Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 84

Unencyclopedic to use "pseudoscience"
Without debating whether or not ID is pseudoscientific, our job is to write an encyclopedia. See WP:IMPARTIAL. Describing ID as pseudoscience is unencyclopedic. Defining ID as pseudoscience in the first sentence is unencyclopedic. (Amended 5 Sept. See comment below at 13:27, 5 September 2016.) Examples of RSs that avoid using the term:
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica does not use pseudoscience in describing ID.
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not use pseudoscience in describing ID. The article is written by Michael Ruse and is highly critical of ID, but in keeping with the SEP's encyclopedic tone, does not use the word pseudoscience.
 * The National Academy of Sciences (under the umbrella of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) does not use pseudoscience in describing ID.

Ruse wrote in the SEP, "Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent Design Theory." Why not quote him and keep our own tone impartial? (We already quote him from another source as calling it "worthless and dishonest.") YoPienso (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this. We have two sources, Boudry and Pigliucci, that call it pseudoscience. Both are people who should know what they are talking about. Does Ruse argue it is not pseudoscience? If he does, you have a point because that would mean the categorization is contentious among philosophers of science. If not, you don't. To argue that the other encyclopedias and Ruse do not use the word is an argument from silence and thus not convincing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources call it a pseudoscience, but they're not encyclopedias. YoPienso (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that any and all reliable sources are disqualified if they are not encyclopedias?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not. I'm saying we need to remember this is an encyclopedia and keep the tone impartial. I support citing to RSs that call it pseudoscience. That's different from initially defining it as such in Wikipedia's own voice. I point to other quality encyclopedias as examples. YoPienso (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have argued at WP:ABIAS that Wikipedia is not impartial in respect to the scientific consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not impartial in respect to geocentrism. There are millions if not billions people who believe in geocentrism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Geocentric model nowhere uses the word pseudoscience. Your essay is not policy; it's just your opinion. YoPienso (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Geocentrism does not claim to be contemporary science (unless we mean the PhD of Robert Sungenis, which is widely regarded as pseudoscientific). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Source: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? What does that have to do with this article? YoPienso (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument implied was "if a hypothesis is patently non-scientific, yet it claims to amount to contemporary science, then it is pseudoscience". The source is an account why geocentrism isn't pseudoscience (as described at the article you indicated), unless some people claim that it would amount to contemporary science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPARTIAL is talking about serious theories, not pseudosciences. For that, there is another page: Fringe_theories. "Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
 * Being "impartial" about things like ID, that is, pretending they have a leg to stand on, is being half-way to Crazy Town. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, reporting on ID in an impartial tone does NOT pretend it has a leg to stand on. It simply reports what its proponents say and how scientists refute their claims. YoPienso (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fine to categorize ID as pseudoscience, but is not appropriate in the initial definition. See how it was done at Creation science: After the first paragraph introduces the topic in a neutral fashion, the second one concludes, "Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts, and is viewed by professional scientists as unscholarly and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences." The model is point, counter-point; introduce, explain. Now, if you're writing your own paper, that's different. But this is an encyclopedia. YoPienso (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Above you wrote "Describing ID as pseudoscience is unencyclopedic." Now you say "it's fine to categorize ID as pseudoscience". Does that mean you changed your mind and are now arguing for another, weaker position than before without saying it explicitly, or is it somehow the same position? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for asking; I was imprecise in my wording. I'll go back and clarify my original statement to read, "Defining ID as pseudoscience in the first sentence is unencyclopedic." (You can actually see that's what I meant in my statement immediately above.) My whole point is that an encyclopedia doesn't denigrate the subject in its initial description. YoPienso (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Now that's much more reasonable. I don't care as much about where the "pseudoscience" part is as about its existence, though I would prefer to have it in the introduction because ID was dishonest from the start - as shown by the "Of Pandas and People" affair that came to light in the Kitzmiller lawsuit. The pseudoscientificity is a built-in, intentional feature of the public relations stunt called "intelligent design". It's not just Dunning-Kruger incompetence-combined-with-overestimation-of-one's-abilities, as with most pseudosciences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good; agreed.
 * We could also consider how Astrology is presented in deciding how to write the lead for this article. The "Astrology" lead begins with a neutral definition, goes into its history, then tells how modern science challenged it, and finally, the very last word of the lead is "pseudoscience."
 * Palmistry is given yet gentler treatment. Last sentence of lead: "These contradictions between different interpretations, as well as the lack of empirical support for palmistry's predictions, contribute to palmistry's perception as a pseudoscience among academics."
 * It is my observation that creation/evolution articles in Wikipedia are not written neutrally, but with an editorial edge that aims to injure as much as inform. This tone is defended by the fact that WP is indeed biased toward mainstream science. My objection is to the writing style, not the content. We aren't a blog or a platform for ridiculing pseudosciences; we're an encyclopedia. WP:SOAP applies. YoPienso (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "unencyclopedic": what a vague word. Fortunately, there are guidelines that determine what is unencyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia, such as WP:NPOV etc, all of which are satisfied so far as I see. That other encyclopaedias formulated things differently does not means we should copy them. (And your interpretation of why it differs is unadulterated speculation). What you mean is that the current formulation goes against your own personal tastes. Fine. I can understand that. But any argument of the form "X is an Y, but because Y is unpleasant we should make its Y-ness less clear by reformulating a bit" seems to me a waste of time. Because so long as X remains a Y, you'll find someone to argue that it's "unencyclopedic" to express it that early or that clearly, and to cherry-pick examples of sources which didn't use the word in, say, the lead paragraph, and say "well, we should do that too". And they'll have just as strong a case as the current one. To sum up: if ID actually is a pseudoscience (as supported by RS), then saying so right up is perfectly fine. That's just what it is. If it's not, then let's discuss *that*.
 * (added after edit conflict)As for the other articles with gentler treatments, I'd argue that they are far too gentle. The reason is probably that there is no multi-million dollars campaigns to replace real science with palmistry, so those articles are probably mostly edited by people who adhere to the idea, or don't care that much about it. And we are not "ridiculing pseudoscience", we are clearly stating that IS is pseudoscience. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't invent the word "unencyclopedic"; I learned it here at WP, where it's frequently used on talk pages. See Wiktionary.


 * "What you mean is that the current formulation goes against your own personal tastes." What I mean is that it goes against encyclopedic standards. As we all know, Encyclopedia Britannica is the general reference standard to which Wikipedia is often compared. Do you see the difference in treatments of this subject? Or compare Infoplease.


 * Wrt "unadulterated speculation," that's what you're employing in guessing who has mostly edited "Palmistry." My observation on creation/evolution articles comes from engaging on them for a decade. YoPienso (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Briefly, for "real life" calls: 1° I said vague, not "made up". It is useful when everyone agrees; when not, use specific policies. 2° Even granting that EB is generally good, we don't have to do the exact same thing. Otherwise let's just redirect everything to it and go to bed. (The latter is what I intend to do shortly.) 2'° The infoplease blurb is terrible; without mention of the Discovery institute etc, it fails to given any sense of ID as a social controversy and political movement. If I relied on that source, I should be very angry to find out how much it left out. Indeed I am angry. Arrgh! Grrrr! 3° I was indeed speculating wrt Palmistry -- I used 'probably' at least twice, in case it was unclear. But my remark as written didn't convey what I meant, exactly. My meaning in the original remark was more along the lines of "the article in EB happens to be that way but you are reaching in implying that EB has a policy against saying X is an Y in the lead sentence, which it would be violating if it did as we did on WP". Not sure if that's clearer, but I'm going to bed anyway, so further clarifications will need to wait. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sweet dreams! YoPienso (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just found this on another discussion page. It makes my point more clearly than I did. (Hope it's OK to paste it in here.) That's the point of neutrality : even if we do think that a person is a turd, we should not be trying to make him look like one. YoPienso (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ID is canonical pseudoscience. It is a fake science developed to get around constitutional restrictions on teaching of creationism. It precisely meets the definition of pseudoscience: it adopts the trappings of science in service of dogma. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the arguments opposing "pseudoscience" in the first sentence would seem to justify not describing it as "pseudoscience" in WP's voice at all. "Not making people look like turds" would seem to justify never using the term pseudoscience except as quotes or expressing the views of scientists. I don't see how it is meaningfully less impartial to characterize ID as pseudoscience later in the intro as opposed to the first sentence, since that seems to be the change proposed here. What exactly is the proposal - to move the characterization downward in the intro, remove it from the intro entirely, or outright remove all direct characterizations of ID as pseudoscience? Rwenonah (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * proposal in OP has gone no where; closing this.

pseudoscientific view -> claim
I see no reason to have the pseudo-scientific attack in the opening sentence. Let the claim be made and then attack. The first sentence would then read:
 * Intelligent design (ID) is the claim 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

I would be open to assertion or argument as well. I also support the pseudo scientific attack some place in the lead. But the first sentence is overkill.Poodleboy (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly stating fact is not an attack. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * facts are data, pseudoscientific is a conclusion, classification, characterization, opinion, etc. It is considered a negative characterization, which makes it an attack. I take it that calling the characterization a fact is a declaration of how strongly you feel about the conclusion, and presumably the arguments by which that conclusion is reached.Poodleboy (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is, reliable sources show the majority scientific view which is that ID is fake science or pseudoscience, and another fact is that WP:PSCI requires us to show that clearly from the outset . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the first sentence requirement, it is almost like you are afraid that some reader will miss it. Why not rename the article Intelligent Design Pseudoscience.Poodleboy (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI, and WP:COMMONNAME. . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the FAQ, it is strange that the claims of ID are considered unfalsifiable. Yes, much of it is intelligent design in the gaps, but those gaps can close, Behe's book was barely off the presses when the claims of irreducible complexity about the eye (plausible intermediate forms) and innate immunity (knockout mice) were crumbling.Poodleboy (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not so strange that you've not provided any reliable source, but have only given your own opinion which is at best original research? . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse scientific literacy with original research.Poodleboy (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear confused, or perhaps just disruptively time wasting. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ID always manifests on a spectrum from "well, evolution just ain't right" (even though, as a Christian priest first noted, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution") to full blown "we want Young Earth Creationism taught in science class" -- neither of which is scientific. If it was simply "we think that there is a thoughtful design element to the universe," it would be Theistic evolution (as with most Christians outside of Republican Americans) and that would still be relegated to natural theology (as theistic evolution currently is).
 * I do not believe you can present professionally-published mainstream academic sources which either refer to ID as scientific and or explicitly say that it is not pseudoscientific; and I guarantee you will not be able to find a tenth as many as there are sources which refer to ID as pseudoscience or unscientific. Until you can present as many sources that do that as there are sources that refer to it as pseudoscience, we must refer to it as pseudoscience.  No amount of arguing from you will equal even one source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainstream academic sources that were concerned about ID would probably a pop social "science" like you get in Psychology Today. Poodleboy (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Was Dobzhansky (author of "... Light Of Evolution") a Christian priest? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, literally wrote that after waking up and was slightly mixed up with Teilhard de Chardin, who was responsible for the "light of evolution" part. Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian, though.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you need a document "which either refer to ID as scientific and or explicitly say that it is not pseudoscientific" in order to just state what ID claims and not attack ID in the very first statement? It is not as if the proposed statement says that ID is scientific.  It just plainly and cleanly states what ID claims.  The negative characterization can follow next.  It reads better and more encyclopedic.Poodleboy (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A source that advocates ID would be a primary source, so whether or not it says its scientific is moot (same for Indigo children, Homeopathy, and so on). What matters is external assessment.  And we do not create artificial validity, but instead describe subjects according to how they are described by sources.  Mainstream science (and so its sources) describe ID as pseudoscience or unscientific, so we follow suit.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are asking that we replace "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view" with "Intelligent design (ID) is the view". I'm in favor of keeping the word pseudoscientific in the first sentence, to make sure that the reader knows this is not science, very much not science. Instead, it's the attempt to bring a scientific aura to what is essentially a religious belief. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what I proposed is "is the claim", although I was open to "assertion" or "argument". Primary sources are valid for what their views are.  An argument could be made that the Discovery Institutes view is what should lead.Poodleboy (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many types of claims; stating first its type (in this instance, pseudoscientific), and then its specifics, as the current lead does, seems quite optimal to me. Especially so for ID, which is more a social movement wrt to science than a "claim". Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources generally refer to ID as a pseudoscientific or unscientific claim. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia be less informative?  Primary sources are not reliable for claims that are countered by all reliable secondary sources.  See, for example, WP:ABOUTSELF.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Waiting until the second sentence would actually be more informative, since it would be more readable and less strained. Primary sources are considered the most reliable for what that source is saying/claiming. Let's be objective and not fearful. Poodleboy (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The use of an adjective in the first sentence, without any substantiating context, will always be misinterpreted as biased or subjective. It is semantically exactly the same as rewriting the lead "Intelligent Design (ID) is the bullshit view..." It's just as true, means the same thing, but stated with that synonym, anyone can see the bias in it. There is zero policy violation by saving the psuedoscience explanation for the second sentence, where it's actually explained rather than merely asserted. No policy or guideline requires that the article start out this way, as long as we call a spade a spade, which can be done in the second sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

To do the pseudoscience characterization justice in the 2nd line, we will need reword the information there. I propose these 2 lines to replace the first two:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the claim 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."[previous 3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have rejected ID as pseudoscience [previous 1 and 2], finding instead that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. [same 4,5 and 6]."

