Talk:Specified complexity

{{archivebox| {{{archive box|auto=yes}} }}

Arbitrary bias of the "controllers" make Wikipedia laughable.
I have made three small changes to this article with all three being reverted with no legitimate reason. One was single word change to correct a simple but clear semantic error in the first sentence (SC is not an "argumet"; it is a concept used in certain arguments). It was reverted claiming I gave no citation despite the original sentence having no source citation itself. The second was also a correction to a word, changing an incorrect statement that Dembski claims something "impossible" when he actually never says that. Again, no source citation is given for using the word impossible, but the correction was reverted without explanation or justification. The third was also a clear correction and improvement to the article, simply moving a paragraph that was clearly describing significant work by Dembski's critics into the section called "Critisisms" where it belonged. A fourth change removed a couple of sentences that confused two different conceptual tools that Dembski discusses, and erroneously equated them -- again with no source citation. (If the original author took the effort to seek a source citation, he might end up clearing up his own misunderstanding of what Dembski has written.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.23.169 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC) This is the kind of arbitrary behavior that is seen with Wikipedia articles when the original authors are actually trying to promote a non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.23.169 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dembski loc. cit.
I've just corrected the Elsberry and Shallit loc. cit., but the Dembski one ("(loc. cit. p 16)" cited for "Quoting Dembski...") as it is too far separated from any of his longer works (and there are too many of them clumped together) for me to have any certainty as to which it is referring to. Does anybody know? HrafnTalkStalk 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is enigmatic at best
People come to wikipedia for answers on what they don't know about. Unfortunately, the opening of this article is impossible for a layman to understand. I've been studying ID and the related mathematics for a while, and I can't make head or tail of what specified complexity is aiming to prove. Would it be accurate to say that the ultimate idea behind specified complexity is that life is too complex to have evolved? From my limited understanding of it, the idea is that the probability of life evolving to where it has is so low as to be considered impossible. For the sake of anyone trying to understand this, please add a sentence at the opening to the effect of "Specified complexity aims to prove that [this is the part I don't get]." Tealwisp (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, I suspect, to a large extent that (i) Dembski hasn't (in spite of repeated attempts) come up with a definition of 'specified complexity' that is meaningful (to Information Theorists) & (ii) that he conflates information and probability. Therefore the article must attempt to give Dembski's equivocating explanation of what he thinks it is (without giving WP:UNDUE weight to his claims on behalf of it) & WP:DUE weight to the scientific community's views on what they think it is not (not a meaningful concept, not useful, not a good argument for ID). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the opening two sentences of the second paragraph? --CSTAR (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Think this one deserves a bit more TALK. Just the meaning of the term is to convey the combination of both complex and specified.  It also seems both sides can say "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone."  (Intelligent Design as Information Theory 1998 re Watchmaker 1987, p9).  Discussion about the two together seems to diverge at the particular meanings Dembski used for complex and specified.   After that it seems are more significant areas of controversy in: (1) the applications at actual calculations; (2) that it's become a trigger phrase; (3) philosophy viewpoints in how math is treated.  For the article itself I suggest for now it's all findable in google or creationwiki.org, and that this TALK was more of a question/comment to lead to result other than background info.   Markbassett (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

source of citations?
I am new to wikipedia, please excuse if this is a stupid question: some references in this article are what I consider "real" scientific references, i.e. identifying Author, Title, and all the details of When and Where this was published (e.g. scientific journal or book); however, a lot of the references just open up the original document without any mention IF and WHERE this document was ever published... am I just missing something? thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbat089 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Like all Wikipedia articles, it's a work in progress. Standards of citation have developed and changed, and we'll need to bring references up to date when time permits! Citing sources gives the principles, and alternative acceptable ways of doing the references. Generally, we follow the precedent set by citations introduced earlier, but in this case useful info is missing, as you say. For most sources I find it easiest to use this tool, using the drop down menu for the type of source, and clicking on the checkboxes for "Show extended fields" and "Add access date (if relevant)", as well as "Add ref tag" when a new inline cite tag is needed. As an example, this edit formatted the first reference using the tool in that way, and this edit then deleted unused fields. It's important to check the link works and ensure that the source is correctly described. Thanks for the enquiry, dave souza, talk 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have been reading a few articles within the Intelligent Design series, and this one seems to fall into line with the others in terms of problems with neutrality. It makes me suspect that the articles were written by the same one or two people. However, while this article does fall short of reaching a neutral tone (NPOV), it does seem slightly less biased than many of the other articles within the series. I think this problem could be rectified if you were simply to confine the criticisms of specified complexity to the criticism section of your article. It seems fairly pointless to have a criticism section at all if objections to the idea are going to be expressed throughout the article. I understand that your own personal opinions of specified complexity are negative but allowing that to set the tone for your article/s is hardly neutral. I would respectfully ask that you review Wikipedia's neutrality policies and review your article to be more in keeping with those policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.122.149 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same old "how do you write about flat earth theory?" question. If you write about a fringe theory (in this case an idea about evolution proposed by precisely one mathematician) without discussing it's fringiness, then you're not really writing neutrally about it at all; to some extent, you're actively promoting it. So Wikipedia writes neutrally about fringe science by setting it in the appropriate context.


 * That this article actually has a "criticism" section is probably a sign that the bulk of the article is not properly balanced. The criticisms related to an article subject should not be lumped together but integrated with the rest of the body.  --TS 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To decide what to promote and what not to promote is lack of neutrality. This article is an attack on ID. That is not "per se" bad, only it is not neutral at all. Perhaps Wikipedia should drop the requisite of "neutrality", it would be more honest. 186.53.245.87 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. It does not mean we give equal weight to serious scientists and con artists. It means reflecting what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what the article does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is adopting the HHGTTG encyclopedic editorial standard. This article should be re-edited shortly as "It's bullshit", so people don't waste time trying to find amist criticism what the idea of specified complexity is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.198.179 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reality has a well known bias toward expressing what actually exists. Dembski's ideas are very wrongheaded.  If someone writes about them objectively, then that will be revealed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.71.73.247 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Amusing. Channelling the power of karma are you?

"It's the same old "how do you write about flat earth theory?" question." I could suggest: "Flat Earth Theory is the theory that the earth is flat." Bam. Man, I'm good. If this gives you difficulty, perhaps you shouldn't be reviewing wiki articles.

SuperMudz (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Synthese on 'Evolution and its Rivals'
Synthese Volume 178, Number 2 / January 2011 is an entire issue devoted to 'Evolution and its Rivals'. It includes articles by such heavyweights as Robert T. Pennock, Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, Sahotra Sarkar, Niall Shanks, Barbara Forrest & James Henry Fetzer. Elsberry & Shallit's article, Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” would be particularly relevant to this topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Essay
Is an essay, published nowhere but talkreason and cited nowhere I can find but Wikipedia really worthy of note? If there isn't a peer reviewed rebuttal to the conservation of information, should Wikipedia by referencing some hostile person's online page, because it is typeset like an article? 99.88.232.177 (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) New threads go at the bottom (that's what the 'New Section' link is for.
 * 2) WP:PARITY would appear to apply. None of Dembski's claims on SC have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so it is hardly surprising that the responses to them aren't.

conservation of information - does occur in other areas of science
A passing observation:

The article suggests that the law of conservation of information is not given serious consideration by the scientific community. This is strictly speaking not correct. For example, in the area of digital philosophy, the concept is a key point of debate and discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy) - an entirely secular branch of thinking, albeit rather abstract by the standards of conventional physical sciences. The question of whether such a law could exist is actually an open and engaging philosophical issue, which has interesting implications that are entirely unrelated to this narrow perspective of the origins debate, and to dismiss it because of posturing on the origins debate is a poor showing.

regs, etc - M.S.


