User talk:ProtoCat

resp to cuerden

 * Whether you like it or not there is a spectrum of overlap to some degree of relgious beliefs and political stance. Bible literalists and conservative are to the right and atheists and liberals are to the left in general. Now of course this is a multidimensional representation. Now of course there are conservative atheists and liberal bible literalists but that is unusual and I think you know that. And of course we can overlap economics with socialists and capitalist etc. etc. Do you really not understand how multidimensional all of this  can be? Ahd there are christian arabs and muslim irishmen.


 * Really what point were you trying to make? I can ask on a certain spectrum where does one stand. And of course the spectrum is not perfect. I am sure George Bush has some liberal views. You really don't understand this? I really am not understanding what you are getting at. ProtoCat 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but your phrasing explicitly offers the choice between conservative fundamentalist Christians or liberal atheists. Those are certainly not the only two possibilities: Liberal and Christian is not uncommon. Conservative and Jewish. Liberal and Jewish. Conservative and atheistic (not that uncommon outside of America). The sentence offers only two possible pairings, as if every conservative must be a bible thumper, not just a believer in laissez-faire economics, and every liberal must reject all gods, including those new age ones.

This is nonsense. Adam Cuerden talk 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not nonsense. Just might be a concept beyond your understanding. Really I would prefer if you did not converse with me. I am asking politely. You seem to be stalking me. ProtoCat 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's stalking you toanswer a question on your talk page under the topic "response to Cuerden" that you directed me to in Talk:Intelligent design which I've been following for weeks? My good fellow, I think you seriously need to get a bit of perspective. Adam Cuerden talk 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Knock off the bullshit. Anyone can post on your page and anyone can look your page up to see what's going on.  Also, before you make accusations of wiki-stalking, make sure you know just what the hell wikistalking is.  This (my post and Adam's) ain't it.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to be talked to with profanities. Please link me to what wikistalking is. And is it not against the rules to use words like 'bullshit', 'hell' And I say 'seem to be' Can someone keep talking about off topic subjects? Is that not against the rules? ProtoCat 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bluntness is often best when dealing with an SPA that just might be a troll. Look up wikistalking on your own.  No point in me taking up your sacred user space any longer.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I looked up stalking and that is following someone from one article to another. well I was followed just once so a pattern would have to appear. And I did say 'it seems' and the talk page guidelines tells us to do that.


 * Now as far as profanity in the civility section it says it is against the rules to use profanity and further "Bullshit

Generally used in the same context as shit; however, it can be used to express a lie or disbelief ("That's bullshit!"). Also used as the name of a popular card game. Occasionally "horseshit"."


 * This is a direct quote from the rules.


 * So please review especically the civility rules and make wiki a productive place. Thank you ProtoCat 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've edited one, repeat one, article. How can anyone follow you from aricle to article?  See Single-purpose account and note "such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny".  That was precisely what Adam did.  But, by basically telling him to go away, and accusing him of stalking, you raised the concern level regarding your edits.
 * See WP:NOT &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Thank you.
Your [contribution history] shows little more than misinterpreting other editors' talk page contributions and engaging in or encouraging tangential discussions, rather than discussing the actual articles. Please review the [Talk Page guidelines] and try to adhere to them. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you are the only one misinterpreting. Please stop harassing me. Thank you.

ProtoCat 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am misinterpreting your posts, I am not the only editor to be doing so.


