Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 88

What does objectivity and NPOV demand?
I am aghast to happen upon the extensive archives here. This is so contentious a topic even among people with considerable credentials and arguments (for example, here) that people should be respectful of both sides and take special care that the other side (in its best form) is presented fairly. Someone who is not a diehard believer (pro or con) should be allowed to review and refine essays such as this. It is daunting indeed to have to go through the back-and-forth up to this point, but an innocent researcher would be quite justified in thinking that this article has an overly strong, even quasi-religiously dogmatic POV. For example, the sentence "Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component" occurs way down, and is immediately countered. Furthermore the merging with creationism is made at the top of the article. Let the ID people define what they are about, why don't you? Why twist things into the religious arena when the ID theorists are adhering to scientific concepts and arguments? I have to call unfair on this article. This is a grand Wikpedia FAIL. The only real remedy is to have people who are NOT partisans of either side in charge of it. That is what NPOV demands as I see it. Pernimius (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . Are you proposing a change to the article? if so, what specifically is that change? and what source(s) are you citing to back it up? Thanks --McSly (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello MCSly. I am proposing a general review and adjustment of the article by a non-partisan. Let me also state a guiding practice for WP if not already written out somewhere: Reasonable and fair members of each "side" of a controversial topic should be able to look at the article and say "Yeah, that is fair..." This is implicit in NPOV, but this way of phrasing it has a review benefit: For example, here it is hard to see how the ID people are going to accept the branding of "pseudo-science." Such people could easily swallow the idea "Many in the scientific community consider this kind of thinking pseudo-scientific." Some might say, Oh we can't do that for flat-earthers and alien theorists. But that is already a judgment that may not at all be fair: there are good reasons for saying ID theorists are NOT like flat-earthers, and it sandbags the argument for a diehard majoritarian to just lump them together. This is a question of fair judgment. Pernimius (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the Arbitration Committee section in the header of this talk page, in particular the section about obvious pseudoscience. There is no "being fair" to both sides. WP reflects the current scientific consensus which clearly is that ID is pseudoscience, so this article reflects that consensus. End of. - Nick Thorne talk  21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dogmatic condemnation can be misused, even by scientists. If this article is correct, then there is a lot of testimony to the non-pseudo status of ID. Scientific consensus then is split, if you are going to be honest about it. The article says, for example:


 * There are many pro-ID scientific papers published by ID proponents in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Journal of Molecular Biology, Protein Science, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Physics of Life Reviews, Cell Biology International, BIO-Complexity, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and Annual Review of Genetics. In 2011, the ID movement published its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper.


 * The danger of having partisans gleefully throw around the term pseudo-science is that legitimate areas of growth in science are excluded or tend to be excluded from a fair hearing. You've condemned something with a label when real research and valid ideas accepted by many scientists on both sides deserve to be looked at. This is all too blunt a way to deal with new understandings. There is also a readership question. Anybody who follows the science argued by the ID people will take one look at the first sentence and not read any further most likely. EVEN IF WP wants to take the pseudo-science approach with ID, it does not have to say it is basically as off-the-wall as flat-earth societies' beliefs. It could responsibly represent the real and valid parts of the scientific thinking of the proponents. It needn't put a big all-condemnatory label on the entire thing. There has to be a place for speculative ventures that is not condemned to hell a priori. Hawking has proposed some pretty wild things. (Like the ridiculous and illogical "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.") Do you want an article on him to start off with, "A pseudo-scientist and poor logician known for x, y, and z..."? Pernimius (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem, which I have stated repeatedly on this page (and which resulted in a change that lasted a long time until it was reverted to its present state) arises from simple semantics: the lead sentence uses the adjective "pseudoscientific" rather than calling ID out as the noun "pseudoscience". Using adjectives always makes a sentence vulnerable to objections that it's more opinionated, more subjective, and less neutral. During the time while it was fixed to describe ID as "pseudoscience" instead of "pseudoscientific", the complaints practically disappeared. It's simple semantics. The current version uses loaded language equivalent to calling ID bullshit, while simply stating the noun removes the subjective non-neutral character of the lead sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design is rightly considered pseudoscience because a) its proponents have repeatedly failed to explain or demonstrate how or why Intelligent Design is science, and have repeatedly failed to explain or demonstrate how to use Intelligent Design to do science. Furthermore, since the proponents of Intelligent Design have repeatedly confessed that their only motive in promoting this is to skirt laws prohibiting the use of science classrooms to indoctrinate students in anti-science religious propaganda instead of teaching them science, it would be a violation of NPOV to imply or insist that Intelligent Design IS science or even a school of thought.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why ID is science: see here. Your reading is not as wide as it needs to be. Because some may have expressed certain motives, those motives are not universally applicable. Please try to be fair, or someone may try to label you a pseudo-Wikipedian. Pernimius (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't insult me as a "pseudo-Wikipedian" because I don't agree with your assessment, and please don't falsely accuse me of having a narrow reading list since I'm not the one deliberately ignoring the boilerplate notice at the top of this talkpage about "Should ID be characterized as science?"--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you should also read Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? above. Mojoworker (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw. I was really interested to read that, and then it mentioned irreducible complexity in pretty much its fourth sentence, which is of course a basic tenet of creationism and creation "science". That's a big fail, right there. (Incidentally, that website is actually quite disturbing; it promotes the teaching of fiction to children. Some of what it does would actually be illegal in some countries). Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfair revert by McSly
Q2 in the FAQ says:


 * Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Similar things can be said of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, however: the appearance of an entirely new species cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or even observed in nature.

McSly reverted the bolded part saying it was unsourced and incorrect opinion. How is it any less unsourced than the first part of Q2? How is it incorrect? No one has witnessed the birth of an entirely new species and it cannot be observed occurring by natural process in the lab. If you are going to say ID is pseudo-science, it looks like the terms in which that designation has been phrased have to apply to evolutionary theory as well. McSly, explain or be reverted. Pernimius (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Interesting use of the term. So it looks like you've got three different types of oysters or killer whales or whatever. How does the oyster or killer whale become something other than an oyster or killer whale? And by random process? How do you observe random process? Maybe you can postulate it, but can you observe it? "A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments." Okay, you can actually predict a random process in an experiment? Sounds like a stretch. Evolutionary Theory is theory for a reason. Just so ID theory can be a similar type of scientific construct to explain phenomena. If this ground has been covered in the voluminous archives, I will be happy to go and learn from them. Just point out the place. But from what I see, you've still got some 'splainin' to do. Pernimius (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you could start with the SciAm article if you want to seek enlightenment. However, you seem to be starting from a strawman: "No one has witnessed the birth of an entirely new species" – unsurprising, as that's a common creationist misconception; in science, species descend from similar predecessors, divergence with modification rather than the "entirely new species" that cdesign proponentsists suppose is introduced sekritly at a stroke by The Intelligent Designer. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you could start with the SciAm article if you want to seek enlightenment. However, you seem to be starting from a strawman: "No one has witnessed the birth of an entirely new species" – unsurprising, as that's a common creationist misconception; in science, species descend from similar predecessors, divergence with modification rather than the "entirely new species" that cdesign proponentsists suppose is introduced sekritly at a stroke by The Intelligent Designer. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah but surely the point here is about scientifically and experimentally observing an entirely new species come about, no matter how many small steps you want to take. No straw man, just holding scientists to their claims. This type of observation of the rise of really new species (as opposed to splits in species) has not been done, I do not think, only postulated as an extension of what may be now observable. So you want to claim "science" for this hypothetical extension but not allow it for other similar types of thinking? Seems really unfair to me. Pernimius (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong, offtopic, and you're not provided the reliable sources needed for any chnnge to the article. Your own misconceptions don't count here, WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, not off topic at all. You have not explained how my commonsense (not original) thought is a misconception. The passage seems to claim that to be science, accurate predictions have to be observed and verified experimentally: "A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false." This however cannot be done for the rise of really new (not just split) species. This is logic and common knowledge. One does not have to source logic and common knowledge. Where is my misconception? Can you falsify what I have said...other than by just claiming it is wrong? Pernimius (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speciation has been observed. The fact that a particular type of speciation that is not predicted by the theory of evolution has not been observed is not a problem for the theory of evolution. Your argument is based on a failure to understand the theory you are trying to criticise. Brunton (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have failed to understand the idea that the speciation we have observed is not adequate to represent the emergence of really new species, rather than merely splits in previous ones. The misconception is entirely yours, I must say. Pernimius (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NOTAFORUM. We aren't debating the established science here: make actual suggestions for changes to the page and support them with reliable sources. --tronvillain (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I repeat what I asked above when my actual change to the page was reverted without real discussion: "How is it any less unsourced than the first part of Q2?" Perhaps you can answer this. Pernimius (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore this discussion may turn out to be unexpectedly useful: are we being as fair to ID Theory as to Evolutionary Theory? You may not want to debate this, but it is quite a relevant and important issue which you should not want to ignore in all fairness. Pernimius (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I told you on your talk page, if by fairness you understand WP:GEVAL, no, we don't do that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is perfectly adequate to explain observed variation: once species have split, and are no longer interbreeding, they can diverge further. Saying that new species are not “really new species” is just shifting the goalposts (and verging on WP:IDHT). Brunton (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we will simply disagree on my point and its value. There is an obvious (I would maintain) world of difference between a variation in an oyster producing a new species of oyster and a long series of variations turning the oyster's descendants into octopodes vel sim. Science cannot claim to have witnessed or experimentally proven the latter; witnessing or proving the former is not adequate to establish the theory of evolution....though you say it is. Thus we have evolutionism as a kind of pseudo-scientific speculation, perhaps plausibly explaining some of the data, if we want to use the same kinds of categories that have been applied to the theory of Intelligent Design. It is not irrelevant or unhelpful to make such a comment in this kind of article, since evolution is such an important and germane topic. Pernimius (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop your WP:ADVOCACY before getting a topic ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation has been adequately explained. The categorisation of ID as pseudoscience is supported by adequate sources; your tu quoque attack on evolution isn’t. Failure to observe the evolution of new baramin is not a valid criticism of evolution, because that is a creationist concept. Please drop the WP:STICK. Brunton (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

They're at it again!
Thought Kitz had put a stake through the heart of ID, but reports: "This year is no exception—witness an Indiana bill that calls for "the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science." In the vast majority of these instances, someone points out that these efforts are blatantly unconstitutional, and the bills go nowhere, as has already happened in North Dakota. ... a large number of state party platforms specifically mention evolution and climate change. Oklahoma's Republicans currently advocate that "where evolution is taught, intelligent design and competing origin theories must be taught as well.""