 * Indeed: conservation of information is also part of the Black hole information paradox, which says "the predominant belief among physicists is that information is preserved". --Rumping (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms citation and neutrality
I question the neutrality of this article and lack of citations in some of the criticisms. The entire introduction is a criticism section so by the time you get to the theory you have no idea what you are reading. Reduce criticisms in intro to a sentence or two, and restrict the rest to the criticisms section. BTW, I have no real interest in this theory, I was directed here doing a search on "conservation of information" which shows up in other fields including computers science and quantum mechanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.71.226 (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What's The Subject Of This Page?
"A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] 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".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance."

Is that kind of stuff even relevant? I thought Specified Complexity was a mathematical term, why did this page devolve into discussing/critiquing the intelligent design theory and other peripheral stuff, instead of just the term itself?

SuperMudz (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As the sources show, specified complexity is ID creationist Bill Dembski's attempt to give mathematical backing to intelligent design, which itself is an argument from ignorance. We note earlier use of the phrase as a way of defining life, but Dembski's formulation is the most widely known use of the term. If it is also used as a mathematical term, then verification is needed from reliable sources before that can be covered in this article, or in a separate article. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, WP:NOTDICT; this page is about a concept relating to creationism, not the words "specified complexity". If another concept exists under that name, then it would belong in a separate article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, that material would belong in another article, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Major Error here.
Wikipedia has a serious problem here. I was redirected here by searching "Conservation of Information". L.Susskind (Stanford) has said (Theoretical Minimum courses) that the Law of Conservation of Information is THE fundamental principle in Physics, and yet searching for it leads DIRECTLY to this fringe pseudoscience. Hey, why not redirect searches for "Evolution" and "Darwin" here too? And might as well add "Science" and "Logic" as well. Oh, and don't forget "Biology"! I have started this new section (rather than just agreeing/reinforcing a similar comment in the section "conservation of information") because I view this as a really, really major error. (Although, I acknowledge that (probably) most Physicists are unaware (or only vaguely aware) of this Law, since it isn't taught in basic/core Physics courses, afaik.) See Susskind's Strings lectures (or was is Cosmology?) in Supplemental courses.
 * As an aside, this article is super-saturated with the name Dembski, if this concept is almost exclusively used by only one man, then does it really belong here? (That is: find and reference more users of the concept, or merge this page with his. (and dramatically shorten it)) And also, why aren't there more secondary sources (as opposed to primary) for this? Is this a significant concept? Finally, surely someone (it can't be my original research o_o) has pointed out that the probability of ANYTHING is virtually zero. That is, the probability of YOU reading this, right now (whenever that is) is as close to ZERO as it is possible to be. Can we therefore conclude that you're not here (or that this doesn't exist)? This is a common abuse of statistics and probability, and is caused by a failure to use an adequately defined population (distribution) when speaking about probability). (ie. it is sloppy (false, erroneous, and misleading) mathematical logic.)Abitslow (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that the scientifically recognized Law of Conservation of Information is NOT at all the same as Dembski's "Law".Abitslow (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject. Largely, that involves presenting sources and proposing specific changes. Do you have any sources you'd like to propose? What wording would you like to see changed. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For the redirect, how about unitarity (physics)? Not the greatest of articles, but it does cover the correct material. I believe the point about probabilities always being zero is already in the article: "For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10^300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10^300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10^150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening." [Oddly, this is cited to "William A. Dembski (1998) Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information". Did Dembski really criticize his own theory?] Ben Standeven (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ben Standeven - random coin tosses are complex but not specified.  The article probably should convey more on the meaning if the 'specified' part is unclear.  See for example here.  The article could also be more clear that Dembski did not initiate the term but rather proposed CSI to quantify it and a number 10^150 as limit being applied to life and the topic of ID.  That association has made the [WP:COMMONNAME] meaning of it to be an ID argument, but that the common usage differs from the concept would seem appropriate.  Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's give credit to the actual concept, not the ID slant
Today I edited the intro to this page giving credit to Orgel. Why did someone change it back? It was Orgel who coined the phrase, it has been highjacked since by ID folks but it is a legitimate scientific concept when used as originally intended. Please explain why you reversed my edit. --Statedclearly (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTDICT. This article isn't about the term "Specified Complexity". The article is about the topic found within ID. We might be able to include mention somewhere about what other things the term has meant, but that isn't the subject of this article, so it can't be put into the very first sentence, where we are expected to define the topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that the ID folks use this concept all the time. That bothers me just as much as it bothers you but the concept is not theirs, don't give it to them. Specified Complexity is a legitimate scientific concept put forth by a legitimate scientist who did legitimate, important research in the field of life-origins chemistry. To claim, out of the gate, that it is "pseudoscience" is simply false. Specified Complexity describes an important aspect of biology. The fact that ID people exploit the concept by teaching it poorly and then pretending that it supports their pseudoscientific claims does not make the actual concept pseudoscience.

Opening this page with the claim that Specified Complexity is pseudoscience is absolutely inappropriate. It is disrespectful to Orgel's legacy and, most importantly, it impoverishes the vocabulary that legitimate scientists and educators are able to use when discussing biology.

I don't know if this sort of thing matters to the editors here but I teach evolution for a living. I run StatedClearly.com and I work with directly with the Center for Chemical Evolution. In our lectures on life origins, and when teaching many aspects of biological evolution (real evolution, not creationist/ID stuff) the concept of Specified Complexity is extremely useful. It really bothers me to know that when our students look the concept up after a lecture, the first thing they are going to find is the false claim being made about it on Wikipedia.

Please do not change my edits again unless you have a legitimate reason. I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm not trying to make it a dictionary. I'm simply trying to insure that important biological concepts are taught correctly. --Statedclearly (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a scientist, yet I recognize the damage done by pseudosciences such as "Intelligent Design" as it is popularly known. I fully support Statedclearly. We should not permit pseudosciences to dictate our language without our putting up a fight.  TomS TDotO (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Guys, read WP:NOTDICT. This is not a dictionary, and this article is not about the term specified complexity. This article is about ID. If you want to discuss other uses of the term, we would need to do that in a different article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We're all on the same side, and I think that we can think up something which is fine for all of us. Your suggestion sounds like a good one. See Irreducible complexity, which has a hatnote which explains that the article is about the expression as used in Intelligent design, but there is a legitimate use in Systems theory, for which see Emergence. As far as I know, the only place that we can direct one to is the article on Leslie Orgel, so we could have a hatnote which says something like "This article is about the expression used in the pseudoscience of Intelligent design. For an exposition of the scientific concept see Leslie Orgel#Specified complexity" ... and having prepared for this by putting the paragraph about SC in the article on LO. Or something like that. We don't have to construct a full article on scientific SC (although someone may find that worthwhile). The important result is: The reader who comes to this article on SC seeking information on the scientific concept is immediately directed away from the irrelevant stuff about ID. The person who is interested in pseudoscience knows that this is the pace.   TomS TDotO (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there is another article which discusses "specified complexity" in another sense, we can place a hatnote. The problem is that right now there is no other article to direct to. I can't say if Orgel's use of the term warrants any weight in his bio, because I don't edit his bio, so that's a project you'd have to take on before considering a link to it here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ISTM that there ought to be some place where the scientific concept of specified complexity is given its due treatment. It is embarrassing that the only place that it is described is in a reference in an article on some pseudoscience. If I were a little more "bold", I would create an article Specified complexity (science), and start it out as a stub by moving the brief mention that it has in this article, and a hatnote saying "This is about the scientific subject. For the pseudoscientific expression, see Specified complexity (pesudoscience)".   TomS TDotO (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Creating a new article is the obvious choice, but it requires the topic to meet the GNG. Basically, we determine that by evaluating coverage in sources. So if that's your goal, then start collecting sources first (google books and google scholar are great for that). If the topic is significant to Orgel but not independently notable, then it won't warrant a new page, but could still belong in his bio. If it's not signifncant to Orgel and not notable, then it probably doesn't belong anywhere on WP. I'd venture a guess it falls somewhere between option 1 (notable) and option 2 (significant to Orgel)... probably closer to the latter.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the best option is for this article to teach Specified Complexity as it truly is, and have a section on its use in the ID community. Creationists use fossils to falsely teach that the biblical flood is real but the wikipedia article on fossils doesn't start by saying: "The existence of fossils is pseudoscientific claim used by creationists to promote the flood story of genesis."

