Talk:Intelligent design movement

Category
From the article: "the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a theocracy, primarily through education." Hint: the state, according to ID, should posit that there is a God, namely the god of the Christian religion. Not the god of liberal theology, but the god of fundamentalist Christianity. So, it breaches the wall of separation between church and state by a favoring a particular religion against other religions. According to the ID movement, the US public education system should dictate The True Religion&trade; or The True God&trade; to the masses, despite Catholics and liberal Protestants who as a rule of thumb find creationism ridiculous in its ambition to pass for a scientific theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
the term "Pseudoscienctific" is unnecessary and pejorative. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not describe the theory of Intelligent Design as Pseudoscience. And a Gallup poll found that only 87% scientists affirm an entirely undetected form of evolution. Further there are at least a dozen PhD trained scientists, including at least a few non-religious ones, who support ID 91.125.244.172 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, for the pseudoscience attribute, please read the explanation at the top of this page, the archive pages, as well as the FAQ of the Intelligent design page. It is very clearly explained why that characterization is correct and neutral. I'm not sure what your poll means as you are not linking to it and your sentence is not very clear, but 1) science doesn't work on polls and 2) you should take a look at Level of support for evolution and List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. Lastly, again, science doesn't work by taking the opinions of a few random PHDs (I'm pretty sure I could find a few PHDs who thinks the earth is flat) and you should take a look at Project Steve that shows why. --McSly (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Britannica actually says this: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics#ref247559
 * So, Britannica agrees that intelligent design is a hypothesis (if it can be called so) unfit for science. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote from that Britannica article where it calls intelligent design a pseudoscience? I couldn't find it. Neither could I find the line, "...unfit for science, and a disastrous argument for theology." Maybe you pasted in the wrong link? Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are not verbatim quotes, but render the gist of Ayala's argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The liberal U.S. senator Edward Kennedy wrote in 2002 that “intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes.”"
 * "This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how “intelligent” or “perfect” a design will be. Science tests its hypotheses by observing whether predictions derived from them are the case in the observable world. A hypothesis that cannot be tested empirically—that is, by observation or experiment—is not scientific."
 * "Scientists, moreover, have pointed out that not only do imperfections exist but so do dysfunctions, blunders, oddities, and cruelties prevail in the world of life. For this reason theologians and religious authors have criticized the theory of intelligent design, because it leads to conclusions about the nature of the designer at odds with the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence that they, like Paley, identify as the attributes of the Creator."
 * "Religious scholars in the past had struggled with such dysfunction and cruelty because they were difficult to explain by God’s design. Evolution, in one respect, came to their rescue."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, WP:V "disastrous for theology", and  WP:V "unfit for science".
 * What else would you expect him to say? Ayala was a top scientist in evolutionary biology and technically still a Catholic priest, so he saw scientific and theological problems with intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response.
 * I'm not understanding how Sen. Kennedy figures in this issue. Although I agree with his statement, I'm not aware that he was an expert on science or theology.
 * It seems to me that the statement, "...unfit for science, and a disastrous argument for theology," runs afoul of WP:SYN. The EB didn't explicitly say that, and the use of such strong language "reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
 * Would you consider something more like this?
 * The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID cannot be empirically tested and that it fails to solve the problem of evil; thus, it is neither sound science nor sound theology.
 * Regards, YoPienso (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Because I frankly do not see much difference (in meaning) between my wording and your wording. So, I don't understand how my wording fails WP:SYN, but yours doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of tone. (WP:IMPARTIAL) "Unfit for science" and "disastrous argument for theology" are smackdowns.
 * Also, your wording is exaggerated, since EB doesn't really say that. EB does say ID can't be empirically tested, and while it doesn't use the term "problem of evil," it describes it. YoPienso (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possible variations of alternate wording:
 * "The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID is unscientific and presents theological incompatibilities."
 * "The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID is unscientific and fails to solve theodical questions."
 * Language is so flexible there's no end of variations of wording. We should strive for a neutral tone that accurately represents the source material. YoPienso (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy IRL and haven't gotten back until now. Would it be fine with you if I substitute wording with more neutral language? YoPienso (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, go ahead. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have a great weekend. YoPienso (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. But now I'm wondering if it would be better as the concluding sentence of the lead rather than as the final statement in the "Reception by the scientific community" section. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation problem
I've never been able to properly create named references. I can't understand the instructions. Here, for example:


 * content
 * and
 * content
 * are not the same: one contains a hyphen while the other uses an ndash.

I can't find any hyphen or ndashes. I see equals signs.

I've just tried to create named references for a 2003 article by Jason Rosenhouse and am utterly flummoxed. Please help. YoPienso (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think AnomieBOT corrected it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. And thanks to the helpful little bot. YoPienso (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You gave the name "name" to the reference, so you should've re-cited it using, but instead you tried to re-cite it by using  . Since there was no reference with the name "Rosenhouse" in the article, you got the error. Avessa (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I don't understand--I moved the long Rosenhouse ref to the first time it was cited, then named it "Rosenhouse." I've tried many times to follow those directions, but find them hopelessly opaque. I'm good at writing and spelling and Chicago and MLA citations, but not at markups; I'm not a coder. I don't understand why you say there was no reference with the name "Rosenhouse" in the article since Rosenhouse, Jason (January 2003). "Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent-Design Movement". BioScience. 53 (1). Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences: 6–7. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0006:LAFITI]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0006-3568. Retrieved 2014-05-19. was clearly there. I realize my inability to comprehend the directions is annoying to other editors who find it easy, and it makes me look stupid. I'm not stupid, though, and could learn to do this with clearer instructions. I thought I was supposed to substitute "Rosenhouse" for "name". YoPienso (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being frustrated--how did I give the name "name" to the reference? How do I name a reference?
 * Yeah, so maybe I am stupid, at least about this kind of thing. YoPienso (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's certainly confusing, because the same term refers to two unrelated things:
 * The name parameter of reference tags.
 * The various parameters (first, last, etc.) that are supplied to citation templates (Cite web, etc.) which are then inserted between the reference tags.
 * So, in this markup:
 * "rj2003" is the name in the first sense, and "Rosenhouse", "Jason" or "Rosenhouse, Jason" are the name in the second sense.
 * When using "named references", it's only the first sense of name that counts. So, if you want to re-use this citation, you should write  rather than, say,  . Avessa (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to explain it to me. How does the code know that name="rj2003" refers to the correct source? Right now there's a  that refers to a different article by Rosenhouse. YoPienso (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * name="rj2003" is an arbitrary chosen name. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * name="rj2003" is an arbitrary chosen name. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)