'm thinking he means the article has a 2005-centric viewpoint, necking things down to the DI and not having any substantive content in events or statements for almost 10 years.  Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * lots of guessing about what 74 meant... we may never know. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. I feel the article is unretrievably biased mitigated by being obvious about it, so it's observable and not helpful to reputation of anti-ID either -- sort of hurtful to both parties is almost neutral.  Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Should a Wikipedia Article be a Debate?
I believe that those who denigrate Intelligent Design or Evolution should not contribute to Wikipedia articles. Both are theories that deserve consideration. The "mine is right and yours is wrong" kinds of expressions are distracting at best. High-voltage controversial subjects would perhaps be better addressed if only proponents of the somewhat conflicting theories would author the articles on the respective theories. Let the readers decide for themselves after reading what the proponents have to say about THEIR theories. Of course any statement that can be PROVEN to be false should be discovered by the Wikipedia editors and properly dealt with. Dfwlms 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms (talk • contribs)
 * Dfwlms, unfortunately that would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. ID is a fringe theory presented as science, but which fails to adhere to scientific standards and methods, and is therefore classified as pseudoscience.  These policies state that "[t]he pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such" and, "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other."  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 22:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You may also want to look at WP:WEIGHT. --69.157.252.247 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dfwlms. It's against policy for WP editors to be choosing a side and then trying to put their side in WP's voice in the article.  To comply with WP:NPOV, the reader should not be able to tell which side WP is taking as they are reading the article.  It should be neutrally phrased so that the reader can make up their own mind. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI is part of WP:NPOV and is wikipedia policy - you would have to change WP:PSCI first, before you could make this article look as you want it to. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has chosen sides. It has chosen the side of mainstream science. --Neil N  talk to me 06:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When Conservapedia allows evolutionary biologists to edit its articles, then we can look at this request again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty worrying when an experienced editor doesn't understand one of our basic policies as well as the nature of Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Par for the course. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 15:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everybody can edit. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Any other arguments besides, "I'm right because my view of what science is agrees with me?" What's wrong with allowing the reader to decide for themselves?  Cla68 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We've got WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE both of which apply - we don't give equal time to every point of view. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that intelligent design is given virtually no consideration at all outside the USA should also be taken into account. As a European, I am not sure how many people take it seriously across the pond. In any case, Wikipedia certainly should not choose sides and therefore a Wikipedia article should be a debate. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, you guys are pushing on how Wikipedia deals with pseudoscience. The place to discuss that is NOT here, but rather on the relevant policy page, which is WP:NPOV. I will say it one more time - you need to first change policy to shape the article in the way you suggest. There is nothing more to discuss here. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Jyt - we've been here before, seem grossly exaggerating what wiki guidance says ...
 * (1) NPOV asks for fairly stating the views of the adherents not deciding a winner;
 * (2) ID is more commonly related to creationism (when not being accepted) so putting the phrase pseudoscience into the article seems a UNDUE/FRINGE position;
 * (3) PSCI saying to not state as if it is science is not directing edits of vague slurs be top-area in the article;
 * (4) these are guides only see WP:NOTAPOLICY; and
 * (5) claiming right until and unless some imagined condition X is a bit silly - and if we cannot abide by the guides now why would they see a reason to make new ones to confuse things further ?
 * Meh. I'm still at this seems unretievably biased anti-ID ranting but so long as it's obviously so folks can tell and a discredit to anti-ID is harmful to both sides is kind of almost fair if not admirable.  Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of these statements are off. First of all while NPOV does call for fairness it also calls for the views to be published by reliable sources. Most reliable sources do not call ID a legitimate science so NPOV is not vilolated as per WP:WEIGHT. Also, ID being a psuedoscience is not a fring view because if that was the case it would mean that the vast majority of reliable sources consider it a legitimate science. I also don't see undue as relevent here either. NPOV may not be about declaring a winner but it's clearly not calling for the idea that every viewpoint is equal. The comparison to creationism does not work either since while many creation accounts do not present themselves as science (therefore are not called pusedoscience) ID has been treated as a science by its proponents. WP:NOTPOLICY is an essay recommending against citing essays as policy so it has nothing to do with dissmisding guidelines. Also even if that was the case I don't see any policy that would forbid using the term anyway. I am not sure what the lasr point means but I don't see the vast majority of reliable sources considering ID not to be a legitimate science as an imaged condition in any way.