If the second sentence is too long, perhaps a better two or three line formulation will meet with more approval. Poodleboy (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The existing lead sentence is clear and informative, and well sourced. I see no reason to change it for something more convoluted.Charles (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing it is under discussion, can you participate in producing a compromise? Poodleboy (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not changing it is also under discussion, and I agree with the preponderance of sources, the preponderance of editors here, that there is no need to change the well sourced and clear and policy compliant first sentence. I would suggest that unless the intelligent designer, (preferably in a deep, booming and perhaps frighteningly convincing voice) tells us otherwise, with reliable sources, not changing the first sentence is the way forward. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a different perspective. The proposed alternative is also well-sourced and clear, and eliminates the problem of perceived bias by removing the 'bullshit' synonym from the lead sentence and replacing it with an explanatory noun instead. That is also policy compliant, with reliable sources, but without the baggage it has now. Thus far, I have not seen a logical objection to the proposed alternative. The alternative that doesn't make a bare assertion of 'bullshit' up front to the lay reader is just as clear and well-sourced as the current lead sentence. The message is more effective if it's explained, not asserted. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ID is not merely a claim, but also (or mostly?) a movement towards passing it off as scientific. If you needed to compress the article to 4 words, "ID is a pseudoscience" would be much more useful than any attempt at explaining the claims of ID, as it's enough to infer its most salient features. The proposed lead sentence could describe theology as well, which is a very different flavour of bull. The current lead sentence is self-contained; here you have ID in a nutshell. Much less so for the proposal.  Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not persuasive essays. If I were writing an essay about ID, I would not say that it is pseudoscience, I would point out that the description, "there is a better explanation" is an empty statement: it does not present an explanation, but says that there is an explanation. ID does not present an alternative for evolutionary biology, but pretends that there are scientific arguments against evolutionary explanations. My personal opinion is that ID is better described as an advertising campaign - a negative political campaign - more than something like astrology. Astrology, the paradigm of pseudoscience, doesn't dwell on "something is wrong with science, therefore astrology is the answer". But Wikipedia is not the place to argue about ID. What we should to is to present the consensus of the experts. If someone doesn't like what the experts say, then they should go somewhere else, where they can make arguments.  TomS TDotO (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Then make the lead sentence present the consensus of the experts in that context without resorting to bare assertions. If it's less clumsy to do so in the second sentence rather than the first, as has been proposed, then that's what we should do. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as we accurately describe ID as it is, and as it is described by reliable sources, there will always be a "problem of perceived bias" because ID proponents need to hide the fact that ID is not science and will not be happy with anything short of endorsement of ID. It's the same with all the other pseudosciences: their proponents call accurate descriptions "biased".
 * Let's just do the same as we do with other pseudosciences: let's call a spade a spade. Let's not call it a partly wooden, partly metal implement widely used for digging and then add in the next sentence that it is called a spade by some. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Poodleboy - sorry I'm late to warn you off. FWIW, the 'pseudoscience' is fairly recent in the life of the article, it's a vague pejorative that got stuffed in circa archive 79 or 80 when WP went crazy for 'pseudoscience' a couple years ago, and seem to take it as a mandate to run amok.  The wording "pseudoscience" isn't predominant in cites use, opponents mostly and the more significant items use "creationism" or "not science".  A sizeable number of editors have come along since then and objected to no avail.   I think it's just part of the article is unretrievably biased but badly done so the two wrongs make an almost-right, and people would know to Bing or Google for more.  Seems like about the best we can do though, but you can try to whack some of the various lumps if you want.  At least it has all the major threads presented so folks can get a general idea and follow up elsewhere if they want to.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An unflattering truth is not a pejorative, especially since proponents of Intelligent Design swear upon Heaven's Crown that Intelligent Design is a "science," yet, refuse to explain how or why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science, and refuse to explain how to do science with Intelligent Design under all circumstances.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All right then. Why don't we substitute "pseudoscience" with "bullshit"? It means the same thing, it's just as unflattering a truth, and has the added advantage of not plagiarizing the term from sources. Seriously, that's how the term is read. It's pejorative, inflammatory, comes across as non-neutral no matter how much anyone here denies it, and it dictates an opinion to readers in Wikipedia's narrative voice without attribution in the prose &mdash; a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV should be the primary policy, and it trumps the (faulty) interpretation of WP:FRINGE that pejorative adjectives must be used. The suggestion to avoid the use of an adjective "pseudoscientific", and instead explain how ID equates to the noun "pseudoscience", presents the facts and reasoning without dictating to readers how they should think. We're still calling a spade a spade, but we're doing it in a way that teaches rather than dictates. Readers should form their own opinions, not have them spoon-fed. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "plagiarizing the term from sources". You'd need to use more than just one word for that. As for "bullshit"... come to think of it, there are a few papers published in peer-reviewed philosophy journals about bullshit, as distinct from lies, so it might not be impossible to find the reliable sources for the change you jokingly propose. Food for thought. (I'm not seriously considering it, though). "Dictates an opinion"; that ID is pseudoscience is a documented fact, as established by a truckload of sources, which is reported. A reader offended by that fact will continue to be so no matter how the words are moved around, and whether they are nouns or adjectives, so long as the meaning is clear. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But the sources say "pseudoscience", not "bullshit". And those are not the same thing.
 * Don't worry about dictating readers what to think. Readers who believe in pseudosciences will only very rarely let themselves be dictated by anything, be it evidence, reliable sources, or Wikipedia articles - however they are worded. The belief is much stronger than those things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Fink et al - suggest chill, but thanks for the examples confirming "WP went crazy for 'pseudoscience' a couple years ago, and seem to take it as a mandate to run amok".  But more factually for TALK and article :
 * a pejorative is clearly always a pejorative;
 * "creationist" is the actual label of the vast bulk and most prominent cites
 * there is no cite of someone saying "swear on heavens crown"
 * I could have started Poodleboy with Kitzmiller notes said "creationist", that it's labeled "neo-creationism", that NCSE/Barbara Forrest/etc call it "Intelligent Design Creationism" etcetera -- but instead gave him the nudges about WP Psuedo mania to save his breath.  Feels like he's about the twentieth different editor who pinged the word as wrong, but I haven't counted ...  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , your suggestion to chill reeks of blatant hypocrisy, since you're the one who resurrected this thread as a forum in order to whine about "pseudoscientific" being a pejorative label without explaining why beyond making evasions, thinly veiled insults and smug finger-wagging.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Fink Nah, factually Poodleboy started this thread.   Otherwise, not going to even try how to figure out how pointing out facts (cite and TALK history) or saying to not to pursue it is interpreted as hypocrisy etcetera, as I think "chill" was disregarded although I did and do sincerely mean it, and there was already enough TALK to kind of demonstrate my mention of running amok on this topic.  Edit more below if you want, but -- unless it's about editing the article responding to  pseudoscientific view -> claim then Meh.  Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you knew how to read correctly, you would have noted that I wrote resurrected, not "started." But, otherwise, please continue on with your smug finger-wagging, thinly veiled insults and smug evasions.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the label pseudoscience is appropriate, since ID pretends that it is science and has no chance of snowball in hell of being recognized as science. Whether this has to be made clear from the very first sentence is another matter. I have to admit that if the bulk of the article says it is pseudoscience, it is honest to state it upfront. But there could be other ways of making clear the message without giving the impression of being biased. Fact is that the National Academy of Sciences has publicly spoken against ID being science, so it is a fair rendering of the scientific consensus that ID isn't science (although it pretends to be). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the label "pseudocience" is appropriate. Everyone agrees on that. We are arguing about the adjective "pseudoscientific", which is a pejorative term that violates WP:NPOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now it is becoming really weird. The noun is appropriate but the adjective is pejorative? Where does that come from? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Um... try reading this thread from the beginning, particularly the points I have made repeatedly? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You were arguing for using it in the second sentence instead of the first, which I can comprehend because you explained it. (And you used the strawman equating "pseudoscientific" with "bullshit". That strawman is, well, bullshit.) I assumed that your main point was "second sentence" because changing a noun into an adjective miraculously turning a valid description into an evil pejorative never made the slightest bit of sense. You also never explained where that came from, so I thought I'd ask now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning the NAS. Why not follow their lead and call ID "non-scientific"? YoPienso (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the whole point of ID is that it purports to be scientific. The lead defines ID 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." That is a claim about how the world works and a refutation of the core of all biological and botanical science—it doesn't get any more pseudoscientific than that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscientific is more specific than non-scientific (one is a strict subset of the other). The Teleological argument in itself, is non-scientific; when you add political campaigns to undermine science and replace it by religion under the guise of "new science", you get ID, which is both non-scientific, and pseudoscientific. Some sources alternate between the two words. Indeed, since it is a given that ID presents itself as science, non-scientific implies pseudoscientific. In the end, we use the most specific word -- that conveys the most information -- supported by the sources. See also the FAQ above, for instance Q6. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But the NAS carries more weight than the opinions and interpretations of Wikipedia editors. YoPienso (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This proposal also has no consensus. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

populating new lead with the citations
I have populated the new lead with the citatations in the appropriate locations. I have performed a trial insertion (preview mode), into the main article to make sure the citations still work properly. Poodleboy (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Intelligent design (ID) is the claim 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." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have rejected ID as pseudoscience, finding instead that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.  ."
 * Following the example set by Indigo children, Ancient astronauts, Orgone, Psychic surgery, etc, it's fine to start off an article saying "(Subject) is a pseudoscientific (claim/concept)." Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In a couple of those cases the 'pseudoscientific' adjective is redundant and could be removed. In any case, it doesn't matter what other articles do. Each article should stand on its own merits. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do those even rise to the level of pseudoscience? I don't see a need for the word in the first sentence in those either.  It tends to obscure what beliefs are being documented.Poodleboy (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not that "it's not pseudoscience, it's just a belief" bollocks that the new agers like to use at Talk:Indigo children. Those topics are pseudoscience.  Those ideas make scientifically testable claims but refuse to account for the total absence of reliable evidence combined with the prominent evidence of absence.  A single adjective doesn't obscure anything.  "(Subject) is an (adjective) (object) that (verb phrase)" is a not-even-complex sentence structure that my IELTS students could at least comprehend.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"populating new lead..." What new lead? The proposal to change the current, long-standing lead has failed to gain any traction in the previous discussion. I don't think bundling the rejected change with fresh citations would improve it. Better to polish the current lead's citations if you are motivated to do so. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting claim, evidently you haven't been following the thread. There are no fresh citations, all the citations are the same, the information is the same, just put in a more encyclopedic, less attack mode form. The citations are quite extensive and needed to be transferred carefully. The rest of the paragraph will be retained as is.  Assume that in good faith that the community will choose to reach for the encyclopedic goal. Poodleboy (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:Consensus for any change. The community has chosen not to change the lede the way you want it to be. Rwenonah (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would love to take the vote at the beginning, let's wait until the end. Poodleboy (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see merit in both the existing version (makes immediately clear that it is pseudoscience) as in the proposed version (takes care of briefly but properly explaining why it is considered so). So, I will abstain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but the consensus against moving "pseudoscientific" to the second line seems pretty clear in the above discussion (and, for that matter, in pages and pages of the archives). Why, exactly, is further discussion necessary? I don't see new arguments. Rwenonah (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOT and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Also, prior discussion above is a pretty clear consensus to not change the intro. Perhaps you need to WP:LISTEN better? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * History will usually support the status quo, that is why new proposals must be given time and extensive discussion. The goal here is to be more encyclopedic.  However correct the pseudoscience characterization is, it is an negative characterization in the very first sentence.  Consider if you were coming to learn about what this ID controversy was about, and in the very first sentence it is attacked.  Wouldn't you then question the neutrality and objectivity of what is to follow?  It is wikipedia's credibility that is at stake, and wikipedia's goal of being encyclopedic that is being undermined. We should be more interested in being encyclopedic than in getting our namecalling rocks off. Poodleboy (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault ID is pseudoscience. And so far it appears to be just your opinion that pointing out that pseudoscience is pseudoscience is some sort of immature attack (well, adherents of pseudoscience also claim that...).  Name calling in the article would result in the intro "Intelligent design is an attempt by some overly vocal Evangelicals to force science classes to teach that evolution was somehow impossible for all-powerful God to have used in creating life on earth, combined with the dishonest pretense that this is not an attempt to force everyone to accept their philistine interpretation of the poetry of Genesis 1 and 2."  'Intelligent design is the pseudoscientific view that life was created and not evolved' (paraphrase) is neutral.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's honest to state this upfront, not to beat around the bush. But I do appreciate a brief explanation of who considers it pseudoscience and why. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that "new proposals must be given time and extensive discussion" is kind of beside the point here; this isn't a new proposal. By the proposer's own admission there are no new sources. There are certainly no new arguments here that haven't been extensively discussed before, as the archives show. So what's "new" about this one and why is the consensus from the past few days in the previous section not sufficient to show there's no support for these changes? Rwenonah (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "That is an interesting claim, evidently you haven't been following the thread." You seem to have a very personal notion of evidence. Before posting, I actually counted the number of voices for or against. I had 2 against 6. Since you put me to task I have laboriously recounted, writing each name to avoid duplicates, and I find 2 against 9 (+ 1 unclear (TomS), + 1 neutral). I think "failed to gain any traction" was (and remains) a pretty fair assessment of the situation then (and now). For the second part, my aim was merely to point out that worrying about citations (fresh or otherwise, it's irrelevant) was strange, when the proposal was rejected for other reasons. You seem to have simply ignored what was said in the discussion. Analogy time: "Discussion 1: I wanna build a house" / "Answer 1: No, the terrain is unsuitable" / "Discussion 2: red shingles are better than blue ones for the new house's roof" / "Me: What new house??". Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has other standards besides consensus, let's never give up hope that they will be applied. Just because previous similar objections have been defeated, doesn't mean they should have been defeated. Once wrong always wrong is not the wikipedia standard. Poodleboy (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is refreshing to see you at least acknowledge that the consensus goes against the proposal. For the rest, the discussion has run its course, it seems. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