The North Dakota bill related "to the freedom to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories and controversies." More links in the ars article. . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Meh. Fear mongering and unlikely speculation.  Nothing much there specific to this topic.  Yes, both parties occasionally spout bills to push their agenda in  K-12.  But the SD & VA etc have history of not proceeding.  Perhaps legislatures dislike restricting themselves, or balk at the $$$ to do court cases.  If the California Democrat Bill re climate change would proceed yes it would be precedent for Texas Republican bills on other topics.  But that’s a thin connection, unlikely SPECULATION, and just not DUE.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, both parties occasionally spout bills to push their agenda in K-12. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The difference being: one party pushes fact-based science, the other pushes fact-free claptrap. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Texas Republican Party seems to have toned down their platform, now saying "We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories, such as life origins and environmental change" (without defining what constitutes science, and leaving open the treatment of any crackpot or fringe theory as having "equal" status). I recall many years ago the platform used to be pretty blatant about supporting creation science. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They have "toned down" their platform to "teach the controversy" - i.e. they haven't toned it down, they are still spruiking bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Anachronist: yes, their platform is (!) evolving. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No, making their partisan propaganda mandatory is no more noble or worthy nor are they seeming any more serious about it. Nor is what they push science.  Just a bit of posturing by both to the cameras it seems, advocating self-promotion “we are right” and “give us more power”.   And if it happened by either it would seem to be making it Legal for *both* sides to play silly buggers in K-12 curriculum, not a trivial side-effect.  In any case, a tenuous relationship if any to the article topic and not DUE.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Except that fact-based science – including evolution — is not propaganda. As to "making their[whose?]partisan propaganda mandatory" – is that any worse than making your partisan propaganda mandatory? (My apologies to PepperBeast and all; for sure this should not be a forum, but such arrant nonsense can't condoned.) &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The who would be the CA partisans pushing their propaganda -- I repeat that this is all fear-mongering fantasies anyway -- such is not currently accepted in courts, seems unlikely to have any state legislature/education board go for such strictures on conduct, would seem likely to draw and fail court challenges, and if it got past those then it would form legal precedent for other states to push other propaganda. Partisan propaganda pushing is not admirable an currently not deemed legal or noble in any case.  With the motivation being smelly, the fruit is likely twisted and partisan-based over fact-based or logic-based, and any facts present might be limited to what facts are convenient.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Behe's at it again! (book: "Darwin Devolves")
Micheal Behe is at it again, with a new book: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution (ISBN 978-006284261-9). In the event anyone tries to cite this, see the book review in Science (9 Feb.) by three scientists, subtitled "A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence". From the perspective of mainstream science this is a definite slap-down. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder. This talk page is not a forum.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it to the book list as a current bestseller in the field. Otherwise, it seems not DUE at this time... just not had any impact to events.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this book should not be cited or added, for the reasons given in the book review I have linked to. "Current bestseller" has nothing to with it, as it has no relevance for science, and (as you  say) has yet to have any notable impact in the ID crowd. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be added to the Behe-article though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The book has had a pre-release review at science magazine https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/ One of the authors of the review (which is scathing, by the way), Josh Swimidass, is a theist who is a professor in computational biology with a speciality in population genetics. He has made a mission out of trying to dialogue with the discovery institute. His aim is to represent mainstream science and create a common ground for discussing the scientific and theological considerations from biology and genesis with ID proponents. Probably worth bringing him up - I think perhaps citing his efforts, and the dialogues he has with the discovery institute will help to make discussion of this controversy less hostile.TomTrebs (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it could be added. May be added to the book list now as bestseller of prominence on the topic.  Now to be in the article text as a subject on the other hand requires it to show WEIGHT as part of events; or for cites it just depends on whether an item seeking a RS finds it is best in this text.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not about Intelligent design
This is not an article about Intelligent design, but rather a mocking of it. It presumes in the first sentence the theory is pseudoscience without any reason. The word pseudoscience is bandied about by people who lack scientific education and skills. There is really no such thing as pseudoscience as it was a word invented to describe Freud's psychoanalysis. Any theory is valid until proven not to be and cannot be summarily declared to be pseudoscience for convenience. I am neither for, or against the subject, but I am not going to read anything that declares something to be pseudoscience in the first sentence. You can state it is a theory that has not been proven by science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Anyway this page is for discussing improvements to the article, so why dont you 1). Come back when you understand how science works, and 2). read WP:NOTFORUM and 3) learn to sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Roxy, it's not that you are wrong, but you could apply a little Please do not bite the newcomers, even on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then again, not exactly a newcomer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've watched people try to whitewash this page since before the Atsme indecent incident (bloody spellchecker). Granted, what I said is perhaps a little harsh, but this is teh Internetz, so I don't feel in the least guilty. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't remember Atsme editing this talkpage, indecent or otherwise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How far back does the fog of memory take you? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've got six windows open to the project at the moment, and I was thinking about another one of them when I wrote the comment that I have now struck. Sorry to all concerned. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ID differs from scientific theories in that it cannot be proved not to be valid. It's pseudoscience because its supporters pretend that it is a scientific theory. TFD (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For those following along at home and the benefit of ID supporters who might wish to edit this article, the principle of falsifiability which is what TFD is refering to here, does not mean that the theory in question has been disproven. Rather, that the circumstances under which the theory would be false are known and explicitly stated.  In other words, "if such and such condition were found to be true, then this theory would be false".  ID is inherently unfalsifiable because it relies on the assumption that the universe was created by some (unstated, but usually understood to be god) entity outside the bounds of universe and laws of physics.  Because the existence of such a being cannot be tested for and because IDers insist their meme is a "scientific theory", which it clearly is not, ID is therefore pseudoscience. - Nick Thorne talk  01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent Design as a Philosophical (not a scientific) Doctrine
I'm curious as to why there's little to no discussion about the philosophical nature of Intelligent Design on this wikipedia page.

A minimal definition of ID (that there is an intelligent design behind observable nature) includes theists, as well as deists, pantheists and many naturalists who might believe in an extra-terrestrial explanation for the origin of life.

I must say that the equivocation with Intelligent design with the notion of creationism is just astounding to me. Note that I am not an American - I can understand how Americans might think of them as the same, given the cited court cases. However, I am not sure why this particular set of legal battles in America should define the concept of Intelligent Design as it exists in a broader (worldwide) context. ID as a philosophical doctrine extends quite further beyond this particular (and ridiculous) characterisation of the movement.

My experience with other academics, theists, some atheists and even that of the appropriate philosophical literature on this topic would indicate that ID is an inherently philosophical doctrine of science, not an empirical theory of scientific observation like this article portrays. I'm really interested as to why this former characterisation of ID has zero mention in the article. Surely the philosophical nature of ID places it out of the purview of scientific consensus; the doctrine of Intelligent Design I refer to is not speculative history, conspiratorial, and it being a doctrine about the Philosophy of science that concerns what kind of inferences we can or cannot make, most definitely places the issue outside the purview of a scientific consensus. The reason for this is it becomes primarily an issue of epistemology as opposed to scientific practice.

The most popular form of ID is obviously the definition mentioned above, plus the view that the fact that observable nature is designed can be inferred from the ontology of natural phenomena itself. This is an inherently philosophical position about not just the Philosophy of Science, but Philosophy of knowledge in general, and is by itself neutral with respect to empirical observations themselves. In principle, there seems to be little or no tension with this idea and the current practices of science. It is simply a doctrine that deals with the question of interpretation of evidence; this definition, by itself, does not seem to require we introduce any non-empirical evidences into science.

Of course, one can still be an Intelligent Design proponent and not believe that it is (at least currently or principally) possible to make inferences from the properties of natural phenomena towards a designer. Again, what determines whether this is an appropriate inference (within science or otherwise), is ones conclusions about epistemology and what constitutes a valid grounds for knowledge in general. The appropriateness is not determined by whether or not scientists think the claims found within creation science, or creationism are a scientifically valid set of hypotheses for empirical testing.

The american political agenda of education aside, ID is a philosophy that extends far further across the world than simply the reaches of the american bible belt. The current page does not seem to do the wider doctrine much justice at all. I am further disheartened about the nature of conversation on this page and the level of philosophical and scientific illiteracy of the new atheist and creationist types that dig tooth and nail to change and/or keep the page in their favour.

The talk page links to Wikipedia principles that allows one to make changes, should they have sufficient valid sources of information. As a third party in this conversation, I'm not actually confident that much change is possible. How would changing this page look in practical terms?

As an academic interested in this area, I would be willing to dedicate time to change this page for better clarity, but the nature of contention in the edit and talk sections really have caused me to lose confidence in this websites ability to make reasonable changes on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.82.45 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As noted at the top of the article page, there is a separate article--"Teleological argument--for the philosophical aspect of ID. This article is for the controversial American attempt to prove scientifically that the Universe was created by an intelligent designer. YoPienso (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If this was true, it would not be as expansive as the article currently is. For example, there is a section discussing the teleological fine-tuning argument, despite the total disconnect of this argument from the american controversy. DI's mission focus is on Intelligent Design as a very particular theory of biology. They might appeal to other teleological theories, like all theists do, but the ID controversy in America has virtually nothing to do with these other teleological arguments. Discussing them in the context of the american ID movement in the way the article currently does risks de-legitimising these legitimate scholarly works through an implicit guilt by association for academically uninformed readers.


 * Another example would be the conversations on methodological naturalism - there is a history of discussion about MN in the philosophy of science that has existed long prior to the rise of the american ID movement. American pragmatists may think they have the philosophy of science all figured out, but the philosophically informed realise that there is still an issue of demarcation, for which methodological naturalism falls squarely within the bounds of controversy. Theistic realism, and other alternatives to methodological naturalism are not presented solely by american Intelligent Design theorists like the page implies. Painting methodological naturalism as the "fundamental basis of science", especially on the basis of Forrest's highly controversial paper is a gross misrepresentation on the actual level of ambiguity in the Philosophy of Science as to what constitutes science. The scientific criticisms section is undercut by it's failure to discuss how the philosophical difficulties in demarcating science from non-science contributes to the problem of the american ID movement.


