Talk:Teleological argument/Archive 3

New history of concept section
Above User:Myrvin wrote: ''I think there should be a section (Etymology?) defining 'teleology' and explaining what a Teleological argument is - an argument about / from / concerning final causes. This could lead to other teleological arguments - not to do with the existence of God. Also, it should go into what the word design means in "argument from design".'' I see that a first such effort has now been made, so I thought it wise to open a new section here. I think I am right in seeing this as a first draft that may be changed? Some initial concerns, which may simply be stating the obvious:
 * A big part is a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. I would like to try to write something short and more to the point we are discussing. Perhaps the source would move to the footnote as a source, rather than us using direct quote. Make sense?
 * I have reduced the EB quote, but I do think that whatever we use it has to be cited. I don't want to see some editor's OR idea of what teleological means. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The OED citation of Paley as first user of the term "argument from design". I saw that too but if we doubt a single source we do not need to use it and certainly do not need to hang our hat on it. First problem is that it does not seem to appear in Paley, but rather in the literature after him? So while he may be a major reason for the use of the term in a way, I think we might need to change our wording to be a bit less definite about it, both concerning whether he was the first user of the term, which I think he was not, and also even whether we can put the term all down to his work, which was surely In other words while his text certainly implies such a term, speaking of "the argument" and intelligence and design, and the debates that ensued used this term, those debates were equally looking at other works such as Hume's Dialogues, which used similar terminology.
 * I think generally the flow of the discussion is a bit clunky. The connections between the concepts and the article title need to be pointed out in a brief way perhaps. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Small tweak I must make. Paley does use the exact words once, when referring to the way we look at a watch and argue that it resulted from design (human design). "Though it be now no longer probable, that the individual watch, which our observer had found, was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now, than they were before."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why it's there. I was interested to note that this is the first written use of the phrase. Aquinas and Hume didn't use it. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that if I correctly see the design of the creator of this section, we should also add something about the word "intelligence"? Anyway, I intend to propose a draft. I accept that not everyone likes history of concept sections, so I will try to keep it short, and dovetail it with the lead and detailed sections in the body.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, beat me to it again! Paley, W. 1809. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. 12th edition London: Printed for J. Faulder. includes the phrase on p. 11 – it should be possible to link directly to the page, but the search does the job and could be used in a citation. Also, p. 414 he writes "In like manner, and upon the same foundation (which in truth is that of experience), we conclude that the works of nature proceed from intelligence and design, because, in the properties of relation to a purpose, subserviency to a use, they resemble what intelligence and design are constantly producing, and what nothing except intelligence and design ever produce at all." The paragraph continues on to p. 415, where his next para opens with "The force however of the reasoning is sometimes sunk by our taking up with mere names." That caught my eye after our discussion on names of ID! Anyway, at some stage before that Paley had considerably revised his text, so it may or may not appear in the first edition. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: We know you are always keen to get ID in here, but I and Dave(?) are worried about it. If you want a definition of the word "intelligence", that could maybe be done by a Wikilink. I don't think this is a "History of the Concept" section - that is in "History". It is more an explanation of the meaning of the words in the lead, because they are not very clear in themselves.Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Before you pile in with a new version, maybe we should ask Dave Souza what he thinks about the current section. Myrvin (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, the section appears to be ok, giving reasonable mention of intelligence without overdoing it. In the lead, "While the concept of an intelligence in the natural order goes back at least to the beginnings of philosophy and science, the concept of a designer of the natural world, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes" rather overdoes it, and omits the issue of purpose: suggest "While the concept of purpose in the natural order goes back at least to the beginnings of philosophy and science, the concept of a designer of the natural world, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes". . dave souza, talk 10:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also note that you have removed the words "more recently" from the lead. I think the phrase with ID in it has only been used since the ID movement - perhaps you have examples of earlier uses of the exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design". If not, I think it is important that readers know that it is not the original phrase. Myrvin (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that Andrew has shown an instance of "argument from intelligent design" used for the design argument, ` it wouldn't be used in ID which is purported to be a "scientific theory" and not a theological argument. The long history of the phrase "intelligent design" is briefly outlined at intelligent design, sources there might be useful here. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, did a google book search and all instances so far seem to follow after ID, many if not all specifically discussing creationism and ID, sometimes as argument from "intelligent design". This discusses these as "religious reductionism" in their uneasy attempt to find scientific justification for religious belief. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See my next edits folks. Both my sources say it's contemporary. Myrvin (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely "intelligent design" is pre-Paley, and not just pre-ID. Even the sources used in the past on our ID article to claim otherwise do not actually say otherwise, so while I am concerned if people are concerned, concerns are not enough. Just to name one case, Francis Hutcheson, right in the thick of the Scottish Englightenment which leads to Hume's Dialogues, thence to Paley. There are many similar terms such as "intelligent creator", "intelligent agent", "intelligent agent", which are all pre-Paley. Less hits is not surprise, because there were less books, but there are many hits. Hence, quite unsurprisingly, the term "argument from intelligent design" starts after Paley and is always clearly seen as meaning the same thing. What I am finding harder to track is the "teleological argument". Just my OR, but it seems to have been Charles Hodge. He also uses the term Argument from Design. Of course this way of writing and breaking the subject up clearly goes back to Aquinas, who however wrote in Latin. (I guess there will have been translations starting at some point, but when?) So in other words the Latin-seeming "argument from" type of terminology, despite its obvious classicism, was maybe a 19th century thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one would be surprised if someone way-back put the word intelligent before the word design. The question is when did the phrase "argument from intelligent design" get used to mean the same as the teleological argument for the existence of God? We are looking for the exact phrase! I - like Dave(?), think it was well after Paley. and probably after 1960 or even 80. Myrvin (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you see my draft below I am willing to accept that this EXACT PHRASE (argument from design) maybe was first put together by Paley, but this article is not only about a phrase? The extreme way of interpreting your post, and similar ones which I saw on the intellectual design talkpage, is that you claim that when people discussed the "argument from design" before Paley it was not really the argument from design, and before perhaps Hodge (or whoever was first), I suppose it was not really the "teleological argument". If that is not what you claim, then it is hard to imagine what you are claiming. Of course we have good sources telling us there were arguments from design before Paley, and therefore apparently before the term. We have good sources saying that the IDM is just the latest manifestations (with its differences of course). We can look at the older ones that our sources name, and we can see they used the exact same terminology in the exact same contexts. Apart from recent secondary sources, we have older sources referring to the term "intelligent design" in the 19th century and in the 1950s and 1960s etc as if it were a well-known name for a theory or argument. And so on. This is not just some miraculous coincidence. (Or else the IDM should be claiming this reincarnation of a term as itself as proof of God?) So if there is a sourcing demand what is it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here. We are not talking about the phrase "argument from design". You want the words "argument from INTELLIGENT design" to be used in the lead and elswhere as meaning the same as the teleological argument (for the exostence of God). I am saying that they have been used like that, but not since the ID movement began or much later. It is not a question of when "intelligent design" was made up, but when the whole phrase was used with this meaning. I fail to see the problem. Find us a use of the phrase "argument from INTELLIGENT design", referring to the TA, from around or before Paley, and we can use it without saying it is recent. Can you explain it better Dave? Myrvin (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please help me understand. Why should we find a source from a particular period as opposed to finding sources which are recent academic secondary sources? You say we are not talking about the exact phrase as such, but your demand seems specifically to be about the first use of the phrase as such, which is not relevant to my edit which inserted this phrase as one of the common ones used in the best sources. (I could add more questions such as why from the time of Paley and not the time before the IDM, and what if I find minor variations such as "intelligent design argument" or people who simply refer to something like the idea of intelligent design or the theory of intelligent or the arguments for an intelligent designer or an intelligent agent? But actually these secondary questions are just going to get us all bogged down surely?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I DO say we need the exact phrase. I said at the top of this: "perhaps you have examples of earlier uses of the exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design"." We can find lots of examples of "argument from design" since Paley. In the lead, we are saying that TA is also known as ... If there were absolutely NO written examples of "argument from INTELLIGENT design" in the record, we would not include it at all. There are recent examples, but it would be short-changing people if we didn't say it was a contemporary phrase for TA. I would accept an early use of "intelligent design argument" if you can find it. By the way, did you actually give us examples of the noun phrase "intelligent design" before 1960? Myrvin (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we mention the exact phrase in the opening paragraph of the lead, it's misleading to suggest that this phrasing goes back before 1988. Either produce sources, show that it's recent, or leave it out altogether from the first para. . dave souza, talk 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dave. I've just checked the ID section you pointed to. Looks like only Darwin used the phrase ID earlyish. There must be others. Myrvin (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind everyone, I've found some. I may have a solution to the other problems too. Myrvin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If our sources are not calling this a new term, and not calling the exact combination of words some major watershed, why should we worry about it? It is a term commonly applied to new and old "arguments" now, and we are writing now. Do we need to talk about the first published mention of every combination of words? Isn't this starting to come close to a demand for original research? I make a distinction between "original research" just to back-up talkpage discussion about weighting of sources, and original research which leads to adding information not published anywhere yet. (WP:OR does not apply to talk page discussions about NOT using sources, or what weight to give sources.) Concerning Paley being the first to write "argument from design" I accept this because the OED seems to be saying that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note that there's been perennial original research on the ID talk pages, with Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 70 finding that in 1738 (or at leaft 1740) Joseph Butler (bp. of Durham) wrote “The appearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of nature as really prove this acting agent to be an intelligent designer” [not my tranfcription, fee the original Caufes]. Following discussion, we trimmed out original research, since then one editor has been complaining about removal of "historic ID material" which provides a few more recent examples. Note that Darwin is quoting Herschel (original not found so far) and the capitalisation is "intelligent Design". . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Update: Francis Darwin quotes Hershel's footnote in Life and Letters pp 190–191, the nearest phrase is "intelligent direction" but perhaps Herschel used the phrase "intelligent Design" in the text of the book. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point please? I am finding it hard to follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically a response to "Looks like only Darwin used the phrase ID earlyish." Others seem to have beaten him to using similar phrases which proponents still use, and his reference to intelligent Design [note the capitalisation] summarised what he thought Herschel had written. We don't have the full text of Herschel's review, but we do have a transcript of the footnotes which only refer to "intelligent direction" and don't use the phrase intelligent design. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I still question whether we need to be researching earliest use except to guide our editing judgements about weight we should give to sources, how about "the good of the whole could not possibly be designed, nor a power put into things to tend towards it, but by an Intelligent Being" from a Grotius translation published 1709. (Here it is in Latin.) It is just an example, but an interesting one, peppered with this terminology, and for example citing Aristotle concerning Anaxagoras. It is clear that the terminology goes back to the time when such English was only just starting to be used for such publications, and then to go further we need to look at translations. But concerning WP policy, we already have really good sourcing translating Xenophon (and dozens of authors between then and now) as writing about "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A draft discussion
I'll be "bold" (but writing a DRAFT is not all that bold?). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) {| border=1 ! width="50%" | current by Myrvin ! width="50%" "valign=top"| draft by Andrew
 * - "valign=top"