the level emphasis to be put upon the Pseudoscience characterization?
The proposal is to move it later in the intro. It is meaningful for the same reason that those with strong feelings about Intelligent Design want it in the first sentence. Placing it in the first sentence is an emphasis that suggests strong feelings. Placing it later allows a more objective sounding statement to lead.Poodleboy (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You want it to be "objective sounding" but I want it to be objective. "Objective sounding" is a weaselly goal if the result is not truly objective. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Poodleboy, this has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page, with the result being the current formulation. Please read the FAQ and other material at the top of the talk page and note that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions as well as being the subject of an Arbitration Decision.  Time now the drop the stick. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ID is canonical pseudoscience. Sorry you don't like it, but it's a problem that exists in the real world and is not ours to fix. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is actually the time to stop fearfully closing and deleting previous discussions, so that they have to be repeated.  If your arguments were strong, you wouldn't have to claim the issue is decided.Poodleboy (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is actually time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ascribing, without evidence, "emotions" and "fear" to people arguing against you is not a "strong argument" but a fallacy: see straw man. The previous discussions are not deleted, they are archived, and you can look up the reasons given back then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sweet merciful imaginary gods, not again! Poodleboy, surely with the formidable expertise of which you boast, you can think of a better use of your time than arguing whether a pseudoscientific view should be called a pseudoscientfic view in the first or the second sentence. Please, leave such trivialities to the rest of us uneducated rubes, and shine on! Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given as how Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, what with it having been formulated explicitly to have religious political propaganda smuggled into science classrooms to be taught in place of actual science in order to flout constitutional bans about combining church and state, current consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of referring to Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience in the lede. Having said that,, your insistence on repeatedly requesting to have the adjective of "pseudoscientific" moved to further into the article without any compelling reason comes off as wp:I didn't hear that--Mr Fink (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is important to "sound objective" in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. State what the subject is, and then later what the consensus wikipedia opinion of the subject is.  If that opinion is objective, then it should be able to be substantiated.  I don't doubt there are a lot of good sources dismissing ID as pseudoscience.  Summarize why they think it is pseudoscience and then reference them.Poodleboy (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And how exactly would not referring to a blatantly pseudoscientific movement as "pseudoscientific" in the lede sound "objective" to begin with? That would be as silly as expunging mention of the wild boar, Sus scrofa, as being a suid artiodactyl mammal animal.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving out "pseudoscientific" would sound objective, because the pseudoscientific characterization is a judgement, an assessment applying values and standards. Poodleboy (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not characterize the mainstream scientific position as though it is some individual's "judgement". Please bear in mind the WP:PSCI policy.  What you are writing here is getting no consensus because it violates this policy; if you continue pushing this you are likely to be blocked or topic banned under the relevant discretionary sanctions. I won't be responding here further and I will be somewhat surprised if others choose to continue responding to you.  Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is explicitly mentioning the consensus opinion characterizing it as some individual's judgement? It is normal practice, even here at wikipedia, to leave mainstream scientific opinion or judgements out of the first sentence and even the first paragraph.  For example the first sentence of the article on antibiotics is NOT "Antibiotics, also called antibacterials, are a type of antimicrobial drug OVERUSED in the treatment and prevention of bacterial infections." (emphasis mine) Although that is a well established mainstream scientific opinion.  Poodleboy (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Poodleboy has the logical argument on this thread. Search my name on this page to see my own arguments, which are likewise logical and backed up by examples from other encyclopedias and from our own policies.
 * Amusingly enough, Mr Fink, the word "artiodactyl" is absent from the Wild boar article, except in the infobox and a template at the bottom. It appears once in passing in Pigs (again, excepting the infobox and template). The several other Suidae articles I checked also fail to positively identify the species as "suid artiodactyl mammal animal." Mammal animal? Please, no.
 * We can be an objective encyclopedia that makes the mainstream view of ID very clear without poking ID proponents in the eye. YoPienso (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your work documenting that experts writing for professional encyclopedias, are able to be descriptive initially, before administering the judgement of those concerned within the scientific community. Interrupting the descriptive explanation of what ID is with negative opinion so early destroys any appearance of objectivity, no matter how well substantiated that condemnation can be. Poodleboy (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ID is the pseudoscientific 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. When that changes, we'll change the article. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles should be objective, not "sound objective". It is not the goal of an encyclopedia article to lull people who may disagree with it in false security and then hit them when they don't expect it, or achieve other, more subtle, feats of manipulation. The pseudoscientificity is not just an afterthought "oh, turns it this is pseudoscience. Who'da thunk it!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The goal is to communicate information to allow the readers to form an informed opinion. They aren't served whether they are satisfied or put off by being told what opinion to have in the first statement.  Poodleboy (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Small problem: ID is canonical pseudoscience. It is a fake "science" designed to bolster an ideology. Some people wish this were nto so, but it's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exaclty; Poodleboy: overuse is not an inherent characteristic of antibiotics. Pseudo-scientificity is an inherent characteristic of ID. YoPienso: any article that clearly states what ID is can be construed as "poking ID proponents in the eye". If that were an argument, people could iteratively move the pseudoscience bit arbitrarily far down (or out of) the article, by using that same argument against each successively watered-down version. This shall not pass! Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience is a textbook example of "lying by omission." Last I checked, Wikipedia is not in the business of lying to readers for the sake of censorship pretending to be "sounding like objectivity."--Mr Fink (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So, Mr Fink, the Encyclopedia Britannica is lying? The NCSE is lying? Berkeley is lying? None of those sources even use the word "pseudoscience." (Please note that I agree with including the word in our article, but not with brandishing it as a sword.) Their approach is objective while clearly showing ID is not accepted by mainstream scientists.


 * Quote from Berkeley: "Intelligent Design is very different from science. Though the idea deals with phenomena in the natural world, research in this area does not bear any of the other hallmarks of science. Most importantly, though proponents sometimes make testable — and refuted — claims that relate to evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design itself is not testable and so cannot be validated by the central method of science — testing ideas against evidence from the natural world."


 * GMI, your claim that any clearly stated article could be construed as "poking ID proponents in the eye" demonstrates a lack of understanding the nuances of the English language. In fact, Encyclopedia Britannica's "Meanwhile, intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science" is clear without being hostile.


 * I'm aware the attitudes here will never permit an objective treatment of this subject. Nonetheless, from time to time I think it's healthy to ring the bell of logic. Done for 2016. YoPienso (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's one way of looking at it. Another is that creationists will never be content with an objective view of ID, because it conflicts with their religion, but that will not stop us from being objective and documenting the subject from a strictly rationalist perspective. The latter is in line with the sources and Wikipedia policy, funnily enough. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * YoPienso: "Objectivity" is not what you are looking for, however much you may like to brandish the word. ID is PS, and so it is stated. Objectivity: check. What you and Poodleboy are arguing for are rhetorical devices, no more, and a pure matter of convention, taste, and temperament. As far as the latter go, I for one find your quote from the Britannica to be pap of the most insipid variety. "Meanwhile, the drug cartels appeared incapable of generating a social integration program, which inevitably broadened the gap between their operations and the established norms of legal activity".  Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Both quotes are ways of not employing the word "pseudoscience" while making it clear that ID is pseudoscience. So, they support the label of pseudoscience, even if they do not employ that very word. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So both sources are pretty damning about ID. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sources agree that ID is an utterly failed attempt at doing science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * More a failed attempt at mimicking science, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True, the argument at is that ID proponents did not even define their terms in order to amount to a scientific hypothesis, they are basically a cultural movement opposed to materialism/naturalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So ID is appealing at the imagination of their audience instead of appealing to empirical operationalization. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We should get back addressing the level of emphasis and the negative impact on the appearance of objectivity to have the judgement in the very first sentence. That omitting it would somehow be a lie is a strawman, since that is not the proposal and other encylopedias are not lying. Pseudoscientificity is not an inherent characteristic of ID, since it is not defined as such making it a truism or tautology and other knowledge is required to reach that judgement. Poodleboy (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a truism, since there are people who don't know much about the scientific consensus. But there is rock-solid scientific consensus that it is a failed attempt to do or to mimic science. Whether that has to be made clear from the first sentence is a matter of taste, not one of getting the facts straight. As the argument I have cited goes, it is not even designed to amount to a scientific hypothesis, it is just a collection of nice-sounding slogans against materialism and atheism which have not been operationalized empirically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Irreducible complexity was designed to be a scientific hypothesis. It failed.  As I recall, a couple of the proposed examples had failed even before Behe completed his book tour.  Behe searched for and found problematic examples, his work involved review of the scientific literature to understand and categorize his examples. His work was observational, he didn't conduct the experiments he proposed, other researchers did.Poodleboy (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see it this way: suppose there was no theory of evolution, just the theories that preceded Darwin. What chance would ID stand of competing against those theories? I.e. ID making a case that it is more suited to the empirical reality than Lamarckism, Epicurianism, Taoism, the views of Anaximander, Empedocles, Buffon, James Burnet, and Erasmus Darwin. How would it win the dispute, provided that it does not know anything about the designer, it does not know how the designer works, it does not know the purposes of the designer, it cannot assign any time constraints to the workings of the designer and so on? That it does not provide any positive knowledge which would advance our/their knowledge of the natural world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ID would be used for hypothesis generation, repeated use of similar or the same design in different species might be seen as more supportive of ID than of lamarkism. The young earth might be evidence against gradualism and in favor of the intelligent designer hypothesis. ID might predict a common arbitrary genetic code. In the absence of alternatives, human make distinctions and evaluate hypotheses using what knowledge they have. Poodleboy (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Intelligent Design was intended to be used for hypothesis generation, it would have been used for hypothesis generation by its original proponents. But, Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson and William Dembski and all of the luminaries of Intelligent Design have repeatedly demonstrated that not only can one not generate any hypothesis whatsoever that isn't a blatant appeal to ignorance, i.e., a permutation of "I don't understand how (insert biological phenomenon here) evolved, therefore, GOD DESIGNERDIDIT," Intelligent Design was never intended to generate any hypothesis ever, at all, in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Behe proposed a test of his hypothesized irreducible complexity of intrinsic immunity. Knockout mice soon showed that their intrinsic immunity still worked without one of the components. Poodleboy (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL
See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Degree of pseudoscience
I believe that ID falls into the category of questionable science, and, for the sake of clarity, should probably be labelled as such. Or at least somewhere between generally accepted and questionable. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you believe it matters what the sources say. You need to support your assertion by providing reliable sources. This aspect of the article has been discussed extensively and the consensus is that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience Robynthehode (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To be questionable science it woudl first have to be science. It is not. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. You might want to take a look at the lovely closed discussions just above. Also, that you would include "generally accepted" in your range worries me. It's like saying that broken glass should be rated "somewhere between safe for toddlers and slightly irritating". In both cases, it suggests that you might want to do more reading on the subject before tackling it. &#123;&#123;u&#124;Gamall [[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Wednesday ]] [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|Ida ]]&#125;&#125; 09:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "God is the ground of all being, source of all existence, and original author of established scientific laws (including evolution)" - scientifically untestable theological position with a variety of options for theodicy, but not what ID claims.
 * "Evolution must be wrong because nature almost appears to feature elements of deliberate design (which we're going to pretend isn't just Young Earth Creationism) if you ignore things like the appendix, nipples on men, Platypus venom, how easily we've fucked up bulldogs, foreskin (the designer is either Yahweh or aliens), the number of women a single man can impregnate before a single child is born..." - not even a scientific hypothesis but a denial of tested scientific laws that raises theological concerns not only about God's goodness but God's intelligence and sanity. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to say it was generally accepted as pseudoscience, which is clearer than saying just "pseudoscience". - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's kinda like saying the sky is perceived as blue, instead of the sky is blue. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny, I had a feeling that someone was going to say the exact same thing, specifically using the sky. But what I'm getting at is that both Evolution and Intelligent Design are theories. The sky being blue is a fact because it can be tested and proved that to almost every seeing eye, the wavelengths of visible light are received and registered by the eye as being between 450 and 495 nanometers, which is the wavelength of blue. Evolution can't actually be tested and proved, because recorded human history does not go back through millions of years. And neither can Intelligent Design be proved, because no one prove the existence of a supreme being without showing the being to the world. Saying that ID is generally accepted as pseudoscience is clearer, and still upholds the scientific consensus. The closed arguments were about whether to call it pseudoscience or not. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease are theories -- it is the most reliable explanation that scientists can find, with plenty of evidence.  Intelligent design is a "theory" (properly a hypothesis) in the same sense that Water memory or the Sheep-Goat effect retrocausality (within the context of parapsychology) are -- it is nothing more than attempted ass-covering by proponents who have rejected modern science in favor of something that has always been kinda fringe, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But again, gravity can be tested and proved. We can see that everything on earth is kept on the surface by something which is not in space. And germ theory can be tested and proved, because we can see that cells that are in the vicinity of germs are unhealthy. But evolution cannot be observed in this way. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There is plenty of evidence of common descent, including experimental evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)−
 * Although CharlieBrown25 makes the point that neither evolution nor the existence of god can be proved in an ultimate sense the statement that intelligent design IS pseudoscience (rather than it is generally accepted as) is based on the weight and balance of what the sources say. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District summed up the argument well. ID cannot be untangled from creationism. You just have to look at Pandas and People and the way it was revised and the almost overwhelming majority of scientists and science organisations who state ID is pseudoscience to provide the evidence that stating ID as CharlieBrown25 wants is misrepresenting the sources giving undue weight to a fringe idea. Robynthehode (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of math, no empirical statement can be proven in an "ultimate sense", as that would require an infinite amount of evidence. The word "proof" should never be used when speaking of empirical statements. What we do is accumulate evidence, which shifts our (rational) beliefs between hypotheses by a finite amount. There is no distinction between hypotheses about events in the past, the present, or the future. The combination of fossils, plate tectonics, DNA, etc provide a strong record of what happened in the past, just as my finding pizza crumbs on the sofa and a takeaway receipt on the table provides strong evidence that somebody ate pizza on my sofa, though I wasn't there to witness it. Conversely, I'm not 100% sure that I'm sitting on a chair right now. I might be dreaming this. I'm still sure enough to put that in the fact bin, though.