 * For an article that supposedly separates the philosophical connotations of ID from the american ID movement, there's an awful lot of discussion (or should I say, terribly bold assertions) about philosophy. There's currently no wikipedia page that accurately describes the Intelligent Design movement as it exists within the philosophy of religion, as opposed to the ID presented by organisations like the Discovery Institute, or Creation Ministries. This page is incredibly America-specific and over-political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.83.47 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a bit strange that this page is listed as a vital article in philosophy, yet focuses on the claims made by the discovery institute, which are about science. I'm new to wikipedia, but I think you might be right about something here - TomTrebs (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained above, this article is not about the argument from design, which was written about by Aquinas, but about a pseudo-scientific theory popular among some American evangelicals. It is not a philosophical argument, because its adherents believe that scientific and archeological evidence can disprove the theory of evolution and by default prove the existence of a creator. TFD (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So why is this article listed as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy? The page itself seems to contradict your claim that ID theorists think debunking evolution proves the existence of a creator by default. If that's true, what's the deal with specified and irreducible complexity? With respect, I don't think you're addressing the OPs concerns. - TomTrebs (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Any passerby can add stuff at the top of this page. Most of us ignore that particularly since it is popular to try to link every page to philosophy (it's a joke that was once quite funny). A tiny number of people are interested in the philosophy of religion and debates concerning watchmakers and so forth. There should be an article on that topic if one does not currently exist. However, this article is about the widely spread issue of ID, mainly in the US but also in other places. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The more immediate issue is that OP didn't cite sources, so all they're saying is original research, which we don't use. Ignoring that, as others have said, the philosophical position that the universe was designed with a purpose would fall under the teleological argument article.  Not only that, but that position is compatible with evolution and so with science.  The groups advocating ID want it taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution -- which doesn't work if you're making a purely philosophical claim and not a claim about science.  You don't have any ID groups advocating theistic evolution.  The closest thing would be The BioLogos Foundation, a theistic evolution advocacy group which focuses on framing otherwise secular science so that evangelicals can understand it as well as on the theological implications of evolution.  But even they specifically deny Intelligent Design and seem to avoid trying to use science to prove the existence of God (leaving that job to philosophy and theology). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 129.96.82.45 - I'm sorry but this article is irretrievably biased, focused on the controversy of about 15 years ago, and really is not open. There's a focus towards Intelligent Design as developed by the Discovery Institute, a technically erroneous popular framing of ID as Aquinas's Teleological argument and other meanings in philosophy or psychology or history tend to get viewed as fake.   In any case, you might try creating Intelligent Design (philosophy) or the other usages and meanings of the term, but I am dubious it would be allowed to continue existence.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mark, still banging that same old drum? Please give it a rest. - Nick Thorne talk  06:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I get it. Teaching it as religion is against the law, teaching it as science failed because it turned out to be not science but religion, and now the thing is teaching it as philosophy. I had wondered what the next sleight-of-hand would be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There already is an article about the argument from design. And it is taught in philosophy classes along with other philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. TFD (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:The Four Deuces but as the IP said, there is no mention here for ‘intelligent design’ topics in philosophy (ditto in history or teleology in psychology, etc) unrelated to the dominant usage. The less famous other meanings or usages tend to get viewed here as not real.  They would not have WEIGHT in a combined article, and I suspect a disam set of separate minor articles would be viewed with suspicion or hostility.  I just doubt the point can be handled, but if you’ve some way he could pursue it go ahead.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is mention of the argument from design in the "History" section and there is a link to it in the hatnote. But intelligent design itself is not a philosophical argument, but a pseudo-science, since its adherents claim it can supported by empirical evidence in the same way that any other scientific theory can be. But no amount of empirical evidence can support or disprove a philosophical theory. TFD (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument from design is discussed in the lead, not linked in the first instance so will review that. ID is a theological argument, and takes philosophy in the medieval sense as an aid to Theology (ancilla theologiae) while basing arguments on revealed religion – it's not philosophy of religion in the sense of an overview of religious beliefs, but instead is an argument for a particular doctrine. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have moved the links to the first mention in the section, as is normal practice. Undo if you think it works better as before, but give reasons. The identification of ID with theology is well supported by citations in the lead, are there any third party reliable sources supporting the idea that it's philosophy? . . . dave souza, talk 11:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your problem is that this is not a debate in philosophy, either. It's only a part of religion. Philosophy, unlike religion, doesn't care that we are descended from filthy monkey men. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with the OP that what he's saying should be discussed, should be characterised as part of the Philosophy of Religion. To me it seems like what he's actually describing is more relevant to the Philosophy of Science, with regards to scientific logic (I guess he mentions this at the start of the OP, but s/he concludes by mentioning the philosophy of religion). So, looking more at ID as a particular set of claims about what kind of inferences can be made from biological evidences in particular. Fine tuning arguments from physics seem to be much better accepted in academia because they tend to revolve around what's colloquially known as "the ultimate question" of why anything exists at all, and do not contain a muddy political background. In my perspective there's two ways to look at this issue. The first is seeing ID as a sleight of hand attempt to continue creationism in schools, which seems to be supported by the historical connection in the Killzinger case with the textbook change from 'creationism' to 'intelligent design'. The other is seeing ID as a particular philosophy of science. Or perhaps more specifically, a Philosophy of biology, where the thrust of the idea is that certain patterns in biological history can be used inductively to support the existence of a creator. I have recently watched a dialogue between Joshua Swimidass of Peacefulscience.org and Ann Gauger of the Discovery Instutute. Ann Gauger argued that ID should be framed to this (or similar) effect, while Joshua seemed resistant to this definition and fell back on what we could call the 'historical' framing of ID, which emphasises it's historical connection to creationism. It seems to me that there is not actually as much of a uniform perspective of how ID should be framed among people in the ID movement as many seem to think (at the discovery institute in particular). If the OP doesn't come back to support his/her claims, I'm happy to try and gather some sources to support the idea that there are arguments over how Intelligent Design should be framed.TomTrebs (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As a separate point, the efforts of Joshua Swimidass at peacefulscience might be worth an entry on this page. Although, I'm also surprised that the DI's interactions with organisation Biologos is not mentioned in this page at all. Then again, the wikipedia page for the organisation is very underwhelming, seemingly patronising and lacks suitable comprehension. Probably worth a different thread though, I guess. TomTrebs (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that a proponent of ID claims it it is real science or philosophy has no weight in whether it should be considered a pseudo-science. TFD (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The fact that its proponents claim it is science whereas in fact it is not science is precisely the reaason why ID is and should be considered to be pseudoscience. - Nick Thorne talk  10:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I phrased that poorly. The fact an adherent claims it is science does not mean we should give credence to considering it a science. In fact the definition of pseudo-science is when adherents falsely claim they are practicing science. But of course we rely on secondary sources that make the judgment whether or not a claim is scientific. It is not up to individual editors to make that decision. TFD (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in agreement after all. - Nick Thorne talk 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ID is not science. That is a matter of established fact. There was this whole court case and everything. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Article however used the vague pejorative Pseudoscience, more on editor wishes and WP:OR than WP:RS WEIGHT. Court case and bulk of RS say it is creationist in roots or consequence, if not direct substance.   Agree it is not science, but basis for court is the scientific bodies who get to determine what’s in and what’s (emphatically) out.  Again, article seems irretrievably biased, but at least being open about it.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is not science and supporters say it is, and you agree with that, then it pseudoscience by definition. TFD (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is a label produced by editors making conclusions like the above, rather than taken from the major cites, it is OR by definition. Again, the lead-off with a vague pejorative is a sign of editorial bias, but at least is obvious about it.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you of both WP:PSCI and the sources presented in this previous thread that support the definition (and also was provided at your request).  and  are misleading, false and divisive claims.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To quibble, it is not science because no one, especially not those who claim it is science, can demonstrate how it is or can be used to do science. It is "pseudoscience" because its proponents insist that it replace Evolutionary Biology in classrooms and labs because they said Jesus "The Designer" said so, and not because of its merits that remain perennially undemonstrable and invisible to nonbelievers.  Thus, "pseudoscience" is used as an unflattering and unflatteringly accurate descriptor and not as a "pejorative."--Mr Fink (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. To quibble a bit further re TFD's comment: "psuedoscience" is not defined by mere belief or argreement, pro or con, but (ideally) on the basis of objective considerations, such as lack of scientific method, etc. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is what I said. My point was that it is not up to editors to determine that ID is pseudoscience, but we must accept the judgment of reliable sources. Obviously that judgment is based on objective considerations. Our approach must be guided by the policy of no synthesis. It is a distraction to assess the arguments for ID being a pseudoscience, since ultimately we must reliable on what experts have decided. TFD (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Relying on expert opinion might be good enough for ID, where there has been a lot of controversy. But pseudoscience pops up in a lot of small, out of the way corners where no expert has shined a light. So sometimes we editors must exercise some editorial discretion. My point is that such an assessment is not based on a definition of pseudoscience as something "you agree with" – which is exactly what you said — but based on objective standards. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You are taking my words out of context. I said that Markbassett agreed that ID supporters claim it is science. Nothing particularly exceptional about that observation. "If it is not science and supporters say it is...then it is pseudoscience by definition." As for your other point, there are no cases where reliable sources have not noted that something is pseudoscience (or words to that effect) where we should claim it is since it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So perhaps you were restating someone else's definition of pseudoscience? If so, perhaps in the future you could be clearer about your context. Regardless of whose definition that is, I do take exception with that definition as it is stated. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Read what I posted: "If it is not science and supporters say it is, and you agree with that, then it pseudoscience by definition. TFD (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)" In other words, Markbassett agrees that ID supporters say it is science. The word "you" refers to the person I was replying to. No idea why you think I was restating Markbasset's definition of pseudoscience or why are you are arguing about this. TFD (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So you are restating someone else's definition. Fine. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just said I "have no idea why you think I was restating Markbasset's definition of pseudoscience." What I meant was I was not restating someone else's definition. In other words, I was not providing a restatement of someone else's definition or providing a definition that was a restatement of someone elses's definition. Sorry if you did not find my statement clear. TFD (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

[And the prior thread resumes. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)]
 * ??? No, there seems some incorrectly saying I agreed with something that I had not.
 * Also I have not given a definition of the vague pejorative, I only called it a vague pejorative. Editors here just seemed to want to give the vague insult and later gave it first line prominence seems all there was to it, it's not a prominence in the article or in external materials.  There was a later definition of the WP:PSEUDO and listing to codify things.  But this is all long long ago.  Meanwhile, the word simply has multiple interpretations and no agreed objective indicator -- it's a vague pejorative.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely clear here, it doesn't matter how often you assert that the label "pseudoscience" is vague, it is (a) not vague and (b) abundantly sourced. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions. Guy (Help!) 05:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JzG - perhaps you’d prefer ‘ambiguous’or ‘ill-defined’ to “vague”? I'm inclined to let you have your ‘no it isn’t’ that you feel otherwise.  But I offer also I am looking at (a) definitions vary and conflict among major RS - Collins, Oxford, EB, M-W; (b) eminent RS speak of the demarcation issues as unsolved -  Piggliucci and Popper, and scholarly critics of either; (c) actual practice and WEIGHT of usage is emotional rants more of an unsupported WP:LABEL nature, check your basic Google; (d) actual scientific bodies do not commonly use the term; and (e) again there is no agreed objective indicator or test for this which simply throws out of being a scientific meaning and into being an opinion.  Best one can get in this kind of case is going to be a poll indicating level of regard, or get a body of expert opinions.   There are epistemological tips on how to detect what info to not trust, but those are general and apply to politics or sales pitches as much or more than science.  If you think you have an actual case of some objective PS test being performed by a scientific entity please do send back a link, but it seems to me that there couldn’t be one.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'd prefer you to simply drop it, because pseudoscience has a well established and objective meaning and while there is legitimate dispute at the boundaries, the sources unambiguously support the fact that ID is pseudoscience in its purest form. Guy (Help!) 05:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JzG Meh - so I showed reasons why I said 'vague'. You say no it isn't and repeat the assertions.  Simplifies to "vague - no it isn't - yes it is, heres why - no it isn't".  Feel as free to have your POV as you let others have theirs, but this doesn't seem to be still on the topic thread.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I said that you agreed that supporters of ID say it is science. Are you now saying they do not claim it is science, do not think it is an alternative to natural selection, do not think it should be taught in science classes? TFD (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces Yes, you incorrectly told User:J. Johnson that I was the source of a definition and that I had agreed to you. I have not offered this thread a definition for ID in philosophy, history, or otherwise.  Nor did I state agreement in the above thread.   Perhaps you are thinking of another editor, I suggest you review the TALK thread.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I did not attribute a definition to you. I told you that if something is not science and it's proponents say it is, then it is pseudoscience by definition. That was my definition. I said that you agreed that proponents of ID claim it is science. What possible definition do you think I attributed to you? TFD (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * TFD: the squabble here (it's not a proper argument) arises from my criticism of your "If it is not science..." comment (above at 05:31), and your subsequent denials: "I don't think that is what I said", "You are taking my words out of context", and your reference to "the person I was replying to". And it certainly appears you were replying to Markbassett.