Teleology and design
Teleological is the adjective from the term teleology: (from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose or end; also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation by efficient causes only. Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends pursued or alleged to be pursued; and human thought tends to explain the behaviour of other things in nature on this analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends, or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind transcending nature. The most celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider not only the material, the formal, and the efficient causes, but also the final cause—the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced. Following from this, teleological is: "Of, pertaining to, or involving teleology; relating to ends or final causes; dealing with design or purpose, esp. in natural phenomena".

This article concerns the teleological argument for the existence of God, which is the way thinkers have attempted to prove that God exists by pointing to the way natural objects seem to have their own designs and work towards particular ends. They seem to be directed to do so by some intelligent power. It is often known as the argument from design.

The phrase "argument from design" seems to have been coined by William Paley in 1802. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

Key terms
A "teleological" explanation is one that explains things in terms of aims, intentions or "ends" (Greek teloi; Latin fines). The word "design" in these discussions is also being used in the old sense of a "Contrivance in accordance with a preconceived plan; adaptation of means to ends; pre-arranged purpose."

So for example a non-teleological explanation of what killed Socrates is "poison", but a teleological explanation would be "the Athenians". Such an explanation therefore always presupposes something like a human mind or intelligence, and therefore any teleological explanation of nature implies the existence of something like a human mind, a "cosmic intelligence".