 * that was initiated by end. DavidPesta 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) It didnt seem to make sense but in {good faith} I asked him to clarify. ProtoCat 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not trying to harass you. I simply want you to be aware of the [Talk Page guidelines] and to follow them. This helps make Wikipedia a better place for all of us, and thus improves the quality of our collaboration. SheffieldSteel 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what in the guidelines am I going against? ProtoCat 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially, "Keep on topic." Talk pages are there for discussing the article, not the subject. In other words, one should use Talk:Intelligent Design to discuss the article on ID, but not the merits, or finer points, of ID itself, except for the purpose of improving the article. Of course, editors often comment on other editors' comments, and while this is strictly speaking off-topic, in practice it is an essential part of any discussion. Therefore, and I realise this might be an obscure point, if post A says, "post B is off-topic!" it is generally not appropriate for post C to say, "post A is off-topic!"
 * Hope this helps. SheffieldSteel 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * so if I post something that is off topic if some rebuts what i say are they not guilty of not following the guidelines? ProtoCat 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt all of this off topic?
Between you and me (and whoever else is here), I go with Voltaire, who said: : "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool." I also find some of the estimated proportions raised by writers such as Barrow and Tipler, Polkinghorne, and Wald starting in about the mid-Eighties to be quite remarkable. But unfortunately proportions and large numbers are not valid statistics of themselves, and we simply know of only one universe to sample, and therefore cannot develop statistical analyses of what the odds might be against the conditions that exist in our universe. Thus they're not genuinely statistical, and as already stated by the scientfic community, these speculations about what are the implications of these numbers are not properly called science, but rather are philosophy and/or theology. Paulos' point was closely related. His illustration in Innumeracy:Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences spoke to common misconceptions about how rare even common events like a particular hand in a bridge game can be. His point is, very roughly put, that nothing gets proven by saying simply "now, what are the odds againnst that ?! Well, in the case of the bridge game we know the odds to be one-in-more-than-600-billion to get the particular hand that sits in from of each player, becasue we know what the number of possible outcomes per-card-dealt is at the outset (52 cards) and how many cards-per-player are dealt in a hand. When dealing with the universe, we simply have no way to assess what the odds are. And what ID advocates (especially Dembski) are maintaining is that they can calculate the odds, while other scientists and mathematicians are saying the ID advocates are simply incorrect about their assumptions and premises, which are purely speculative at best. ... Kenosis 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Paulos' point part of the article, and you raised the question of odds.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with exactly what Dembski calculated odds for. Did he really give odds on the creation of the universe? From what I remember he just did it for proteins or something like that. ProtoCat 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above was my response. Are you saying my response wes against wiki rules? Please explain. ProtoCat 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt this also off topic??
think it's safe to say that Kenosis did not mean to raise the question of the "odds on the creation of the universe" when he wrote, "When dealing with the universe, we simply have no way to assess what the odds are." In context, he is comparing real-world probability calculation with the far more simplistic calculations that can occur in Bridge, for example. End of tangent? SheffieldSteel 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What' you're doing wrong
I have to ask: Are you a native speaker of English? Because it may be this is a language issue. What you did wrong was asking what you evidently considered a private question on a public page, where it's presumed that, even if directly addressed to someone else, that everyone is invited to comment. You also invited me to your talk page, then accused me of stalking when I accepted your invitation, which was a bit... extreme, as well as overreacting to very mild profanity - Yes, the rules do say not to use profanity, but they really mean something like, oh, you know, degrading someone with angry cursings and belittling phrases. It was appropriate to ask him not to use such language in front of you, but you were overreacting again.