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ID has been treated as a science by its proponents. Pseudoscience is usually treated as science by its proponents. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that you misread what I wrote. What was quoted was part of a larger sentence the comparison to creationism does not work either since while many creation accounts do not present themselves as science (therefore are not called pusedoscience) ID has been treated as a science by its proponents and was in response to the suggestion that ID being called a pseudoscience is Fringe and undue weight because it is similar to creationism. I believe what they meant by that is the suggestion that since the creationism article does not call creationism itself a pseudoscience ID being similar should not be either. The problem with that is that while not all creationism beliefs are claimed to be scientific ID has been presented as such by the proponents so the suggestion that creationism is not a pseudoscience does not mean that ID can`t be. Also to address the undue weight claim in more detail I don`t see the response of the scientific community to an idea that presents itself a legitimate science as undue weight in any way.--76.65.41.36 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 76 -- 'the pseudoscience label is a FRINGE view because it is not common in the RSS material and prominent events on this topic, the main views are 'true' or 'creationism'.  So any rationalizing over how another label could fit seems just WP:OR.  Feel free to have this opinion, I won't say it's unreasonable but suggest you recognize that the majority of material concluded otherwise, see also Creationism, and that this article did not even present ID making such.   Again, having unsupported assertions then claiming that right unless some condition X is silly -- it's more that Y shouldn't be in a Wiki article unless it can be supported.   But Meh -- let's be real after having having seen how this came in and gone thru this umpteen times already -- this was just a bit of vague name calling word-smithing someone came up with earlier this year to be more anti-ID, it was not based on some prominent new event or cite or substantive change to article having occurred, and talk has not helped.  I'll suggest just leave it rotten is the best course available.  Markbassett (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It matters not how many times you repeat the same BS, it remains BS. ID falls squarely within the criteria for pseudoscience as defined in policy, if you wish to change that you will need to get the policy changed and the place for that is not here. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Everybody, please see WP:NOTFORUM. My recommendation, FWIW. Just let this discussion on this page go. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Jyt - we seem in violent agreement on that -- though we think each other has the fringe, this one seemed really asking if what's been seen before was worth talking over or showing the debate and consensus seems NO NO NO, again for opposite reasons. Markbassett (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * :) Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Empirical evidence and testable hypotheses
No evidence AND no testable hypothesis is a contradiction in terms. In 'The Ancestor's Tale' pg562, Dawkins considers ID as a scientific theory and refutes it, with evidence. You can't say that ID is unfalsifiable and falisified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemical Ace (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not a forum to make general arguments. People have found fault with ID on many levels; this is not the place to discuss whether those critiques make a coherent whole. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd not say the critics "do not make a coherent whole", it's just that ID, as any idea with a non-trivial history behind it, is not a unique, uniform statement but a collection of many different arguments, some of which are vague and unfalsifiable, and the remainder of which are specific enough that they are -- and have been falsified. It's possible that the article could be made clearer by demarcating which is which. My point is, I don't think not a forum is warranted, as that is a legitimate observation that could lead to improvements in the article's discourse. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people have been misled into thinking that ID is some sort of quasi-scientific "theory" or "hypothesis". It's not. It's a legal, political and PR ploy practically devoid of anything resembling science except to the scientifically clueless, no shortage of which unfortunately exists. If you approach it as science, there just isn't anything there but pure drivel. A major problem with the article is not making it abundantly clear that ID is not a coherent, elaborated "theory" that deserves serious evaluation, just a bunch of random hogwash. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please limit discussion on Talk to actual improvements to the article, per WP:TPG. Many inappropriate conversations could lead to improvements but we don't do that here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is more to this theory than is presented on the page
There is a definite bias on this page against ID or creationism. You have also not linked the organization Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) which has accredited scientists that address many, many aspects that support this theory and oppose the Darwinian theory. They not only present their own research but also directly address published material and point to the errors and cherry-picking of information from "secular" scientists. You may also want to add a movie titled: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie is by Ben Stein and exposes the obvious bias in the scientific community against ID or creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabright37 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ID is not a theory. While they may be scientists (what is an "accredited scientist?"), they are not performing science and are, instead, lying to the masses wholesale about the supposed "facts" they possess - case in point, nearly the entirety of Expelled.  THAT is why we don't use them as sources and instead go with people performing real science with real facts instead of bold-faced lies.