The bogus distinction between "absolute proof" and the rest is a canard whose main effect is to flatten the distinction between hypotheses that have accumulated a lot of evidence-based belief and hypotheses that have lost a lot of it. That allows you to put evolution and ID in the same bin of "not infinitely proven". That's like saying there is no essential difference between you and Hussain Bolt because, after all, neither of you is infinitely fast.

Even besides that, if you agree that the scientific consensus is what it is, then there is no point in the discussion; what else but the scientific consensus can determine what is science or pseudoscience? Gamall Wednesday Ida (t.c) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, every time I see this talk page heading appear in my watchlist, I keep thinking it's about an academic degree in pseudoscience. PsD = Doctor of Pseudoscience? Reminds me of usenet joke discussions in talk.origins about the fictitious University of Ediacara. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

pseudoscientific
pseudoscientific is a violation of wikipedia's npov policy. it should be removed from the top of the article. why even have the npov policy if wikipedia articles are going to violate wikipedia's own policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3653:8440:b90e:cc8c:6b12:7ec1 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically the top of page highlights NPOV sections WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, and WP:GEVAL. Having it placed at the top of the article is a different conversation, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the academic sources say it is pseudoscience, then Wikiepdia must also say so regardless of truth. See WP:Truth. 2600:8806:204:6300:418E:B23E:6712:CC37 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I was told to take my digression here.
I just copied the argument above because it's closed and I was asked not to reopen it. If there's a better way to let you know you're choosing sides while still following your rules, then I would.

pseudoscientific is a violation of wikipedia's npov policy. it should be removed from the top of the article. why even have the npov policy if wikipedia articles are going to violate wikipedia's own policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3653:8440:b90e:cc8c:6b12:7ec1 (talk • contribs)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Specifically the top of page highlights NPOV sections WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, and WP:GEVAL. Having it placed at the top of the article is a different conversation, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If the academic sources say it is pseudoscience, then Wikipedia must also say so regardless of truth. See WP:Truth. 2600:8806:204:6300:418E:B23E:6712:CC37 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So, then why aren't Dembski and Behe considered Academic sources? You're picking and choosing. The Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design is a smear piece against Intelligent Design. I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia donating ID community would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes (talk • contribs) 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The only question you ask is about Dembski and Behe, so I will respond to that. You are responding to a post that doesn't really capture WP policies and guidelines.  See FAQ #3 in the yellowish box at the top of this page.  If you continue stating your emotion and opinions here, your posts will be removed. Per the talk page guidelines, Wikipedia talk pages are strictly for discussing the article and sources per the policies and guidelines, and are not a place to express opinions or feelings.  Also, see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was my further dialogue here reverted? I'm new to the site and trying to follow the rules and get real answers, but you're obviously intentionally making it difficult...I put up further questions and refutations of certain FAQ answers are not NPOV as per the standards of Wikipedia. I can't even find the reverted text to copy and paste so you can see. Please do your best to explain it to me, I am trying to follow the rules. A couple of the issues the page has: 1) You claim the proponents make these claims "while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory." Yet the page goes on to list some of the early theories further down...See Table of Contents: Concepts.  Those are literally the base theories.  There are more than that, but that's quite literally a list of theories.  That being said, just because something is refuted, doesn't mean it's been disproven.  Why does the site take the side of ignorance and chooses to assume both? Also, what happened to my questions about Douglas Axe?  He is a peer reviewed author, and is an outspoken ID advocate.  I posted it to this talk page discussion as per your request to get further answer, not for you to revert it.  If you're genuinely interested in truth, you wouldn't revert it back to ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes  (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of your comments concerning "smear pieces" and similar inappropriate language were reverted because they were considered personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * to be clear, I removed the comments not per NPA - no one was personally attacked - but because those comments violate our norms of behavior per WP:TPG and were unsourced opinion not directed to improving the article, and this violates the WP:SOAP policy. There are discretionary sanctions on this topic to enforce best behavior and hewing closely to policy and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to Cobaltblueeyes: Of course you're right that this article is skewed, but you are in Wikipedialand and must follow the established norms. Many respected scientists do consider ID a pseudoscience; see, for example, at the top of this page a link to a book by Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry that decisively makes that assertion. The consensus here (wrong-headed, imho) is to follow their lead, which is consistent with many other leading experts. The reason I think the consensus is wrong-headed is because those writers are not writing dispassionate science, but are activists in the field. Michael Shermer, to provide a contrast, wrote a logical discourse against ID entitled Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against ID, which does NOT call ID a pseudoscience. Shermer is also an activist, but capable of writing even-handedly. Nonetheless, WP consensus is consensus, so we're stuck with the moniker. That's fine, though, since it immediately alerts readers to the bias.
 * To be perfectly fair, Wikipedia faces the same dilemma discussed by Richard Wein as quoted in Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design:
 * Some readers may dislike the frankly contemptuous tone that I have adopted toward Dembski's work. Critics of Intelligent Design pseudoscience are faced with a dilemma. If they discuss it in polite, academic terms, the Intelligent Design propagandists use this as evidence that their arguments are receiving serious attention from scholars, suggesting this implies there must be some merit in their arguments. If critics simply ignore Intelligent Design arguments, the propagandists imply this is because critics cannot answer them. My solution to this dilemma is to thoroughly refute the arguments, while making it clear that I do so without according those arguments any respect at all.
 * Technically, ID is a pseudoscience, but because of its pejorative implications, I find it unencyclopedic for this article. I am in the minority on that and accept the consensus. I urge you to do the same. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem calling ID psuedoscience. I have a problem with using the adjective pseudoscientific, which gives this article a subjective non-neutral tilt. As far as I can tell, the majority of sources refer to ID as the noun, not the adjective, but for some reason there's a consensus here to ignore the preponderance of sources and make the lead sentence sound more like a polemic than a simple statement of objective fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the past, I too have expressed reservations about describing the topic as "pseudoscientific" even before actually describing the theory or conjecture itself. It does give a bit of an impression of basically judging the topic before even saying what it is, and I have some really serious questions whether that is really the optimal way to go here. If nothing else, maybe changing the structure of the first sentence to include a summary discussion of the idea first in the sentence. Alternately, and I think probably preferably, just have the first sentence summarize the idea, and then have a second sentence describing it as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific and explaining exactly why it is described as such. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough of this creationist whining. Just suck it up and accept that this is a rational encyclopedia.Charles (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The rather frankly obnoxious and completely uncalled for insults of others ion the above comment indicates to me that the person making it should "suck it up" and develop some basic understanding of the conduct guidelines before he further engages in such obviously prejudicial commentary. I think it would be time for him to realize that this is a collaborative effort governed by policies and guidelines, and, much as he might dislike that, his own apparently unfounded, or at least unsupported, allegations about the motivations and reasoning of others may lead to a review of such conduct. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, Charles, what is your objection to calling ID pseudoscience? Call a spade a spade, I say, and reword the sentence to use the noun "pseudoscience" rather than the adjective "pseudoscientific". The former is a neutral objective fact supported by reliable sources, but phrasing it to use an adjective makes it sound like a subjective opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could agree to that, assuming that you are in fact responding to me rather than Charles, with the proviso, maybe, like I said above, of maybe adding the word in whatever form after a real description of the idea/concept/theory/whatever in general. You indicate yourself the subjectivity of the adjective form, and I think that it might very easily come across to any number of editors who are not clearly in one camp or the other on this topic that starting the description of the topic in first sentence with a term which, basically, using a courtroom comparison, passes judgment on a matter before the evidence is even presented, could very easily come across as maybe too eager to criticize and thus "biased" in some way itself. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that ID is not so much a scientific position in itself as a rejection of mainstream science (i.e. evolution). "God created existence" is a theological position that science cannot comment on one way or another.  That's not what ID says, however, or it'd just be Theistic evolution.  "God created the world so evolution must not be true" is a claim about scientific facts, and one that doesn't line up with real science. I'd draw comparisons between polytheism (untestable) and astrology (tested), or belief in a soul or afterlife (untestable) and Vitalism and Ghost hunting (tested), but those comparisons fail because astrology, vitalism, and ghost hunting have actual claims beyond "nuh-uh."  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I agree with the above. However, as I think I mentioned before somewhere in the archives, not all the recent proponents of intelligent design take quite the position Ian indicates above. Some of it AFAIR is concerned with the lack of truly substantial evidence for human evolution, and on that basis suggests that the "scientific" theory of human evolution might not be as scientific as some of its proponents assert. This points out a bit of potential discrepancy between intelligent design as a concept and the intelligent design movement, which so far as I can tell pretty much does take the position Ian indicates. Having said that, I'm not particularly familiar with the theistic evolution page, and will defer on commenting on that. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, denying hard scientific evidence. Claiming that there is "the lack of truly substantial evidence for human evolution" is total time-wasting nonsense and shows why this tread should be closed now per WP:TALK.Charles (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: ID is presented by proponents as science, but it isn't science – as is well covered in the article, it's a theological argument for the existence and attributes of God, dressed up as science in a legalistic effort to evade constitutional law about teaching science in public school classrooms. Hence pseudoscience. To comply with neutral point of view on pseudoscience, that has to be made clear from the outset of the article. Any discrepancy between intelligent design as a concept and the ID movement's version is due to the name being based on a phrase commonly used in the teleological argument, which is religion and not science. . . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on phrasing of lede paragraph
I believe that there are sufficient grounds to request an RfC on the phrasing of the lede paragraph, particularly regarding what I believe can be seen by many as being the word "pseudoscience" in some form as the first descriptor of the topic. First, as others have indicated above, the use of the adjectival form of that word can be seen as problematic. I also believe that the use of the word in any form is potentially problematic, as it is to a degree an instance of using an at-least somewhat prejudicial buzzword in the community which is largely seen as being the "scientific" community as the first and primary descriptor of the subject. As I indicated above, I have to think that such an early use of such a mild pejorative in the article can raise serious questions regarding the potential bias of the editors of the article, and that it does not serve our interests to have such questions asked of our articles. There has been repeated discussion of this matter broadly in the past, as I think is visible in the archives, and I think it might be in our best interests to have the idea resolved.