 * Look: it doesn't really matter whose definition that is, The point is: it's a crappy definition. I think it would be a waste of time to argue about it (there are better definitions), but even more wasteful (and stupid) to argue about attribution. Okay, you have just owned up to it being your definition. So now toss it aside, and let's find a better definition. Let's move on to a bone that has some meat on it. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it's a crappy definition, then you might want to correct the main article on Pseudoscience which says the same thing: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method." If you think that is wrong, then I would be interested to know your alternative definition. TFD (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD: you are missing a key difference from what you have said and what is stated in the lead paragraph at Pseudoscience. The latter refers to the claim of being scientific as "" The article then goes on to identify some of the bases by which such claims are "incompatible with the scientific method". Your definition replaces that with "and you agree with that", which is most certainly NOT "the same thing". (Which is also very poorly phrased: it sounds like the criterion is the indefinite "you" agreeing with supporters.) The point I was trying to make at the start of this squabble (at 19:46, 9 Mar) is that the essential element of being scientific or not is ", pro or con", but on objective considerations such as stated at Pseudoscience, but not in your definition. There is an immense difference between someone just popping off an opinion that something is pseudoscience, and basing such an opinion on an assessment of objective standards and evidence. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have explained over and over again, my definition does not include "and you agree with that." Can you please explain to me what you think "and you agree with that" means if not a reference to markbasset's agreement that supporters say it is science? Or do you think that markbasset forms part of my definition of pseudoscience? TFD (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for so clearly distinguishing at the start your definition from your comment that another editor agrees with it. However, your reduced definition is still, at best, incomplete, as it does not come even close to explaining why something claimed to be scientific is not scientific. (That is where Markbassett comes in with his objection: he presumes OR, and your definition does not exclude that.) Your definition is still in no way "the same thing" stated at Pseudoscience. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about markbasset's objections in fact I mentioned only what he agreed with which was that pseudoscientists claimed they were scientific. I assume you agree that pseudoscientists claim they are scientific. (If not, please say so.) Can you please tell me how my definiton that pseudoscience is something that is not science but it's adherents say it is disagrees with the Wikipedia definition or any other definition presented.
 * Also, you still have not explained what you think "and you agree with that means. Do you think that means something is not pseudoscience unless markbassett agrees? And what do you think he must agree with in order to make it pseudoscience? And why do you assume that what I consider what markbassett thinks to be part of the definition of pseudoscience? Is he someone important in the subject? It would seem odd to me to have to determine first what markbassett thinks before deciding whether something is pseudoscience, but you may know more than I.
 * TFD (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are being ridiculous. As someone that can't clearly and unambiguously express his own thoughts you really should not be making any assumptions about what other people mean, or agree to. I very much doubt that further explanation would be of any use, and I am disinclined to debate this. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:J. Johnson My objection regardless of which definition is that it's WP:OR if its TALK debating whether a definition fits instead of presenting the body of RS fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. (And then deciding it has to go into line 1...)  For definitions, philosophers doesn't seem to feel the definitions are great but there are a differing variety at Cambridge, Collins, Kids Encyclopedia Britannica (the main only has side-mentions), Merriam-Webster, Oxforddictionaries.  Might read about how defining pseudoscience takes a rocket scientist and reconsider the effort.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You start from a false premise, but I defer to Nick's response. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Markbassett, and therin lies the problem with your whole argument. That ID is pseudoscience is more than adequately sourced to genuine reliable sources.  It doesn't matter what editors here think or say, the sources make it clear that they consider ID to be pseudoscience, so that is what we must do when writing our articles.  Our opinions matter not, including your longstanding and tiresome attempts to water down anything that you apparently percieve to be a criticism of creationist BS. - Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Nick Thorne The TALK was doing 'fits the definition' and I pointed out that's OR.  I also think that the bulk of RS do not use the word, thus failing the "presenting the body of RS fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias" part.  Being able to find something by Google does not meet the 'proportionately' part -- the major RS items seem Pandas or Kitzmiller ruling and the official documents of the scientific bodies and government arms.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All your sources provide essentially the same definition. What the blog claims is that the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is unclear. It doesn't question whether or not pseudoscience is not science or whether its proponents claim it is science. In the case of ID, reliable sources have determined it is not science and no original research prevents us from second-guessing them. TFD (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that a proponent of ID claims it it is real science or philosophy has no weight in whether it should be considered a pseudo-science. TFD (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I agree, but you've totally ignored what I was saying. The claim that Intelligent Design (as a movement) is a valid alternative to Evolutionary Theory is different from the claim (that I'm referring to) that we can use patterns in biological phenomenon to infer the existence of an intelligence responsible for these patterns. The pseudoscientific theory of ID as it's generally known might 'draw' on this particular claim, but I don't see why one couldn't subscribe to this idea and also reject the ID pseudoscience. Do you see what I mean? This notion of intelligent design seems markedly different from a Creationist coup of evolutionary science. I'm not sure how else we could interpret this particular claim as being one that affirms ID as a scientific theory. It seems more sensible to see this claim as a particular philosophy of science; that teleological principles apply to biology, and that we can see that this is the case through science. Did you actually watch the talk I linked where Ann states this? This is the kind of definition of ID that I've interpreted the OP referring to, and one that I think many ID advocates would adhere to. Are you seeing a difference here? Or am I somehow mistaken that there is a difference? TomTrebs (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but an hour and a half video is too long for me to watch. Can you point out some portion that is most relevant? The claim that we can use patterns in biological phenomenon to infer the existence of a creator is unscientific. Science looks for physical causes that can be observed, measured and predicted. When scientists find something they cannot explain, they do not assume the cause must be supernatural, but continue looking for physical explanations. Now it could be that there is a creator and design in nature is evidence of it, but that is beyond the scope of science. But what is key is what reliable sources say. While conceivably you could persuade other editors, you need to persuade the academic community of that. TFD (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that.

...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."

- Alvin Plantinga


 * This is what's the rub is about? Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting quote, is the source online? Plantinga has seemed to be an ID apologist at times, that statement looks more conventional. However, don't think he's a scientist or evolutionary biologist. My understanding of modern evolution theory is that evolution is guided – mainly by natural selection, influenced by the physical environment as a whole (including other organisms) but with no scientifically detectable "guidance" from gods or flying spaghetti monsters. . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He basically agrees that it's not scientifically detectable. See Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, think I may have got his double negatives mixed up but essentially it's a convoluted climb-down from his earlier position. For example, "Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the world, and of course He created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P (life, for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly." (Plantinga, 1997) Or, published in the same year as his climb-down, a 2010 review says Plantinga attacks evolution and seems to assume that a successful attack would provide evidence for ID." The rub is that Alvin Plantinga is a theologian and philosopher of religion commenting from that perspective on science; for determination of whether ID is pseudoscience, we cite scientists and philosophers of science. . .  dave souza, talk 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was just curious to find out what the argument on this talk page was about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all in the section heading and the four comments by 129.96.83.47 which expansively claim, without sources, that the article should cover some other nicer ID. Supported by some, as usual, and with extended misunderstandings, but still no specific proposals for article improvement with suitable sources. While Plantinga was one of ID's few supporters with philosophical credence, the section you've quoted shows him accepting ID's failure to produce science. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see the relevance of the comments. Plantinga was an advocate of ID, but now claims it is unscientific. Unless a secondary source explains the relevance, there is no reason to discuss it. TFD (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but an hour and a half video is too long for me to watch. Can you point out some portion that is most relevant? (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Certainly - I'll look it over again shortly and get back to you with the relevant timestamp. The claim that we can use patterns in biological phenomenon to infer the existence of a creator is unscientific That's right, it is a *philosophical* claim about how to interpret physical evidences. Hence, it is a claim in the philosophy of science. Science looks for physical causes that can be observed, measured and predicted. When scientists find something they cannot explain, they do not assume the cause must be supernatural, but continue looking for physical explanations. I'll let you be the judge after I get the timestamp for you, but the claim does not appear to me to be God of the gaps reasoning. It is instead a reflection on the nature of the physical observation itself. Now it could be that there is a creator and design in nature is evidence of it, but that is beyond the scope of science. Again - this is what is being debated. These *sorts* of claims don't rely on what scientific consensus thinks. If that was the case, Karl Poppers falsificationism would have been dead on arrival. I want to emphasise that I disagree with the discovery institute's proposal. What I do think, is that it is an interesting idea and worthy of being represented correctly. As far as I can tell, it is better represented as a claim about the nature of science (i.e. the claim is in the same category as the question of 'what makes something scientific'), not a claim about a particular subject of science (e.g. some phenomena of genetics or physical motion); the latter would make it subject to scientific consensus, the former does not. TomTrebs (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit critical of your last comment. The quote demonstrates that Plantinga adheres to intelligent design (little i and d), but that like mainstream science and unlike ID advocates, doesn't think science *alone* can demonstrate that. I think that the quote is on topic, at least with regard to this thread. Perhaps an addendum to this article could be in the criticisms section, to emphasise the criticisms of other theists (like Plantinga), and emphasize the point he is making in this quote; that the scientific method alone is not able to identify the existence of an Intelligent Designer, and that this requires supplementary philosophical claims TomTrebs (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Checking the page on theistic realism, it seems as though Plantinga's views on this subject are more nuanced than people want to admit. On that page, he is accused by people of supporting ID through his work on 'theistic realism', and here we seem to have a recent quote of him being critical of the ID movement. These do not appear to me, to be a case of Plantinga backtracking and changing his opinion. TomTrebs (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you seek to achieve. The existence/activity of God or gods is not a subject of science; it is a subject of philosophy and religion. And there is the article Teleological argument which discusses that philosophical/theological argument from design. This article is dedicated to the ID movement, which seeks to teach the existence of the Designer in science classes. That's what the rub is about, and its WP:N is due to that rub. So, there are different articles which discuss different subjects (science vs. philosophy and theology). So, unless you state something like "Change A to B, here are the WP:SOURCES" I suggest to drop the discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don not see that there is any topic that exists which is neither ID nor the teleological argument and has been reported in reliable secondary sources as distinct. Saying something is beyond the scope of science is not an empirical theory but definitional. It's similar to saying that literary criticism is outside the scope of automobile mechanics. TFD (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent design versus simulation hypothesis
This is not a forum, I know, and I don’t want to get into an argument. However, since the “simulation hypothesis” would seem to be an example of intelligent design why isn’t that labeled as “pseudoscience” whereas intelligent design in general, i.e., this article’s subject, is? That seems rather arbitrary, after all, not to mention biased. It would seem whom exactly it is speculated did the creating makes all the difference, I presume. Still, whether God or humans (or other intelligent temporal beings) did the creating would seem irrelevant as to the result. In both cases, our reality was created and designed by an outside intelligent agency; hence, intelligent design.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, and this problem isn't ours to fix. See WP:RGW. We follow the WP:RS/AC of WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that's all. "Theory of evolution=atheism" is an old canard, e.g. the Catholic Church isn't atheistic, but generally speaking it accepts evolution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu is right, we rely on the judgment of mainstream scholarship to determine what is or is not pseudoscience. It is not an example of intelligent design because it does not argue that there is evidence of a designer. Intelligent design is not the theory that the world was created by a designer but the pseudoscientific theory that there is empirical evidence to prove it. TFD (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In particular, that there is something fatally flawed in evolutionary biology. The supposed failure of evolution is taken to be the evidence for ID. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The replies above are good and address the point for this talk page, namely that articles follow reliable sources. However, the question can be answered. ID is pseudoscience because its proponents really believe that ID is an explanatory theory that replaces evolution and, depending on flavor, other sciences such as geology. By contrast, the simulation hypothesis is, well, a hypothesis where consenting adults brainstorm ideas from fiction authors. When a movement claims that the universe really is simulated and that evolution is bogus, then sources might label it as pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To refine that a little, ID is pseudoscience because it's theology and religious belief (reworded to avoid direct references to God) presented with the claims that it's science, indeed that science must be redefined to accommodate the religious belief. The simulation hypothesis doesn't doesn't appear to make these claims. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The driving impetus of creationist intelligent design can be described in a nutshell as: “There are simply too many—indeed an astronomical amount—seeming coincidences that render life as we know it possible to actually be coincidences.”  (if anyone is an accountant or familiar with the field’s jargon, think of the word “plugged.”)   This is an example of inductive reasoning.  What is the impetus behind our reality being a computer simulation?  If not the same logic, then what?  What is the evidence and reasoning?  By the way, the validity of Darwinian evolution is a bit of a red herring.  One might accept evolution as totally compatible with intelligent design.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The driving impetus of creationist intelligent design is religious and political: a disingenuous attempt to provide a "scientific" basis to justify including the teaching of creationism, or creationism-adjacent material in US public schools, distancing that material from religious dogma. See Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.
 * Were it not for that background, intelligent design would be an obscure corner of philosophy or theological ontology. Framing this as strictly a logical evaluation of theories ignores the history of it, amounting to a contextomy. You're right; this is not a forum. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how motivations are relevant to my point. If, for the sake of argument, the simulation hypothesis is correct, then so is intelligent design.  In that eventuality, creationist intelligent design adherents would have arrived at the correct basic conclusion, albeit for the wrong reason (wrong creator).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S., Yes, it is not a forum. It is a venue to discuss improvements in the article.  Calling intelligent design “pseudoscience.” but not the simulation hypothesis, is against Wiki’s bias policy.  The only reason I’ve seen offered for this seemingly blatant hypocrisy is argument from authority, which, ironically, Wiki has an article on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) in which such is characterized as a “fallacy.”   If one would heed today the medical establishment of Lister’s time, then surgeons wouldn’t even need to wash their hands before operating.


