Talk:Intelligent design/LeadVoting1

Competing leads
The suggested options for "competing leads" presented below were submitted by User:Adam Cuerden, a WP administrator, on 25 April 2007.: (this noted after the fact by Kenosis 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Technically, I only listed the first three, based on what had been getting used in the edit war, and the fourth, based on discussion. Anything after that is probably someone else. Adam Cuerden talk 04:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear ya'. It's reminiscent of Godel's theorem, by which, in one rendering, there are not enough people around to check up on everything that people do in the world. No sweat here, though.  I peronally would prefer to see the discussion proceed totally on the merits, both point by point and with an ongoing eye towards the overall editorial style (which, within the contentious nature of the topic, is more or less what's been happening). ... Kenosis 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1.
Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science; The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

2.
Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

3.
Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association. "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't. • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.

• "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005. • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005 • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006. • "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't. • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

4.
Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

However, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association. "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't. • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.

• "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005. • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005 • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006. • "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't. • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

5.
Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.

Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. a U.S. organisation that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Discussion
I think I got all the main versions that have been proposed. Forgive me if I'm wrong. The notable point is probably that they're all quite similar to each other, so we can probably work out an acceptable compromise from them. Adam Cuerden talk 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we're doing it this way. We can find consensus, and if this ever happens again, we can point to this discussion. Orangemarlin 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Preferences