FWIW, personally, I personally have more reservations about creationism than evolution, although the evidence for either is at best fragmentary, and of a type which many if not most independent scientists would say is probably at least less than optimal support for either contention.

Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * John, I don't think you reservations about either creationism or evolution are relevant, here. I suggest striking them, and possibly reflecting on this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I made such comments in the face of what seems to me to be concerns regarding any potential bias on my part, and, on that basis, think that such information can relevantly be included here to address those concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are honest, and that is appreciated. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that not having an opinion on a subject is a form of bias too: people who don't have an opinion about a subject are in danger of biasing articles from the actual position of the scientific community, in the direction of the editors' own position somewhere half-way to Crazy Town. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a bunch of back and forth with editors on the astrology article led to the placement of the word "pseudoscience" at the very end of the lead, where it has, in some ways, prominence in a final "pole position". This, I think, still allows for some summary on the subject itself, and this is, perhaps, consistent with what is being suggested by John Carter. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This proposal seems like a complete and utter waste of time. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reasons for that belief, or is it perhaps simply an attempt at misdirection? Regarding Isambard Kingdom's comparison, I personally would have no reservations myself about using the word "pseudoscience" (not another form) in perhaps a second comma'd section of the first sentence, or as a second sentence, or in the position he indicates. Anything that might at least allow a reader to see why the topic has received a label before apply the label itself. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:PSCI – "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." – Yep, that's a clear and exact description of ID, and particularly note the adjective right at the start. Nothing wrong with the word "pseudoscientific". "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." – Definitions by its proponents misdirect, and poison the well by giving false credibility to this pseudoscience. The current wording is clear about this, any proposed substitute must show equal clarity from the outset. The proposed RfC is framed to highlight a supposed grievance rather than complying with talk page guidelines in providing well sourced proposals for improving the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might, however, note that Anachronist in the last section above was the one who seemed to raise objections to the use of the adjectival form of "pseudoscience." John Carter (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So? The current wording achieves NPOV, it's open to Anachronist to propose alternative phrasing which still meets the PSCI section of NPOV. . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that it meets NPOV according to your opinion. However, that is not, and never has been, the sole reason for content development, and I find your once again apparently commenting in a way which does not address the topic about which this thread was started perhaps problematic. I do hope individuals try to comment in this thread about the subject of this thread from now on. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole point of intelligent design is to offer an explanation for how life came to be as it is observed, and the major theme of ID is to counter evolution which is the explanation based on scientific evidence. That means ID completely fits the definition of pseudoscience. As I recall, the argument in the case of astrology was that the subject, particularly as currently practiced, was not an attempt to explain anything. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While not disagreeing with the bulk of what Johnuniq says above, I think maybe we might have a problem here with possibly differentiation between the intelligent design movement (and I agree pretty much with what Johnuniq said above at least regarding that), the theory of intelligent design, and the previously-mentioned theistic evolution. As I indicated somewhere in the vast archives here earlier, (meaning I'm too lazy myself to look at this point) there is at least one ID proponent who has made statements which might less obviously fit in the theistic evolution camp. Like a lot of other broadly philosophical matters, there seems to me to be at least some degree of significant diversity in what seems to be called the "intelligent design movement," as distinct from the various theories which more or less relate to theistic evolution. I acknowledge I'm not entirely sure what if anything to do to resole this, other than maybe changing the name of this page to "intelligent design movement" (maybe), but it is I think a matter which would benefit from serious consideration of individuals who don't have a lot of previous history on this page, many of whom, perhaps including myself, might have some degree of preconception for better or worse of the motivations of some of the other editors involved here over a long period of time. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * By Phillip E. Johnson's own admission, ID is a bunch of intuitions which have not been developed to the level of a theory (or hypothesis). The amount of work which Darwinists have done till 2017 has not been attained by ID supporters, not even at an incipient stage of proving/testing their hypothesis. The main claim of ID is: there are some irreducibly complex biological structures (ID does not predict which structures, so they have to be picked and chosen from the gaps of biology), therefore there is an intelligent designer. So, besides the mere claim that there is a designer who works in mysterious/unknowable ways, ID does not predict anything, it does not add any positive knowledge to our knowledge of the natural world. So, it's pretty pathetic as a scientific hypothesis. If ID were backed up by evidence, ID supporters would have been by now more famous than Einstein. They have huge ambitions, but a very limited ability of transforming their ambitions into empirical science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Source: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources in the article show that ID is pseudoscience, not science, so that's not at issue here: vague forum musings without sources don't overturn that. The question is how best to comply with the PSCI section of NPOV. The present wording does that well. There seems to be some confusion above about theistic evolution.  ID proponents have explicitly rejected theistic evolution, which has no conflict with science. Unlike ID, which essentially opposes the science of evolution, and is a legalistic attempt at a rebranding of creationism to get it into science classrooms as an "alternative" . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, nothing in the last comment above, so far as I can tell, even remotely addresses the substantial point of this thread, and I sincerely hope such basically at best non-productive, if not in fact counterproductive, comments regarding the matter being raised in this thread stop. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There isn't a snowball's chance of removing "pseudoscience" from the lead, nor should there be. The relevant policy is WP:PSCI, as pointed out by Dave. Considering the high quality sources describing ID as pseudoscience, there's just no way around it. An RfC on this would be an entirely wasted effort.


 * However, it is understandable that there has been wrangling over whether "pseudoscientific" should appear at around the fifth word in the article rather than in, say, the second sentence. The current state has only been extant since April 2014, and it'd be hard to argue that all prior versions of the article had been violating PSCI unbeknownst to the astute editors involved. Per PSCI, "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" should be prominent, but that doesn't mean it must be the fifth word. The more conventional format is to describe an idea and then state that it is pseudoscience; see WP:FRINGE: "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas". Yes, you could say that ID is "objectively" pseudoscience, but it's still mixing description with reception, and it has a counterpoint-point-counterpoint feel to it, which FRINGE also advises against. So an RfC on "pseudoscience in the lead, but just not the fifth word" could have some merit, in my view.


 * I have experience with this very situation at another article, Rupert Sheldrake. I had argued strongly for including "pseudoscience" in the lead, which is the present consensus. At one point, someone had moved "pseudoscience" to around the fifth word of the article, much like the article here. It just seemed out of place and emitted a chip-on-your-shoulder vibe. After I successfully argued for returning "pseudoscience" to its regular place -- still in the lead, just not the fifth word -- someone accused me of promoting fringe. I hope that doesn't happen here. Manul ~ talk 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might notice that your contention that the goal here is to remove pseudoscience from the lede is, in fact, rather clearly contradicted by the opening comments here themselves, which only relate to moving the word from the position of primary descriptor in the first sentence. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, just no. Every previous proposal foundered on the rock of common sense, and this new one is sailing the same old course. Nothing new on offer, so nothing changes with the lead section. The word "pseudoscience" stays in the lead section, with some kind of very strong wording to cement the fact. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate, John, that you are up-front with your potential biases. Now let me be up-front with mine. The fact is that evolution is a scientific fact. ID is a pseudoscientific fiction and a shell-game built by people who are so uncomfortable with the scientific facts of evolution. The believers in intelligent design have deluded themselves into believing that they have invented an intellectually viable way to deny scientific fact. That's the basic summary of the "idea" that intelligent design is. The question is, then, whether your potential bias or my potential bias best lines up with the neutral reality of what intelligent design actually is. I think the preponderance of sources is that my view is basically how things are while your view (call it Hegelian synthesis if you're being charitable or concern trolling if you are being less than charitable) is one that gives what essentially amounts to undue weight to pseudoscience. That's the context of our beliefs. In that context, I think the desire to remove pseudoscience from the first few words can be dangerous. It is possible to still achieve a neutral lede that does not fall into a promulgation of your non-neutral POV, but I think that proposals such as those below show how easy it is to fall into the trap of missing the main point of what a good explanation of intelligent design is: pseudoscientific propaganda. jps (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I guess I should indicate that I meant human evolution, the only evolution relevant here, and I regret the missing word. Second, I note that there has not in fact been yet an RfC. This thread was started to determine whether there would be a basis for one. I regret that I erred in that aspect as well, for which I apologize. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed lead revision
I would support the lead reading as follows.... the rationale is that it is useful to describe something, then characterize it. This is still unambiguous:

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." The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
 * Wilgoren 2005, "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country."
 * Attie, et al. 2006, "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,
 * The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived 10 February 1999].
 * Whether ID Is Science, p. 66
 * Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
 * See also while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.  ID is pseudoscience,   and 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 testable or tenable hypotheses. See:
 * List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
 * Whether ID Is Science, p. 83
 * The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
 * AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
 * More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
 * National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
 * Nature Methods 2007, "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the Council of Europe voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline."
 * Dean 2007, "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."
 * More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
 * National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
 * Nature Methods 2007, "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the Council of Europe voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline."
 * Dean 2007, "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."


 * Notes


 * References

More simple to propose something than open a discussion about discussing it.... Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think framing is important, and thus I don't like it when the actual context is relegated to the very end of the lede, especially when we're talking about classic pseudoscience, which ID is. This proposal puts the following frames in the following order:
 * ID as defined by opinions of believers
 * affiliation of adherents
 * confabulation and disambiguation with creationism
 * proponent claims
 * pseudoscientific context
 * antecedent and ancillary beliefs.
 * I would argue that points 2, 3, and 6 are better related together and that the pseudoscientific context deserves explicating basically right after the opinion-based definition per WP:WEIGHT. Arguably, this could be done by moving points 2 and 3 down in the paragraph, though I don't know that it's worthwhile collecting both quotes in succession. jps (talk)


 * Thank you for that sensible proposal, Jytdog. I support it, while suggesting a few tweaks.


 * Rationale for changing the present text:
 * Per John Carter: Pseudoscience shouldn't be in "the position of primary descriptor in the first sentence."
 * Per Manul: Making it the fifth word just seems out of place.
 * Per Jytdog: "[I]t is useful to describe something, then characterize it."
 * Especially, per Isambard Kingdom: ...a bunch of back and forth with editors on the astrology article led to the placement of the word "pseudoscience" at the very end of the lead, where it has, in some ways, prominence in a final "pole position". This, I think, still allows for some summary on the subject itself...
 * The proposed change would be consonant with the use of pseudoscience in the Astrology, Creation science, and Creationism articles, plus numerous others.
 * The proposed change would help us avoid a big discussion every time a newcomer takes issue with the present text.


 * So, here's how I would tweak it:
 * 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."[1] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2] Proponents argue that ID is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][3] yet concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[4] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument constituting a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[8][9][10] As such, ID is pseudoscience.[5][6][7]