In any "argument from" design a specific claim is made that a thing has been found, for example a watch, which can not be explained reasonably without assuming a plan or design, based on aims, similar to the aims a human would have. The use of such terminology in discussions about the existence of God go back to translations from Greek and Latin, but the specific English phrase "argument from design" possibly appeared first in William Paley's Natural Theology published in 1802. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator (usually identified as God) based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".
 * }

We should clarify which versions of the OED. Myrvin you seem to have a newer and/or more complete version than I have access to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin' response
I don't know what you did there, but I couldn't add anything to it. I don't see what improvement you have made except remove the EB for some reason. Anyway, things have moved on since then. Please see the latest version that includes ID !!!

We don't want to visit watches and suchlike when all that is in the body of the article. I can see a reason for an example of a T argument, but I am doubtful that your's works. I think a T argument would say that the ends or final cause of killing Socrates was to get him off the Athenians' backs. I shall look for a cited example - I've lost count of editors' "examples" that get it all wrong.

I'll have another go using some of your suggestions.

I use the latest online OED. Myrvin (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I think that having a section dominated by a clunky Encyclopedia Britannica quotation is not good practice, and I tried to write something shorter, and more adapted to what our article is discussing, so that it flows out of our lead, and it flows into the rest of our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW the Socrates example is from Plato's Phaedo which is frequently cited as an explanation of why Socrates wanted an explanation involving teleological cosmic intelligence, rather than just any intelligence, hence (according to our sources, and discussed in the next section as it currently stands in our articles) inventing the need for the first argument from design. (Our 4 or so expert sources refer to what he came up with in just about every set of relevant terms, not just argument from design. W. K. C. Guthrie, writing well before the IDM referred to it simple as "intelligent design".)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See my latest. I think the large quotes can also be put into footnotes. Give me time, I'm looking for general examples of teleology. Myrvin (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK for now I'll stick to posting notes here. One suggestion: be careful not to repeat things already stated in the lead or the following sections. We should make this a discussion of key terms only I think? In any case we should not have to explain the IDM's recent notability in EVERY section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Concerning the OED, maybe you can replace the words I inserted if you have a better version. Theoretically the footnote should name the version we are citing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes by Andrew Lancaster
These have completely destroyed my carefully cited entries in the new section, which we have been discussing quite amicably, and replaced them with something of your own, which has not been agreed by those involved. This is not on! I am reverting your edits. I suggest strongly that we ask for a 3rd opinion or go to a dispute. Myrvin (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "My"? This is not your article and in the end the "important" thing is whether my edits made the article worse or better. Please try to explain in terms of what is good or bad for the article. Amicable is a nice word, and I do indeed think I have been, but please keep in mind that telling me not to edit (not even to post drafts) is not amicable from your side, and you are certainly not being amicable. I did attempt to explain concerns here and in my edit summaries but you have not been very interested. Also it is not considered good form to start threads named after an editor. It is what is called ad hominem, as I am sure you must know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know that I have altered a good deal of my original stab at this section in order to incorporate your ideas. So to say I have not been interested in them is just not true. I never said you could not post drafts. Where does that come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrvin (talk • contribs)
 * Here are the troubling edits of Myrvin's article, with the explanations given, so that Myrvin can give his counter-explanations:
 * and . Both these have been discussed at length with evidence. As the edit summaries stated, I am removing material which clearly goes far beyond the sources named, or any sources I am aware of. Myrvin clearly has no other sources, because he has added this material after quite some discussion on the talkpage.
 * . Removal of a "this article concerns" paragraph from the new terminology section which comes just after the lead. The edit summary says it all: "this is just repeating the lead". I had attempted to express concern about such repetition on the talkpage first.
 * Switching the Aquinas example for a Socrates example. Also I tried to discuss this on the talkpage above. This is also a case where Myrvin's own edit summary when he added this mentioned "Not too happy about this example". So why can't anyone try to improve it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You changed "exact phrase" to "words" and said "This is clearly going beyond the source". How? The exact phrase is in the quotes. Changing it to "words" produces a weaker sentence. "Exact phrase" signals that, although that phrase is only found recently, the concept may go back further - a point you kept making in the Talk pages, but without evidence, which I eventually found. This is why the last part has a "However" at the front of it.
 * You then removed three quotations and citations saying "this is all OR and going beyond the sources". Two sources quite clearly say that "argument from intelligent design" is a contemporary concept. How is this OR? How many sources would you want? Isn't two enough? As I said in the Talk pages, I was considering reducing these quotes somewhat, and perhaps including part of them as notes.
 * Also, the third citation and quotation actually balanced this view by saying the concept may go back much further - taking your views into account once more. Again, how is this OR? The only reason for removing that was because you disagreed with what my first 2 sources said (as is obvious from the Talk pages), and the third source had to go because it was meaningless on its own. I cannot see what objection you have to saying that some concept appears to be more recent than the original "argument from design".
 * It was a clarification piece after defining some terms. It linked the phrase "teleological argument" with "argument from design", which needs to be done for other readers. It is not an obvious link.
 * I wouldn't mind a good example of a teleological argument to replace mine. But (as I said) it should have a source saying that it IS such an example. Otherwise it is OR. I said this in the Talk pages. My example was a place-keeping one, as I signalled with my edit note. The new example is not sourced either. At least my Aquinas example has quotes, for which I could add citations, and uses the word "end", which is the point of the explanation.
 * I wonder if the other interested editor, Dave Souza, has any comments?
 * I have requested a Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Myrvin I've reformatted your response above to meet the normal guidelines and to repair my own post which you wrote into the middle of without signatures. I think we can more easily stick to the bullet points.
 * Just to get it out of the way, obviously you should take the two edits mentioned in the first bullet as having one justification. First please provide a citation from Ariew which says that the "exact phrase" or "words" refer exclusively to a distinct new type of teleological argument. That is what you are making him say, and that is not clear in our sources. Even if we would find one source which says that, we may not cherry pick from one source which we know disagrees with all the rest (WP:NPOV). (And general discussion of differences between different teleological arguments, as opposed to terminology, is not for this terminology section. We have other sections for that and we should not repeat everything in every section.) And BTW adding in a final paragraph which says the preceding ones were wrong is not a neat solution either.