 * In order, 2, 3, 1. 2 still in the lead. 4, 1, 3. I believe that 2 best represents the NPOV of what is Intelligent Design.  However, I can live with 3.  I think 1 is least acceptable to me.  Orangemarlin 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer 3's version of the second paragraph by far to 2's version. What if we combined them, as per new combination 4? (My order: 4,3,2,1, due to a particularly strong dislike as to how 1 and 2 handle the pseudoscience and junk science sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To note, I'm perfectly happy with 2, as long as we fix the offending sentence. I'm uncertain about 5. Adam Cuerden talk 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 by a country mile, then 4, 1, 3, with my concern about "hypothesis" in the last sentence repeated. Tevildo 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 is my first choice, followed by 1 then 3. No support for 4. Odd nature 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 5, 1, 3 - 2 & 4 are an absolute no go and a violation of NPOV.  There are over a dozen editors that have objected to this intro.  This will go before Arbitration before 2 or 4 get the lead.  Also note that you changed the order.  #1 use to be the old #2... so everyone.. don't get confused on the numbering... #2 is the lead from a month ago that started this month long editor war with over 20 editors.  Most have agreed to some version of 1 or 3 and it drives me nuts that we're back to square one with this!!!  Morphh   (talk) 0:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration isn't for disputes over article content. You mean mediation, I believe. Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dispute is that it violates NPOV policy by stating an opinion as fact. This is certainly something that could go to Arbitration.  Morphh   (talk) 1:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 5 (well, duh, i took it out of the trash and put it in, so it should be obvious.) 2 and 4 is contrary to Wikipedia policy for reasons repeated multiple times here. to begin with, the definition is OR. r b-j 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 4,3,2,1 basically per Adam's logic. JoshuaZ 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 16 editors that expressed issues with the first sentence of 2 & 4 Morphh   (talk) 3:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and junk science
Could we at least get rid of that excessively wordy "many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science." from 2 if we end up going with that? All the waffle and weasel words in that sentence annoy me. I also think it should come at the end of paragraph 2, but I suppose it wouldn't be too bad where it is if we cut the crap. Adam Cuerden talk 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we could take the sentence from any of the others to fix the junk/pseudo science sentence. By the way, I'll be livid if just a few of us comment on the lead.  Some of the people on here whine and whine, but when a solution is presented, they disappear.  Orangemarlin 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about something like "many scientists, as well as the National Science Teachers Association, have publicly stated it is a pseudoscience or junk science." or 3's "It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association." - something simple that nonetheless makes it clear that this is a public record thing, not belief in the truth of the statement - otherwise "many" gives the impression that at least a sizable minority do not believe it is a pseudocience or junk science. Adam Cuerden talk 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first of these is OK, I think - the "many" is still a bit sub-optimal, but I agree it's better than the 2 version of the sentence from a purely stylistic viewpoint. I don't think the 3 version is in the running while it has both "often" (which has the same problems as "many", and implies temporal rather than numerical frequency) and "proclaimed" - the NSTA, august though it may be, doesn't issue proclamations. :) Tevildo 22:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You speak much wisdom. How about "Public statements by scientists and the National Science Teachers Association have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science."? or "...have described it as "psudoscience" and "junk science""  or... something to that effect. Adam Cuerden talk 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As a seperate point, I prefer the psudoscience/junk science sentence after the description by the NAS: The NAS statement gives reasons it's not considered science, whereas the pseudoscience/junk science is... relatively unimportant on the whole, merely strengthening anything that came before. Would there be any consensus for rearranging it that way? Adam Cuerden talk 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you're suggesting:
 * The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists and the National Science Teachers Association have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science."
 * I would support this wording without hesitation. Tevildo 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the one. Possibly with a full stop instead of a semicolon. Adam Cuerden talk 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better! SheffieldSteel 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disillusion anyone at all here, but what was just advocated would be quite incorrect. While the word "pseudoscience" was avoided in general by the currently major scientific organizations, the NSTA went the additional step of characterizing ID as "pseudoscience".  But the NSTA most certainly did not use the term "junk science" in its official statements, though other prominent members of the scientific community quite verifiably did say that ID is "junk science".  ... Kenosis 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)  Please, please, please, read up at least on the sources already provided in the article rather than (I infer) intuiting from other talk page comments only. Thanks in advance. ... Kenosis 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, but it says "or". The NSTA definately did refer to it as one of the two. Adam Cuerden talk 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the two, my foot. Please read the sources, please, please, please, everyone, especially given the level of controversy that attends this topic.  The NSTA referred to ID only as "pseudoscience". Other prominent participants in the scientific community referred to "junk science" in separate sources. ... Kenosis 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"no evidence for the intelligent design hypothesis"
Shall we cut "During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." to simply "During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."
 * Yes. Adam Cuerden talk 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The hypothesis exists; it's the veracity that's at issue. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. BTW, I hope to have time to comment on the various suggestions later on. SheffieldSteel 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oui! Orangemarlin 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. It looks like 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other. They are equivalent in my eyes. The main point is, as noted, that there is no evidence for it. Who cares what it is called, really.--Filll 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. It is a good bit too specific for the article lead, and should be stated farther below in the article because of its relatively fine degree of specificity.  But I offer the editors who participate in this decision a challenge.  Will you agree to continue to participate in the talk page long after a new consensus is reached for the article lead?  If you won't agree to continue to defend your decision in the future, perhaps you might want to recuse or qualify your advocacy, because as we all know, consensus is not permanent. (I fully realize my challenge here has not weight of authority, so I must limit myself to characterizing what I just said as a friendly challenge.) ... Kenosis 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, the vote's actually on whether to cut "the intelligent design hypothesis" to "intelligent design", not to cut whe whole sentence. If you think it should be cut, that's probably best done as a new vote. Adam Cuerden talk 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, as I missed the point in my haste. I don't think it makes one bit of difference either way.  I should note that persons have criticized this article for lack of specificity on a number of occasions.  Perhaps better to let the passage be as specific as possible.  So my vote would now be "no". ... Kenosis 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see no way in which that harms the article. i kan reed 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is version 2/4 a violation of Wikipedia policy?
I don't think it is, it does state two seperate facts, but it draws no new connection between them (hence not WP:OR), and is the phrasing that made it through the Featured Article discussion. I find it hard to believe that a violation of Wikipedia policy would survive that. However, comments? Adam Cuerden talk 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe it is. In what way could they be OR? We are quoting experts in the field, and the extensive findings of a US federal court that weighed a huge amount of evidence and testimony under oath. It is not up to us to declare a US federal court's ruling as nonsense...THAT would be OR. And just plain creationist nonsense. We quote the findings of the court. If the court had found otherwise, then we would have an interesting situation where experts in the field disagreed with the court, and we would have to come to some different accommodation. However, when the court agrees with the experts, and only a few extremists adopting nonstandard nonscientific positions are frantically claiming otherwise, then I think we are on firm ground.--Filll 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We never said it was OR (well.. perhaps rbj). We said it was in violation of NPOV.  "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute...  Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them." 2 & 4 state ID is God as a statement of fact, without attributing the opinion and without stating that ID does not identify the designer.  Over a dozen editors complained that this sentence violated policy.  As for the FA discussion, it was a self promotion, which shouldn't have been allowed.  The discussion was of those that wrote and approved the sentence.  It is a conflict of interest for the editors of this article to vote for themselves, which is what happened on this FA allowing it too barely pass (as almost half the votes opposed the FA).  Morphh   (talk) 1:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A federal court agrees with the statement and accepted it as a finding of fact. That's hard to argue with and is a reliable source. Find a reliable source that seriously disagrees with the claim and then maybe it will matter. But as of right now the only claims otherwise are in unreliable sources like the DI's press releases. JoshuaZ 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can it be agreed that one or more of the variant first sentences listed below is an acceptable compromise to everyone? If they are, we may be able to sidestep this argument completely. I mean B is probably not only less controversial, but more informative and accurate, and there's several other good versions in there as well. Adam Cuerden talk 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing of first sentence
Here are several variant first sentences that aren't present in the current versions. I like some of them better than the ones currently on offer. They consist of several of the ones that came up in the previous discussion, and a couple other variants.

A. "Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of biological life and the universe did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent, usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God"

B. "Intelligent design is a variant of a traditional argument for the existence of God that claims certain features of biological life and the universe are too complex to arise by natural processes such as those of evolution, but must have been created by an unspecified intelligent agent.