Again, in life-origin's chemistry and in understanding the intricacies of biological evolution, the concept of specified complexity is very important. For the most part, the ID people actually teach it correctly, they just come to the wrong conclusion about what it means. Demski's work to quantify SC actually is interesting. I wish others would continue down that research path but without the ID garbage in the mix.

Biological systems really do have extraordinary levels of specified complexity. Though Darwin didn't use the term, the mystery of how specified complexity emerged was exactly what his theory solved. He showed us that the elaborate designs we find in nature can emerge naturally through the process of descent with modification acted upon by selection.

I like most of the article that's been written here on SC. I think, however, that Orgel's concept needs to be priority, the ID slant needs to be side note. I will work on a solid revision soon. In the meantime, please stop deleting the small change I'm putting in the introduction. My students are getting very confused when they learn important concepts in biology only to find later that Wikipedia falsely labels them "pseodoscience" --Statedclearly (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Statedclearly, I'm reading what you're writing, but I'm afraid you're not showing me the same courtesy. You need to read WP:NOTDICT. Unless you are claiming that Orgel's Specified Complexity is the same thing as ID, then it isn't appropriate here, because this article is devoted to ID, not Orgel. I get that you want to cover Orgel's use of the term, and I'm on board with that, but it doesn't belong in this article. Really... please read WP:NOTDICT; wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and this article is not about the term "specified complexity". Let me know once you read that policy page and understand what I'm saying, and I'd be happy to explain how Orgel's ideas can be incorporated on wikipedia the right way.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with StatedClearly. I see the point of two articles, but if only one article were to exist, either article, the obvious title for that article would be "Specified Complexity". Splitting off into two articles is a good way forward EXCEPT that the two are not totally unrelated, so a one-article solution is also an option. The best way forward may be to start editing for one-article, and then if that feels integrated, keep it, whereas if it feels disjointed and separate, split it. The fact that ID co-opted a real scientific term as part of an attempt to gain legitimacy is relevant to the ID article too. The current first sentence "proposed by William Dembski" is inaccurate and unbalanced. It should be changed to something more reasonable like, "co-opted the term from...". Joannamasel (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "co-opted the term from..." Again, this article isn't about a term. It's about an idea. Are you suggesting the idea proposed by Orgel is the same as the idea proposed by Demski? StatedClearly suggested one was science unrelated to ID and the other pseudoscience related to ID, which means they are different. If they are the same thing, they belong in one article. If they are different things under the same name, they belong in two different articles. This is wikipedia policy; I've been editing a long time, and am very confident on how this policy is applied.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, I initially thought Dembski had modified the term but after looking into his work more closely yesterday, I see that he merely added a few new analogies which he uses to teach the concept, and he is attempting to describe it mathematically which nobody else has yet tried to do. his equations appear flawed in that he is failing to account for all the variables involved.

The only pseudscience he is doing is when he claims that SC supports ID. It does not. SC merely describes the complex and ordered nature of biological structures/system when compared to structures/systems outside of biology.

I understand it is tempting to label everything the ID guys do as "pseudoscience" but in this case, it is not accurate. Specified Complexity is not pseudoscience, not even as defined by Dembski. We don't want to toss out the baby with the bathwater here. Statedclearly (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I responded to this on your talk page here, but some of it isn't directly relevant to this article, so there's no sense copying it over.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction for this article
I think the opening for this article needs to go something like this:


 * Specified complexity is a term put forth by chemist Leslie Orgel to describe the uniquely complex, yet highly ordered nature of biological structures and chemistry. A lump of granite is extremely complex but its form is not specified. The shape of a crystal is highly specified by the ordered stacking of its molecules, but its overall form and chemical makeup are very simple. Living cells are both highly specified and highly complex. Orgel proposed that specified complexity is a distinguishing characteristic of life.


 * Specified complexity has been co-opted by William Dembski who attempted to describe it mathematically. He has proposed that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent - a central tenet of intelligent design, which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. His equations are widely regarded as unsound by others in the scientific community and his claim that specified complexity points to an intelligent designer has been labeled pseudoscience. His equations have not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.  Proponents of intelligent design use specified complexity as one of their two main arguments, alongside irreducible complexity.

I suggest the rest of the content in the introduction be placed in the appropriate section such as "Criticisms" and "Dembski's explanation of specified complexity". We might want to create a new section called "Use in Intelligent Design" --Statedclearly (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.Joannamasel (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Outside of Orgel, do we have any sources which describe Orgel's work alongside Dembski? Your proposal is a fundamental change of this entire article, which means overturning the weight of all the sources we're currently using which say Dembski proposed the idea. We would need to demonstrate Orgel's ideas were extremely significant to the topic before doing that, and wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary and independent sources. Do we have any of those?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As Jess has repeatedly pointed out this article is about a concept, not about a term. Statedclearly needs to start listening. I see no need to change it. Orgel's use of the term can be covered on his Orgel's article.Charles (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Charles, I think there is a WP:Ownership of content issue here, and your language is revealing it. A new article would not be "his", nor is the current article collectively yours/Jess's/the combination of past editor's. Other than invalid appeals to ownership, I'm not seeing a strong justification for two articles, given Statedclearly's pretty persuasive explanation that Orgel and Dembski were talking about the same concept (albeit using it very differently!). Specified complexity is not automatically primarily about ID: a page of that name has an obligation to be primarily about specified complexity. If there were two definitions for specified complexity, there would indeed need to be two pages, as Jess has argued. But instead there seems to be only one definition/concept for specified complexity, and two kinds of conclusions from it, which is an extremely strong argument for one page.
 * Jess, to add some symmetry to this debate, which secondary sources state that it was Dembski that proposed the idea,of specified complexity, as distinct from Dembski using the idea to argue for ID? Joannamasel (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symmetry? No one has provided any of the sources I asked for. So far I've only seen original research to connect the proposal with our current article. This isn't how wikipedia operates. It is encumbant upon those wishing to make a change to the article to furnish sources supporting their proposal. The sources you ask for, by the way, are also very easy to find.
 * Birx: "Dembski's contributions to ID theory revolve around the notion that eliminating chance...argues for intelligent design. He calls "specified complexity" a property..." (no mention of Orgel)
 * Peña: "For Dembski, specified complexity, or what he calls specified [complex] events..." and "[Demski's specified complexity" (no mention of Orgel)
 * Case-Winters: "Dembski defines specified complexity as..." (no mention of Orgel)
 * Parker: "Dembski invented a system, called Specified Complexity..." (no mention of Orgel)
 * Peto: Dembski's Specified Complexity..." and "His concept of specified complexity is developed in The Design Inference (Dembski 1998a)" (one mention of Orgel, entirely unrelated to specified complexity)
 * Jantzen Dembski's theory of specified complexity... Dembski calls his candidate for such a mark "specified complexity"" and "[Specified complexity,] the second major modern design argument...is attributable to a single person, William Dembski" (no mention of Orgel)
 * Forrest: "Dembski touts his specified complexity..." and "Dembski...referenced or identified as the author of this concept..." (no mention of Orgel)
 * Beckwith: "Dembski offers...a concept he calls specified complexity." (no mention of Orgel)
 * Edis: "He...calls this trademark of intelligence...specified complexity..." and "Dembski's specified complexity..." and "Dembski...claims to have established..." and "Dembski in essence promulgates..." and "Dembski...thinks he has discovered a fourth law... Dembski has gone well beyond Behe with a mathematical theory of specified complexity" and "Dembski's specified complexity is defined as follows" (no mention of Orgel)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list, Jess. Of course, failure to mention Orgel, in a passage for which this connection might simply not be relevant, is not an active argument against the link being genuine, so most of the burden is as you say on StatedClearly to find refs in favor of the link. That said, the wording of most of the citations you give above are compatible with Dembski taking the concept from Orgel, even though they obviously don't provide direct support for the idea either. The only exception I can see, providing a citation that is actively against the link, is Parker, and even that is marginal. As for some of the others that look strongest as cited above, in context, Jantzen's "is attributable to a single person" refers to the ID argument, not specified complexity per se. The Forrest quote, in context, says that "Nowhere, however, was Dembski...referenced or identified as the author of this concept", so you should not have included that one in the list, omitting the negative in this way completely flipped the meaning.


