User:ConfuciusOrnis/FAQ

This is a list of Frequently Asked Questions relevant to Wikipedia's intelligent design article. This page was created in response to certain topics being brought up again and again on Talk:intelligent design, wasting many editors' time and energy by forcing them to respond repeatedly to the same issues. The FAQ serves to address these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments by answering the various misconceptions behind them.

Why are you censoring my comments?!
No one is attempting to censor you. If your comment was deleted, archived or moved to your talk page, it could have been for any of a number of reasons.

The talk page is not a forum. The sole purpose of an articles talk page is to discuss changes or improvements to the article itself. The talk page is not for arguing over the merits of the subject, it is not for haranguing those who think differently to you, and it is not for gathering converts to your cause.

Many suggestions are brought time and time again, if you do have a suggestion, please read this FAQ and the indexed talk page archives first, as you may find that your suggestion has been made in the past. While consensus is by no means set in stone, you will never change it through argument or persistence alone. If you think consensus on a topic is incorrect, you will need to bring strong supporting evidence, otherwise you're wasting your time and ours.

While we encourage new users to get involved, you must understand that ID is a contentious subject, and the current article &mdash;the result of several years worth of work and discussion&mdash; is a frequent target for vandalism and POV pushing, and regular editors may seem snappy because of this.

Is intelligent design science?
ID is not science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory, because it is untestable even in principle, whilst all scientific theories are in principle dis-provable. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.

Further, ID represents a fundamental reversal of the scientific method, in that it begins with a conclusion ( there is a "designer", responsible for complex living structures ), and seeks to find evidence that fits with that conclusion.

Finally, by positing a supernatural explanation for features that can just as easily be explained with in the framework of natural law, ID violates the principle of parsimony.

Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?
the Discovery Institute continues to claim that ID has been supported by several peer-reviewed publications. However, to date there have been no papers published in peer-review scientific journals supporting intelligent design. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.

Broadly speaking, the articles on the discovery institute list all fail for any of four reasons:
 * 1) The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
 * 2) The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
 * 3) The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
 * 4) The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID

If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID, that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field.

Why is this article so biased against ID?
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid. It requires that we present the majority viewpoint of people in the relevant field as such. In this case policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of biologists, who are almost unanimous in their support for evolution. Before complaining that this article is unfairly biased against ID, please familiarise yourself with the following policies:


 * NPOV: Pseudoscience
 * NPOV: Undue weight
 * NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
 * NPOV: Giving "equal validity"

Wikipedia's only goal is to accurately describe the subject and the related viewpoints. If ID's critics have presented damning evidence, written scathing reviews or made a more compelling case than ID's proponents, that's not our concern. Our only concern is to accurately and thoroughly present both sides of the topic in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's, and this the article does.

Some editors have compared this article with Evolution, asking why there is no criticism when evolution is so controversial. The fact of the matter is, that within the scientific community, evolution is not controversial at all, and the evolution article reflects this.

Finally, other editors have complained that articles about other forms of pseudoscience give much more favourable descriptions of their subject. This is indeed a problem, though not as you may suppose with this article, but rather with those articles. This article has had more attention from more editors than any other pseudoscience article, because it's the only one that more than a handful of people take seriously. This pseudoscience, in fact, is being taught in some schools, in science classes, not philosophy or religious studies. So the ID article has benefited from a great deal of careful attention, because its the only currently viable pseudoscience.

Is ID really creationism?
Yes, ID is a form of creationism. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, ID proponents make it abundantly clear that the designer is the Christian god.

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, it becomes apparent &mdash;Discovery institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding&mdash; that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the discovery institutes stated strategy in the Wedge document.

Is the Discovery institute a reliable source?
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

The Discovery Institute has a well established, well attested to history of deceit, dishonesty and misinformation. Indeed, misinformation is a central part of their strategy, and as such their publications are considered a questionable source. The core mission of the Discovery institute is to push intelligent design, a canard - a deliberately false theory designed to repackage creationism as science. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. Particularly telling is the fact that they claim as supportive of their position discredited, withdrawn, or totally unrelated articles.

In light of this, the Discovery institute can not be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements, and even then we should be circumspect and seek independent verification if at all possible.

Past discussions

 * 1) Is ID a theory?
 * Fact and Theory
 * Does ID really qualify as a Theory?
 * 1) Is ID/evolution falsifiable?
 * Falsification
 * Falsifiability
 * ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.
 * 1) Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?
 * Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations
 * What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?
 * Bias?
 * Various arguments to subvert criticism
 * Critics claim ...
 * Anti-ID bias
 * Apparent partial violation NPOV policy
 * Why are there criticizms
 * Critics of ID vs. Proponents
 * 1) Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?
 * Argument Zone
 * The debatability of ID and evolution
 * 1) Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?
 * ID in relation to Bible-based creationism
 * What makes ID different than creationism
 * Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory
 * Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?
 * ID not Creationism?
 * 1) Are all ID proponents really theists?
 * ID proponents who are not theists
 * A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?
 * 1) Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?
 * Scientific peer review
 * Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)
 * Yqbd's peer-review arguments
 * 1) Is ID really not science?
 * ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...
 * Meaning of "scientific"
 * Why sacrifice truth
 * Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant
 * Intelligent design is Theology, not Science
 * Philosophy in the introduction
 * Why ID is not a theory
 * Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * Peer-reviewed articles
 * Figured out the problem
 * 1) Is ID really not internally consistent?;
 * Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID
 * The many names of ID?
 * Removed section by User:Tznkai
 * Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID
 * Defining ID
 * Figured out the problem
 * "Intelligent evolution"
 * ID on the O'Reilly Factor
 * 1) Is the article too long?
 * Article Size
 * Notes
 * The Article Is Too Long
 * 1) Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?
 * Inadequate representation of the minority View
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * 1) Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?
 * Irreducibly complex intelligent designer
 * Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time
 * The "fundamental assumption" of ID
 * Irreducibly complex
 * Irreducible complexity of elementary particles
 * Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus
 * Suggested compromise
 * Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully)
 * 1) Discussion regarding the Introduction:
 * Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)
 * Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)
 * 1) Is this article is unlike others on Wikipedia?
 * Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule
 * Call for new editors
 * Archives 22, 23, 24
 * 1) Is this article NPOV?
 * NPOV
 * Archive 25
 * 1) Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?
 * Support among scientists
 * "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation
 * Archive 26
 * 1) How should Darwin's impact be described?
 * Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\
 * 1) Peer Review and ID
 * Peer review?
 * Lack of peer review
 * Peer Review: Reviewed
 * 1) Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents
 * Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?
 * Archive 32
 * 1) '''Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?
 * Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design
 * 1) Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much?
 * The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates