Talk:Intelligent design/Off topic discussions

Agendas and Stereotypes
Here's a word for word uneditted copy of a pair of comments from above:


 * There is a semi-secret agenda for people that want to push creationism or intelligent design. It has been claimed for a long time that science and evolution etc are responsible for war, or genocides like the Holocaust or Cambodia's Killing Fields, for teenage pregnancy, for drug use, for gun crimes, etc. This is basically the standard technique that any group, including a totalitarian regime uses; define some outside group or principle or agency or individual as the enemy to rally your forces. It does not matter if the outside group is real or not, or if the threat is real-it will be invented if necessary to justify the strident tocsins of alarm. So as long as evolution is viewed as responsible for negative things, and evil in the world, and people are dumb enough to buy into it, then evolution and science will be attacked. Also it makes it seem like there is a nice easy answer to these very different and intractable problems. People are also ignorant enough that they will buy into a claim that before science, everything was good, because no one was alive then to compare the current world with what existed before, and dispute this claim. Also, another clever plan that the anti-evolutionists have is to use science itself as a recruiting tool for a narrow extreme form of Christianity (or for some, Islam). Again, just a strategy built on lies to trap the unwary and the gullible. When a person is not carefully armed against their arguments, their claims can sound beguiling. This is insidious and it is dangerous, and it is the promotion of igorance and basically pushing the US towards a theocracy.--Filll 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Filll, though "science" also has gotten a great deal of credit for progress in the last century, and with increased credit comes a tendency for increased blame. I'd also like very much to think that the tendency to blame is a result of the increased responsibility that comes with increased knowledge. But I think history tells a slightly different story about blame. Historically the blame for what people are uncomfortable with has most often fallen on the unarmed.  Score one for "Darwin", I suppose. In keeping with the current social contract, however, it appears scientists are not yet being sent to re-education camps, at least not thus far. I hope I haven't unduly oversimplified the issues.  ... Kenosis 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These two statements succinctly sum up the agenda/POV of those who are currently in control of this page. Their stated purpose is to disprove ID and thereby disprove lies which entrap the unwary and gullible. However, it is blatantly obvious to me that the mission of this article should not be to disprove ID and thereby save the unwary and gullible. The unwary and gullible will remain unwary and gullible no matter what anyone writes on this or any other page.

It is my arguable opinion that on a topic such as this most people only accept or read information with supports the beliefs they already hold. Thus, the unwary and gullible Christians who seek to impose their theocracy will reject any rational argument which tends explain cosmos genesis in any rational, scientific manner. By the same token, secular (possibly atheistic) scientists will reject even the most logical and well-thought out arguments for intelligent design.

Perhaps if editors came to the realization that nothing anyone writes here will change anyone’s mind about anything, then editors will please stop taking this article (and themselves) so seriously.

Let me make clear: I’m not posting this to create a fight. I’m not trying to “troll” and I’m not anyone’s “puppet”. I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I don't go to any church or ascribe to any institutional religion. I'm not a commando in the effort to topple our government and impose a theocracy. However, think these statements are highly offensive, ignorant and bigotted. I'm sorry if my characterizations of your statements offend you. I'm not trying to offend you. Although, I fully expect to have my input edited away and mocked, I can assure you that I’m not a liar who is attempting to entrap either the gullible or the unwary. I would also like to state that I’m not associated with any agenda and I don’t even really know what ID is. I’m not a Christian apologist and I’m not a scientist.

I just a reader and fellow editor who believes that a bit of gentle persuasion works better than a mallet to the head. Thus, I think if this article would take on a less aggressive tone, it might actually accomplish the stated goal of guys like Kenosis and Filll. Filll accuses his opponents of "defin(ing) some outside group or principle or agency or individual as the enemy to rally your forces", then he proceeds to define the Christian theocrats as the outgroup! So long as the editors here reject and ignore all who support ID (which I’m not one of them) then this article and discussion remains an exercise in reinforcing the editors' stereotyped perceptions of what ID supporters think about science and their stereotyped perceptions about a subversive theocratic revolution lead by wrong-head Christian fanatics.

Locking down the article and locking down the discussion page can prevent Christian theocrats from vandalizing your hard work. Locking down the article and the discussion page can prevent Christian evangelists from entrapping the unwary and gullible in their web of lies. But locking down these pages won’t convince them that God didn’t create the universe. Instead, you will just reinforce the beliefs that they already have. You will simply provide evidence that for their perception that secular tyrants are censoring and controlling the debate and the forum of the debate. I don’t think you want to provide them fodder.

Once again, I’m NOT trying to argue for ID. I’m simply trying to help you understand why you are contributing to and creating this controversy. I’ll be happy to provide concrete examples of how you can appease them and still remain true to the scientific principals which you hold so dear. However, there is no point in making the effort to provide my input if you’re going to feel so threatened by my words that you edit me away. Everwill 12:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, the words: "trying to help you understand why you are ... creating this controversy", "don't think you want to provide [the Christian theocrats] fodder", "happy [to show] how you can appease them and still remain true...", "which you hold so dear", "no point ... if you're going to feel so threatened". Who is "you"? Last time I checked, the "you" referred to above is a fairly diverse group of participants, in which the author of the above is currently participating. ... Kenosis 15:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everwill, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You are right in that this article is not going to change any entrenched position.  On the other hand, the 15-year old, or more importantly, the well-meaning but uninformed science teacher who comes to this article should not be misled into thinking that ID is anything other than a religious position.  By the way, whether God created the universe or not is outside the scope of science, just as it is outside the scope of mathematics, and that should be fully understood by the reader as well.


 * When you think about the view of ID follower (not a leader), the ones I talk to are concerned at a perceived lack of God in everyday life. They rally around the idea that evolution is anti-God, without really understanding why, but it seems like a good thing to do.  The standard anti-ID person, at least the ones I know, are concerned at the political attacks made on science education, together with the attack on science as a whole (the idea that science should include the supernatural, and the erroneous idea that evolution is somehow deficient).  When you throw in the deliberate lies and misdirections from the leading ID proponents (and there are some whoppers), I'm not surprised that scientists get hostile, and the average ID follower is confused and alienated from science.


 * There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to write this article with the image of a curious not-well-versed and a bit vulnerable reader in mind, and address scientific accuracy at the same time. Thinking of Everwill's comments that perhaps the scientific editors are coming across a little bristly; perhaps the way to go is to explain the religious position of ID clearly and in a way designed to make sense to the average nominally interested person, but also make sure that as soon as scientific claims are made, the validity of those claims is made clear instantly - inline with NPOV, verifiability and so on.


 * I think that the article has suffered from assuming that the Discovery Institute definition of ID as a science is the primary viewpoint of the article, which then needs to be balanced. The balance to this view is understandably harsh, because the view of ID as science is patently wrong no matter how you view it under the current definition of science. I don't even think that the DI believes that ID is truly science.   This is where the basic assumption of NPOV, which is that a POV is honestly held, if not always correct, breaks down a little bit: the definition put forward by the DI is not what they truly believe, it is a means to shape the debate of the role of religion in politics and education.  See the Wedge document.


 * ID is not science, but a religious position, dating from long before the DI. Wikipedia should be able to address it as such.  We should be able to write about how ID under the DI developed as a response to the way evolution appears to exclude the presence of God. I believe this type of presentation should be acceptable to both sides of the fence. Trishm 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So Everwill you think I am an anti-Christian bigot? Far from it my friend. However, the question does arise, what is it about evolution (which most people do not understand) that is such a threat to ID supporters, and their cousins, the creationists? It is just science. It is not making any religious claims.--Filll 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I think you are an anti-Christian bigot. Yes. I'm sorry. I don't say that to offend you. Please make no mistake I am not a Christian apologist. I am also not claiming to be better or wiser than you. We are all bigots. It is impossible to function as a human being without generalizing some things. This is because none of us can know everything about everything. Thus, we all taste things from life and then form our opinions based upon opinions of others. It's only natural. You don't really know or understand Christianity. This is obvious from your postings. You also feel threatened by (sarcasm) imminent Christian theocracy (end sarcasm). That's what I call bigotry.