 * I don't think that the simple observation that Orgel referred to the same concept by the same term, doing so earlier than Dembski, is such a major discovery that we should classify it as original research. Nonetheless, it would help a lot if StatedClearly could find some secondary sources that directly links Dembski and Orgel. I think primary Dembski sources that refer to Orgel are also OK for this purpose. If no link can be found by either route, I still think the situation justifies one page, given that both Dembski and Orgel refer to the same concept, but the language might need to be different if no sources can be found in support of the link. Joannamasel (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand... when I say "no mention of Orgel", I don't mean in the quoted passage, I mean in the entire book. Right now, the case is that we have a very large collection of sources that discuss Dembski and Specified Complexity, but none at all with Orgel. The sources do not bear out that Orgel and Dembski are talking about the same idea. That allows us to discuss Dembski and specified complexity together, but does not afford the same luxury with Orgel. Only better sourcing will change that. We certainly can't change the article without sources to support the link, with or without new language. Our content on wikipedia flows from the sources, not the other way around.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

pseudoscience, again
This has been talked over and the consensus of Wikipedians is that this is pseudoscience. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not join in this alleged consensus. Cmcqueen1975 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two reasons why "pseudoscientific" should be removed. Firstly, as the article concedes, the notion of "specified complexity" occurs in the work of respected non-ID scientists like Orgel and Davies. The concept also occurs in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker: "I am aware that my characterization of a complex object - statistically improbable in a direction that is specified not with hindsight - may seem idiosyncratic. ... If you prefer some other way of defining complexity, I don't care and I would be happy to go along with your definition for the sake of discussion. But what I do care about is that, whatever we choose to call the quality of being statistically-improbable-in-a-direction-specified-without-hindsight, it is an important quality that needs a special effort of explanation." (p. 15) Dembski did not invent this notion, and if Dembski's mathematical approach diverges from the standard definition, or is used to promote questionable ideas, then this should be stated, with reasons given. An article on the scientific concept of specified complexity should not be used as a polemic against Dembski. A further problem is that the term "pseudoscience" itself is ill-defined and thus generally avoided in serious academic discussion - see the Demarcation Problem in the philosophy of science. Those wishing to reinstate the term in this article need to address these concerns before doing so. Sam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.108.121 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "consensus" do you not understand?Charles (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not join in this alleged consensus. The claim of pseudoscience is one position in an argument rather than a fact, and it's contentious. So the Wikipedia article should state that certain people say it's pseudoscience with a citation, rather than just saying it's pseudoscience. Cmcqueen1975 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not matter. Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees, it only means that those who disagree have nothing in the way of evidence. So, we do have consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to incorporate (some of) Dawkins' discussion of specified complexity into the article (The Blind Watchmaker, ch. 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.73.35 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