C. "Intelligent design is a conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of natural processes." (Modified Wiktionary definition)

D. Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Adam Cuerden talk 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer D or B, followed by A, C, 2, 3. Adam Cuerden talk 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any of these would be acceptable to me - my order of them would be D, C, A, B. Morphh   (talk) 1:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been through this over and over again Adam. All of these are weasel wording to placate the complaints of a grand total of two editors.  This is NOT a compromise, but a total cave-in.  Factually, neutrally, and plainly speaking, ID is an argument for a G_d.  Whether individuals here choose to place propaganda on this lead is up to them, but I won't buy it.  I vote against all of the phrasing.  The compromises you spent time doing above is all that counts.  It appears 2 (and maybe 4) is getting the most support.  Orangemarlin 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it amazing that your still stating this two editor nonsense knowing it to be untrue (the list).   Morphh   (talk) 2:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * if Orange thinks it's true, he thinks it's true. r b-j 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you really saying you prefer the direct quote from the DI of 2's second half to these rather more elegant, neutral ways of phrasing it? Relax and have another look at them. Sometimes change can be a good thing. And I honestly feel that B is more accurate to Kitzmiller's findings than 2 is, so it's probably not that useful to tell me that I'm caving in. Adam Cuerden talk 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"
Would this be more conveniently phrased as simply "Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute"? Pretty much the same information, but in a much more natural-sounding phrase. Adam Cuerden talk 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Morphh   (talk) 3:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible consensus version?
''Here's what I think the current consensus version is, going by the current votes and discussion. I'll try to update this as discussion continues, or someone else can. I mean, I may be trying to act as a moderator for the discussion, but that doesn't stop anyone else joining in. Adam Cuerden talk 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)''

The opening is unfixed. For the moment, I've used the compromise version nearest 2, this may well not be the version we end up with, hence the tiny text. Adam Cuerden talk 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a variant of a traditional argument for the existence of God that claims certain features of biological life and the universe are too complex to arise by natural processes such as those of evolution, but must have been created by an unspecified intelligent agent. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005. • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union. • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005. • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file) claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Public statements by scientists and the National Science Teachers Association have described it as a pseudoscience or junk science.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

''Obviously, the voting may change direction radically, but this is my best guess as to where we are, given a fairly snowballish support for 2 and the last sentence rewrite, The paragraph 2 must be considered specualative until more people weigh in on it. Adam Cuerden talk 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)''


 * I don't understand Adam. This looks like the original lead that had over a dozen editors in opposition.  I don't see that this is any place to start as it is basically starting over.  I don't even see this lead as an option.  Orange and 151 seem to be the only ones that keep bring it up as most of us have moved on to try and form some consensus (I know they'll state some prior mystical consensus but this is irrelevant - see the policy)  Start with 2 and the most supported version of 8 - we had something working here.  This version is a non-starter and quite frankly makes me mad that we're even discussing it again.  Morphh   (talk) 0:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is based on the current, preliminary results of the discussion/voting above. By all means leap into the voting a few sections up, or use the discussion to suggest tweaking of individual sentences.  I'm just trying to collect current opinion to make it easier for objectors to ake suggestions for changes in the discussion section above, or add new versions to the list way above. Adam Cuerden talk 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly did the people object to previously? They do not want any reference to junk science or pseudoscience? They do not want it to be associated with an argument for the existence of God? They do not want to have it associated with the Discovery Institute? These are all ridiculous objections, in my opinion. What else do they not like now?--Filll 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * so many times, when these objections were repeatedly raised, the self-titled "longtime editors" would simply dismiss the objections and say to refer to some archived discussion of the dispute (as if they had satisfactorily put such objections to bed in the archive). well, now it's your turn to review the talk page and recent archive.  i have spelled this out explicitly at least 4 separate times besides dozens of other less explicit times.  ID is not defined to be "an argument for the existence of God".  there is no referential support for that definition.  you guys made it up. r b-j 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The objection is that it states ID is "argument for the existence of God" as a statement of fact. This point is disputed, which requires that it be attributed per NPOV policy.  ID states that it does not identify the designer, so there is a large conflict in this lead with this statement as factual.  The court case is an opinion.  There is also conflict with drawing a conslusion before defining what ID is.  The first statement should be what ID is without any POV opinion as to what is concluded.  Morphh   (talk) 0:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's relax and step back. I've put up some alternate versions in the modifications section - maybe one of them will work? Adam Cuerden talk 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure everyone engaged in this debate has read this document [] at least once, if not many times. But, please have a look again.  Go to heading (5) (on page 12), and read the first line of the introduction, where it brings up God.  You could continue reading the rest if you wish, but at the least scroll down to the top of page 14, and note that it discusses why the term Intelligent Design (ID) is being used.  This, of course, is the wedge document, put out by the Discovery Institute (DI).  This pdf was taken from the website of the DI itself.  So, while the leaders of the ID movement claim that the concept of the "designer" needn't mean God, right here, within one continuous document published by the DI, we see that the basis for pushing ID is a desire to push God.


 * Apologies if this has been brought up before (as I'm sure it has in the years this has been debated on this talk page). It just strikes me that this is clear evidence linking ID to God.  I can't see any other way to read that document. I was hoping this would address the point brought up by r b-j and others.  Tomwithanh 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)