 * If my tweaks aren't accepted, I would support Jytdog's proposal over the current text. YoPienso (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This puts pseudoscience at the very end when it is arguably the primary category. Seems problematic. jps (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , please don't ever quote someone out of context. The words you lifted from me are referring to a completely different article. The crux of what I said lies in the section of WP:FRINGE I quoted. I didn't come to just to shoot off some random opinion. Manul ~ talk 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. I don't understand your complaint: On this page, you were applying your experience at another article to this one. ???? I assure you I had no intention of misquoting you--note that I didn't directly quote you at all. My intention was to agree with you that pseudoscience seems out of place as the fifth word, or as John Carter put it, as the primary descriptor. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the present lede, which has stood the test of time. Keep it.Charles (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The changes being suggested are much more extensive than what I had in mind, which is just to move "pseudoscience" to the beginning of the second sentence. Maybe we just need a bold edit to bring an end to this discussion. Here, I've done it. Manul ~ talk 12:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm not interested in an edit war, but at least respond to the points I made. Since "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word has only been there since April 2014, I don't believe it's true that, until April 2014, you and other editors connived to create an article that was a vessel for ID apologetics, which is the implication of your edit comment. I believe the article satisfied WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before April 2014 and after April 2014, don't you? Next, I'd like a response regarding whether we should make a clear separation between the description of an idea and its reception, as FRINGE advises. And finally, whether we should avoid the kind of counterpoint-point-counterpoint format that FRINGE discourages. Manul ~ talk 15:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been thoroughly and repeatedly discussed with the clear consensus, every time, of the editors to leave things as they are. This is as politely as I can put it. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I never looked at this page before, but it tells in lede: 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."[1] Intelligent design is pseudoscience .... I am sorry, but this text (and some corrected versions above) do not make any sense as something internally contradictory of something obviously contradicting facts.
 * 1) First of all, selection has been successfully used by humans for designing new breeds, new macromolecules or whatever. So, if there was a Designer, he could use selection and evolution for design.
 * 2) Selection is actually of no importance in this context. The actual process is evolution, and this process is quite obviously directed.
 * 3) This is a personal belief or religion. This is simply not science. This is not a pseudoscience.
 * Yes, I realize: this is a well sourced nonsense. So what? A lot of nonsense can be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the current lead. ID is a pseudoscience precisely because it presents itself as a science, while not actually using the methods of science. It is the ur-example of a pseudoscience. To suggest that it is not is, frankly, to suggest that there's no such thing as pseudoscience. With respect to above, while the argument that it is actually a religious belief might be applied to creationism in general, when it comes to this particular flavor of it, that falls afoul of the fundamental design of ID: to present creationism as a science.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree about pseudoscience. Indeed, the beliefs/religion becomes pseudoscience when someone wrongly claims them to be science, and some people apparently do just that. But telling that selection/evolution was not directed and could not be used for design (or something opposite to design) is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss whether ID is pseudoscience. Indeed, the only disagreement is whether it is off-putting to say that is right away. Maybe it's better to lead the reader gently to that conclusion. This has been discussed innumerable times and the conclusion that has been reached every time is to leave the lede as it is.  TomS TDotO (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that WP should misrepresent the subject of this article so as to avoid offending people? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted Dave Souza's revert of Manul's improvement to the article. His improvement adhered to the policy content guideline Manul cited from WP:FRINGE: "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas." This page shows a number of editors support implementing that guideline here. YoPienso (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war on this: I was about to comment – A bold proposal, but I've undone it as fails WP:FRINGE: it doesn't "first describe the idea clearly and objectively", instead starts with apologetics which artfully mislead readers about ID's nature and purpose, and could equally apply to the more general teleological argument. Worth discussing, but the current version gives the proponents' definition while making it clear that it's pseudoscience. Would it be gentler to say "Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" : it has been found to be pseudoscience. Proponents define it as holding 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." . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it edit-warring when I revert but not when you revert? YoPienso (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be offline for most of the day now. YoPienso (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not edit warring on anyone's part if we all stop editing until this discussion dies down. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed per WP:BRD. Manul made a bold edit and it was challenged. Any change back to Manul's version needs consensus. clpo13(talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * note, I am fine with Manul's edit as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record: so am I. Manul's wording is slightly better than the existing. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should let this discussion run a while (say a week) and if consensus doesn't emerge we can run an RfC - we have three good versions (i would be willing to put Yopienso's alteration of mine, instead of mine).  All three are decent and it is really just a style question.  Style questions are hard to resolve so it will probably come down to an RfC, but let's give it time. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever will be decided on will be challenged when this discussion is forgotten. We have a good version which was hashed over again and again. Keep it and go on to productive work.   TomS TDotO (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fifth word reboot
I would like to put a distance between this discussion and the previous thread, which began with unclear, unspecific assertions without any concrete suggestions and consequently generated a wide variety of responses.

This thread is not for discussing whether pseudoscience should be in the lead. It should; that is the consensus, and that is the starting point of this discussion. If you don't agree with that then take your comments elsewhere.

The bold edit I made caused some confusion, with some explicitly agreeing with it and others confusingly agreeing with the "current" version, which may or may not refer to my edit.

First, the version before my change (bolding to show differences):

And after my change (bolding to show differences):

t Here are the reasons for the change:
 * 1) WP:FRINGE advises separating the description of a fringe idea with its mainstream reception, to wit: first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. This is the conventional format for articles covering fringe ideas.
 * 2) FRINGE also advises avoiding writing in a counterpoint-point-counterpoint style. This is what the before-change text does, bringing a counterpoint to the idea before it is even described, then describing it as advocates do, then adding counterpoints afterword.
 * 3) In no way does WP:PSCI demand that "pseudoscientific" be the fifth word of the article. Being in the second sentence also qualifies as being prominent.
 * 4) It has only been since April 2014 that "pseudoscientific" has been the fifth word. The article had been actively developed for many years before that time, and I don't believe for a moment that the lead had been violating WP:PSCI prior to April 2014, with this being somehow overlooked by all the perceptive editors involved in the article. Indeed prior to April 2014 "pseudoscience" had appeared much later, deep into the second paragraph. My change makes "pseudoscience" far more prominent than that.
 * 5) From what I have seen, these points are different from what has been previously discussed. Others have argued for moving the fifth word, but none (that I found) gave very specific policy/guideline-based reasons for doing so, such as the above. This doesn't fall into the category of "discussed before, let's close and move on".

Here are the counterarguments I've seen, with my rebuttals:
 * 1) Without "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word, we have ID apologetics. This isn't true, at face value. It would also imply that until April 2014 the article had been engaging in ID apologetics, unbeknownst to all editors involved.
 * 2) Without "pseudoscientific" as the fifth word, we aren't describing ID clearly and objectively. I think this is a misunderstanding of what FRINGE is saying here: first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. The more accepted idea is that it's pseudoscience, therefore it should come afterward.
 * 3) The adjective vs noun considerations are inane. Yes, they are! I don't care at all about adjective vs noun. Who cares? It just happened that using "pseudoscience" was easier grammatically. The suggestion in the previous thread was followed only by accident.

I regret mentioning the following, but from my experience on these articles I think I should. It sometimes happens that an edit which appears even the slightest bit WP:PROFRINGE will generate blowback. I think this is mainly due to the tiresome advocacy of some editors who, even after years, fail to understand the importance of WP:FRINGE and how it is implemented. After a while, heuristic reasoning kicks in. Please understand that I am about as far from being pro-fringe as possible. Indeed I have received, and continue to receive, significant off-wiki harassment from paid advocates and promulgators of pseudoscience. Please resist the temptation to dismiss what I've said as being just more nonsense from lunatic charlatans. Manul ~ talk 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * support I think the proposed version is better than the current one. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support While I agree with the statement of the original version (that the "...view that certain features of the universe..." is pseudoscientific), this proposed version reads easier and doesn't leave openings for squabbles over whether that view is pseudoscientific or just religious. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Neither support nor oppose. This suggestion does not run afoul of the concerns I outlined in the previous section. I'm not, however, convinced by the arguments in favor of the changes offered above. First of all, I don't think that the status of ID as a pseudoscience is about WP:MAINSTREAM reception. Rather, I think that this is the thing that it is. I prefer definitive statements such as "A is a B that is C" which would go, I suppose, "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that is developed from the assumption 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." *shrug* jps (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Yopienso below convinced me to oppose because they reminded me that creationists and creationist sympathizers don't want the mainstream understanding of their beliefs front-and-center. So, therefore, because Yopienso thinks that this is what this version does, I oppose it. jps (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt WP:FRINGE was crafted primarily by "creationists and creationist sympathizers." Should you be applying those terms to me, please see Manul's comment above about "more nonsense from lunatic charlatans." Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, tell us, what is your opinion on intelligent design? I think you've reinterpreted the WP:FRINGE guideline as a treatise on the protection of minority opinion. jps (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, when somebody offers their opinion they're told not to. Now you're asking for mine, and strictly as a litmus test to see if I qualify to edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." My opinion of ID is that it is a misguided attempt by literalist Christians to refute evolution. YoPienso (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why wouldn't you want that explicated in the lede upfront? jps (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because before you can say its claims are misguided, you should say what its claims are. YoPienso (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are starting from the false assumption that everybody wants WP to reflect their own opinion and nothing but their own opinion. But usually editors just want to write good articles that reflect what the literature says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per everything Manul, Jytdog and MjolnirPants said here and previously, and what I said previously. I think some of the old-timers have inadvertently misconstrued the meaning of "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" from WP:FRINGE: it means objectively from the perspective of the proponents, not the opponents or mainstream. The opponents and/or mainstream come in on the "more accepted ideas" part. I.e., first the subject is described in its own terms, and then those terms are put into context. YoPienso (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment seen that according to, an ID hypothesis has not been formulated yet, I would change the line to "... Intelligent design is not even pseudoscience yet. It is just a bunch of intuitions about how creationist biology should look like, but the work necessary for formulating it as an hypothesis has simply not been done. What has been done is advocating that such work should be done and claiming that it will eventually surpass naturalistic biology in every respect. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community having demonstrated that ID is not science but a religious argument..." Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please limit discussion to the proposal, and not pontificating pro or con ID. Please remember that there are DS on this topic, and those DS apply to everyone.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While the proposed version is not bad in and of itself, I certainly don't see it as better than the previous one either. "Pseudoscientific" is not a counterpoint, or even "mainstream reception", but a flat description of what it is, the primary category to which it belongs. To use it immediately is no different from describing Haystacks (Monet series) directly as impressionist paintings, rather than as "rectangular oil on canvas widely agreed by the artistic community to form paintings almost universally considered impressionist by the art mainstream"; or Ted Bundy as a serial killer rather than as "...a member of Homo sapiens that happens to have been demonstrated by the legal community to be a serial-killer". And while slippery slopes arguments are themselves slippery slopes, in this case, given the amount of pressure on this lead, I really don't want to see the inevitable next "concerned-citizen proposal" which, two weeks from now, would use a modification pushing back "pseudoscience" one sentence as an argument to push it further back. I consider it as axiomatic that so long as ID is clearly described as pseudoscience, there will be puckback; to the extent that the proposed modification does that, it will fail to lessen that pressure, and the very act of passing it would make resisting that pressure just a little more cumbersome. This does not solve any problem in any way, shape, or form.   — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 04:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But you're skipping the part about defining it objectively in its proponents' terms. You examples are comparing apples to oranges; look at the following apples-to-apples articles to see how we first describe the subject objectively and then step back and say how it is received.
 * Bermuda Triangle
 * Hollow Earth
 * Feng shui
 * Autodynamics
 * Baraminology
 * Acupuncture
 * Crystal healing
 * Lunar effect
 * and many more
 * I do think you're right there will always be some pushback about the word pseudoscience, but at least the proposed change would follow the guidelines and be encyclopedic. That's an improvement. YoPienso (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE nowhere requires defining a nonsense idea in its proponents' terms. That's your own invention. jps (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks jps, that nails the problem I've got with the proposed version: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" doesn't describe the idea clearly and objectively, it's the apologetics produced by proponents of ID and is deliberately obscure, a restatement of the design argument for the existence of God. It misses out the crucial point that ID is claimed as science which is needed to then jump to "Intelligent design is pseudoscience", though that's well supported. The original version shows the context at the outset that ID isn't simply the classical design argument, but is a pseudoscientific variation on that argument which obscures the identity of "the designer" in order to pretend to be science. There's more than one way of covering this, but the current one strikes a reasonable balance and, in my opinion, the proposed version doesn't work so well. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and I don't see how else to interpret the guideline, which states, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas . . ." Why, if the idea isn't described clearly and objectively in its proponents terms, does the next clause tell us to "refer the reader to more accepted ideas"? I can only infer from that guideline that the more accepted ideas come second, not first. As Manul already explained, "The more accepted idea is that it's pseudoscience, therefore it should come afterward." That's how it is on all the examples I gave of other pseudoscientific ideas. (Exceptions: apparently the crystal healing did immediately call it pseudoscience; jps ran over to bariminology to "fix" it.) Please explain, Josh and Dave, why it says to then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's a guideline which doesn't demand that pseudoscience should first be described in the words of its proponents, and doesn't explain how that could possibly be done "objectively" when these words are deeply misleading. Doing that to meet a guideline is overruled by the clear policy requirements not to give "equal validity" to the fringe views, when the topic is pseudoscience not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other or obscure the mainstream view, or give undue weight to the minority view by giving it prominence of placement and not being clear that the definition is quoting the minority view. While I don't see a problem with an objective third party description of the topic, it's difficult in the polarised topic to produce that. Hence the need for balance, as above. . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposed version as my comment above, in case anyone's counting !votes. . . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quickly, for I'm at work. Manul's argument above goes both ways; it seems unlikely that a version that has stood for nigh on two years is unencyclopaedic and or runs afoul of guidelines. I may, out of sheer masochism, take the time to comment on your apples-to-horseapples examples later. A point is that there is no one word that fully captures the essence of, say, the Bermuda triangle, like 'pseudoscience' does for ID, so its absence can hardly be construed as a stylistic indication.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I didn't claim that the article ran afoul of guidelines; in fact I said the exact opposite to Dave: "I believe the article satisfied WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before April 2014 and after April 2014, don't you?" It is Dave who said that my edit violates FRINGE, a claim I think is both extraordinary and obviously wrong. I do believe my edit brings us closer to the intent of FRINGE; that is different from saying that the prior version violates FRINGE (again, I said the opposite). Manul ~ talk 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Manul: to be clear, I don't claim you claim that. I was responding to Yopienso, who said the proposed change would follow the guidelines and be encyclopedic. That's an improvement., which implies that claim. Had I believed that your version violated FRINGE, I should not have stated that it was not bad in and of itself. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't propose to make an argument - this is not the place to make arguments, and anyway apparently everyone agrees that ID is pseudoscience. Does the present form of the article make that clear? Yes. Does the change make it any clearer? No. (I agree with Dave souza.) Are we to go over the same ground every couple of months? Apparently so, for whatever "improvement" is made, somebody is going to find something "just as good" for promote.   TomS TDotO (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as the proposer. So far the arguments for oppose have been:
 * Appeal to consequences: if we soften the lead just this little bit, it will open the door to fringe-pushers, making editors' lives harder. Or in Star Wars terms, "If word of this gets out, it could generate sympathy for the Rebellion." The appeal to consequences is a fallacy. Only one counterexample is needed to rebut the slippery-slope argument, and there is one: as I mentioned earlier, the Rupert Sheldrake article went through nearly the same transition, and no dire consequences have resulted. In fact it probably decreased the disruption in the long term (that is also an appeal to consequences -- just noting that if you do apply this fallacy, you're probably applying it in the wrong direction).
 * Appeal to spite: a perceived fringe-pusher wants the change, so we must oppose to spite them.
 * Explicitly no reason; just because.
 * "Clearly and objectively" means that "pseudoscientific" must the fifth word. This is the only argument that appears at least superficially reasonable. Again, the part of FRINGE to which this refers is first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. The intent of that text is to direct editors to create a contrast. The pattern is " ... " (I recently read about how swearing is correlated with truthfulness, so let's try it). For the moment let's accept that "clearly and objectively" implies that "pseudoscientific" must be the fifth word. But then where is the contrast? It's not bullshit that ID is pseudoscientific, yet it lies in the " " portion. The above comments from others only further suggest to me that the root issue is an innocent misreading of the FRINGE passage.
 * A bad argument was made for support, which I hope doesn't conjure a guilt-by-association fallacy. We needn't use the words of proponents in the " " part; we need only create a contrast that FRINGE suggests. Manul ~ talk 17:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my switch to oppose was because Yopienso convinced me that what the proposed change does is frame ID in terms of what proponents say they believe without reference to the facts that the idea is not what proponents say. This isn't spiteful, in fact. I appreciate Yopienso helping me see this. I just see this as being exactly the reason to oppose while she seems to see it as a reason to support because of a strange interpretation of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: The appeal to consequences is only a fallacy in an argument about what is, not about what ought to be. The whole point of the latter discussions is to try to steer events towards a certain consequence. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I add that a counterexample can rebut only a universal statement (all cats are black -- here is a white cat!), while the appeal to consequences is a probabilistic one. Ceteris paribus I find it more likely for the concern trolling to stay constant or become more cumbersome rather than being defused, for the reasons stated above: the edit doesn't ease much pressure on ID supporters, but the change gives them fodder. I see no mechanism through which the situation might improve, save that IP editors that read only the first sentence may not vandalise it anymore. That's already covered by pending-changes, and was never the main time waster here. The form of my argument is analogous to advising someone to tie their shoelaces. Yes, it's an appeal to consequences. Yes, it's valid. No, I don't have stats. Yes, there are plenty of people who have spent time with their shoelaces flying wildly about, like little Kevin, and who have had a perfectly excellent day nevertheless. There remains that, ceteris paribus, there are general reasons to tie the bloody things and leaving them untied does not fix anything I can see. A strong refutation would be: look, this study found no correlation between shoelaces-tiedness and bones-brokenness (and a weaker one would be: for reasons X and Y I don't think untied shoelaces should tend to lead to fractures). Another might be: look, dire weasels are scared of untied shoelace -- then one would need to decide whether weasels or fractures are worse, on balance. (All this assumes fractures are bad; of course I took an example where the mechanism is much clearer than in the ID example at hand -- at this point the discussion has gone meta, on the form of the arguments used in the discussion. Fallacies being invoked fallaciously are one of my many pet peeves).    — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, in discussions like these the appeal to consequences is a statistical syllogism. Not fallacious, but no consequence is assured. I too, have an issue with fallacies being invoked fallaciously (or even when the soundness of an argument is immaterial to the subject of discussion), which is why I posted the little correction above. Also, Dire Weasels are notoriously attracted to loose threads, strings and laces so your whole example is just meaningless. ;) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This looks like a case of fallacies being invoked about fallacies being invoked fallaciously. First, a valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. Fallacies are often about bypassing evaluating the soundness of an argument by referencing some external thing which is not found in the argument itself. In the case of the argument from consequences fallacy, it invokes some external reason for disfavoring the conclusion, one that is not part of the original argument. The sympathy-for-the-Rebellion argument bypasses arguments based upon policies and guidelines. It isn't an argument for improving the article itself, but instead makes unsubstantiated claims about the editing environment surrounding the article and urges us to ignore the PAG-focused argument being made based upon those claims.