ID is unequivocally believed by scholarly sources to be pseudoscience. It is also well defined at Wikipedia to be pseudoscience List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Category:Pseudoscience give it up. I edited before I saw this was part of an ongoing discussion, if I had seen I would have waited to edit. Not sure why it needs a discussion though, there is no controversy. Lipsquid (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been hashed over. We have been more than generous. There is no need to repeat the discussion. Thank you. (I don't like to repeat my reverts unless it's necessary.)  TomS TDotO (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, Lipsquid, my concern was specifically about the characterization of "specified complexity" as pseudoscience, not ID, which is a separate issue. Having said that, I'd avoid the term, since it generally seems to be used as a substitute for argument by those lacking the intellectual maturity to engage properly with an opposing view. One could argue that if anything qualifies as pseudoscience, it's the use of the word "pseudoscience". Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.78.218 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the article needs a disambiguation with the mathematical theory of "specified complexity". Then everyone would be happy.  People could certainly take this article and remove all of the Intelligent Design talk and change it to the mathematical concept and we could all get out of each other's way.  FYI, just to clear up what pseudoscience is, Pseudoscience is what we call a theory or hypothesis that is asserted under the guise of science, but makes no verifiable claims.  This is article is an exact match.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So string theory is pseudoscience? How 'bout M theory?  Or any multiverse proposition?  Or, historically, was General relativity a pseudoscience between the years of 1915 (when it was first published) and 1919 (Eddington solar eclipse expedition)?  Sounds like pseudoscience whatever it is that you proclaim is pseudoscience and does not align with your own personal world view. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above comment. The term is too often used as a lazy substitute for debate. Using the criterion of verifiability, as you suggested, doesn't help, since many well-regarded scientific theories aren't verifiable, even in principle, for instance the idea that you can't have "action at a distance", i.e that one object can't influence another without a physical connection, or a chain of connections, between them. This is unfalsifiable in that even if one object *appeared* to be influencing another "from a distance" (thus seeming to disprove the claim), it would always be possible to postulate some hitherto undiscovered medium between them. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.193 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Utterly wrong as string theory, M theory and general relativity all make verifiable claims. Go read the articles and do some research, all are backed by extravagant mathematical models that can be in fact proven or disproved.  String theory may have recently been disproved. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp  The fact that you used Eddington's experiment to say General Relativity made no verifiable claims is down right comical.  Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE to edit.  Best! Lipsquid (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Eddington solar eclipse expedition was the first time the models of GR vs. Newton deviated enough from each other in a manner that could be differentiated by humans. Before 1919, GR agreed with Newtonian gravity in whatever was observed of the day.  What would Eddington or Einstein do if the position of the stars were unchanged around the sun?  That would falsify the hypothesis, but instead this was the very first confirmation.  But at least they had that and a few other predictions, that differed from Newtonian predictions, proposed to test. Now string theory and M theory are even iffier as is the multiverse.  They make no falsifiable claims. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid, the multiverse hypothesis is untestable, in practice at least if not in theory. Does that make it pseudoscience? Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.101.143 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "Multiverse hypothesis" you mean Many-worlds interpretation, that is not a hypothesis but an interpretation of a hypothesis (namely, of quantum mechanics). It is not testable and thus more philosophy than science. But not pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the Multiverse is more or less an attempt to explain the fine-tuning problem. Under one interpretation it could *theoretically* be tested--our universe could experience a kind of "cosmic bruising" if it "bumped" against another one--but this is highly speculative and for practical purposes the multiverse is unfalsifiable. I agree that it's not "pseudoscience", whatever that might be. But I'd argue that it's no more respectable than design as an explanation for the fine-tuning. Many secular physicists would agree with Paul Davies (not a proponent of ID) that "the impression of design is overwhelming". Whether that impression is an illusion or not, these questions should be discussed openly and intelligently, not with name-calling and insults. Sam.
 * What about the claim that the Earth is flat That is a claim which can be verfied/falsifiable: It is falsifiable. Is it pseudoscience? I'd say that it is.  TomS TDotO (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You guys are joking right? I hope so, lol...  Lipsquid (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lip, you are the joke. However you hope. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, great reasoning. Please grow up before editing any further. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hob, if you examine the edit histories, it's editors with their pre-conceived notions that come to Wikipedia and lay waste to several articles branding them "pseudoscience" when at least one of the following is true:
 * 1. The editor does not read the article to see what it's about and fallaciously associates the topic of that article with the topic of another and immaturely concludes "they're all pseudoscience". It's often called "painting with a wide brush".
 * 2. The editor just does not understand the content of the article. In which case he is projecting in the Freudian sense when referring to "WP:COMPETENCE".
 * So I am standing by my "great reasoning". Lip's edits branding everything he/she doesn't like as "pseudoscience" (and the way he/she edit wars when such branding is challenged) are a joke. Not that it's funny, but the pattern is getting old. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Flat earth is pseudoscience if the people defending it immunize themselves against counter-arguments, which they will have to do if they live today. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hob, the question was whether *verifiability* is what separates science from pseudoscience. Sam
 * Sam, I would say that the demarcation problem is what separates science from what is not science. And Popperian falsifiability is clearly one school of thought. Problem is for falsifiablility, that universes or black holes or solar disks and most ecosystems are too big to put in a laboratory and repeat controlled experiments. But even so, a proposed explanation of phenomena observed at one place and time can be verified by additional similar observations at other places and times, but that is not the same as falsifiability. But it is a form of verification.
 * And then the other issue about the demarcation problem is that not all that is non-science is pseudoscience. But that is still not so much Lip's problem; Lip appears to repeatedly make the logical fallacy that while something widely agreed to be pseudoscience makes reference to something else (that is clearly in the lexicon), that the something else must also be pseudoscience. And from his/her edit history, it appears that he/she is making it a cause. It's a lot like the Inquisition.  And Lip is self-appointed to root out the heresy. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote in the past "It sounds like the article needs a disambiguation with the mathematical theory of "specified complexity".  Then everyone would be happy.  People could certainly take this article and remove all of the Intelligent Design talk and change it to the mathematical concept and we could all get out of each other's way."  If the article wants to be about the mathematical concept of "Specified complexity" then I have no issue and wouldn't be an editor.  If someone wants to twist that concept into an entire article about a proof for Intelligent Design, then the article becomes nonsense masquerading as science.  Nothing would make me happier than someone rewriting the article and removing all the pseudoscience garbage.  I have no agenda other than pseudoscience is labeled as nonsense, because it is. I am pretty immune to personal attacks, I been around a long time. If you don't like it, go to the NPOV board and good luck.  Otherwise, drop it, you can't win as the article is written today.Lipsquid (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also if you look at my edit "Specified complexity is a concept proposed by William Dembski and used by him and others to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design." I did not call Specified complexity anything, I called Intelligent design, pseudoscience.  No logical fallacy dangers, but I am probably also wasting my breath.  Lipsquid (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. So you read in the popular technology press (my what an authoritative source) that string theory is disproven. So why not see what happens when you go over to String theory and plop down "pseudoscience" in the lede there?  Or if you're outa your league there, why not mosy on over to Astrology or Cargo cult or Cold fusion or Ancient astronauts or even Multiverse and proclaim with emphasis that they're pseudoscience?  Do it right in the lede.  See what happens.  But it's so important to you that it's about Intelligent design and then, without knowing anything about the topics, anything else you find in the Category. It's clear that you're grinding an axe about something. That is not WP:NPOV and is not the Wikipedia way. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I put psuedoscience on a theory that makes verifiable claims?
 * Perhaps because you know not of what you write?
 * That makes no sense at all,
 * No, it doesn't, but you do it anyway.
 * or about as much sense as you claiming I made a logical fallacy, and here I am wasting time explaining to you how science works.
 * You're not demonstrating that you know. You're being like Cartman or Cap'n Combover.  Demanding authority because you says so.
 * Again, it is not that i have an axe to grind, it is that Wikipedia requires [WP:COMPETENCE]]. No more responses unless you say something sane. Lipsquid (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lip, you're projecting. You're not competent. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue here is someone taking it upon their own personal authority to do widespread bombing of pages based on their own personal agenda. I am not editing those pages and injecting my POV in there at all.  Just trying to put a limit on a particular editors agenda.  And the fact of this POV editing is so apparent when there are tons of articles (I menstioned 4 above) that are about a pseudoscientific topic and none of those articles receive the bashing from Lip that any article, in the least bit related to or referred to by ID receives.  I mean, why not find every reference to Hitler and precede that with "evil" or "genocidal"?  This editor doesn't really bother to do the research to find out what the articles are about and is demonstrating a solid bias in his/her editing.  This is what needs to be limited. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 71.184.228.118 BLOCKED - I assume discussion is over, though I am certainly open to any reasonable discussion of the wording. Lipsquid (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good riddance. Throwing around inquisition accusations is a sign of argumentative helplessness and a sort of Godwin derivative. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing, other than denial and attacks of your own, to discuss or refute the issue that I am bringing. You're not WP:NPOV.  You are resorting to the shallowest of WP:WIKILAWYERING, and not even satisfying the norms of that.  Lip, you are an non-competent (you don't understand the physics), highly POV (everything that you associate with Intelligent design you proclaim to be pseudoscience), and actually kind of a crappy Wikipedia editor.  You don't seem to care about the dozens of other topics that are widely regarded as pseudoscience.  Just those of referred to from ID.  That is prima facia evidence of editor bias and that is who you are. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I love Ancient Aliens even though it is drivel. We all have our weaknesses. Lipsquid (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you bombing it with "pseudoscience" in the lede? 71.184.228.118 (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm, because it is already in the lede?!? Lipsquid (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like someone already did that. (I thought I checked that, first.)  So why don't you bomb Cold fusion with it or Electrogravitics?  Or the other question, why don't we precede every linked mention of "Hitler" with a linked adjective "evil" or "genocidal"?  Why is it so important to you that each and every first mention of ID be qualified as "pseudoscientific", yet we don't make sure that every mention of Hitler includes the fact that he was evil or genocidal? 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about ESP or several other topics you'll find at List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience? Why (other than editor bias) is it so important that each and every first reference to ID must be preceded by "pseudoscientific"?  Why did you do that to Fine-tuned Universe?  (Other than to expose your bias?)  Why don't you do that now to String theory or M theory?  Why not Multiverse?  (Perhaps you believe in other universes and you don't want to label that as "pseudoscientific.) 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited a bunch of ESP articles earlier today and Flat Earth too. :) Lipsquid (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're still avoiding the question. And you're reacting after the fact. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please use the conventions for indenting? When answering a contribution with four semicolons, use five semicolons for your answer.
 * Also, you are not helping your case by attacking other editors. I can only speak for myself, but that behaviour makes me lean towards taking you less seriously than otherwise. Also, calling unambiguous cases of pseudoscience pseudoscience is not bias.
 * Regarding your question: See Other stuff exists. "While precedents set by high courts in certain jurisdictions may have a binding effect on other courts in a given legal system, Wikipedia is not a legal system." It is allowed to use different methods in different circumstances. But it would not be wrong to add "pseudoscientific" in some of those other cases either, though each case should be discussed on its own merits, considering what the reliable sources say. Do not add the word "pseudoscientific" because that's what you believe.
 * That I have to explain such simple concepts to you also does not help your case. Why don't you just take a deep breath, drop all the invective and insinuation and digression, and argue your case with valid reasoning alone? Make it short and to the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that "pseudoscientific" should be removed in reference to ID. It's clearly polemical. Let the facts and arguments speak for themselves. Refusing to do so only makes one's position look insecure. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam, they don't care. If you remove it, I will support you as far as it goes.  But after they revert you and me, then they will accuse us of "edit warring" with no introspection of their own behavior. They are naked hypocrites with a polemic agenda to satisfy.  Lip tried that shit at Fine-tuned Universe which is direct observational evidence of his knee jerking.  Again, I suggested he do that at String theory or M theory and see how far he gets labeling everything else he doesn't like as pseudoscience.  It's shameful, they can't defend what they do with a consistent argument.  They gang up and push their POV on the article, then they accuse others trying to dial back the POV with "edit warring" and get a sympathetic admin to block you for just trying to tone down the obvious POV pushing done here in Wikipedia.  And it's pretty obvious when they project their own inadequacies writing "and here I am wasting time explaining to you how science works."  I can tell from his editing that Lip is no scientist.  He's a political actor.  It's a shame, but these guys are shameless. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some fair points...
 * I said "argue your case", not "state your case". That means you actually have to give reasons for your opinion. You failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hob, just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true. Sam argued that it's unnecessary polemic (which is not wp:NPOV).  He argued that it's better to just let the facts and arguments speak for themselves (rather than going out of our way to point out at every mention of ID that it's pseudoscience).  It's unnecessary, it's polemic, it ain't neutral POV.  Just because you say he failed at arguing the case does not mean that it's so. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources say it is pseudoscience. You and Sam disagree with the reliable sources and say they are unnecessarily polemical. Of course you can do that. But what you say does not matter. What the reliable sources say matters.
 * Hob, As I mentioned earlier, I was mainly concerned here with the characterization of specified complexity. But since this topic has been raised, what reliable sources are you referring to? I have never seen an argument that ID is pseudoscience that is sustainable either philosophically or historically. For one thing, as all historians of science now concede, the notion of design in nature was fundamental to the rise of modern science. It's hard to see a notion that exerted a powerful, positive influence on the development of science could be fundamentally unscientific. Of course, this doesn't make it TRUE - that's another question (and a far more interesting one!). Sam
 * While this is not the place to argue whether the consensus is correct, I will just point out that one could make the argument that astrology was a contributor to the development of astronomy and alchemy to chemistry. One could, on the other hand, point out that today's "intelligent design" only borrows terminology from the past (what it really is "something is wrong with evolution as an explanation", not "this is explanation"): Even if the old concept of design had something worthwhile to it, that is not relevant to today's essentially empty verbiage of "intelligent design". But, as I said, all of this is not the sort of argument which is appropriate to Wikipedia. We must report the relevant consensus.   TomS TDotO (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Astrology and alchemy weren't nearly as influential as design, especially with regard to the Scientific Revolution (part of which was the rejection of these ideas), but you're right to a degree and that's why intelligent historians of science don't write them off (in a historical context) as mere rubbish. I also have to disagree with your characterization of the modern ID movement. The argument is not "the neo-Darwinian synthesis doesn't work - therefore design". ID leaders like Stephen Meyer always prosecute the case as an "inference to the best explanation", or "abduction" (as C. S. Pierce termed it), in which naturalistic explanations for, say, the complexity of life are assessed alongside the notion of design, or mind. Then the argument is that design BEST explains the available evidence. Whether the argument is compelling is another question, of course. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "what reliable sources are you referring to" - Go to the Intelligent design article, search for "pseud", click on the footnotes.
 * "I have never seen an argument that ID is pseudoscience that is sustainable" - What a guy on the internet calling himself Sam considers sustainable is not relevant for Wikipedia. What people like Maarten Boudry und Massimo Pigliucci consider sustainable is relevant. Please try to understand what we are doing here: We have to reproduce what the reliable sources say. No amount of preaching or sophism is going to make us change the article. Why don't you contribute to Conservapedia or CreationWiki instead? You would probably be most welcome there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I should add - the fact that quite a few people here insisted that the well-established notion of "specified complexity" is pseudoscience simply because it has been used by ID supporters is pretty good evidence that wp:NPOV is an issue here. Sam
 * Read the entry above starting with "I actually agree that". He uttered his opinion, that's all. He did not give a single shred of reasoning supporting his opinion. Zero is not enough. That's not my opinion, that's obvious.
 * "Calling ID pseudoscience makes you seem insecure" is just bullshit. ID is pseudoscience and omitting this fact would be dishonest. This is exactly the strategy ID has been pursuing from the start: present carefully selected half-truths and let the readers decide based on those. Wikipedia should not follow them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So Hob, is it dishonest to omit the fact that Hitler was both evil and genocidal at every initial reference to him? Even if you go to the article, there is no clearly disparaging term for him at all in the lede.  Just the facts.  Eventually, by the fifth paragraph you see a factual reference to genocide.  But the value evil is not applied at all, yet Hilter was at least as evil as is ID as pseudoscience.  If you were pushing this at Hitler, just to make sure everyone seeing the article understood that he was evil, there would be pushback, but not because of non-factuality on your part.  It would be because it demonstrates someone is using the article to grind an axe.  And Hilter doesn't need that.  The facts suffice.  Your argument continues to betray the ostensible POV.  It is not wp:NPOV. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * True, the problem here isn't just that characterizing Design as pseudoscience is uninformed and factually incorrect - it just looks dumb and unprofessional. Sam