 * I stick to what I said. My judgement as an editor is that this sentence was repetitive and clunky and not helping readers at all. I think my draft above gave better flow between the lead and the first historical section. You have no right to insist that other editors accept your work as un-improvable.
 * We do not need sourcing for every editing decision we make, but if you contest my example then your own is not sourced at all. Just because you took some words from Aquinas does not mean Aquinas wrote that he was giving an example of a "teleological description", which is what you would need to call this example sourced in the way you now argue. More to the point, the example is, as you said yourself not a good one! And I already explained on this talkpage that my example is a frequently discussed one from Plato's Phaedo. We would just need to insert some footnotes using the same sources in the following section of the article? It is pretty clear that your revert was not due to a sudden concern with the niceties of policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a note on this requesting a third opinion, specifically Dave's. Please Dave and Myrvin give a clear note about whether there is a request from either of you that I avoid editing or not, and if you are, on what real basis. This is starting to be remarkably circular, and in effect I am being blocked from editing. I've been careful to work in small steps, explaining reasoning on the talkpage before editing, making drafts etc, and I've promptly been able to answer every point of reasoning or sourcing. But I am not getting the same back, so why should I be blocked from improving the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you read "The contemporary concept of the argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802. ... But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID [(Intelligent Design)]", and "The contemporary argument from intelligent design ... is a critique of natural selection", and ask for more? Your request for "a distinct new type of teleological argument" is a No true Scotsman argument. Whatever I or Ariew say, you'll say "That's not really a new argument". Interestingly, YOU are now asking for the EXACT phrase, which you were arguing against before.
 * Anyone's work can be improved. I disagree with your reason for the change.
 * I have agreed that my example isn't sourced. But at least it has a real quote or two that people could look up. Your's has the appearance of OR. As I said we do need a quote from a citable source here. We can't just have any editor's view of what a teleological argument looks like. I'd be happy to accept the Socrates idea if someone somewhere has said it's a teleological argument. I'm sure there must be one somewhere - I shall look.
 * I don't think Dave can be the third party, he is already involved. I would still be interested in what he thinks. I have requested it on the Third opinion page Myrvin (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you simply refuse to give reasons not to ignore your desires, then obviously that is what I will eventually do. You do not own this article and stop me from editing it without giving reasons. Going through your replies:
 * I think you know very well, because we have already discussed it, what I am referring to. The first sentence of the deleted section states that "The words "argument from intelligent design" refer to a more contemporary version of the teleological argument." This means it does not apply to other things, although our sources say the opposite. The rest of what is deleted is all over the place and disagreeing with itself as if that makes it better.
 * Give a reason, like I did before making that edit. Don't just revert.
 * So without checking any facts, you are going to assume I am telling a lie with my explanation on the talkpage? I have given 3 or 4 references which mention the Phaedo discussion already. I have not used any of them exactly, but anyone who has read any of these sources will immediately recognize it. This is a standard, like the watch and watchmaker, but we should not use the watch-maker in every section. This particular example is useful here because it is I think the most common one used to explain the distinction that separates believing in a cosmic mind, like Anaxagoras, and believing in a cosmic design or end (same thing by the way, but your text does not show that like my draft tried to). And why is your un-sourced example supposed to be better for WP than another editor's anyway? That really is a hopeless response. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I await the third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are looking for a third opinion actively or just hoping someone will turn up, but in any case I believe there is no reason for me to stop editing and I do intend to start editing again. I am quite confident that any reasonable third opinion is going to start by pointing out to you that you should try responding to reasonable questions and proposals in a rational way on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another insult. I have contacted 2 possible 3O people - I don't know who they are. If nothing happens in a day or two, I'll raise a Dispute - or you can do it if you like. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just going to edit. I see no dispute as such, and neither will any third party. There is just one editor who wants to try to stop another one from editing, without having to bother trying to understand the other editor's positions, or read the sources he cites. By the way, I doubt making obvious false accusations is going to help you. (There is no insult in the above post, or in any other where you claimed to see them.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Third Opinion
Thank you Jackmcbarn for your thoughts. If you check the latest version you will see that things have moved on somewhat since I asked for a 3O. Although he provided all those comparisons you looked at, the other editor decided there wasn't a dispute and carried on editing - see above. I became quite upset at the discussion and have left the article alone until now. However, I have noted that the ongoing dispute in Intelligent design (ID) seems to have some bearing on what is going on here.
 * The part which was supposed to give an example of a general (ie non-God) Teleological argument (TA) was changed from my Aquinas reference to the words about Socrates. I objected that it wasn't a cited example of a TA (ie it didn't have a source saying it was such an example), and that at least it had Aquinas as a source; but the other editor put it in anyway saying that it was a "classic example".(I think he later accused me of calling him a liar when I questioned that). In case it was, and could therefore be cited, I did a long set of searches to try to find it, all to no avail. Of course, Socrates is said to have 'begun' to use TAs, maybe in the Phaedo (see the 'Classical and early Christian writers' section), but his talk wasn't about him being poisoned, but about the way another philosopher didn't use TAs and he should. However, later, the Socrates stuff was replaced, by the same editor, for some words I prefer. These include my "arrow" example from Aquinas, but without a citation. I'll try adding a citation.
 * The words "exact phrase" were added to discriminate "argument from design", which goes back to 1802, and "argument from intelligent design", which seems to go back only to 1980 or so. However, if you see no point in this it can stay as it is now. See below the note about the ID article.
 * I bow to your view of the "this article" part. It does seem to me that somewhere the article should discriminate between TAs for the existence of God and TAs not about God, eg "what directs the arrow?" A third editor and I wonder if there should be two articles.
 * As you can see in the discussion, I (and another editor) couldn't see the objection to the quotations being used, and why it was all deleted as OR. I think there may be something going on in the ID dispute to do with saying that the "argument from INTELLIGENT design" isn't a recent concept, to which I am not privvy. Because of the other editor's view, I even took some trouble to find an early 1766 example of a source who used the words: "necessary existence of an intelligent being", to balance the two sources that said that the idea was contemporary. The other editor was not impressed with that either, deleting it and saying there was no point in including something at the end to say that the other two were wrong. I always liked the idea of balance in an article, to improve its neutrality. I'll try to put these back - mostly as notes.
 * I have also seen that the words "more recently" in front of "argument from intelligent design" have been removed from the lead. The lead was changed (by the other editor) to say "argument from (intelligent) design, which I thought was confusing. I thought it was worth seperating out the two phrases and pointing out the contemporary use of the 'intelligent' phrase, and had the Sweetman citation to back it up. I wonder if you have a view on that.