 * Now, if you have a SPECIFIC suggestion for improvement for the article, please post it here and we can discuss it. If all you want to do is complain, well, the talk page is not here for that purpose.Farsight001 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points. Since the article quotes the ICR and also covers Expelled, Tabright37 seems to have jumped to their "obvious bias" conclusion without reading the article, and is just soapboxing. Any suggestions for changes need good sources. .. Dave souza (talk)  00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason (or one reason) the article is "obviously biased" is that it is obvious which side Wikipedia is on. If it were written without bias, it would just report the facts (including the fact that the core hypotheses of ID are rejected, as pseudoscience, by the vast majority of the scientific community) and let the readers decide.  You would not be able to tell the position of the article's author(s) if it were presented neutrally.
 * Somehow, ID is more certainly pseudoscience than is Climate change denial or Dianetics. And it is clear in Wikipedia that ID is more identified as pseudoscience than Adolf Hitler is identified as evil.  It's obvious from reading the ledes of these different articles.
 * And the article insists on defining ID solely in terms of DI, although the term has existed in history at least a century before DI.
 * You're not very persuasive in saying that the article is not biased. It is most clearly biased in tone, something that is proscribed by WP:NPOV.  And I am not taking the position of Tabright37.  DI and ICR are not scientists or certainly not scientists that are intellectually honest.  That's for sure.
 * But, just as sure, this article is not neutral POV. Not at all.  65.183.156.110 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a SPECIFIC suggestion for improvement for the article, please post it here and we can discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the above editor withdraw his comment about Hitler.   TomS TDotO (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Godwin. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well finding this vulgar abusive user here defending WP clear bias against something billions believe in just confirms this article is junk. Moving on now. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Billions? LOL. (Is that abusive?) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to parse that comment. Is it for or against the Warsaw Pact or the wild pitch? TomS TDotO (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