 * You two still pretend to agree with each other? Sam wants to remove the pseudoscience label because he does not agree with it, and the other IP just thinks it is too much to point it out all the time. Sam is just wrong, and the other IP - well, is just wrong too. There is one instance of "pseudoscientific" in the article. That is not too much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "other IP" has made a good case that pejorative labels aren't used in other articles, which shows that [WP:NPOV] is being breached here. That's all that is needed to have it removed. Sam
 * No it hasn't. And you don't understand what WP:NPOV means. Pseudoscience is a useful categorization. There are borderline cases, but ID is straight in the middle of that category. You failed to convince. Please go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has all been discussed. Follow your own link to WP:NPOV if you don't know what it means. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.77.182 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a divisive issue. However, I think you've got the solution just there: instead of allowing ID proponents to present "carefully selected half-truths", simply present the entire truth. That is what an encyclopaedia is for. Then, if it's relevant, after the merits of the argument have been honestly addressed, there could be a comment that "many" or "the majority" of scientists view ID as "pseudoscience" (if that can be substantiated). Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are clear: ID is pseudoscience, a theological argument presented with the claim that it's science. That point is central to expert third party views of specified complexity, and has to be given due weight at the outset instead of your suggestion of structuring the article to hide the controversy. . . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again Dave, ID as presented by DI is pseudoscience. Just as there was someone in history named "Adolph" who was a very nasty guy. Doesn't mean everyone named "Adolph" is similarly nasty.  (Neither is every usage of the term "intelligent design" the pseudoscience that is pushed by the Discovery Institute.  Nor does it mean that every use of "specified complexity" is what Dembski or Behe or whoever is pushing.  The POV issues with this are so nakedly ostensible. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd dispute that ID even as presented by the DI is "pseudoscience" - as I mentioned earlier, they may be wrong, but they are carrying on an idea that historians of science agree has a long and respectable pedigree. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that dispute would not get very far. Just having someone with a PhD present something doesn't mean the rest of the discipline accepts it as part of the discipline.  Whether it's science (and pseudoscience) or history (and pseudohistory) or even a specific philosophy or theology. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't correct. The design argument (historically and in the ID movement today) is not an inference from theology or sacred texts, but rather from the nature of the physical world (though obviously it may have theological/metaphysical IMPLICATIONS, but so does, say, Darwinism). Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam, the teleological argument is an inference to theology. There clearly are some appropriate identification of what some people associated with the Discovery Institute are doing with pseudoscience.  They can put in the Intelligent design article that the vast majority of scientists evaluate the claim, as if it were science, that the ostensible evidence of design is uneqivocally evidence of design. To make that philosophical claim and call it science is actually pseudoscience.  It still doesn't change the evidence of POV editing that these editors are obliged to answer. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, fair points, though I'd argue that what makes an argument scientific is not the *conclusion* reached, but rather the *methods* used to reach that conclusion. I think it's also fair to say that historically the Teleological Argument has generally been used to prove a Designer--a mind behind nature--not necessarily God. In fact many proponents of "natural theology", such as William Paley, were explicit that the Design Argument can't establish God's existence. As far as NPOV is concerned, I have to agree with you, and I'm sure no intelligent, informed person would deny it. It's clear from the various pages you've mentioned. The question is what, if anything, can be done about it. It's always going to be an issue with an open encyclopaedia, which is I guess why Wikipedia is not taken seriously in academic circles. Sam
 * But the methods, eventually, have to testable in some sense. Falsifiability is the acid test.  Falsifiable theories are those that predict a difference between some outcome if the theory is "true" vs. if it is not.  And then that difference is tested to find out.  ID as presented by DI (and also, at present, string theory) do not do that.  But the disparity in how these two unfalsifiable theories is treated here in Wikipedia is evidence of bias, of a non-neutral POV. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All of this (generally unsubstantiated) talk about consensus reminds me of a piece of wisdom from Mark Twain: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect". Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * These are standard ID arguments, "present the facts, let people decide", "teach the controversy", it is actually pretty funny who comes with an agenda. There is no controversy.  Sources are very clear and that is what we relay, it has nothing to do with editor consensus.  Specified complexity in relation to intelligent design is pseudoscience.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Classic strawman. No one is saying that.  71.184.228.118 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid, not to be rude, but neither you nor any of the other anti-design advocates on this page, including the author(s) of the article itself, have shown any evidence that you even know what specified complexity (or ID!) is, still less what the scientific consensus might be. The entire article needs a rewrite, with a mere subsection on Dembski. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not anti-anything. I am for a great encyclopedia that follows the opinions of reliable sources rather than the opinions of editors.  If you have sources about the scientific theories published about specified complexity in Intelligent Design, I encourage you to add them.  ID is pseudoscience, the mathematical concept of "specified complexity" is not.  Please rewrite the article if you so desire, but keep ID out or we have no choice, but to give due weigh to the vast majority of sources that say ID is pseudoscience. Lipsquid (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I am not anti-anything." That, Lip, is a falsehood.  It's been repeatedly falsified here, on the record. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is why you have to keep serving timeouts being blocked. No more feeding the trolls until you have something topical to say.   Lipsquid (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the question here is: can we be confident that ID is false - i.e. that, say, the fine-tuning of the universe, despite giving "an overwhelming impression of design" in the words of agnostic physicist Paul Davies, is not in fact due to design? If we can't, is it a sensible idea to dismiss the arguments out of hand, refusing to discuss them fairly and intelligently even in a public encyclopaedia? The fact is that the history of science unfortunately bears out another gem from Mark Twain: "it ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so". Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.130.4 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need to do anything other than cite what reliable source say. The we part is why both of you are confused.  This is an encyclopedia and unless you are a SME, you opinion doesn't matter to anyone but you.  Nice Samuel Clemens quote.  Lipsquid (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid, as we've said, reliable sources don't support your claim - it's a foolish claim given the history of the design argument, and one that would imply, for example, that Newton's Principia--perhaps the most famous scientific document of all time--contains large chunks of pseudoscience. And I assume you know that Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain... Sam
 * "The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population — the intelligent ones or the fools?" Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People    TomS TDotO (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tom, science isn't done by a head count. As Max Planck once said, "one rule is important in science: only courageous people win". Consensus is important, but the history of science shows that it's often wrong (see the Historical Argument for skepticism). Sam
 * We don't need your consensus, we only need the consensus of reliable sources and as long as this is an article that mainly discusses intelligent design, it will be an article with pseudoscience in the lede. We have been over this many, many, many times. If someone wanted to re-write the article into something about the mathematic concept of specified complexity and delete the ID nonsense, I would cheer.  Until then, there is nothing to discuss.  Best! Lipsquid (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Or even better, rewrite the lede, focus the majority of the article on the mathematic concept and make the ID commentary a subsection at the end with a note that ID is pseudoscience there. Lipsquid (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but as long as articles are cluttered with polemical material from people with no historical, philosophical, or scientific understanding of the issues involved, but instead a simple insecurity about ID, Wikipedia won't be taken seriously by intelligent people. As far as your suggestion of rewriting is concerned, I think that's a great idea but don't have time myself. Also, the mathematization of SC is actually due to Dembski - the underlying concept is the same in Dembski as it is in Orgel and Dawkins. Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.72.60 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We are being urged into arguing about ID. That is not appropriate to Wikipedia, not even in the talk pages. The fact that we do not rebut statements does not mean that they are true. It's just that they are inappropriate. It is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to turn these pages into a blog. If you want to argue about ID, there are plenty of venues for you to so so. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a week
It's always hard to deal with an IP hopper so I've semi-protected this for a week. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And now protected for a month
Which is the only option for continual reverts by IP hoppers outside of blocking a range, the only other way to enforce 3RR with IP hoppers. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Metaphysics
Science is never strictly empirical. There's always the component of metaphysics. Nature by itself cannot establish that "nature is all there is," or that Nature (note the capitalization) produced the universe.