 * Myrvin I am sure you have good intentions but a big part of your concerns is coming from not looking carefully. Concerning the Socrates example I gave 4 secondary sources. I believe every one goes through the Phaedo case? And of course your remark implying that you looked in the Phaedo and only found mention of his criticism of another philosopher basically tells me that instead of looking at the Phaedo you looked at what I'd cited previously about the Phaedo, because that is exactly a bit I had extracted. Here is what he says about that other philosopher (Anaxagoras):-
 * ''98a [Socrates:] I never imagined that, when [Anaxagoras] said they were ordered by intelligence, he would introduce any other cause for these things than that it it is best for them to be as they are.
 * ''98b So I thought when he assigned the cause of each thing and of all things in common he would go on and explain what is best for each and what is good for all in common. I prized my hopes very highly, and I seized the books very eagerly and read them as fast as I could, that I might know as fast as I could about the best and the worst.
 * ''“My glorious hope, my friend, was quickly snatched away from me. As I went on with my reading I saw that the man made no use of intelligence,
 * ''98c and did not assign any real causes for the ordering of things, but mentioned as causes air and ether and water and many other absurdities. And it seemed to me it was very much as if one should say that Socrates does with intelligence whatever he does, and then, in trying to give the causes of the particular thing I do, should say first that I am now sitting here because my body is composed of bones and sinews, and the bones are hard and have joints which divide them and the sinews
 * ''98d can be contracted and relaxed and, with the flesh and the skin which contains them all, are laid about the bones; and so, as the bones are hung loose in their ligaments, the sinews, by relaxing and contracting, make me able to bend my limbs now, and that is the cause of my sitting here with my legs bent. Or as if in the same way he should give voice and air and hearing and countless other things of the sort as causes for our talking with each other,
 * 98e and should fail to mention the real causes, which are, that the Athenians decided that it was best to condemn me, and therefore I have decided that it was best for me to sit here and that it is right for me to stay and undergo whatever penalty they order.
 * Of course the above classic text does not comment on itself, certainly not in English so he does not call it "teleological" for us. To source that you need to look at modern secondary sources like the ones I gave (Sedley, McPherran, Guthrie etc). Many sources quote the bolded bit as a critical moment in the history of teleology. There are enormous amounts written about that. What you may accuse me of is as tweaking this classic example to make it shorter and simpler (as doing many secondary sources). Instead you just ignored my explanations and claim to have done another search which, for some reason, avoids looking at either the dialogue, or the sources I named. Sorry, but put yourself in my position: You are quite demanding to me, but your own efforts seem not to be very diligent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I am "not very diligent" and "I haven't looked at" the book, and only "claim" to have done a search. Please stop attacking me. I see nothing about poison there. It says "causes for our talking with each other" are not "voice and air", rather "the real causes, which are, that the Athenians decided that it was best to condemn me". "Causes for our talking" not causes for me being poisoned. However, I await the response of the Third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They condemned him to take poison Myrvin, so as I said, I made the example shorter. But to really get the point you need to look at secondary sources. And anyway does the exact wording of this example need sources? Your approach is impractical. It can not be that every time I post something and give a source, that you can delete it and call in a third party, instead of just checking the sources or making a real concern clear? This way of working is not really allowed according to my understanding of WP norms, and if you are calling for third party opinions maybe you should ask whether I am right about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Shapiro bit
I've fully read through the source and the wikipedia bit several times but all I'm seeing is Shapiro talking about how we know more about evolution mechanisms, with none of these new mechanisms contradicting previous knowledge of evolution, and then he somehow jumps into that these new mechanisms mean we have to re-think about creationism. Could someone explain what the section in this article is even trying to say. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd isn't it? I've read the full piece and I'm still not sure. It could be that Shapiro has been upset by Dawkins &co and wants to show how the anti-creationists are not up on their cell biology. S says that things in biology have moved on and are much more complicated and wonderful than Dawkins etc think. S calls it "new science". Why S then says that this throws light on the creationist debate I don't yet get. It could be that S is so amazed by his new science that he thinks it is evidence for a guiding intelligence. On the surface, it looks to me as if he is providing more evidence that biology doesn't need such ID. There is also the old old view of Aristotle that the parts of an organism are there for a purpose for that organism. Anyway, the question is can the section in the article be made clearer? It would be useful if we could find someone else writing about S's ideas. Myrvin (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is his book. Look at p127 onwards and especially pages 136/7. Myrvin (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, Shapiro believes organism have a purpose: survive, grow, and reproduce - meaning they are teleological. Though most other scientists seem to reject this idea -. Though I still don't see how these new advancements make organism to more likely be teleological, or that Shapiro is arguing that. Maybe I'll try loking up about this "Third Way", though, not until tomorrow. Sepsis II (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he might feel that cells have sort-of minds. There are people who think they have sort-of consciousness. I've added a piece from the book. Maybe the larger part from the paper should be cut down. I'll have a go at it. Good luck with 'Third Way' - avoid the Buddhists and Tony Blair :-). Myrvin (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New possible citations
My apologies if we've seen these before - I've lost track.
 * 1) Would this  be useful?: "Behe has bravely taken on Darwin and reformulated the biological version of the Design Argument. His argument from 'intelligent design' is restricted in scope compared to its predecessors in history". The single quotes are telling. He uses AfD to refer to earlier concepts.. Myrvin (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) And this  by Dworkin: "A recently popular argument for God's existence—the argument from intelligent design". Myrvin (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This is weaker - uses "today": Myrvin (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Behe in Ch 15 here  is at pains to say how his argument from ID differs from previous design arguments, particularly Paley's. Myrvin (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This  says "Recently, some philosophers have resurrected the argument from design in a form that is related to the inductive arguments of intelligent design proponents, but that appeals to what has come to be called the “fine tuning” exhibited by the universe". Myrvin (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) This  is about fine-tuning and the anthropic principle. It says, "One version of this argument has gained a large public following, despite strong scientific evidence against its central claims and assumptions, is known as the argument from intelligent design."
 * 7) This  apparently says, "As we will see, the intelligent-design creationists' SETI analogy is a space-age version of the classic philosophical argument from design for the existence of God."Myrvin (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Not sure about this  It refers to Paley's AfD (p61), and it says (p.64), "Intelligent-design creationism is the successor to scientific creationism such as that practiced by the flood geologists. ID creationists argue, in a variation on the argument from design, that they can rigorously ...". Myrvin (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) This  says, "Intelligent design theory is essentially a more elaborate and refined version of the argument from design, which has a long tradition." Myrvin (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) This  says:"there is a distinction between the arguments for intelligent design in biology and the traditional argument from design for the existence of God." Myrvin (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think unfortunately every sourcing question depends on context. So first we need to define what we are trying to source in order to know whether a source is good enough. For example an academic theologian might be an excellent source for helping us compare and contrast the argument from design of Thomas Aquinas and William Paley, but not good for something about biology. So are these sources for a specific part of the article? (I will also try to find time to look in a general way at the types of publishers etc, just in case I see anything general worth remarking.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples etc for teleological arguments
I have a nice quote for what is a teleological explanation: The characteristics of a teleological explanation are, first, that it refers to some result or end achieved (or normally or possibly achieved) by what is to be explained, secondly, that the result or end can be recognized as being in some way advantageous, and, thirdly, that what is to be explained is said to happen because of or for the sake of the result or end, rather than producing it by coincidence or accident. It's from The Greek Cosmologosts. In a footnote perhaps? Myrvin (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought you were waiting for a third opinion? I find this very clunky and not well written, and it clearly comes from a context which does not meld with this wikipedia article. Our aim is to explain, and the reason for putting in an example was only to illustrate this article, not to talk about all possible meanings of teleological. I have made a proposal above, and you have not explained what was wrong with it. (You said you were not sure about the sourcing and the correctness, but that is not really a constructive opinion.) Why do you think this proposal is good? Why do you think my proposal is bad (apart from the fact that it was not from you)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont panic! I'm not making any changes yet. And please stop insulting me. Myrvin (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What panic and what insult? Please respond to questions with real answers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote seems good for 'Teleological argument', the English meaning of the term. Doubtful that saying what 'kind of argument' will get included, seems like only the dominent usage is being allowed.  Existence of teleological arguments in psycholigy or biology or espionage are ignored, or that one could form a teleological argument against the existence of God.   Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes this article is focused upon the use in arguments about the existence of God, but I would suggest that this article and also the intelligent design article need to much better explain how this fits in a more general context which is not just historical but continuing. I have tried to use the term "teleological explanation" in order to explain the more general concept without confusing it with arguments for the existence of God. Did you see my Socrates example which Myrvin deleted? Is that the direction of your point or are you thinking of more types of teleological argument like maybe that of JS Mill?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark: I think you should read the discussion above about Socrates. Myrvin (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Just in case useful, here is what I consider an uncontroversial example of using a teleological argument to prove that a human did something, and then comparing it to what the types used to argue for the existence of God.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes in first paragraph
1. We are over-sourcing, especially for a lead. There is no real controversy for most of what is being said, and so we can use less footnotes. And certainly we do not need more than one source point per issue. Where there is real controversy for now, let's discuss to make sure it is real.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ADDED: of course what is normally done is to ensure that discussion about details is moved to the body and most sourcing also.