 * Only one counterexample suffices to show that a statement is not necessarily true. When someone claims that if X happens then Y will happen, I need only show an example where X happened but Y did not happen. In fact the example I gave goes even further. The claim was that if X happens then Z will increase. I showed a case where X happened but Z decreased.


 * I would like to discuss PAG-based arguments. I think we've veered away from that. Manul ~ talk 16:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And what I have apparently still not managed to convey is that it's not an argument in propositional logic. It's not an argument of the form "if X happens then Y will happen", where X and Y are true or false, which would be refuted by a model where X and not Y. It's a Bayesian argument -- the kind which applies in contexts of incomplete knowledge, ie science and real life. "If" is an extreme case of conditional probabilities. Kevin is not a refutation for tying one's shoelaces -- Kevin was lucky. Good poker players lose; often. Bad players win. A winning or losing game is still evidence of their level, it's just extremely weak evidence (anecdote). Breast cancer tests yield false positive and false negatives. You can test positive and be fine; you can test negative and be doomed. How fine? How doomed? What should you do? Though the world is fuzzy the rules one must follow, on pain of paradox, to deal with this fuzziness are not in themselves fuzzy. If you have good stats on the reliability of the test, then there is one right answer regarding the probability that you have cancer, given that you test positive; say, 0.23. If you are mathematically-minded, I recommend E.T. Jaynes' "Probability theory, the logic of science"; I think PDFs can be found on the web.  The bottom line is that I assure you that the form of my argument is correct, though we may well have different priors. That does not mean it is a  strong argument as regards this particular discussion. I have very low confidence in my conclusion -- maybe .55 or something -- and I have tried to make that clear. I play my cards the best I know how, but I'm not betting a lot of money on that particular hand.  0.55 is still better than 0.5, which is why I shared it. (The numbers are for illustrative purposes only, Spock notwithstanding). The amount of time we have spent discussing that is entirely disproportionate to the influence it should have on the outcome of the discussion. If this exchange gives you -- or onlookers -- incentive to realise that propositional logic does not apply to this discussion, and to apply that knowledge in other discussions, then this won't have been a total waste of time. I'd be glad to continue on my talk page if I have yet again failed to convey the idea.


 * Back (slightly more) on topic, I wholeheartedly agree that it's not a PAG-focused argument.. And it may well be productive to discard non-PAG arguments outside of discussions on policy itself, as a matter of methodology. Courts do discard evidence in some circumstances -- when it's acquired through questionable means. Incidentally, the reason they do that is an appeal to consequences -- if we allowed that kind of evidence in court, that would give people incentive to do X more frequently, and the harm that would do outweighs the good that would come from sometimes having more accurate information. Currently, I see no reason to do so here.


 * To recap: 1° I don't see that the change is an improvement. Maybe a slight worsening. I'm confident that it's not a great improvement. I'm confident it's not a great worsening. Both versions meet PAG. 2° The more contentious a paragraph is, the higher becomes the threshold of improvement necessary for me to agree to a change. (That's where my appeal to consequences lies; I'm open to arguments against that principle. Your Sheldrake counterexample has the right form in principle to change my mind here, it's just too weak to do so by itself) 3° I oppose this change (per 1° and 2°, and the lead being highly contentious).  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , it didn't occur to you that I didn't address your Bayesian argument on purpose? I was responding to your implication that I made a fallacious argument about a fallacy. I did not, and I explained why.


 * Why did I ignore your Bayesian argument? Because it's not based upon policies and guidelines. It doesn't contain reasons for improving the article, but carries another agenda. If I'm looking for an ungulate, and I know that all ungulates have four legs, and I come across an animal with eight legs, then I don't have to examine its feet in order to conclude that it's not an ungulate.


 * To continue the analogy, you placed a spider underneath a sign that says, "Please put your ungulates here!" After I explain that we're looking for ungulates, you respond, "And what I have apparently still not managed to convey is that we should have spiders here as well!"


 * If there is a problem with fringe-pushing then it should be addressed using the appropriate channels. There are many options, including, say, the 500/30 restriction. If attempts to address the problem have failed, then you bring that to attention in an appropriate forum -- perhaps AE, perhaps elsewhere. However saying, "Because we have this problem, we are going to make edits that are not based upon policies and guidelines, not based upon best practices, and not based upon improving the article; rather, we shall make edits in order to manage our meta-problem" -- that's very much like WP:POINTy behavior, if not POINTy behavior itself. It's bad. Manul ~ talk 21:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it really didn't occur to me that you didn't address my Bayesian argument on purpose, because you explicitly tried to refute it on several occasions, e.g. When someone claims that if X happens then Y will happen, I need only show an example where X happened but Y did not happen., which is exactly the kind of answer I usually get when somebody doesn't grok reasoning under uncertainty, so I inferred that was what was going on here. I still can't see how that quote, and others from you, can be reconciled with I didn't address your Bayesian argument on purpose. So I now understand you even less than I thought I did before, on that point. Oh well.


 * I think I understand the roots of your objections better, though. Like I said, I'm not particularly fond of spiders meta arguments. But in that case policy alone won't take us very far given that both version satisfy it and whatever difference there may be are stylistic. I'm advocating refraining from making stylistic edits that are not net improvements, especially (and that's the spidery/meta part) in contentious waters. If the proposal was a clear improvement, or mandated by policy, I would support it. If the article was not contentious, I would still prefer the old version, but I might not bother actively voicing my opposition, because the buck would stop here. Perhaps I should just have posted "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".