semi protect
note, i just requested semi protection to prevent IP vandalism. too much of that. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You might find that there is less "IP vandalism" if there was also less naked bias in the tone and content of the article. There is way too much of that. 73.16.38.39 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV policy, the article's weight i supposed to reflect the weight of scholarly sources. If the bulk of scholarly sources are high in praise, so must the article be.  If the bulk of scholarly sources are critical, as is the case here, then the article must be critical.Farsight001 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That still does not justify the naked bias in tone and content of the article. There is a lot more to WP:NPOV than "weight".  This article miserably fails to meet Wikipedia's NPOV requirements. 73.16.38.39 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, yes, it does. NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not NO point of view.  Again, the article, PER NPOV policy, which I'm suspecting you have not read, MUST reflect the attitude of scholarly sources.  That means that, PER POLICY, we MUST preserve the negative tone.Farsight001 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, as a matter of fact the naked bias in this article is clearly not supported by Wikipedia's NPOV policy (the 2nd pillar of the whold project). It is, in fact, proscribed by WP:NPOV.  It is because of the chronic and stubborn POV in this article that it has repeatedly drew criticism.  And because that criticism falls on deaf ears, is why some people simply act to fix the naked POV.  And because those with deaf ears also have closed minds, the edits that begin to address the naked POV pushing are label "vandalism" and pushed back. 71.181.124.27 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a productive conversation. Both of you, please stop. 71.181.124.27, if you have specific suggestions for changes to the article, please make them. I suggest that everybody just ignore future broad statements that are not directed to improving specific content in the article - such conversations are not about improving the article and do not belong on article Talk pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Specific suggestion": Remove the initial "pseudoscientific" from the first lede sentence. It is not in the lede sentence in Climate change denial or in Dianetics or in Astrology or in Ufology or in Ear candling or a slew of other undeniable pseudosciences.
 * "Specific suggestion": Tone down the bias in the article so that it is not immediately apparent that the Wikipedia position is anti-ID. Let the ID proponents hang themselves with their own words.  Cite these proponents, quote the pseudoscientific things they write.  Cite and quote specific members of the science community regarding ID and let readers decide.  Anyone who reads a balanced description of ID will conclude for themselves that it's pseudoscientific.
 * "Specific suggestion": Deal with the historical origins of the term and, at least for the first part of the article, write about that, rather than immediately connect it to the Discovery Institute, which is discredited. I.e. what ID originally was and later what the Christian Right has done with it, and what the consequences of that had been (the Kitzmiller ruling, etc.).
 * Just clean out the naked POV pushing. It is embarrassing to the whole project. 71.234.173.165 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first, I'd see it as incentive for adding pseudoscientific to the lede of Dianetics, Astrology, and Ufology rather than for removing it here. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * suggestion 1 has been discussed endlessly (see the archives). Briefly, making that change would be a violation of the policy, WP:PSCI.  There is a guideline, WP:FRINGE that interprets that policy.  You will have to take your efforts probably to the talk page of the policy, which you can find here: WP:NPOV - there is nothing we can do at the level of "article" as this is a policy matter.   You might have to work at the level of the guideline first; I am not sure.  But this is not the place.  Please don't waste everyone's time discussing this further here.
 * suggestion 2 is not specific. not responding.
 * suggestion 3 could be fruitful.  If you would like to provide draft content (reliably sourced) I am sure it would be fairly considered. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * These proposals have been made many times before and rejected. Read the archives.Charles (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * would you please explain why you wouldn't be open to more discussion of the history, if well sourced and NPOV? Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I am not particularly opposed to that. Consensus however has always seemed to be that the term is pretty much specific to the Discovery Institute scam. Anything earlier is reckoned to come under creationism in its various forms.Charles (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see what they would produce... seems a shame to pre-judge. assuming that they follow RS/NPOV at worst it could just be content for the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could be, or it might be content for teleological argument as a religious argument rather than this particular pseudoscientific variant of creationism. Good sources needed. . dave souza, talk 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when I used to edit more regularly, I found that I could often judge the perceived neutrality of an article by how often people tried to change the text of the article. It's likely IMO, however, that WP will be an also-ran before this article ever gets fixed. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies
I would like to apologize for my repeated editing of this article. I did not realize that theory was an improper term to use. I do request however that the term pseudoscience is taken off because it does not reflect an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodieshady496 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please have a read of the Frequently Asked Questions near the top of this page, especially Q6. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome on board! I can understand why you may think that "neutral point of view" means "neutral" and "unbiased", but that only refers to editorial bias. Editors must keep their own biases in check and not let it affect their edits, unlike their comments on talk pages, where honest and civil discussion takes place.
 * We follow what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources have a bias, and they do, we must preserve that bias here. We are not allowed to exercise editorial censorship and distort the image of what sources say. In this case, the sources do have their biases, and some of the most reliable sources call ID "pseudoscientific", among other not very nice things. We don't delete properly sourced content, even if it's biased and we don't like it. We tell the whole story. You will find that the views of believers and unbelievers is documented in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that it is pseudoscience but it is also a theory and it should be presented as suchBrodieshady496 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodieshady496 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even begin to approach a hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. It's a religious idea, and because it claims to be scientific, it gets classified as a pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it did not approach a hypothesis it is still a theory held by many people. It is not a scientific theory but still is a theory. Brodieshady496 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We use more precise definitions when writing about scientific and psuedoscientific topics. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not true in the ufology article the pseudoscience of ufology is referred to as a study. Study is not a term that I would consider a precise definition. Brodieshady496 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true. Ufology can be a scientific field of study, and it can be a pseudoscientific endeavor, and both aspects are discussed in that article. Study is the neutral term, because one cannot label the whole field as a pseudoscience, only part of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually one could label it as pseudoscience just like intelligent. Not one part of ufology can be proven or observed by scholarly scientific sources. Brodieshady496 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you for starting to talk, Brodie! That is absolutely essential here and is a key aspect of the behavior of a Wikipedia editor. Now you have to start learning about how we craft content. (there are 2 kinds of disputes we get into - one kind has to do with behavior (like edit warring and others I will talk about in a bit - we call these "behavior issues"); the other has to do with content and sourcing (what we call "content disputes"). We don't write encyclopedia articles based on what people believe. Articles are based on the products of our scholarly institutions- we deal with the scholarly literature.  All content is based on sources - and what we discuss here are sources and how to craft content based on them. Policies & guidelines governing content and sourcing are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE.  We don't talk about how individual editors think or feel, or what they guess that people think. When editors refuse to focus discussions on content and sourcing, and when they consistently ignore our content policies... those become behavior issues. Complicated right? Wikipedia is a mature project with scholarly goals that really does seek to be crowd-sourced... and that means there is a lot to learn, in order to work here. What I hope you take away, is please base your comments on sources, policies, and guidelines. (please also see the talk page guidelines!) Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that the term pseudoscience can be used in this article but in the future editors should be more neutral and should edit in a manner that is not political. Such as in the evolution article evolution is stated as a fact. I believe evolution is a fact but it has not been proven. Brodieshady496 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * please refrain from making judgements about other editors, and please refrain from discussing your beliefs. None of that is relevant here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for discussing my beliefs. I am sorry that you took my suggestion as judgmental but I am allowed to make suggestions because that is what Wikipedia is all about. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)  Brodieshady496
 * suggestions are great, but as i have been trying to communicate to you, the way to be effective here is base your suggestions on good sources. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was based off of the source Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.40.184 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)  Brodieshady496