 * In that light, I propose that at the very least instead of factually stating that intelligent design is pseudoscience, it be noted that it is described as such by many within the scientific community.  I see this as a very moderate and reasoned compromise.  The assertion of pseudoscience is indeed a fact; the validity of that assertion is not necessarily.  Thus, the former should be represented within the article by way of objectivity as opposed to the latter.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted. Calling intelligent design “pseudoscience.” but not the simulation hypothesis, is against Wiki’s bias policy. The only reason I’ve seen offered for this seemingly blatant hypocrisy is argument from authority... Notice that accusations of hypocrisy feature prominently in whataboutism. It's been noted above that the simulation hypothesis is speculation, and fodder for science fiction plots. I also notice some open-ended philosophical questions in its Wikipedia article. I must have missed the part where it is claimed to lead to any kind of robust scientific theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, relies heavily on an argument from ignorance, and on its target audience's difficulty imagining or understanding the depth of geological time. Arguments in favor of ID often equivocate "random" and "haphazard" in discussing mutations and their propagation, again relying on the target audience's credulity.
 * I think it's time to hat this discussion. If I weren't involved, I'd do it myself. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Locked???
Locking the page just proves the Creationist point that Wikipedia is biased. Unlock please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.226 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is not locked. It is only semi-protected. This is because this page has been a frequent target for vandalism and other unconstructivee editing in the past, much of it from IP users. The page can be edited by any auto-confirmed user, which only requires that you have an account at least four days old and have made at least ten previous edits. You can get more information about page protection by clicking the lock icon at the top of the page. If anyone thinks Wikipedia is "biased" in favour of mainstream, verifiable science, they are correct. It's hardly a secret.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, protecting the page is only a necessity imposed by modern realities of inciviltude. But it is true, Wikipedia is very much biased towards what is verifiable. It's a core concept. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So there, it’s not bias, it’s paranoia. And control issues.   ;-). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias, Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hardly a paranoia, as lacking the elements of delusion and irrationality often seen in clinical paranoia. Possibly a "control issue", as we "fear" that idiots, vandals, and others will track in crap if we leave the door wide-open. Do you leave your doors open at night?


 * By the way (lest anyone gets excited about finding an admission of guilt): the last bit of Guy's message is a wikilink. Click on it and read on. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Arguing "for" or "against" ID from a pure scientific approach
It is my understanding that editors are severely limited in their scope of argumentation whenever presenting pure "facts" based strictly upon science, and which same "facts" are expected to lead to any just conclusion, one way or the other, as to whether our universe points to "Intelligent Design," as there is just not enough scientific evidence available out there that will explain, for example, "natural" or "supernatural" phenomena, such as why some creatures are made to emit a scent that wards-off would-be attackers, although the creature itself had no way of knowing what scent would be offensive or not to its attacker. My question is rather plain: Does logic fall under the category of "science" or "pseudo-science" when trying to ascertain whether or not our world and all lifeforms point to ID? After all, logic is used extensively by scientists, as well as by philosophers. If, let's say, simple logic falls under neither category of science or pseudo-science, can it be used here in this article, that is, when it is supported by reliable, published sources, and those not necessarily written by scientists? Or are we as editors strictly limited to "proven scientific methods" when trying to ascertain the viability of ID? If the latter, isn't it fair to say that the unknown is far greater than the known in our world of science, and that, based on painstaking methods of scientific analysis and testing, we can still say that science has yet to solve or understand all the mysteries of our universe, and which can only lead us to conclude that from a mere scientific perspective the question of ID remains largely unresolved? Just asking here for clarification and to know what are the "legal" parameters here for acceptable editing in this very complex field. The subject, needless to say, has always interested me, and I would enjoy contributing to this article if given the opportunity to do so from a position of logic. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point of this site entirely. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.  We don't engage in original arguments or personal analysis of the sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That, and when proponents of Intelligent Design do, one day, after 20 plus something years after having proposed it, finally bother to find some way to demonstrate both how Intelligent Design is science, and how to do science with Intelligent Design, rather than use it to deceive people about science, logic and biology in order to shoehorn religion propaganda into science curricula, please inform us immediately so we can modify accordingly.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But you have evaded my question. Forget the "proponents of ID." Even science, to my knowledge, has yet to come-up with all the answers. Will you not agree with me here? In this case, it's a no-win situation all around, no matter what side you are on. It is plain that even by taking the "pure scientific approach," we are still left with many unresolved questions. To be fair to our readers, shouldn't this be pointed out? No one has all the answers to the big question. Still, this should not prevent us from searching. Am I not correct?Davidbena (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no, you misunderstood me. I never intended to engage in Original Research, but to cite published material that speaks on this subject from a pure logical point-of-view, and not necessarily written by scientists. Is this permitted here?Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to answer when speaking in hypotheticals. If you have something in mind, then by all means, please suggest it.  Otherwise, this is all too vague.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In laymen's terms, is it still permitted to make use here, i.e. "cite", an academic, mainstream journal that approaches the subject of ID from a position of pure logic (i.e. without scientific analysis) to suggest the probability of our universe coming into existence because of a rational being (Yes or No?), or will such a source be rejected on grounds that it does not approach the subject from conventional scientific methods of analysis? (Yes or No?)Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, what source do you have in mind? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there sources (rabbinic or otherwise) that are off-limits here? Just asking.Davidbena (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Until you have a specific source for a specific purpose, it's impossible to answer that. Until then, it might be worth reading up on WP:RS.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am well-aware of WP:RS, and I do happen to know many rabbis that hold PhD degrees in philosophy, and who have published many works in universities. Since no one is willing to answer my question, I take it to mean that such an entry is not altogether forbidden to use here, and will be left to the discretion of the contributing editors whether the edit is allowed to remain or not.Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a philosophy article. Philosophy is welcome at Teleological argument, but not here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The question you pose (how does an animal know what scent would be offensive to its attacker?) should be asked at Reference desk/Science where some good answers (animals don't know; evolution tries everything and keeps what works) would be available. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOR. This is not what a talk page is for. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Orange box overkill?
Is there any evidence that having so many orange boxes at the top has had any benefit?

I propose a single FAQ sub page that replaces pretty much everything at the top except the archive list, discretionary sanctions notice and a pointer to the FAQ. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Too much scrolling gets in the way of accessing talk page content. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The way that some folks blast right past all the orange boxes it could be argued that all these cautions don't do much good. But I think they do catch some people's attention, and it could also be argued that the longer the jump people have to make the more likely they will come down on an orange box, and perhaps take notice.


 * On the other hand, I could see putting the discussions into a subpage, with the link buried in an orange box somewhere. Other possibilities exist. But I wouldn't shove the cautions into a subpage, as then they will be less likely to be seen. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * How about just moving the TOC way up? - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Because that puts all the general header stuff below the toc, down in the "content" (discussion). (Also, the way headers are handled it might require modification of the wikimedia s/w; not likely to happen.) And (like I said above), there are quite few folks who need a bit of cautioning, and for that reason I am okay putting up with a little inconvenience. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem with link?
I clicked on the "Context" part of reference 13 and got a deleted wikisource page. Does Wikisource support redirects, or would it be better to fix the link here? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That would be the "Evolving Thoughts (blog)" at https://evolvingthoughts.net, right? Now a "404 Not found" error. I don't know what you mean (and wonder if you know what you mean) by "wikisource", but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and we can't fix here what is missing somewhere else. What we can – and should – do is review, re-search, and revise that section. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Wikisoruce here refers to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District which was originally transcribed from the court documents (now at Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005) with subheads at each page (of 139) so that references could link directly to the relevant pages. It's been reorganised in a standard format which gives no indication of page numbers: it's got some section headings, the relevant one including the pages cited in reference 13 is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District which includes many other pages, so isn't much use. I've no idea what to do about this: just link to the Wikisource article as a whole or to a broad section, quote some relevant text for search purposes, or cite the court pdf for page numbers? . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality of Article
Referring to Intelligent Design as a "Pseudo-scientific" in the opening paragraph is instantly showing prejudice against the theory. Perhaps it would be better to instead have a "Arguments Against" section in which then you can add that some opponents of the the theory reject it as they view it as "Pseudo-science" etc and explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.90 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Lets keep it as it is. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's not prejudice, it's a well-reasoned, factual conclusion. And it is entirely the fault of the ID community. When they will do empirical science, the scientific community will listen. That day has not come yet. I could equally tell you that I am the most skilled hunter in the world. But I did not actually hunt anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Stating that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience is not prejudice, it is stating an unflattering truth, especially since its proponents both in the Discovery Institute and in Wikipedia have refused for the past twenty damned years to explain either how Intelligent Design is science, or how to do science with Intelligent Design. Of course, being a stupid hellbound idiot, I keep asking the Intelligent Design proponents who keep trolling this and other pages "if Intelligent Design isn't pseudoscience, then how come no one, not even its proponents, ever wants to do any science with it beyond shrieking about how magically impossible evolution is?" only for them to tell me, repeatedly, that they're too busy complaining about how anything and everything written about Intelligent Design that is not Luminescent Brownnosing For Jesus is "bias" and "prejudice" and "sin"--Mr Fink (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it a pseudoscience?
Many scientists like William Dembski have shown that it is possible to mathematically prove specified complexity. HalMartin (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * But by far the majority of scientists consider ID to be pseudoscience. Dembski and other ID adherents are a tiny minority. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And even Dembski seems to have given it up as a lost cause now . Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Halmartin, might I suggest that you read or article on Mathematical proof? The arguments of ID adherents don't even try to be actual mathematical proofs. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Halmartin, reliable expert sources cited in the article explicitly show that ID is pseudoscience. Dembski isn't a scientist, mathematical proof is irrelevant and cited sources show he's achieved nothing with his mathematical variations on religious arguments. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@guymacon, I have a video proving the impossibility of specified complexity arising by chance alone: https://www.answerstoquestions.org/videos/what-is-the-probability-that-the-origin-of-life-happened-by-chance/. Also I have read and studied on maths proofs. I find the Wikipedia page wanting in terms of inline citations, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalMartin (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , please understand that Wikipedia talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM nor a WP:SOAPBOX from which to discuss WP:Original Research from.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @MrFink I disagree that I am soapboxing here. I am providing a citation for the claim I am making.

BTW how do I sign my comments on my mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalMartin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay guys I was mistaken that the video I linked proved specified complexity. I'm pretty sure there has been a published, peer-reviewed article on specified complexity though. Maybe the article's section on specified complexity should reflect that? EDIT: I meant the article should reflect that there has been peer-reviewed research done regarding specified complexity, sorry for my ambiguous wording.--HalMartin (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Halmartin, glad you've seen the light: what's needed here is reliable third-party expert sources discussing the topic of ID, not religious apologetics promoting ID with no understanding of science. To be clear, you link to "answerstoquestions.org", whose website gives their "Statement of Belief .. We believe in the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments as inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are the supreme and final authority in faith and life." That's not a reliable source for science: see WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI, and WP:V as a start on finding citations from good sources. . . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

From our Specified complexity page: Specified complexity is a concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote intelligent design... The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology. A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results." Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:HalMartin - I’ve said in long ago talk here that “pseudoscience” is a vague pejorative, and the main releases from scientific bodies and legal judgement didn’t use it. (Just said emphatically ‘not science’, which was the end of their purview and concern.). WP has chosen to say it is psuedoscience and crafted a PSCI and guidance to establish that. To me it seems not pseudoscience and not science, and putting it as line 1 seemed appearance of bias and not proper WEIGHT. As to the two main principles mentioned, my view: Specified complexity is a reasonable in principle (that some things are too improbable to happen by random events in the time available) but has not had great success crafting math about that, nor has there been alternative maths or math disproofs on the concept. Irreducible complexity is a logically sound point about limits to stepwise minor improvements of natural-selection evolution (that at some point it can’t have come from a simpler functioning version as nothing simpler would function). That’s been regarded as meaning it happened by unknown other ways, so while it contributed to greatly deprecating the linear progression and creating of theorized alternatives, it is not regarded as an absolute block. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not that vague, and it doesn't matter if it is anyway because we have large numbers of sources identifying ID as being it. ID and homeopathy are two of the most widely-cited examples of pseudoscience, in fact. Guy (help!) 20:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course "pseudoscience" is "vaguely perjorative". Those who claim to be scientific, but aren't, are commiting intellectual fraud.


