Talk:Walter Bradley (engineer)

"Critics"
The opinions of critics such as PT Pencock should be attributed if they are to be included. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert Pennock is a know, respected scholar on creationism, and doesn't need attribution. His book, The Creationists, is probably the best modern description of creationism, including intelligent design.  It doesn't require attribution.
 * Also, Bradley's views on intelligent design are adequately summarized by stating he believs in intelligent design. There is no need for an expansion of his ideas about this pseudoscience.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As his views have been reported on in reliable sources, noting them is appropriate. That you think they are bunk is entirely irrelevant. Please do not remove the well referenced section again. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias
Okay, this article doesn't even make a pretense of being objective. It needs to be rewritten. JediScougale (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Section
I made a change to this page and then got an email about it having been reverted by Dave_souza: "Undid revision 807137749 by 98.202.225.203 (talk) mainstream view from secondary source) updated since my last visit". Can we talk about this?  I intended to phrase things more accurately, according to the sources and groups cited.  --Rcronk (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * – as stated, I undid this edit by the noted IP which deleted accurate information from a reliable secondary source published by W.W. Norton & Company, New York. The IP substituted for that a selfpublished claim made on a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign website, and also replaced unsourced information by a creationist statement about the book The Mystery of Life's Origin. Subsequently, I've edited the page to provide a reliable secondary source about the book, and other information. Hope that helps, . .  dave souza, talk 18:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional information. So if a group states their position, that cannot be cited?  Only a third party's opinion of that group's position can be cited?  Or is it because it was a website instead of a book?  I'm just trying to understand better how we determine which opinions are valid and which are not valid.  Would it be more appropriate to leave the original citation and add the new one stating that the group claims X while others claim Y?  That would seem less biased to me.  --Rcronk (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We've used a reliable secondary source for an expert opinion on what the book says, which is that it presents a creationist interpretation of abiogenesis, attributing it to "Special Creation by a creator beyond the cosmos", and says that Special Creation holds "that the source that produced life was intelligent". If you've got the book itself or another secondary source specifically discussing the book and Bradley you could add that, taking care to give due weight to mainstream views and clearly describe pseudoscientific views as such, while prominently including an explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories. The source removed was an unreliable self published argument by Stephen C. Meyer, not by Bradley, which only mentions Bradley in citations so gives no clear indication of what the DI was claiming about Bradley. Instead, it's a primary source for Meyer's pseudoscientific views. . . . dave souza, talk 07:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking the time to walk through this. The due weight and source types parts make sense to me.  I wasn't aware, however, that "inference to the best explanation" was considered pseudoscience.  Isn't that the same method Darwin used?  Who gets to determine whether all of ID must be considered pseudoscience or if some parts are and some parts are not?  It seems a bit dangerous to use a single label for such a large group of ideas when some of them could be valid and scientific.  God of the gaps is pseudoscientific, for example.  But inference to the best explanation backed by testable and falsifiable mathematical and computer models seems scientific to me.  Lumping both views under ID and labeling the whole thing as pseudoscience and then forever censoring any viewpoint that smells similar doesn't seem correct to me.  --Rcronk (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A lot of sources discuss intelligent design, see that article. Centrally, it's based on the false duality that if you can poke holes in a scientific theory, the automatic fallback is a supernatural cause – but it's never possible to test the unknowable supernatural. Certainly, ID has failed to produce scientific research. Darwin worked with the science of his day, seeking consilience of his theories by testing that they explain evidence from independent, unrelated sources. Evolution theory has progressed (and developed) on that basis. In contrast, "inference to the best explanation" is meaningless – how do you define best? Compliance with the Gospel of St. John, as Dembski has proposed? . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * One assertion of ID that doesn't match your description above relates to the existence of complex information-driven systems. In every case observed by mankind, such systems are created by intelligent beings.  An inference to the best explanation means that if you're looking for causes from the unobservable past, you should look for a cause presently in operation and that will be the best explanation.  Since we didn't observe the creation nor the macroevolution of complex information-driven biological systems, the best explanation is that an intelligent being created them.  This is also supported by mathematical models of the massive search space involved.  There are almost an infinite number of ways to organize matter (amino acids, DNA bases, etc.) that produce garbage rather than producing tens of thousands of complex molecular machines that all work together in a single cell (much less in a multicellular organism).  The same principle is used for the SETI program, looking for certain types of encoded information and inferring intelligent minds are the cause of it since that's what we've observed here.  Same with an archeological dig where pottery and cave drawings are found - such things come from intelligent minds in every observed instance, not wind and rain blowing in an extremely curious manner.  In this instance, some ID proponents are asserting a theory based on analysis of observed data and are publishing hundreds of [peer-reviewed papers].  The theories are falsifiable through finding materialistic explanations for such complex systems and demonstrating the creation of such systems.  So we have two groups of people with differing opinions, and one group is being misrepresented and broad-brushed with inaccurate ad hominem attacks and strawmen.  This seems to me like a form of censorship simply because of differing opinions - or at least guilt by association (Person X and person Y assert ID, X asserts God of the gaps, therefore Y does too).  I will try to find some sources that are acceptable and that are more accurate.  Maybe these newer ideas don't apply to Walter Bradley's assertions/opinions.  I will do more research on that as well.  I again thank you for your time.  This is useful for me to discuss.  --Rcronk (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of question-begging in there, "complex information-driven systems" do get formed by evolution from ancestors, with natural selection responding to environmental information. "In every case observed by mankind, such systems are created by intelligent beings" is simply a restatement of Paley's teleological argument, which is theology rather than science. But WP:NOTAFORUM so I'll leave you to research mainstream responses to Bradley's claims, rather than to generic ID arguments. . . dave souza, talk 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible source
I notice the book is discussed in – that outlines some points, and notes the failure of ID to produce science. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)