 * Comments that are designed to improve content are what's allowed here. To get back to proper language, evolution is not a "fact", but a scientific "theory". Let's take a common example, an apple falling to the ground. That the apple fell to the ground is a "fact", and no sane human being would deny it. The theory of gravity (yes, gravity and evolution are both "theories") was a hypothesis which was elevated to a scientific theory, IOW it's currently the best explanation of the why the fact occurred. If another hypothesis gains ground and works better, it will replace gravity as the best theory for why the apple fell. So, my point is that a "theory" and a "fact" are two different things.
 * Also, remember to sign all your comments using four tildes. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember to log in to your account and sign every comment. Using your IP is considered sock puppetry. It's confusing and makes it appear that more than one person is editing. It also makes it hard to communicate, because which of your talk pages should we use? That's one of the many reasons why using more than one account, or editing while logged out, is strongly discouraged. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that another rehashed debate about what a scientific theory is is going to help this page, but, a scientific theory isn't defined by the power to be overturned(that's everything in science), but rather an overarching tool of scientific understanding that incorporates many constituent hypotheses, laws, observations, and experiments. Evolution is a fact inasmuch as the evidence is incontrovertible that it has happened.  i kan reed (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest closing this thread of 'apologies'. Editer did apology, this thread is not headed towards adding to the article -- can go into private comms and does not need TALK.   (Plus I think article is unretrievably biased and sideremarks here incorrect but have no need to go there to say close the thread to improve use of time/space.)  Markbassett (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The thread will auto-archive when editors stop commenting on it. ;)  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 18:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverts Objecting to Clarification of Unsourced Generalization
The current version of the article states: "Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.[26][n 5][n 6]"