2. We should move footnotes out of the middle of sentences. I can see the argument for it when there are SO MANY footnotes. But there should be less footnotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

3. The last sentence of our first paragraph:
 * equates "creation science" and "intelligent design". This disagrees with what our articles for those two topics say and I understand there is a reasoning for this maybe. More to the point we do not really need to be making this statement here in a lead about the teleological argument.
 * makes a statement in the voice of Wikipedia that the teleological argument is only called "the argument from intelligent design" in the context of creation science and/or intelligent design. However the source does not make any such observation. The source is just an example of one author using this term in such a context. So that is obviously WP:OR. For the sake of this talk page I can present counter-OR:
 * Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century). (It is an interesting case!)
 * Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back). BTW this one is already used in our article.
 * Ayala talking about William Paley (1802), saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
 * Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato

4. Concrete proposal:
 * Argument from intelligent design should be reinserted amoungst the known variants.
 * Last sentence should become simpler: The argument is central to the position of creation science, most notably in the form of the intelligent design movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have any reasonable concerns with the above suggestions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some initial thoughts:
 * I don't see that citations should be reduced. I say, the more the merrier. There are far too few citations in WP and I think there has been a lot of controversy.
 * If there is a need or a point to an in-sentence citation (and there often is) then it should be put there.
 * I'm thinking about and working on all this. However, using sources published after 1988 (say) doesn't work. I suspect contemporary authors use the ID phrase because it was, by the time they wrote, a well-known term. You need sources from before (say) 1966. You might have been better off with my 1766 quote. But but: How about this everybody "argument from the proofs of intelligent design" (1855) ? Also, this search may be fruitful Myrvin (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know yet. ADDED Instead of "1988, and in this context it has been called", how about "1988, and after this date it has often been called"?

Myrvin (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice primary source, if original research, interesting it's the "analogical argument from the proofs of intelligent design". Probably not picked up earlier as the IDers have focussed on sciency sources, and this source is The Christian Cylclopædia, Or Repertory of Biblical and Theological Literature - Rev. James GARDNER (M.A.) . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording accurately reflected the source, as Sweetman specifically placed the phrase in relation to ID: it's unlikely that Paley ever commented on microbiology. Provide a new source, and adjust the wording accordingly, though note that the phrase "argument from intelligent design" still seems to only appear after 1990. As for 1988, a slight adjustment is in order. Scott and Matzke, as cited, state it was published in 1989 as Of Pandas and People, later described by Buell as “the first place where the phrase ‘intelligent design' appeared in its present use” Early manuscripts freely used cognates of “creation” (creationism, creationist), but these terms were replaced by the phrase “intelligent design” after the mid-1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision outlawing the teaching of creationism. So, the change was made in 1987, and published in 1989 introducing the term as an alternative more sciency name for creation science, while presenting the same argument from design. The phrase does seem to have continued in use in its earlier meaning as a description or synonym for the teleological argument, though less commonly than argument-from-design and teleological argument. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dave. I believe you are only responding to my point about OR? We can take your comment about Sweetman to WP:RSN but I think you must surely understand that our present text goes beyond saying what Sweetman says. It also has clearly been written to indicate that Sweetman is a secondary source who tells us that this sort of term is only used in IDM contexts. This is clearly not the case. Please confirm if we can agree on this or do we go to RSN?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dave I am particularly interested to ask you about the equation of creation science and intelligent design. I believe you think this is wrong, or do you agree with it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Myrvin my points 1 and 2 are just basic WP MOS practice, and while you seem to indicate some special need here I do not really you do not explain it. My original suggestion is more detailed about how these problems are generally fixed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see that several lead citations contravene the MOS. In WP:Lead it says "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Since we have been arguing about all this for ages, it is hardly non-contraversial, and it is complex.
 * Also, although, in WP:Citing sources it says, "Including too many citations within a sentence may be aesthetically unappealing" it also says, "However, this solution brings its own problems." I think I prefer the citation is put where it belongs and not some distance away. Maybe there's a noticeboard you can ask. Myrvin (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave, I notice that the citation points to page 12 of Sweetman, I wonder if p 23 would be better - or both, Myrvin (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. forget this. P. 147 is there and says the same. I guess it was my citation at some time. Myrvin (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Too many footnotes
So Myrvin, are you saying that there is controversy between Wikipedia editors about the terms "teleological argument" and "argument from design" being equivalent? Because this is one of the biggest accumulations of footnotes. Surely all this sourcing can be moved to the body. BTW does the sourcing we currently use for Kant's term really tell us his physicoethological proof is an argument from design? In summary, it was easy to say that when there is controversy we are allowed to have lots of footnotes, but I do not think this justification is appropriate in practice here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweetman source and above concern: WP:RSN
I've gone ahead and posted a query at WP:RSN about the above case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Compromise
I've put this on the RSN page:

Although it extends the lead, might I suggest that we add something like:"However, this phrase can be used, even in modern texts, simply as being synonymous with "argument from design." - with some citation? Myrvin (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is, of course, what is that citation? It has to be post-IDM and yet not be talking about IDM. Otherwise, the phrase will look like "argument from that-thing-the-IDM-goes-on-about". Myrvin (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps Andrew's Socrates for the Perplexed one would do. It doesn't seem to be concerned with IDM.Myrvin (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or the Kierkergaard one. Myrvin (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, are you saying that you want to have a long explanation where we say that the term is only used in IDM contexts (which we know is not true) and then add a sentence to say that it is not true? It does not seem practical or useful anymore now that we know that the first bit is not true? As far as I can see the only real question now is whether to include it again as one of the terms used for a teleological argument or not (at the front of the article). (Personally I think the sourcing is strong enough for that without WP:SYNTH and I also think it can help some readers.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "only" does not appear. As I've said on the Reliable sources page, it says it "has been" used in this context. Myrvin (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to remind: here is what I proposed above "The argument is central to the position of creation science, most notably in the form of the intelligent design movement." Doesn't it make sense now to have something simpler like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW the word "only" (or something like it) is clearly implied in the current sentence saying "in that context" and that implication has to be removed now as far as I can see. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that implication at all Nevertheless, how about: "at least in that context, ... ". Myrvin (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be your own OR Myrvin because we have no source indicating any tendency for the term "argument from intelligent design" to be specifically more associated with the intelligent design movement than other types of argument from design. Secondly why is it even necessary to force such speculation into the first paragraph? Why do we not also mention that the much more rare term "physicotheological proof" is only associated with Kant? (Why is that term indeed mentioned as one of the common ones, while we see such resistance to "argument from intelligent design"?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where the Kant thing came from. BTW the citation you've used that purports to go to the full paper produced a "Content not found" message when I tried it. Myrvin (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which citation did not work? You say one I used, but did I add one lately which is relevant to this thread? If you mean concerning Kant I did not add it, but it does work for me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the Scott one at the end of your new sentence. I know it wasn't yours originally. I've fixed it. Myrvin (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've killed the Kant ref. Myrvin (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Normally we do not presume guilty so quickly? I was going to try to find a source which gives a slightly more clear link.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe useful: http://books.google.be/books?id=mpZGqo7qrTkC To me this seems to do a nice job of spelling out links and could maybe help in many places. For this particular matter, see starting around p.261. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought physicotheological was in the body of the article, but I couldn't find it. If it isn't there, the word shouldn't appear in the lead. Myrvin (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, when we know that an article is being looked at with an eye to expansion, we do not delete loose ends, but keep them. Consider WP:PRESERVE. This article is clearly missing many very important sections that will hopefully eventually included. Furthermore we know that physicotheological is used in general discussion, not just discussion of Kant, as per the source I cited immediately above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Islamic argument from design
This work has an introduction with a very packed summary. Quite useful for our purposes. We currently have a very stubby looking Averroes section only.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

removed quotes from the Key terms section
I removed this quote farm. These extended quotes come over as random facts in the key terms section, as they have nothing to do with that section. Perhaps they can be used elsewhere. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"In medieval philosophy, teleological explanation presupposed a Divine and omniscient designer. Everything operates towards a goal and the goal is predetermined by God." "However, Aristotle mainly applied his final-cause interpretation to living or organic things".

"Aristotle’s view shows that ‘purpose in nature’ need not mean a higher purpose beyond nature. Yet, his immanent purpose does not exclude “higher” purposes, and Aristotelian teleology was pressed into service by medieval thinkers as a framework for understanding God’s agency through nature." And "in the argument from design, the Christian tradition infers from the regularity in nature that there is a supernatural designer, God."
 * I disagree with this removal of relevant cited material. It's neither a "quote farm" nor "random facts" and this removal does nothing to fix the section misnomer.—Machine Elf 1735  20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain the purpose then? None of these quotes explain the "key terms" do they?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see you've also changed the title of the section. That makes some sense, but given that this section was only recently inserted (not by me), and was/is clearly intended to explain more terms than just teleology I think this leaves more questions open about how to explain things with a good "flow". (Not that the article has a wonderful flow.) Do we need to move the comment about William Paley being the first to use the term "Argument from design"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Checking through the edit history and I see the section was originally added with the title "Teleology and design" and later changed to "Key terms", which didn't really fit. I see your point... Altogether, I find the section misleading and I'm inclined to just remove it entirely. A WP:SUMMARY style section on Teleology wouldn't be bad, just maybe not as a second lead at the top of the article.—Machine Elf 1735  07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not rush to delete because as discussions above show, the information it contains is not obvious to everyone. I think I could get used to what you've done to it. I think we could use direct quotes a little less (paraphrase a bit more) and we could consider moving the Paley remark to the intro?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection at all to paraphrasing...
 * e/c Regarding the Paley comment, I haven't much looked at it but surely he wasn't the first... Nicole Oresme ca. 1350, for example in the context of a clockwork universe analogy.—Machine Elf 1735  07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a new name to me, but of course there were many who stated the argument going right back to Socrates. What the passage says is that Paley was the first to use the exact English term. The OED seems to say so. I guess it might be true. BTW A more full citation of the work I mentioned above that discusses the "physicotheological tradition". This has some useful pithy summaries of how things inter-relate, but I have not yet used it anywhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, the Sedley book I have cited in the article makes a convincing case that the watchmaker metaphor itself started in the Hellenistic period, with the Stoics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wildman book has an interesting way of dividing up two historical versions of the argument from design: a cosmological and a biological tradition. Maybe we should also use this? I have seen it in other places also. He names Aristotle as an early example of the biological. I believe Sedley points to Xenophon's Socrates mentioning both versions but I'd have to double check.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the Stoic influence on medieval Scholastics confuses things due to syncretism (to say nothing of reconciliation with the faith). Really my concern is with Aristotle's original teleology in that it's unintelligent design (so to speak)... the sense in which wings are good for flying, legs for walking, etc. So, it's a false dichotomy to say that 'when "intelligent design" is proposed as a cause for anything, this is the opposite to saying that something happened purely by chance or "dumb luck" (Greek tuchē)' because Aristotle's teleology (without the Stoic pneuma) was just such a third option. (But all that's more for the teleology article I should think).—Machine Elf 1735   15:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for doting on Aristotle but for him, no scientific explanation (cause) is available for a case of "dumb luck". On the other hand, something that behaves predictably ("always or for the most part") is amenable to a scientific generalization of that regularity. (Thus, he accused Democritus of explaining nothing when he argued that cosmoi and species just so happen to be as they are).
 * So how's this for a fix: 'when a cause such as "intelligent design" is proposed for something, it precludes saying that it happened purely by chance or "dumb luck" (Greek tuchē)'?—Machine Elf 1735  05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see a problem with that. Aristotle makes things complicated as usual.:) Concerning the Stoics I think the biggest problem I keep hitting is the uncertainty about what they really thought. They were clearly extremely influential, but so much is lost. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Joke
Q: Why is shit tapered? A: God didn't want our assholes to slam shut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.75.193 (talk) 7:34 am, 6 May 2013, Monday (8 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−7)