Now to answer your question: I don't know the answer; more importantly I don't care. I don't know if evolution is a threat to ID supporters. I don't care if it's a threat to their political goals. I personally think Evolution is an indisputable, well-proven fact. But I still have no idea why it matters what me, you or anyone else's opinion is regarding Evolution in this forum and on this article. Why are the opinions of ID supporters material in this forum? Who cares what they think? Who cares what I think? As long as we keep talking about that sort of stuff, we'll keep entering circular arguments.

Trishm, Thanks for the courteous reply.

Let me first freely admit I'm no Intelligent Design expert. I'm also not a scientist. I'm not a philosopher and I'm not a theologian. However, I am a nationally published author and I make my living by communicating with people. So, I will not pretend to understand science or creationism or religion or philosophy, but I will stake out effective-communication as an area of expertise.

It is my expert opinion that the discourse on this discussion page is dysfunctional and that the article about Intelligent Design has wandered far from the mission. The mission should be to report the facts, and leave the philosophy to the philosophers, and leave the science to the scientists.

Your reply, which I much appreciate, is a perfect example of why this debate doesn't seem to have an end. My criticism triggered you to leap right back into the circular argument about the validity of Intelligent Design. I’m quite certain that no one can ever settle the validity of ID, or any science or philosophy or religion, in this forum. To attempt to do so is in fact the antithesis of NPOV. I know that notion assaults your sensibilities, but please allow me to finish my thought out before you reject me wholesale.

The purpose of this article remains an exercise in futility so long as the purpose of this article remains as described by you, Filll and Kenosis. It is impossible to prove or disprove any theory in this format. Furthermore, an attempt to prove or disprove this theory is nothing more than original research.

Please don’t interpret this to mean that I do not understand your argument about the validity of ID. I’m not challenging your opinion. ID may well be a foolish notion contrived as a tool by the theocrats to usurp the educational power base in this country. While I neither reject nor endorse your thesis, I want you to know that I understand the source of your fear.

Still, you won’t get any traction by trying to explain to me the danger posed by these explaining this “philosophy”, “science” or “religion”. This is because the implications and dangers of reporting facts are beyond the concerns of editors reporting those very facts.

There are many people who think or thought that Satanism is dangerous. They seek and sought to oppress access to this philosophy. Restricting access to Satanist philosophy did not prevent people from exploring Satanism. In fact, restricting access to this information probably increased interest in this taboo knowledge.

Oppressing access to Satanism or Intelligent Design will not save any 15 year olds or science teachers. By your own admission, they're going to think whatever they think no matter what you write. This is why I believe that it doesn't matter what is the ulterior motive of people at the Discovery Institute. It really doesn’t matter whether they actually believe in ID or not.

Furthermore, your anecdotal evidence describing your perceptions of ID supporters are similarly immaterial. Of course, it's impossible for you to guess the secret thoughts of others, but put that aside: it doesn't really matter what you think of their motives or opinions.

As editors all we can do is report the facts. The fact is we as editors don’t know anything about the origins of the universe. We weren’t there. The only fact we can report is that some people have theories about the origins of the universe. We can report those theories and we can further report that others reject these theories. We cannot interweave these theories to prove a point of view.

Before you say it, I’m not talking about equal footing for nonsensical notions. I’m talking about separating the proof from the pudding. In other words, I have no complaints about the “tone” of the article.

Quick aside: I did complain about the tone on the discussion page. The assumption on the discussion page seems to be that the opposition viewpoint—no matter which side you're on—is the nitwit viewpoint. By the way, those assumptions virtually preclude any discourse and disallow any exchange of ideas.

Back to the point: as for the tone of the article, I must correct myself. I actually have no complaints with the article's tone. The tone is detached, factual and highly referenced. I also don’t question the references or “facts” in the article. My complaints are with the style of the article and the purpose of the article.

The style of the article makes it almost unreadable. I know I'm going to hurt some feelings but the style reads like something written by the Unabomber. Statements ramble headlong into refutations. Headers don’t match with the text found below the head. It’s all very confusing. I’ve read it several times and I can’t for the life of me figure out what Intelligent Design Theory is.

I think the article wanders aimlessly because multiple authors are trying to satisfy multiple viewpoints, while at the same time maintain a pretense of neutrality. (I’m sorry this is so windy but it’s very hard to say anything on this subject without protecting yourself from projectiles from random directions.)