 * "Irreducible complexity" is NOT "a logically sound point". E.g., Behe's claims that certain "lock-and-key" relations are irreducible have been disproven, and it is non-scientific to ignore such disproofs. Claims that "some things are too improbable to happen by random events in the time available" generally fail because of a lack of appreciation of either how they might come about, or how much time is available. The bottom line here: "specified complexity" is pseudoscience, and does not belong here. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , hey, you only have 6,000 years to play with, dude ;-) Guy (help!) 23:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering who would be the first joker out of the gate. :-) &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:J. Johnson - mmm. Conveniently overlooking the word was not said in the major decisions or scientific statements though, was it?  Nor as the bulk of WEIGHT.  If you look back in the archives, this was just WP choosing to start off with an vague insult.
 * As to objections to my views - well, by saying “how much time” you seem to not know SC or like JzG be confusing it with young earthists. SC is talking so improbable that in the entire length and life of the universe it is highly improbable to happen.  As to the IC logic that it cannot be stereotyped evolution of natural selection among minor variations if it cannot be reached by stepwise improvements of minor variations... That’s simple and solid logic.  There is a limit how far back that can go, it simply cannot be perpetually the same functions more crudely done; sometimes it has to be a giant leap or sideways fall or something other than Modern Synthesis.   And some things Behe pointed to had no way.  But the rub is one cannot prove the negative that there’s no other way.   SC and IC don’t claim natural selection doesn’t happen, they objected about a couple of ways it could not cover things.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You said it's not science but the proponents say it is which is why it is pseudoscience. They hold that their evidence can disprove generally accepted scientific theories and replace them with ID, which is a scientific objective. Except that saying we can't explain why something happened therefore it must have been caused by spirits or ghosts is not a scientific approach. TFD (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces You seem to be talking something else or have missed the foundation here: SC and IC are objections to Modern Synthesis, of limit or gap, and were not claiming to be replacements for it. They make no appeal to supernatural source.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SC and IC hold that since no physical explanation is possible, then there must be a non-physical one. That's the approach ancient people took when they invented gods of rain and thunder, and does not follow the modern scientific method. The scientific approach is to seek physical explanations. Of course it may be that there really are gods of rain and thunder, but the theory is not helpful in predicting weather patterns. TFD (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces Umm, not even close. SC and IC are specific objections on where Modern Synthesis or Natural selection stepwise linear improvement doesn’t cover everything.  SC is about where some things are too improbable to be random events, IC is about where something cannot be reached by baby steps.  You don’t seem to know what either SC or IC are, and have been running on someone gave you bad straw men and poor jokes.  But you can re-examine on your own, this has gotten far from the IP, SO over & out.  Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. SC and IC are ignorant fantasies built on fallacies. First, there is no such thing as "too improbable to be random events", since there is no universal probability bound, and second, cdesign proponentsists do not understand how evolution works and are unable to do the computation correctly. Therefore SC fails. IC is about where ID proponents cannot find any way of reaching something by baby steps (while biologists can), so it is just the old subjective creationist "it cannot be because I cannot imagine it", clothed in sophisticated fluff. We are all familiar with that ID bullshit, and science has long ago rejected it. There is no point in pretending that did not happen. Please stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's exactly what the ghosts want you to think... :) Seriously, though, Markbassett, I have some solid advice for you -- good advice whether or not you are right and those opposing you are wrong. My advice is at WP:1AM. It also has sound advice for everyone on this page who disagrees with Markbassett. Finally, I would remind Markbassett of this: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon ... Methinks the lady doth protest too much. -seriously, fervered claims of “no we’re not biased” backed up with rants and snark, mistakes in objections, OR for why the vague pejorative not present in main sources is ‘right’ and your self-crafted advice is all coming off a leeeeeeetle overboard as a response to me sending HalMartin a ping. There was a long ago discussion about putting it in the lead line re gives indication of bias and was not from scientific bodies or WEIGHT but a WP choice is simply the history out in archives.  All this panicked responding by unaddressed folks seems unnecessary and is unconvincing,  kind of reinforces the impression of bias, plus noooooot very calm or objective.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you are already listed on the WP:1AM page under "The Fighter". :( --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The other Guy is known for occasional rhetorical exuberance, which nonetheless adds clarity in most cases. However, there's no escaping that this is pseudoscience. A quick look at a few sources (e.g. ; ; ; ; ; ; ) finds that ID is identified as pseudoscience in academic and popular literature about ID and about pseudoscience. Articles on ID characterise it as PS, articles on PS call ID out as an example.
 * The only people who seriously dispute this characterisation appear to be cdesign proponentsists. Guy (help!) 11:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JzG The major items in this article from Kitzmiller or scientific bodies do not agree, and WEIGHT of coverage did not agree. Again, it’s all in the archives- ID is mostly labelled by philosophy of science or theologians as a branch of creationism.  Reputable bodies do not use vague pejoratives like “pseudoscience” in serious works.  That WP chose otherwise is true, and yes it is in other WP articles, but it’s circular arguing to have WP as it’s own support.  The history of all this is  there in the archives if you want to look, along with I don’t know how many pointing to starting this way looks bad.  In any case, we’re a long way from the OP question so think we can stop any time.  Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , You're moving the goalposts now.
 * Here's what agrees: scholarly and popular sources discussing ID call it pseudoscience, and scholarly and popular sources about pseudoscience identify ID as an example. This is entirely consistent with the nature of "creation science" (of which ID is a component) as a deliberate attempt to portray religious creationism as a form of science. This was busted wide open in Kitzmiller.
 * You may not like the term pseudoscience, but that's a personal preference. Reputable sources use it, and so do we. Guy (help!) 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JzG Sigh, I said the same thing here about the word as I said at my first - vague pejorative, not used by main releases of scientific bodies or legal decisions, and WP chose to use it anyway and put at top despite that causing appearance of bias and not proper WEIGHT. And that all this is in the archives.
 * To your prior assertion that the only people not calling them pseudoscience are cdesign proponentsists I offered it again — that NAS, the courts and the bulk of sources do not agree with you. You may not *like* that only a minority and none of the lead documents use that characterisation, but it’s a fact nonetheless.   Even your own few oddball cites above - mostly they’re saying “creationism”.   All the rest of posts giving an editors logic on why it really really really should instead be called pseudoscience?  That’s what is called WP:OR.   The TFD posts of snark?  Umm kind of making the name-calling look like low-brow snark rather than serious info.  But we seem to have reached equilibrium- you’re repeating your contentions and I’m repeating mine Soooo over & out Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Markbasset, no they are more than that. They are part of a theory that a ghost is responsible for the universe. Hence the expression INTELLIGENT DESIGN. What else could that term mean? TFD (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020
I think that the term pseudoscientific should be removed and instead it is preferable to put Theological, and that is because Intelligent Design proponents does not pretend that ID can be proved by science, it is just an interpretation of the present scientific facts, except if there is a hidden intention to distort ID and say implicitly that it is false by using the negative and loaded word pseudoscientific, this is against intellectual integrity. 105.157.22.160 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The FAQs do not answer this post. Q1 equates it to Creationism, and Q8 provides the basis that the WP editors OR reasoned that it fits the definition of Pseudoscience.   In any case, the FAQs only state what the prejudice *is*, not a reason contrary to this request or generally even the reason(s) it is that way.  The request would be more properly answered to point at spot(s) in the archive of discussion.   And yes, it is irretrievably biased but at least it's obvious about it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Apokryltaros I saw you deleted my TALK. That was in violation to WP:TALKO.  I have replaced it, but you may feel free to make comments.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see the necessity or logic in reviving a months old spurious, patently unactionable request made by yet another Conspiracy Theorist For Jesus who doesn't actually know what the actual point of Intelligent Design is in order to argue in defense of the indefensible, which was why I deleted it in the first place, i.e., as per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020
please change pseudoscience to philosophy because there are sufficient scientists who argue that there are many evidences of design or purpose in, for example, the human cell that could not occur by random mutation and natural selection. Further the use of the word pseudoscience expresses an opinion and Wikipedia should be factual and objective. Pelimcc (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ See FAQ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Article seems biased
I don't really understand how Wikipedia works, but this article seems very biased. It also seems I am not the first person to notice this. For one thing, the first line of this article has an opinion stated as fact. It seems intellectually dishonest to straw-man an alternative theory on the only Wikipedia page discussing it. If you go to this page, https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/ you have the definition given by proponents of this theory. It seems fair to at least acknowledge their own definition on this Wikipedia page. You can debate it's effectiveness, usefulness, bias, flaws, etc., elsewhere. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is a place to come for biased opinions about things stated as if they are fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:240:29DD:4A00:792D:2F8:B2CF:DD73 (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and provide a title for new talk page sections — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * The first line of the article is amply and properly sourced and reflects the mainstream view, which is what Wiikpedia is about, by design — see policy wp:DUE and wp:BALANCE, and guideline wp:FRINGE. To present some balance, the second sentence in the lead exactly represents what intelligentdesign.org also claims, so I don't see a problem with the neutrality of the article. I don't think it would be a good idea to include that webpage as another source for that statement in our article. Any proponent of id who reads the section Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory? would probably either be embarrassed by the faulty logic, or burst out in laughter. Not a good idea i.m.o.
 * If you like to learn more about how Wikipedia works, start at wp:Five pillars. Happy reading! - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The page Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory? was written by proponents of ID, and proponents of ID are unable to recognize bad logic. So, no, they will not be embarrassed to read that, nor will they laugh. Still, of course you are right: that page should not be added. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is biased, so being clear about that is meh. Starting with a vague pejorative has been mentioned as a declaration of bias before, neither the prominent expert stance (“creationism”) nor following WP norm and guidances for WP:LEAD and Lead section TT first sentence content.   But ... editors really really REALLY wanted to call it names, and it seems irretrievably biased, so a clear signal of bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing — it may be a case of two wrongs make an almost-right.  At the time, there was even an edit to the WP guidance made to say this should be said.  At least the definition is given, and long ago even that wasn’t there.  All the debates can be found in the archives FWIW, and the many times starting with “pseudoscientific” has been said as poor.  Editors still want to lead with the insult.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. Please note that the article accuracy and clarity seems to be slowly degrading though - e.g. it calls ID an “alternative term for creationism”, which conflates all forms as if they were ID; and it says both irreducible complexity and specified complexity is about living things being “too complex” but that’s SC not IC and ID wasn’t only living things; and it recently ‘streamlined’ out the explanatory line after that one “ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God” (with cite to and instead put in an unsupported  “Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.”  So yeah, don’t look for unbiased or accurate here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an insult if it's true. Science ends up being written down in scientific journals. ID doesn't, since its quality is too low and it would be rejected, but it still pretends to be science. See the definition of pseudoscience.
 * But it is nice to see that "creationism" is seen as an insult even by creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * “Creationist” is what actual experts call it, and, and ID or creationists are quite content with that. But that’s not the word WP used.  Scientific bodies say (emphatically) that it’s not science and that’s all...partly because that’s the end of their purview and maybe because it’s not dignified to sling vague insults.  Face those facts - it’s the WP non-scientific and non-academic enthusiasms that led to this starting with a vague insult.  Over & out.  Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The biggest controversy about ID was that its proponents believe it to be a scientific theory, and tried to get it taught in school science classes instead of or alongside evolution. Perhaps if that was not the case, it could be happily described as a religious belief system (which of course it what it really is).  However if you claim something as a science which is not science, the English language has a simple word to describe exactly that, which we use. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopaedia. Where empirical fact diverges from religious dogma, whether said dogma is widely believed or not, we reflect facts as facts. In this case there are extensive independent findings of fact, e.g. through Kitzmilller, that back our characterisation of ID as a deceptively branded form of creationism. We're not going to reflect the views of cdesign proponentsists as fact, sorry. Guy (help!) 15:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Self-righteousness declarations and argument by snark - even made a wiki page embodiment to that- just is supporting how deeply emotional and biased this is.   Again, “Creationist” is what actual experts call it, it’s a factual descriptive of the result, and ID or creationists are quite content with that label.  But WP went with a vague pejorative instead.  Scientific bodies say (emphatically) that it’s not science and that’s all...partly because that’s the end of their purview and maybe because it’s not dignified to sling vague insults.  Face those facts - it’s the WP non-scientific and non-academic enthusiasms that led to this starting with a vague insult.  Over & out.  Markbassett (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "pseudoscience" is not vague. It's exactly correct to describe ID as pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Binksternet Tsk. Defining what one gets to insult isn’t something seriously pursued by professional scientists or philosophers, so no it is a vague pejorative.  You can find it deprecated, e.g. American Scientist, or Medium, or just observe that in this article that vague insult is what draws most of the critical remarks by many editors (certainly in the scores by now), has UNDUE prominence without serious support, and simply serves zero educational value.  It’s an emotional indulgence, nothing else.   There is some interest in the demarcation problem of distinguishing between science and everything not science, but for all practical purposes that is simply a matter of community acceptance.  It is undecided if there is no judgement from them, in dispute if scientific bodies disagree, and if there is consensus note that is subject to change and making it obsolete science.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Rutgers book Why Intelligent Design Fails, authors Matt Young and Taner Edis acknowledge that the term "pseudoscience" is sometimes used to label a "rival idea... to deny it legitimacy." But they assert that intelligent design must be labeled pseudoscience because it truly lacks legitimacy, and because the ID proponents "advertise themselves as doing science, even when their practices are far from the customary intellectual conduct of mainstream science..." Subsequently, they go deep into what constitutes pseudoscience, and why ID must be tarred with the same brush. They emphatically label ID pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all covered by the FAQ. I'm amazed at the people who are still willing to waste hours of their life to discuss topics that have been deemed so dead that they were added to the very first version of the FAQ 13 years ago --McSly (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the LABEL wasn’t actually widely accepted thirteen years ago, and it’s not a convincing FAQ so... that inconvenient truth just keeps popping up now & again.  I know I’ve mentioned the assignment of ID is instead as a branch of “creationism” for a number of times.   Might have helped if that part of the FAQ wasn’t an advocacy group NCSE.  Oh, and p.s. discussion for legal determination of when something is science vs something-else also exists.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but again, FAQ, top of the page. --McSly (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:McSly and cite to NCSE, which btw says religious ... the word “psuedoscience” not supported by it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK.--McSly (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only inconvenient truths here are that a) Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that serves no purpose beyond being a Shoehorn For Jesus to shove GOD DESIGNERDIDIT into science classroom curricula, and that b) not even the proponents of Intelligent Design who insist it is a science and not a pseudoscience can be assed to demonstrate how to do science with Intelligent Design beyond yelling at and lying to people about it being a science.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark, you keep posting links to stuff that doesn't talk about ID. Every time I look at one of your links and find nothing about ID, I dismiss it and the posting as irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bink of course not - the thread is about “pseudoscience”, and subthread about vagueness.... so I gave links about that term being deprecated.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If they don't mention ID then whatever deprecation they propose does not include it. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound like you didn’t actually look at the linked bits, or take seriously that there’s been scores of editors TALK highlighting that word as a bad choice seeming biased or inappropriate.
 * American Scientist “Stop Using the Word Pseudoscience BY KATIE L. BURKE - The term lacks a coherent meaning and leads to unnecessary polarization, mistrust, disrespectfulness, and confusion around science issues.”
 * Medium “It’s Time to Stop Misusing “Pseudoscience”” ... “this perhaps vague and over-used term”
 * legal lawyers, as has been pointed out repeatedly today, mistrust nonlawyers defining legal concepts such as “scientific evidence.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're jumping to the wrong assumptions about me. I read through the links, and they don't say anything about ID. If a bunch of sources specifically say to call ID pseudoscience, but on the other there are sources saying not to use the pseudoscience term in general, but they don't give ID as an example, then all of the leverage goes to the specific argument. The general argument ends up irrelevant, losing out to the specific. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (excerpts finished) ... These talk about the wording in discussion “pseudoscience”. That the term is not used and explicitly dinged as vague pejorative counterproductive to use.  It’s UNDUE prominence, not really supported by Kitzmiller or Scientific bodies and for that matter the FAQ itself about it uses a NCSE cite saying ‘religious’ isn’t a support.  Dings are going to keep coming up from time to time because the word is a vague pejorative and is not what the technical categorisation is of ID.  People see it as biased ... and yes the article seems irretrievably biased,  so maybe being obviously so is best in a two wrongs make an almost-right sense.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've provided nothing that shows any of us here that Creationism, I mean Creationism that pseudoscientists use to pretend is science by calling it Intelligent Design, is anything but pseudoscience. You're just yelling and screaming without providing evidence. And just because you cherry picked a few articles that seem to disparage pseudoscience doesn't mean it's so. The Wikipedia pseudoscience article is pretty rational on how we can identify pseudoscience. And your screaming and yelling hits about 5 of those items. This is a balanced article. Just because it doesn't support your "beliefs" is irrelevant. Science isn't about beliefs it's about evidence, so if you've got evidence in the form of articles published in high impact factor science journals that support anything about ID, we here are quite open-minded, and we probably would all read it. Now, we've all been around the block, and rest assured, there are no articles that hit that standard. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out to both MarkBasset and the infinite parade of Anonymous Editors For Jesus that Intelligent Design is designated as "pseudoscience" because a) Intelligent Design proponents seek to replace science education with a Jesus-friendly version of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy packaged with the Lie For Jesus that Intelligent Design is a magically superior science than Evolutionary Biology, and more importantly, b) Intelligent Design proponents have spent over two decades avoiding demonstrating how to or why to do science with Intelligent Design. But, then again, it may be our own fault, considering as how we're arguing at people who define "bias" as "failure to violently brownnose Creationists"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's a simple statement of fact. Discovery and findings of fact during Kitzmiller establish, without ambiguity, that ID is religiously motivated creationism, pretended to be science in order to try to crowbar religious dogma into science classes. Not only is this the textbook definition of pseudoscience, it's also one of the leading examples cited in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 12:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If indeed, as you say, the thread is about "pseudoscience", then it is off-topic here per wp:Talk page guidelines. All treads should be about improving the article Intelligent design. There are more than sufficient reliable sources that call ID pseudoscience. The article can probably not be improved by removing or adding more of these. Discussions about pseudoscience as described in sources that fail to mention the subject of this article are by nature wp:original research and thus off-topic. - DVdm (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DVdm No idea how you missed it - the thread clearly is about improving the LEAD.  Just read the thread start about the evident bias, particularly noting the first line (asserting “pseudoscience”) is opinionating, and the second line definition is a straw man.   ”I don't really understand how Wikipedia works, but this article seems very biased. It also seems I am not the first person to notice this. For one thing, the first line of this article has an opinion stated as fact. It seems intellectually dishonest to straw-man an alternative theory on the only Wikipedia page discussing it. If you go to this page, https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/ you have the definition”.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the thread is not about improving the lead, it's about whitewashing it it to protect the feels of people who believe that ID is science. The technical term for that belief is, of course, "wrong". Guy (help!) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * user:JzG Yeah, like *that* post doesn’t come off as emotional or biased opinionated ...just like the article. Look, simple fact the label “psuedoscience” has been noted in TALK for years, dozens and dozens of editors pinging it as inappropriate.  And the definition which used to be the start per firstline has been smithed, un-smithed, and re-smithed for years too.  I point to examples of archive 27 discussion, or a 2010 edit which started with a definition.  If the article keeps the pseudoscience start, then talk should accept the reality of this will keep popping up from time to time.  Over & out.   Markbassett (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. Formally closed. - DVdm (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Here’s How We Get Around the Wikipedia Roadblock
Evolution News, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a call by David Klinghoffer for donations to help get the ID message out by way of videos hosted on the Evolution News / Discovery Institute website. At least he's not calling for meatpuppets to pile on Wikipedia. We get enough drive-by nonsense as it is. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They've learned from the "Plandemic" experience in getting the message across despite the facts. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Klinghoffer's article is interesting - not a single citation actually about him. Someone who knows more about literary notability, is he notable as an author? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And there is the basis of his next article. Like Bechly and Bradley, masked Wiki editors erases him from history into the memory hole. That said, I didn't easily find any WP:BASIC stuff. One could argue WP:AUTHOR#1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we really care what he thinks. It's not like we're going to change Wikipedia policy for him.  Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Aw, it's internet videos. And I had thought the way around the Wikipedia Roadblock would be dumping the pseudoscientific bullshit, starting to do actual science, getting published in scientific journals, getting quoted by mainstream secondary sources, and then getting quoted by Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, Phillip E. Johnson died before he could know the hypothesis of intelligent design. You see, nobody took care of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Meh. Deep down, they still love us. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Has the article changed much since this was written?
“This” being a snippet from a certain Larry Sanger. Who founded Wikipedia. I think the answer is no, but I’ve not looked at it before now. The article looks to me to be typically biased, with prejudicial statements right at the beginning of the lede and certain admins falling over themselves to justify their non-neutral behaviour. (see the next previous but one talk discussion for details). Anyway, here’s Larry: ''"As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest." —Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC) '' It looks like he felt then just as I do now, about Wikipedia. It’s a disgrace, frankly. Boscaswell  talk  09:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to talk about Sanger—see wp:TPG. And yes, this article is biased toward scientific consensus, as is Wikipedia in its entirety, by policy design—see WP:WEIGHT- DVdm (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Boscawell, your use of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy in order to scold editors for their egregious failure to turn the Intelligent Design article into a brown-nosing Discovery Institute mirror site is noted.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sanger objects to Wikipedia's current policies which this article adheres to. He says (if i understand him correctly) that articles should give equivalency to mainstream and fringe views, while current policy says greater weight should be given to mainstream views. So your issue is with current policy and should be discussed in their relevant talk pages, not here. TFD (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ayala wrote about ID for Encyclopedia Britannica, and ID is not passed as credible science. So neither Britannica endorses Sanger's view. See https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I’ll take that as a “no”, then. I think it’s more than a little sad that far too many Wikipedians don’t appear to be able to understand the difference between the outright denigration of a subject or concept without allowing the reader to even contemplate that subject or concept, and writing which allows the reader to make up his or her own mind, while making it clear in a very relaxed way that that concept has been debunked or whatever.  That should be more than sufficient.  There is no subtlety to the way that ID is treated here, the sledgehammer is in use.  And the same approach is employed in vast numbers of articles.  Such an approach is unhealthy for society at large. Wikipedia was never intended to be a platform for one particular set of views to the exclusion of all others.   It is an Encyclopedia, the intention being to present a full range of information in a reasoned and calm manner.  The thought police don’t like that, though.   When I went to school, 1984 and Brave New World were set books.  I recommend them to people reading this.  Boscaswell   talk  22:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX to familiarize yourself with what the real purpose of Wikipedia article talkpages are. PPS, thank you again for assuming we're still too stupid to take note of your use of Appeal to Authority.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if there are any reliable sources corroborating your extraordinary claims about the magic power of written texts to grant or take away the readers' power of making up their own minds, feel free to write an article about it, based on those sources. It sounds far more effective than even the obsolete concept of brainwashing must have done to people who believed in it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences - lack of predictability
The current version of the WP article: "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