To theorize a Designer is at least equally rational to positing that "Nature did it on Its own." There was discussion above re. falsification, but nobody here seems to recognize that "Nature" as the be-all/end-all is itself unfalsifiable insofar as how naturalists treat it. Their governing assumption - their faith position - is that no matter what is observed or experienced by humans, it "must" have a natural explanation.

Which brings me to this forum: Wikipedia is quite clearly controlled by those who are zealously devoted to a metaphysic, a world-narrative, that counters theism. This despite the fact that theism is at least as rational as naturalism. So because of the current anti-God controllers, I will no longer attempt to reedit the S.C. page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8720:35B:4579:AE48:2DE1:2FEE (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * this is not a forum (please see WP:NOTFORUM). Your claim that science treats nature as an end appears misinformed.  The metaphysics are also not very important when the models/theories work and successfully continue to allow to make informed predictions and discoveries (and even understand the past better than previous methods permitted).  Wikipedia has many editors of many backgrounds and faiths.  They still must report about what reliable sources say in articles, not preach about their beliefs.  Thank you, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent or false
diff “False” is not ambiguous in this context, nor is it a weasel word in this context. Discuss... Just plain Bill (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Just plain Bill You should visit the talk page of that editor Oldstone James and ask him what he meant. I could only speculate that the line is confusing on what it is saying, partly because it has no cite, and that it could be read as mathematical usage of that term False (logic) (which would mean good things about the math quality,) or it could be read as Falsity in the translation by others was not honestly done.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This talk page is where other interested editors are more likely to see the discussion, and participate. So far nobody seems to have felt the need to chime in with anything substantive. The sources given in that paragraph indicate that Dembski himself does not seem interested in defending his math, and that his claim to be able to demonstrate his thesis mathematically fails to hold up under scrutiny. Just plain Bill (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Just plain Bill - again, I can read it two ways -- one implying mathematical goodness, one that critics were doing a Strawman -- and neither seem appropriate or what was intended. If it is to be a mathematical criticism of SC then "inconsistent" works, "false" does not.   The word 'False' just does not seem to be phrased as a scholarly cite would say it as that does not fit well in a discussion involving mathematics, but then again there is no cite on the line so I've no idea what it is referring to.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia text in question implies that Dembski's "mathematical claims" are not meaningful, and do not "conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage", requiring interpretation before it is possible to evaluate them in a rigorous fashion.

It doesn't take any particularly sophisticated reading comprehension skill to see that Wikipedia's voice here is not applying "false" to Dembski's theory itself, but rather to his claims about it, in particular regarding such things as "why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information" (in his own words.) His math may entail inconsistency, but that is not the kernel of the paragraph being discussed here. In my view, calling those claims "inconsistent" instead of "false" or "wrong" misses the point. For a number of reasons, those claims are criticized as deficient. Mathematical correctness or consistency is just one of those reasons.

It would be unscholarly to label Dembski's claims "a crock" or "bologna" but by the same token, parsing the denotations of "false" to justify replacing it with "inconsistent" is a deflection which does not conform with Wikipedia's policy regarding euphemisms. In this context, I believe "false" or "wrong" capture in plain language the essence of what cognizant writers such as Jeffrey Shallit, cited at the end of the paragraph in question, have said in greater detail.

To summarize, Shallit shows how Dembski's grandiose claims rely on poor scholarship involving equivocation as well as misrepresentation of the work of other writers and researchers. He also lays out some of the mathematical difficulties which appear in Dembski's explanation of his theory of specified complexity, or complex specified information. By "poor scholarship" Shallit means that "For a book that purports to discuss fundamental questions about information, complexity, and biology, there is remarkably little discussion or awareness of previous work" and goes on to list several examples missing from Dembski's exposition.

Mark, if you want to continue suggesting that Dembski's critics may be disingenuously setting up straw men in their interpretations, we will need to see some credible commentary from a third party to back that up.