I believe the statement "leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God" is an over statement, specifically in that the references refer to only three ID advocates. I will accept the characterization that they are "leaders" given their prominence but there are also many other prominent ID proponents who insist that they are "agnostic" regarding the source of "intelligent design." Indeed, the paragraph is precisely about this inconsistent message coming from different ID proponents. Given the fact that everyone is entitled to a difference of opinion, even ID proponents, I think it is wrong to imply or suggest that all ID leaders "have said the designer is the Christian God" -- which is just a characterization of the source cited.

To remedy this, I made a simple edit, changing "leaders" to "many prominent leaders." Who could object to that? Well Dave Souza apparently, who reverts without discussion accusing me of "speculation," see here. I think the proper accusation is that I am guilty of practicing the critical reading skills taught in high school. (i.e. Over generalizations = bad writing.)

I tried again. This time I went with greater specificity, clarifying exactly what the cited sources reveal: "... but leaders of the movement, including William Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, and Steven Meyer, have expressed their belief that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible." Now who could object to identifying the people mentioned in the sources? Well, Dominus Vobisdu, who immediately reverts, see here not because I am inaccurate in my edit, but accusing me of "Whitewashing. It goes far beyond that, as the Wedge Document makes abundantly clear."

How is greater accuracy to the sources "whitewashing?"

Regarding the Wedge document, I looked it up just now. I see was published in 1999, fifteen years ago. Does Dominus Vobisdu have evidence to demonstrate that all "leaders" of the ID movement who have arisen since then are "bound" by anything in it? Do they have to swear allegiance to it before they get their "leader" certificate?

Clearly, pointing to a 15-year-old document does not justify deleting my edit, which is a more accurate summary of the sources cited than the over generalization which it replaced. I also didn't see in any of the citations that they were claiming a "Christian God" as the intelligent designer. Clearly, they are referring to the God of the Bible, or more specifically, the God of Abraham, who is also the God of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Baha'i. Perhaps I'm wrong, but please show that any or all of these individuals are claiming that there is a "Christian God" other than the God of Abraham, more typically called the Judeo-Christian God, as I corrected it.

I realize that many opponents of ID promote efforts to lump all ID proponents and leaders into a single mold; conversely, some creationists often try to portray all evolution proponents as radical atheists. But to provide an article with a NPOV, Wikipedia editors should avoid making such over generalizations, and when relying on sources that do make over generalizations, attributing these to the authors of those sources rather than asserting them as facts.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's whitewashing to attribute facts when no attribution is needed. By attributing facts to three authors you make it seem as there are only those three. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is probably relevant. Judge John E. Jones III states in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling:

"A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse.  She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case.  Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content.  The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents."


 * Jones III then goes on to discuss the testimony and written works of these leaders (Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Scott A. Minnich, and Steven William Fuller, as well as the Wedge Document) which indicate their belief that the intelligent designer is the "God of Christianity." As far as any changes to the material in question, I really don't care; I understand the desire to avoid using dated sources to support our claims, but from what I understand, the statement and the source it references remain accurate.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2 - No at "leaders", Yes at "God", recommend not continuing here for couple of reasons.
 * The "leaders" as generic reads better to me, the revert-said rm speculation is too short to be understandable, and seems phrasing either way not much different.
 * The "God" identifying names seems better to me in sense of being more readily citeable, the whitewash remark is just hogwash
 * The 'recommend not continuing' is mostly from my view that this one is unretrievably biased with many instances of demonstration in the archives. This seems mitigated by being soooooo obviously and badly done that it loses credibility, a case of two wrongs making an almost-right.  This particular instance re overstatement, name detail, and handling edits seems just part of the situation.  The best I can suggest at this time seems just leave it be obviously bad.
 * I'll also recommend not continuing as the sections you're looking at seem to not even belong here, they seem Intelligent Design Movement instead of the title subject.  So I would say don't go making this article worse by adding yet more IDM stuff here.

Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaders on the designer
The article currently contains the two lines, the first from the section about origins and one talking about the designer.

The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.

Emphasis mine. I believe it would be better for the second instance to be in line with the first one, so that it says

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said they believe the designer to be the Christian God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:41B8:83F:1007:0:0:FFFF:2EFE (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not pseudo-scientific
It's a religious belief, and doesn't claim to be scientific. So it's not pseudoscience. ImGladMyIPAddressChangesHourly (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes scientific claims: Intelligent_design --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Religious beliefs can be pseudoscience if their adherents allege that their religious beliefs can be allegedly used to do science, irregardless of whether or not such allegations are true or false.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since pseudoscience includes those who have already made up their minds about a scientific conclusion, then fit the most convenient evidence into the conclusion, this belief is certainly pseudoscience. Real science is when conclusions align with the evidence, and tests are repeatable. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)