According to the same source as it is cited by the Italian Wikipedia, the hypothesis of the Intelligent design is also characterized by the absence of any scientific prediction and predictability. It is a relevant point for the WP article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's kind of mentioned at Intelligent_design, Useful/is not scientifically useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Directed Panspermia
Why isn't Directed Panspermia included in Intelligent Design? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Because in ID the Designer=Christian God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not ID because the seeded life would evolve without a designer to guide them. TFD (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Directed_panspermia looks scientific to me. It implies an intelligence to do the seeding. There is no mention of God.  There is no conflict with evolution if the seed was primitive.  Panspermia also bypasses the somewhat difficult Miller–Urey_experiment. It's ID that is not a cover for Creationists. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You miss the point: ID is a cover for creationists. That way it was designed and that way it will remain in the history of attacks upon science. ID proponents are simply not interested in hypotheses which do not postulate the Christian God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have planted seeds in the garden. It doesn't mean that my flowers, fruits and vegetables are the products of intelligent design. TFD (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Directed panspermia does not solve the riddle of how life started, it only shifts it one planet over. It says nothing about how life started. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gods have the same inifinite regress problem. Turtles too.
 * To return to the question from the beginning: yes, ID proponents have traditionally included design by space aliens. But they never expand on that, it is just part of the ruse of trying to disguise religion as science - "oh no, the designer does not have to be God, it could be, ummm.... aliens!". Nobody mentions it much, which means we have few sources on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of reviewing Wikipedia's Panspermia and Directed Panspermia articles for the names of all proponents and whether they are advocates of religion our godly creation.
 * However, at this point in the discussion, do we conclude: "ID excludes Extraterrestrial_intelligence." Charles Juvon (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we don't conclude. WP:SOURCES have to conclude that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In reading the National Academies' Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008), they are speaking of "ID Creationism" and the "ID Movement". I agree that Creationists use ID as a Trojan Horse, but ID related to Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, SETI, bio-SETI is not criticized.  Moreover, recent advances in mathematics and physics that invoke the Anthropic Principle or "living in a simulation", etc. are not addressed.  We need another article or a section that references ideas in ID that have not been hijacked by Christians. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about a single thing. This article is about the thing called intelligent design that was promoted by a group of people who coalesced around the Discovery Institute. Other things that may be called intelligent design aren't the topic of this article. That's all. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The anthropic principle, for example, has its own article. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do we do when a book entitled Intelligent Design - Minus Religion publishes by a notable scientist?Charles Juvon (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the book, so I can't say. Can you share a link to the book? Who's it by? When was it published, and by whom? Without more information, I'd say we follow what reviews in reliable secondary sources have to say. Without reading the book, I can't say. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that ID has hijacked by Christians, it was invented by them. Directed panspermia, simulation theory, etc. don't belong in the article except to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources about ID. TFD (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The book is still in the works. We could work now to decide on a new article that covers all of the explainations for life on Earth - other than abiogenesis. Charles Juvon (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we can't actually, not without sources that treat that as an entity. And whatever it was, it wouldn't be this page. And if the conversation isn't about making changes to this article, we shouldn't be using this page to discuss it. Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. We just moved: Draft_talk:Secular_Intelligent_Design Charles Juvon (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Panspermia theorists are not arguing that life is so complex that it must have been designed or willing to accept a supernatural cause of life on earth. They also accept that evidence is required to prove their theory and they present it as a theory not a belief. So it is entirely different from ID. TFD (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Intelligent design creationism"
is not a specific form of ID or a specific part of ID, it is the same as ID. ID is creationism, and we do not play word games here.