 * I was going to segue into a mechanics analogy, but it suddenly occurs to me that my analogy budget for the week is spent. I think if we continue we shall just succeed in exasperating each other. Further. I like picking nits as much as the next pedant but even I have had my fill for the nonce. I do not intend to participate further in this specific thread. I hope we have occasion to interact more productively in the future (which isn't setting the bar very high). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, to be clear: I'm fine with the original wording, as well. The arguments here amount to a bunch of opinions, from where I sit. I support this wording because, to me, it reads better. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd prefer the current version. The proposed version leaves the view in question without context. Describing the view as pseudoscience contextualizes instantly that the view purports to be science but isn't. I wouldn't be opposed to some different wording so long as it is clear at the onset that ID claims to be based on the scientific method but is actually pseudoscience. The entire notability of ID is that it wrapped creationism in a faux scientific veneer. That should be front in center in the first sentence or so. Leaving pseudoscience where it is accomplishes that. Though, as I said, I'm not opposed to different wording that accomplishes the same thing Capeo (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Dave Souza.Charles (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both proposals, since the "scientific community" (who hasn't "demonstrated" anything and are often in disagreement about many things) can neither prove or disprove the existence of a creator and has yet to even fathom how life began, never mind the universe. There are also nonreligious people who assume that there is some sort of intelligence behind how life rose up out of the 'dirt' and began to reproduce itself, so referring to Intelligent Design as a strictly religious view is misleading, esp since many scientists believe in some sort of God. Einstein did. Intelligent Design is best described as a theory that incorporates both god and science. Saying the scientific community has "demonstrated" anything implies that they are all on the same page and have performed some sort of conclusive experiment that proves there is no intelligence behind the creation and propagation of life. The last sentence in the second version should read:
 * "...many in the scientific community having demonstrated claim that ID is not science as they understand it, but a religious argument." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Creationist bullshit. When the scientific community demonstrates something and you don't listen, they have still demonstrated it. That is just the first of the many fallacies in your short contribution, but this is not the place to refute them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I opposed both proposals and thought an explanation might be due. Your hostile and unstable tone suggests you lack the objectivity and patience to contemplate either school of thought here. Scientists, whose opinions vary greatly, a fact, many of whom believe in an intelligent creator, another fact, have explained nothing in terms of how life began, another fact, let alone have "demonstrated" anything. They only claim so. Much of ID theory is based on scientific observation. What is 'BS' is the idea that any one account can speak for all of science, and a handful of editors here at WP should not attempt to do so. All scientists are not walking around with their heads stuck in the same little specimen jar. The "scientific community" still can't begin to explain 'what' actually caused life to begin in this 'cause' and effect universe. Another fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I argued above, ID makes no predictions because it isn't a hypothesis, and it isn't a hypothesis because it has not been yet formulated as hypothesis (let alone "theory"). So ID is neither theory nor hypothesis, it is just a collection of catchy slogans. Mind that evolution theory does not claim that there is no God; evolution simply does not know if there is any god and does not pretend to know that there is no God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many, if not all, scientists who believe in an intelligent creator have nothing but scorn for the ID scam. For a readable example answering your points, I commend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. Who has scientific credibility, unlike the couple of cdesign proponentsts with rather tarnished scientific credentials. As for abiogenesis, that can seek a scientific explanation. ID can only offer the religious presumptions of "theistic science'', creation science relabelled, with no scientific credibility. . dave souza, talk 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose. The old version is fine, and the new version is not needed to improve the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in lead
Note, I have created a new section for this discussion, which is about whether there is a contradiction in the LEAD. Please address the point raised here, and nothing else. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC) There is a contradiction in the lead. It says, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view...." Later it says, "ID is a religious argument...." Religion is not pseudo-science, it actually pre-dates it. The "religious argument" (it is actually philosophical) is the argument from design. It only becomes pseudo-science when it is treated as a theory that is falsifiable. Science cannot disprove the argument from design, nor can it prove it. Pseudo-scientists claim it can. TFD (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As shown by a source cited in the lead, there is yet no hypothesis/theory of ID, pseudoscientific or not. So, ID is a religious argument that such a hypothesis should be eventually formulated. There are some concepts like irreducible complexity and specified complexity being argued by ID proponents, but till now ID is nothing like firm testable predictions from a hypothesis. The ordinary way for a scientific theory be taught in schools is: formulate the hypothesis, publish articles testing it in scientific journals, then a minority of the concerned scientists support it, then the majority, it gets taught in many universities and then you could write a manual for high-schools. The ID proponents have started with the schoolbook and have not yet formulated ID as a hypothesis making clear (and falsifiable) predictions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For what this religious argument entails see theistic science: Plantinga argues that there should be a Christian sort of science, different from secular science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting we not call ID a pseudoscience? I strongly disagree--per WP policy and guidelines--with so labeling it before defining it in its own terms, but so many RSs call it pseudoscience we have to include that info. What, imho, most editors here are missing is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indignant screed. Therefore, we say influential scientists harshly criticize ID as a sham, a pseudoscience, a dishonest argument, but we don't criticize it in WP's own voice. YoPienso (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Plantinga advocates in fact the ghettoization of science. That's why ID pushes pseudoscience: fundamentalist Christians do not like secular science, so they concoct their own science, developed and taught in their own scientific ghettos. Also, trying to undo methodological naturalism has been seen as a hallmark of pseudoscience, even if the pseudoscientific hypothesis itself has not been developed yet. Otherwise, seen that the context of discovery is not the same with the context of justification, we have to wait and see if there will ever be a testable hypothesis arising from the ID movement. My two cents is that they won't like the falsification of their own predictions, that's why they keep their arguments in the realm of the unfalsifiable (wherein everything could be predicated without fear of actual falsification). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I think we've veered off-topic. YoPienso (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does not the term 'natural selection' imply intelligence? When something is 'selected' it involves more than pulling a number out of a hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment is not relevant to the voting. It is also not relevant to ID, but is merely an attempt to cast doubt on a facet of biology. Let's keep on topic.   TomS TDotO (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's entirely relevant and something to consider before using the misleading label of 'natural selection'. Since there are a number of impartial(?) sources to consider, we here at Wikipedia must consider the logic and terminology used in what we present to the readers. I respect science in terms of advancing a better rocket fuel, but when it comes to deciphering the origins of life and the universe they're like children trying to build a bridge across the ocean with a set of 'Tinker Toys'. - Gwillhickers (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an analogy which scientific terms often use. TFD (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of the above alternatives are somewhat defunct. Re: Alt2: "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument constituting a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. As such, ID is pseudoscience." This implies that scientific analysis, such that it is, is conclusive. And once again, we are referring to the "scientific community" as if they're all on the same page. They're not. Can we get an alternative that is not rife with weasle and partisan terminology? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not imply that scientific analysis is conclusive. But claims that cannot be tested are outside science and any claim that they can be tested is pseudoscience.  That's true whether or not you happen to accept the argument from design or believe in God.  TFD (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we not let this discussion on the vote be distracted by totally irrelevant comments. TomS TDotO (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the less than accurate POV terminology in both versions being voted on is completely relevant. Speaking for the "scientific community" in a manner that suggests they're one unified group in lock-step with one another, esp about abstract ideas like creation of life, an intelligent creator, etc, needs to be mentioned. "Deliberately avoid"? The current version reads like an indictment, while the proposed version is hardly better. For balance shouldn't all version include the idea that, Scientists and ID proponents can not explain how life began? This vote was thrown together in a hasty fashion, is narrow in scope and lacks balance and an other alternative. "...not adding or removing any words or sources"? What is the point if all we're doing is rearranging the same POV? Have your little pow-wow, but all versions beg the POV tag. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're conflating all kinds of disparate ideas here that have no bearing on the question at hand. We're not even discussing "how life began" which is abiogenesis and not evolution. The scientific analysis that evolution is the factual explanation for the variation of life on this planet is not a question among the scientific community. It is in fact 99.9% in lockstep on the facts. Science has no bearing on the question of a creator as it is un-testable and hence why ID is pseudoscience. Capeo (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, "the question of a creator as it is un-testable", which is why I suggested the neutral clause, "Scientists and ID proponents can not explain how life began." for overall balance and context regarding the two schools of thought. Theory has always paved the way for science, as Einstein and others have demonstrated time and again. All versions are hardly different. What "question at hand"? Which is the best way to advance the current POV? Good luck with the vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, neither ID nor evolution seek to directly answer the question "how life began". That's abiogenesis. Evolution is observable fact that is testable and verifiable. ID is religion veiled in scientific trappings, thus, pseudoscience. Pointing that out, as RS do, is not POV. Capeo (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, scientists are, in fact, in lockstep agreement on whether evolution happened. ID is based upon the proposition that evolution is impossible. Therefore, any scientist who agrees that evolution happened is in perfect agreement that ID is false.
 * Also, ID pretends to be a science. Whether or not it has any identifiable, fundamental aspects of science is beside the point. The fact that it pretends to be science makes it pseudoscience, by every possible definition of the word. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis. I don't know of any religious people who deny that life forms have gone through an evolution. (Yes, I'm sure there are some who do out there somewhere.) IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all. The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ID has no scientific basis. Of course the DI claims it does but that's why we use reliable secondary sources and not the claims of the subjects themselves. Capeo (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My reference to "scientific community" was in regard to the claim that ID is without any scientific basis. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that an appreciable percentage of scientists (by which I mean at least 5-10%, not 0.05-0.1%) think that there is some scientific merit to the utterly unscientific proposition that sits at the heart of ID?
 * IMO, evolution is the continuation of creation, while the question of the origins remains a mystery to all. IMO, your opinion has no business in this article. Guess whose opinion is demonstrably right?
 * The D.I. website you linked to clearly says that Intelligent Design is a theory. Which was exactly my point. ID pretends to be science. Did you expect the discovery institute to suggest that ID was a pseudoscience, or not science at all? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I observe that there is no hope for the discussion to remain on topic. Perhaps there are people who want to register that they are not being given a vote. So I suggest that those who cannot choose between the options that they can vote Abstention. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Coming back to the topic: for the reasons I stated above, I see no contradiction. The argument is religious and it implies that a pseudoscience should be developed. So, ID is both religion and pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's try again. The argument from design is a philosophical argument, taught in philosophy text books, for example in Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction, Fourth Edition (Hackett Publishing Company), p. 239.  Philosophical arguments are not pseudo-science or science for that matter.  TFD (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. TFD please read the article.  Everything you have written here is addressed in the article already.  ID was specifically set up to "look like" science and challenge science but it is grounded in religion.  This is why it is pseudoscience. The article explains this.  More importantly, your comments here are not based on having read the article nor the sources provided, and WP is not a SOAPBOX for you to play logic games.  I am giving you the discretionary sanctions notice for PS if you don't already have it.   If you continue wasting people's time here and giving your opinion instead of dealing with the sourced content in the article and bringing different readings of all those sources, or bringing new ones,  we will have to see that you are prevented from doing so. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it possible to provide reasoned discussion without resorting to personal attacks? I am not discussing the article but the lead because the RfC (which you set up) is about the wording of the lead.  While ID is pseudoscience, philosophy is not and you are claiming it is.  TFD (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Article Talk pages are not the place for "reasoned discussion" based on your personal thoughts about the lead or any other aspect of this article.  I will WP:SHUN with respect to future comments you make that are not based on sourced content in the article or bringing new sources and suggesting comment based on them, and I reckon others will do the same.  You have also been made aware of the DS and if you continue to misrepresent me or others that will be grounds for an AE case on its own. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is comprehensively rebutted with two words: cdesign proponentsists. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@ TFD; The contradiction is in the lead, because the contradiction is inherent in ID creationism. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific view:...." a view which rejects science while being presented as science which can supposedly be taught in science classrooms, though they've not actually worked ou the "theory" yet. Later it says, "ID is a religious argument.." The central "theory" of ID is the teleological argument, the religious apologetics at the heart of natural theology, an argument central to creation science, the pseudoscientific predecessor of ID. Which was found in court to infringe the First Amendment, so the cdesign proponentsists quickly relabelled creation science as ID and, officially if not consistently, removed obvious religious references such as "creation". All of that is in the article, and should be in the lead – please check the wording and find where that needs clarified. Thanks,. dave souza, talk 07:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. ID is a religious argument that pretends to be scientific - ergo pseudoscience. The two statements look at two different aspects of the same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a PHD in philosophy, but it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation, that because the physical (scientific) universe, and life forms on Earth, are highly ordered entities, there must be some inherent intelligence behind their creation. ID proponents claim their belief is a theory. I haven't seen any claim made by them that says they have some scientific evidence about how life began, only that because the universe and life forms, and science itself, are highly ordered entities ('cause' and effect in all its forms) the logical progression is that there is some sort of creative intelligence at work. Again, no one, including scientists, ID proponents and religious people can prove how life began. For context and neutrality I hope this idea will be mentioned somewhere in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What's with this off-topic uninformed bullshit about "prove how life began"? The claims of those who believe in intelligent design are simple: that there is scientific evidence that intelligence was involved in creating lifeforms. In contrast, the scientific fact is that there is no evidence for intelligence working directly in evolution. None. On the other hand, there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that evolution proceeds on the basis of natural selection. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that life emerged in an abiogenetic process without any input from any intelligence. That the people who believe in ID claim there is scientific evidence is the extent to which they are pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Claims have been made. Others are allowed to respond. Scientists, like ID proponents and others have observed evolution. Where is the proof there is no intelligence at work? The Abiogenesis school of thought claims life evolved from simple matter, but they can explain 'what' started the process. No one can prove intelligence is at work, but don't kid yourself, no one can disprove it either. The article should mention this for neutrality. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it was my understanding that ID was based, in part, on scientific observation, Your understanding is wrong. ID is based upon misrepresentation of real scientific data and outright falsehoods. Keep up with the "no-one can prove it wasn't god" arguments and I promise you this: you will find yourself topic banned. You've been around WP long enough to know that kind of crap argument won't fly here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes scientific observation. It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it, and again, ID proponents have claimed much of what they propose is theory. Scientists themselves have often misrepresented their own observations, or do you regard them as some sort of infallible god, exempt from human error? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gwillhicker, just stop. It's clear you neither have the background in ID nor actual science to grasp what would or wouldn't be POV here. If you had even read the article you'd know ID very much claims to be science, as in a scientific theory, which is far different than the word "theory" as you seem to be using it. They tried to get it taught in science classes! That's the whole point of the Dover trial. Note as well, we can very much figure out how life began within a pretty high certainty. We have evidence of the oldest living organism and multiple models of abiogenenic processes that can lead to self replicating molecules. We'll get there eventually. We currently already know evolution has no guiding hand behind it other than the randomness of environmental pressures and mutations. All of ID's claims of being scientific are bogus. It is, in fact, one of the purest examples of pseudoscience you can find. Capeo (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only an opinion that they have misrepresented it. That statement is 100%, pure bullshit. It is -in no way- "only an opinion" that they have misinterpreted it. It has been demonstrated in the scientific literature, through experimentation, modelling and mathematics and in a court of law that their interpretation is spurious and unscientific. Now you are just disrupting this page with bullshit claims like this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was only responding to other claims made, like others have, including yourself, just now. The only thing disruptive is your temper and foul mouth approach to debate. If you disagree with other views, please say so without all the gut-wrenching. How do the 'models of abiogenenic processes' explain how the process started? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this has absolutely nothing to do with ID I'd suggest you do your own research. Our own article on abiogenesis is a starting point. This off-topic meandering is disruptive. Capeo (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where do ID proponents claim "evolution is impossible"? Many scientists are supportive of ID, but I don't see where they've denied evolution. Again, no one can explain, computer models notwithstanding, how the abiogenenic process all 'began', or 'what' started it all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)