Note 1 quotes website with typo
The figure given, 1 in 1060, should be 1 in 10^60, but since the source has the same typo I hesitated to correct this, lest I have to change the reference too, and I'm new to this.

The original source would be: Collins, Robin, 1999. “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God,” in Murray 1999, pp. 47–75..

which is quoted in the source given in the wikipedia article (Himma, which has the typo), and a suitable substitute is "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia ..." at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments which also gives the analogy for 1 in 10^60 precision being the same as hitting a 2.5 cm target from across the visible universe, or from one side to the other, as they also say 20 billion light years, its unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.134.75 (talk) 11:18 pm, 1 June 2013, Saturday (7 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−7)

Hume and Paley
Hello. I see that the discussion of Paley writing in reaction to Hume has been deleted by User:Myrvin with reference to the fact that Hume is not explicitly mentioned. This is just a quick note to say that I believe this is something secondary sources say, not Paley himself. Maybe gives a lead that can help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a check before editing and could only find that Hume was ignored by Paley. Of course, someone might think that he was writing in reaction to Hume anyway, but there was no citation to support this. If anyone can find such a reference, that could go in. Myrvin (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but like I say I seem to recall that such sources can be found. (I understand from your edit summaries that the check you did was only in Paley, not a search of secondary sources?) I think such rapid tagging and deleting is more for cases where you are actually quite sure already that no source exists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When/if anyone has time to look, perhaps they should also see our William Paley article which says: " Despite Hume's unpopularity, Paley's published works and in manuscript letters show that he engaged directly with Hume from his time as an undergraduate to his last works." (No source named.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Before editing, I found this in the reference I cited: "While Paley is aware of Hume’s significance, he does not engage with his arguments in his Natural Theology." But, this book says Paley's work IS a deliberate reply to Hume's dialogues. However, it quotes several people who say that it wasn't. E.g. someone called Sprague wrote he regretted that Paley did not meet Hume's argument head-on. Myrvin (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, looks good. I believe that in this case it might have been better to say something like this (your post) in our article: "report the controversy". Where a subject is debated by experts we do not have to pick a winning side and report only one opinion, and we do not have avoid saying anything. It seems an interesting remark to make, which you have found.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Science & Christian Belief 1998 vol 10 William Paley Confronts Erasmus Darwin: Natural Theology and Evolutionism in the Eighteenth Century, David Burbridge, notes where Paley responds to Hume. The interesting context is Paley responding to Darwin, a point touched on in Bowler's Evolution, the History of an Idea p. 103, which should be noted. . dave souza, talk 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This all seems to be a very complicated question, and I wonder if it should be included in this article. Perhaps there should be a separate article for Paley's work. Myrvin (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we know that good sources argue about this, then we SHOULD mention that debate according to policy, certainly this is a better option than deleting the mention of it which was here and not wrongly. But that mention can be as simple as the post you just wrote. There is already an article for Paley, but that does not remove any responsibility from us from trying to make this article cover this matter. Please note that Dave's post goes beyond what you found and we can perhaps leave that for a moment while we first just consider Paley and Hume. The kind of thing I imagine (but we should look at what sources say):"While Paley never addresses Hume directly in this work, some commentators [such as] interpret the Paley's work as a deliberate reply to his position etc."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction in lead
I've removed the incorrect statement that the argument "is today central to creation science, which has promulgated the term "intelligent design theory" as a "scientific" version of the argument from design since 1988", and followed the cited source in changing it to "is today central to the creationist religious concepts of creation science and intelligent design which are presented as alternative scientific explanations in opposition to evolution theory." The source did not support the incorrect statement. . dave souza, talk 17:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave I am honestly interested to understand the difference in meaning you saw, to justify the word "incorrect". Do you have a second to explain?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I was wondering who introduced these inaccuracies. Perhaps you could explain where in the source it says that creation science has promulgated the term, where it says that the term is "intelligent design theory", and where is says that it has been promulgated since 1988. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it me? Could be I suppose (although the edit you show does not indicate that I added 1988, and it is not really my style). But I still can not really follow why you are using the terms incorrect or inaccuracy? This means you are saying the information is wrong (you are not just asking for more sources), but is it? I think I could find diffs of you arguing that creation science promulgated the term, and we both know that "intelligent design theory" is the most common form of it, or certainly a very common one, and one used by secondary sources to avoid ambiguity. You are claiming these things CAN NOT be sourced? Your words seem a bit harsh at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please try reading the two different versions carefully. If you feel points are needed, then provide sources for them. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave sorry but you misunderstood my question. I am asking you why you chose to call these things incorrect and inaccurate? Maybe you just meant to say that they differed from the one named source? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)