"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument"

cannot be changed to "Something else is a [and so on]" just because "The following wording" starts after that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede says it's creationism and a pseudoscience. And changing the lede without coming to the talk page for consensus is not going to fly. I agree with your reversion. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Popper
Scientific theories cannot be proven and generally speaking cannot be true. Google K.R. Popper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of that is...? The person you are addressing doesn't seem to have posted on this page, and doesn't appear in the recent history of this page. Also, your statement is false. A scientific theory cannot be proven, but can be corroborated to the point where it is assumed to be true. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree, but Physicist James Gates Jr. on NPR's "Speaking of Faith" (March 18, 2007) said, "Science is not about learning the truth. It is about making our beliefs less false." . Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's why they are called theories. However, scientific theories can be proven to be false. (Popper was not the first to make that observation.) ID cannot be proven to be true or false, which is why it is not scientific. TFD (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * On video at https://bigthink.com/videos/absolute-truth Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of that is: The person he is addressing edited the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021
In the introduction, please change "The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery..." to "In 2005, the leading proponents of ID were associated with the Discovery..." because the source is an expert's testimony in 2005. Maybe they still are associated, but a source for 2005 is not a good source for people's associations in 2021. 64.203.186.87 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Unless you have some reason to suspect this has changed, our lede should not imply that is has. ID is nowhere near as big a subject in 2021 as it was in 2005, so there's good reason to suspect it hasn't changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pants If the references don't include later dates, they can't prove that fact for later dates, so surely it should be edited. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Discovery Institute website currently has a dedicated section on ID and articles supporting it from 2021. There is no good reason to change the lede without a reliable source that states they are no longer proponents of ID. The lack of current discussion and easily found independent sources commenting on or criticising ID and the Discovery Institute in no way allows you to conclude that what was stated in 2005 has changed. So provide a reliable source that contravenes the 2005 statements and your request will have more traction. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

American centrism
Is this article particularly necessary when it could just be subsumed within the histiography of the Teleological argument? Especially considering this article will come up on Google more often than the teleological arguement article will? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The ID PR campaign is the mask creationism was wearing for two decades or so, and there is a group of pseudoscientists associated with it, so it is clearly different from "Teleological argument". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not American centric to have an article about a notable U.S. group. Also, it would be like subsuming Ufology into the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Just as readers interested in scientists searching for ET life would be uninterested in what really happened at Roswell, readers interested in philosophical arguments would be uninterested in attempts by religious fundamentalists to prove the argument from design. The authors of Of Pandas and People don't have the same attention in philosophy textbooks as Thomas Aquinas. TFD (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change from: "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument"
I propose a change to the start of the first paragraph from the above to "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute."

"the word is an established fact. There's nothing subjective about it."

Every word is an established fact. What makes a word subjective is not its existence, but its application. In this case, one person might consider Intelligent design to be pseudoscientific, while another person might not. That is why it is subjective, i.e a matter of opinion. Wikipedia should remain non partisan. HelpfulPi (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinions are capable of being factual or counterfactual. People are capable of having the opinion that the earth is flat. That does not make the shape of the earth a matter of opinion.
 * This argument does not address the indisputable fact that countless reliable sources and even a court of law have described ID as pseudoscience (the court quite literally included "ID is not science" in it's ruling), nor the fact that ID literally meets every single criteria for what constitutes pseudoscience. Nor does it do anything to undermine the long-standing and overwhelming consensus of this site to follow our policies with respect to this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse comments by Mr.Pants. EDIT CONFLICT> I SHALL WITHDRAW -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The defining feature of ID is that it's a form of creationism that adopts the forms of science, but not the methods of science, to make its case. Hence "pseudoscientific". As a defining feature, this belongs in the opening sentence. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a defining feature. It's an emergent property from the definition. I think we currently have the first sentence wrong, we should define it first, and then say what a bunch of pseudoscience it is. GliderMaven (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes it really is. It was invented from whole cloth to try to get creationism taught in schools. See cdesign proponentsists.
 * That's why it's cited as an example of pseudoscience in pretty much every text on the subject. Creationism is religion so can't be taught in science class, so creationists invent a form of "science" that they then try to get taught in science class. It's hard to be any more on-point than this, as definitional pseudoscience goes. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is pseudoscience because its proponents claim that empirical evidence can be used to determine whether or not the universe was created by an intelligent being. TFD (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's the canonical example of pseudoscience, cited in every text on the subject I've ever read. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Right, but that's not really a good definition. The discovery institute say a lot of pseudoscientific things! ;) A good definition defines it for people who don't know what 'intelligent design' means, and are unfamiliar with the discovery institute. GliderMaven (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you know what ID means? At heart, "intelligent design" evokes the design argument, but instead of being honest that it's natural theology, it's tarted up to look sciency. . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I swapped it around a bit, I think it's much better now. GliderMaven (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of pseudoscience. What do you think it means? Take for example the quote you added from the Discovery Institute: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Suppose you could prove that genetic changes were not random. Scientists would then look for physical causes of the changes. They wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was magic. And if you could prove it was random, the people at the Discovery Institute wouldn't suddenly become atheists. They would say that randomness was part of God's plan. Or that it only applies to changes within a species, not for the development of new species. The claim that empirical research can prove or disprove intelligent design is a pseudoscientific claim. TFD (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's completely fine, except we're not defining pseudoscience, we're defining intelligent design. We need to assume that people don't know what intelligent design or the discovery institute is, and define ID. Saying that it is or isn't pseudoscience doesn't define it. GliderMaven (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm struggling to understand your point. Intelligent design is defined as a pseudoscientific form of creationism, right? As in, a form of creationism deliberately designed (oh the irony) to look like science. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're trying to present upfront a deliberately misleading pseudoscientific self-definition, segregating the mainstream view contrary to WP:STRUCTURE policy and WP:PSCI policy. If you want a simple definition, the majority view is clearly that ID is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". . .dave souza, talk 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, WP:LEAD says you're supposed to define the topic first. It's not pseudoscientific by definition, it's pseudoscientific as a consequence of the Discovery Institute presenting the idea as scientific, and because the evidence is so heavily against it. So we'd reversed it in the first few sentences. Basically, we should and need to do it very similarly to what is done at Astrology. GliderMaven (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've directed you to policies, you're pointing to a guideline which by definition isn't a policy, and you seem to be misinterpreting that guideline. The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Not present the uninformed reader with misleading waffle shown out of context. . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. The first sentence is "Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". That's not the definition. It's supposed to be a definition. It's not about something is 'presented' it's supposed to be a definition. That's preamble. Wikipedia leads don't have preambles like that. GliderMaven (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's pseudoscientific by definition. Without the pseudoscience, it would be the argument from design. It's not just the argument that the supposed design in nature is proof of a creator, but the contention this can be proved using the scientific method. TFD (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's like saying that humans are Eukaryotes from the definition of Eukaryote. I mean it's perfectly true, but not very helpful to the reader. Just because something is entirely true, doesn't make it the definition. It's supposed to be a definition. GliderMaven (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument in this edit is correct. However, your edit provided an explanation of what the argument says, not a definition of what the argument is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally different. Believers define ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution." emphasis.) One cannot define ID without a reference to scientific method, evidence, hypothesis, etc. Saying it is "a form of creationism" incidentally is not a complete definition because there could logically be other forms of creationism. I say logically because you use the article "a" instead of "the." TFD (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me or GliderMaven? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was responding to GliderMaven. TFD (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that the definitions or descriptions given by its proponents do not give a positive statement, but reference only by not being a naturalistic (materialist, ...) theory. Just pointing that out. TomS TDotO (talk)
 * McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Creationists take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism. In the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that ID "employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s" and "is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." Same old, and pretty much the logical basis of the design argument in natural theology. Which is why IDers definitions need mainstream context from the outset. . .. dave souza, talk 15:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the lead statements as they were before GliderMaven's changes. (As the article was.) The definition shouldn't be provided by the proponents, but by Independent Sources; after that we can say what/how proponents phrase their argument/construct. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I support modifying the lead statement. Given 's points, the discourse above, and the discourse in the "Should Intelligent Design be capitalized..." conversation below, I propose this: "Intelligent design (ID) is is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God promulgated by the Discovery Institute, presented by it's proponents..." The Discovery Institute is intrinsic to the term as it is being defined in this article. ID (in this article) is about a specific attempt to teach creationism as science. It should have an appropriately specific introduction. This small change could address the majority (not all) of the arguments in both this discussion and the one on capitalization below, and hopefully a compromise/synthesis of the different ideas in these discussions.Zukisama (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a much better proposal. I'm not sure whether I think it's an improvement just yet, but if you don't get more responses than mine, you may wish to propose it in a new section below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to bring the DI into the opening sentence like that. ID's first decade is pre-DI; Panda's and Darwinism on Trial are pre-DI, and DBB was written before Behe was associated with them. In it's second decade ID and the DI are nearly synonymous (though to be specific, it's the CRSC/CSC, not the whole of the DI). Post-Kitzmiller ID is largely a spent force. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)