User:BradC/Additional ID Comments

Archiving these on my own page because I thought some of them were well-thought out. They were blanked as the comments of a sock-puppet of a banned user. BradC 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

--- As I didn't get banned and since I was politely encouraged to propose suggested edits I am submitting the following. Please be aware that I am not a subject expert. I came to this article to learn about Intelligent Design, so I will assume that everything in the article is 100% accurate.

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection. Members of the scientific community has unequivocally stated that intelligent design is not science;[13] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[14][15][16] and some have termed it junk science.[17][18] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[19] Please, note that the scientific community cannot state anything. Communities don’t state. Some can state something. Members can state something. Majorities can state something. The overwhelming majority can state something. But the community never states anything.

Overview In this section the theory should be presented without any challenge. The challenge was already presented above. There is no need to challenge every sentence again. This is not an endorsement of the concept. This is a report of the concept. Thus sentences like:

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). Should read:

Intelligent Design is founded upon evidence of intelligence in nature. Sentences like:

Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Should read:

The theory is that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. This:

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".[25] Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws.[26] Doesn’t belong in this section. This sentence doesn’t belong here because it doesn’t explain what the theory is. The only purpose of the first section (after the overview sentence and the challenge) is a presentation of the theory. They belong in another subheader called “Public Perceptions about Intelligent Design”

I would change “Concepts” to “Foundational Concepts” and add the following introductory sentence:

Not only is the Intelligent Design Theory broadly disputed by members of the scientific community, the rationale and implications of the foundational concepts of Intelligent Design similarly disputed by many. I feel that these foundational concepts, Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, Fine Tuned Universe are generally very fair, but I suggest just a little more of a wall between the criticism and the explanation of the concept. Specified Complexity is an example of the preferred presentation.

“Intelligent Designer” is riddled with POV editorials masquerading as relevant sentences. Here’s the most egregious offender of the bunch:

In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction. What does that prove to anyone? Does that mean atoms don’t exist because we don’t understand the components of sub-atomic particles. This sentence is not referenced, not relevant and is a cheap shot that demeans Wikipedia.

This sentence left me baffled:

Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Are you trying to tell me that there is another potential designer who is not God but who is a god? Is there a difference between big “G” god and any other god in this context? If the theories proponents state that the nature of god is outside the realm of the theory why is it relevant to go any further (in this section anyway). Why is this relevant:

The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian god, to the exclusion of all other religions. Does the theory purport that the “Christian god” is the one true god or not? If not, then this reads like a petty cheap shot on so many levels.

I would suggest that “Movement” and the “Origins of the Concept” and “Origins of the Term” are inter-related and should be brought together.

Then out-of-left-field there is a hit-job entitled “Religion and leading proponents”. First of all this is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack against the proponents of the theory. It proves nothing and just makes the other guy mad. Secondly, it doesn’t belong under “movement”. It belongs under Controversy, under a heading labeled, “Nyah, and your mother dresses you funny too.”

In the section labeled “Controversy” one might expect to find why the scientific community disregards this theory. Instead one finds cheap-shots, out of bounds tackles and unnecessary roughness. While it might feel good to hit the other guy, if it’s not completely above-board, it just pisses people off and doesn’t accomplish anything for anyone.

Example, the first sentence begins “a key strategy”. Strategy implies motive which implies more sinister designs. Maybe proponents are sinister. I don’t see how you can establish motive by quoting his detractors. This section is a mess. I don’t have a lot of constructive criticism here, I know. But I can say I know a mess when I see one. This is not “Controversy” this is an attempt to characterize the legal manipulations surrounding this theory. That’s an interesting subject, perhaps even worthy of its own article. But it sure as heck isn’t “Controversy”.

This is because there isn't ANY controversy. They are either trying to get ID into schools or not. What is the fact? They have either succeeded or they haven’t succeeded in this endeavor. That’s a fact, Jack. “They” are somebody. Who are “they”? (Without taking shots.)

"Defining Intelligent Design as science" is a pretty damn good section with a terrible title. Under this title one would expect to read why Intelligent Design is science. Instead I find controversy. Unlike the section above, this “controversy” is controversy! This section is excellent because it begins to explain to the layman why the theory may or may not be science.

“Peer Review” editorializes and attempts to paint a picture which may or may not be true. This section is a can-of-worms because now you’re arguing about what the definition of Peer Review means. One would expect that a revolutionary theory would not be widely accepted. They never are. Check the history of the asteroid impact wiping out the dinosaurs. That took thirty years to get accepted. Therefore I would recommend that this section article avoid "unecessary roughness". It doesn't help prove your point and it only pisses the opposition off.

“Intelligence as an observable …” Another good section with a bad title. The title should tell me what I’m going to read, not what your going to knock down. “Arguments of Ignorance” has problems, but I don’t have time to document them. I have to go to work, so I can’t finish out my comments today. However, I hope I’ve made some constructive suggestions. Everwill 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)