It has been decades since I read Claude Shannon's book on the mathematical theory of communication. It is short, and I remember it as being accessible to a reader of moderate mathematical literacy. Still, this is not the place to discuss the differences between Shannon information, Kolmogorov complexity, and Dembski's complex specified information. Suggestions are, of course, welcome for ways to improve this article, but I don't see it as being so broken that it needs immediate fixing. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Just plain Bill - yes the line seems wanting to be negative towards SC, but the existing word order is ambiguous at "false" and read literally seems talking about the translation effort being false -- either saying SC has some mathematical value or that the analysis was corrupt. The word 'false' has 8 meanings in the dictionary and the line is garbled to be unclear if the word is to apply to interpretation or to SC, and without a cite, so all I can offer is that yes it is ambiguous and unclear.   "Inconsistent" would work in the line as conveying a SC criticism, and that has cites using that word, or "Invalid" which has some cites using that word.  It would also help to rework the sentence from 'when claims are interpreted they usually turn out X'' into something more like 'when claims are interpreted the claims usually are shown to be X'.  But this line -- seems it's really just a garble without a cite so maybe it was just poor creative writing and does not HAVE an actual meaning in the sense of what does it mean by 'interpreted to make them meaningful', or does 'usually' mean sometimes the analysis is positive ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, if you seriously believe someone literate in English might have a hard time determining the antecedent of "they" in that simply constructed sentence, I have made it plain, using "those claims" instead. In the text resulting from that edit, "fallacious" and "inaccurate" may be sourced to Shallit, cited in the same paragraph. If anyone prefers "mistaken," it may be sourced to Schneider, cited elsewhere in the article.
 * If someone wants to see more about "interpreted to make them meaningful," Wikipedia's article on not even wrong seems appropriate. It will be easy to find sources (here is one) describing fundamental parts of Dembski's analysis as unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Just plain Bill - that edits does not fit to content and time of the rest -- the second line is phrased as response to the claims, which the cite there says is Erik (not Shallit), and "usually" plus "false" is not replaceable by (always) "can be" and "fallacious or inaccurate".   I'll revert out and you can look at it again for what some cite says is "false" (or "fallacious". )  I wouldn't pull too hard on the Shallit side-remark as that was not part of his 6 main points, more of a typo-level  mentioned at the end. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that "usually" and "false" were part of a previous revision of this article. "Fallacious" is reliably sourced, and not a matter of temporary conjecture or occasional application.


 * Reading the Shallit paper, one can see fallacious equivocation as being central to his third main point. It would be easy enough to cite "incoherent" to that same section, or "confused" to other parts of the same paper, but for now I will be content to add "fallacious" as a sourced description of Dembski's attempted exposition of complex specified information, or CSI.


 * The equivocation in question is between Shannon information, which has been part of mainstream information theory for nearly seventy years, and Dembski's CSI, which is scarcely, if at all, mentioned in credible peer-reviewed literature in the field. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. That being said, the second paragraph in the criticism section is showning signs of being a patchwork written by a committee. Some cognizant wordsmithing is called for, IMO. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Just plain Bill - it isn't Shallit paper theme 3 about wordin. That does not match the article text being about math, and does not fit to the next line of the section.  The wording issues were in the prior paragraph and this looks like just a poor paraphrase of the exchange with Erik Tellgren.
 * Shallit theme 3 about flawed wording, the Equivocation of using a term that means two things as if it means the same thing -- does not support a line about a mathematics refactoring to mathematical norms: "When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, those claims can be shown to be fallacious."   (I'm dubious how or if any RS stated some interpretation to "make them meaningful" or what are the "minimal standards of mathematical usage", but in any case there is no math in Shallit theme 3 so it's not that cite.)
 * The next line of the section is "Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity"." That exchange is a reply to a mathematical criticism:
 * August 2002 “If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response To Erik.” www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm
 * 30 June 2002 Erik Tellgren. “On Dembski’s Law Of Conservation Of Information.” www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf . (The byline of this essay contains only Tellgren’s first name, Erik)
 * So I will take a whack at the mathematics line citing to Telgren, and redo the next line. If you want to put the SHannon/CSI bit into the prior paragrapgh about wording would seem OK, or if you've got some further cite that goes to mathematics then add a line in this one.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Completely nonsensical sentence.
"Dembski describes specified complexity as a property in living things which can be observed by intelligent-design proponents."

I assume this has been allowed to stay for so long because of it's verbose wording, but in simplified English this is:

"Dembski describes specified complexity as something in living things which can be seen by creationists"

Whichever side you're on, the sentence is just nonsense written by some random person on Wikipedia, lack of any citation that Dembski said this is merely icing on the cake.

I'd change this, but I know you could change literally anything in this article and the extremely biased atheist mods of Wikipedia would revert literally anything regardless of content. User:Anonymous 07:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good call, a citation was requested a long time ago, since it still lacks a reference I've deleted it. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 08:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

False, dishonest and misleading
C,mon guys. The term "specified complexity" was introduced by biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973, and the concept was used by atheist Francis Crick in 1958 and by atheist Richard Dawkins in 1986. It was NOT introduced by Dembski (in 1998) and has been in use without reference to intelligent design for 65 years. Be critical of its use by Intelligent Design proponents if you will, but at least be honest about it.

(And by the way, Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Some of its proponents include are atheists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, who used it in advancing the hypothesis that life on Earth did not originate on Earth.) 2601:404:CB83:D50:C9B1:7151:BAEF:48FA (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, this article does mention Orgel in the History section as a prior use of the term. Perhaps it could be phrased more clearly -particularly in the lead - that this article is about where Dembski means a particular approach of calculation for the concept which had previously been mentioned in discussions of what heredity is, and applying that into a design inference.  And perhaps a line could be added to the history to mention Crick use of the term about heredity information.  (for example see here)  But honesty here may not be possible - editors are humans and so are limited by cognitive filters, and usually have difficulty even allowing contradictory messages to appear.


 * Also, the article doesn’t lead with it as Creationism. It instead leads with a vague pejorative “pseudoscience”.  I actually think a branch of “Creationism” is what it should say instead, as ID was listed as a type of such in texts, and as fitting the definition because it is supporting a view of creation versus evolution.  In the end I’m reassured by the thought that starting with an obvious judgemental insult serves as fair warning of bias in a situation of two wrongs make almost-right.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism contradicts the scientific consensus on that as well as the judge of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. That is not invalidated by a non-creationist pseudoscientist agreeing with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Hob Gadling Just to be clear -- "Creationism" is not a matter determined by "scientific consensus". Such determinations are outside the realm of science, and in the realm of Philosophy or Theology.  One cannot make a scientific test to show something "Creationism", nor does the view of scientists count for that.  Scientific consensus can determine if something is "science" or not.  But the opinion of say a Biologist in matters of Theology has about as much weight as the opinion of an auto mechanic in some discussion about Biology.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since creationists, including cdesign proponentsists, pretend to do science, yes, scientific consensus is relevant. Both classic creationists and cdesign proponentsists are trespassing, and the owners of the territory have the right to classify them. Stay in your churches, keep out of science, don't wear fake white coats, and scientists will more or less ignore you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, science excludes any content from or speaking to anything like that. Methodological naturalism is a fundamental tenet of modern science.  So again, there cannot be a “scientific” consensus defining something as Creationism.  If scientists talk religion, they are not talking “science”, they are talking outside their profession.  They can say IC does not belong in their house, but they do not get to go into someone else’s house.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both classic creationists and ID are the same type of dishonest ignoramuses which use the same type of bad reasoning. The only difference is that ID clumsily tries to hide their agenda. It does not matter if you call that "scientific consensus" or something else. It is what reliable sources agree on, and that is what counts in Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, a consensus in theology and philosophy of “Creationism” is clear enough, but again the point is to be clear that is not a “scientific” consensus. The scientific communities simply and wisely did not go outside their domain to muck about in the fields of other experts.  Their opinions on that topic would not be “reliable sources” for that as what is WP:RS always depends on context.  In some contexts it’s even an ID proponent.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Implying that the ID clowns are "other experts" is pretty silly - they can be quoted only on the subject of what is their own opinion, in articles about themselves - but if you do not want to call it a "scientific" consensus, that is alright. It's a consensus nevertheless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)