I think that fifteen-year-olds, science teachers and others simply have to fend for themselves in a world full of information. They are going to read what they are going to read regardless of what is written here. They are going to think what they think regardless of what we want them to think.

Thus, I would propose a new and different purpose for this article: report the theory and report the controversy regarding the theory. As required, please report the refutation of the theory. But please don’t jumble these three different missions together and then pretend that this stylistic mess represents a NPOV. Please don't defend the stylist mess found herein by outgrouping anyone who challenges the article’s style. Please don’t assume that every critic is a theocratic wacko intent on installing Pope Ayatollah Pat Robertson as Chancellor of the National Socialist Republic of Amerika. Everwill 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get in the middle of the current Everwill-Filll bout here (a potential fifteen-rounder from the looks of it thus far, one which I suggest call a truce and move on to something else perhaps).
 * I do think some of Everwill's POV about the article needs to be set forth separately to try to get a handle on what's being advocated. A quick reading of the above appears to indicate that Everwill's position about the article itself is as follows:
 * 1) "the article about Intelligent Design has wandered far from the mission. The mission should be to report the facts, and leave the philosophy to the philosophers, and leave the science to the scientists"
 * 2) "The purpose of this article remains an exercise in futility so long as the purpose of this article remains as described by you, Filll and Kenosis. It is impossible to prove or disprove any theory in this format. Furthermore, an attempt to prove or disprove this theory is nothing more than original research."
 * 3) "I actually have no complaints with the article's tone. The tone is detached, factual and highly referenced. I also don’t question the references or “facts” in the article. My complaints are with the style of the article and the purpose of the article. The style of the article makes it almost unreadable. I know I'm going to hurt some feelings but the style reads like something written by the Unabomber. Statements ramble headlong into refutations. Headers don’t match with the text found below the head. It’s all very confusing. I’ve read it several times and I can’t for the life of me figure out what Intelligent Design Theory is."
 * 4) "I think the article wanders aimlessly because multiple authors are trying to satisfy multiple viewpoints, while at the same time maintain a pretense of neutrality."


 * There also are some criticisms of the talk page put forward by Everwill:
 * 1) "It is my expert opinion that the discourse on this discussion page is dysfunctional ..."
 * 2) " ... the tone on the discussion page. The assumption on the discussion page seems to be that the opposition viewpoint—no matter which side you're on—is the nitwit viewpoint. By the way, those assumptions virtually preclude any discourse and disallow any exchange of ideas."


 * In addition, some recommendations are offered by Everwill:
 * 1) "As editors all we can do is report the facts. The fact is we as editors don’t know anything about the origins of the universe. We weren’t there. The only fact we can report is that some people have theories about the origins of the universe. We can report those theories and we can further report that others reject these theories. We cannot interweave these theories to prove a point of view."
 * 2) "Thus, I would propose a new and different purpose for this article: report the theory and report the controversy regarding the theory. As required, please report the refutation of the theory. But please don’t jumble these three different missions together and then pretend that this stylistic mess represents a NPOV. Please don't defend the stylist mess found herein by outgrouping anyone who challenges the article’s style. Please don’t assume that every critic is a theocratic wacko intent on installing Pope Ayatollah Pat Robertson as Chancellor of the National Socialist Republic of Amerika."


 * Perhaps it would be appropriate for Everwill to put up on a separate page (e.g.User_talk:Everwill/IntelligentDesignDraft) a suggested draft of an article on "Intelligent design" that Everwill thinks will meet these criteria he has set forth, and thereby let the other editors get a somewhat more specific idea of what's being proposed.  ... Kenosis 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

History Repeats Itself All Over Again
I need to stay away from this tar-baby. I just read this comment from the 2005 subpage and I'm now quite convinced that I'm urinating directly into the wind:


 * I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue. But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray. Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted. It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gandalf said exactly in three sentences what I took four pages to say. Bravo to Gandalf. Everwill 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And you, of course, being completely innocent of the charges of name calling can then broadly condemn everyone else. Nice.  Orangemarlin 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm definitely no better than anyone else. Everwill