It doesn't really help that you haven't done much productive work. It might help you integrate a bit better to choose something you like and are knowledgable on that doesn't have an article, or not much of one - a book, a play, a composer - and, documenting carefully your sources, do some work on that. Intelligent design is a very established, controversial article, and probably not the best place to start out. Adam Cuerden talk 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you a native speaker of English? I am. It seems you are having comprehension problems. I overreated? You went bonkers when I responded to someone in a way you did not understand. I really think many of these editors have problems. So you did not overact to my * horrible * misdeeds? Please! And angry cussing is very uncivil when directed towards someone. Please. I might have talked off subject for a while but look how many others do the same. This all might be too immature for me to deal with. ProtoCat 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I copied this from further up this page • Build consensus • Resolve disputes • Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette • No personal attacks • No legal threats
 * Would you like to threaten anyone with a lawsuit at this point? It's the only one you're missing. SheffieldSteel 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My ears hurt, even with the volume turned off on my computer. ProtoCat, I responded to your question on my talk page. Can we all make an agreement to strike some of the more irrelevant exhanges on the ID talk page having to do with interpersonal judgments? They ended up being an additional tangent off of an admittedly interesting tangent from the main subject of ID. Maybe Sheffield, Jim and Adam will agree too? If I had my druthers, I'd strike or remove the angry exchange starting with the point where ProtoCat said: ''I think according to talk page guidelines your above post should not be here. Am I correct on that? ProtoCat 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)'', and up to where Adam begins to wonder if ProtoCat is a troll. And I'd advocate striking or removing the exchange starting with the question ''Just curious, do you think this article and wiki in general is overly influence by bible believers and conservatives or more influenced by non-theists and liberals? Your toast was little hard to decipher. ProtoCat 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)'' through the end of the section. Any interest? I'll drop a note on the talk pages of SheffieldSteel, Jim62sch, and Adam Cuerden, calling this suggestion to their attention. Maybe we can get a bit of a fresh start here. ... Kenosis 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please tell me where is the 'angry exchange'? And was my horrible sin the "Just curious" question? ProtoCat 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing was horrible. I chose not to respond because of the form of the question; others chose to criticize the form of the question, and the exchange obviously got angry.  I figure, may as well ditch it from that point if mutually agreeable to all participants.  Or is this about who gets the last word?  If so, I suppose leave it all as stands.  Or, maybe leave the question unresponded to and ditch everything after it in that section.  I really don't care that much. ... Kenosis 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keno, I found what you said was interesting and then I responed. I even suggested we might be getting off topic. Then I asked the *evil* quesiton. Someone could have asked me to rephrase it. I did not realize I am being deposed here. Frankly some of these people seem unstable. I do not like to deal with unstable people unless I am going to get paid for it. This place might be too immature and psycho for me. Thanks for your response though. ProtoCat 20:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No sweat. Gimma a shout if more than one person wants to broker some kind of agreement to forget it and just move on, presumably having learned something useful from the way the exchange escalated. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

evolutionist
- "An evolutionist is a proponent of such a theory." -   - This is what the wiki article on evolutionism says the definition is. I think a person can a proponent of something by logic and not faith. ProtoCat 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) -   - :Several problems. That article is POV POS. Yes you can be a proponent by logic, and in fact, I demand that (perfect reason to despise politicians even more). But "Evolutionist" is described, even that article, as a religion. And the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the best dictionary every on the English Language, states that: Nope, it's not. It is not a term that I would ascribe to any person who upholds the doctrine of evolution; an adherent of evolutionism. Adherent? Doctrine? Those are religious terms. Orangemarlin 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) - :: So a physicist upholds the doctrine of physics. Captialist, Biologist? etc? You really think that calling someone who is a proponent of evolution an evolutionist is a slur? Then why isn't the term creationist a slur? ProtoCat 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) - :::I don't write the fucking freaking definitions, the body of English literature and linguistics does. The "ist" does not imply faith, just the whole word. A creationist is not a slur, because it is defined as a religious description for how everything got here. You can call me anything you damn well please. You can call me an Evolutionist all day long if that's what floats your mythical ark. I'm just telling you that I don't take Evolution on faith, it's a science, so it's one of those Creationist ploys to try to make Evolution out to be a faith-based religion too, when it isn't even close. Might I suggest several very good dictionaries before you come here making an illogical statement like Evolutionist=Physicist=Capitalist=Creationist. Orangemarlin 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) -   - :::: You are being uncivil according to the wiki guidelines. Please apologize. ProtoCat 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC) -   - :::::What was uncivil about the above? I didn't call you names? I didn't tell you to take a flying leap into a lake? I even told you that you could call me names (an evolutionist) if that made you happy, even if it is highly inaccurate and pejorative. I even took you on good faith that you really believe in naming people "Evolutionist" because you believe that Evolution is a religion. However, your definitions were woefully wrong, and I asked that you read a good dictionary before you make a logical leap that was incorrect. If that was uncivil, then yes, I do apologize. But I do suggest if you're going to slur against me, that is "Evolutionist", and even compare it to Capitalist and Physicist, you should probably get your facts in order first. Orangemarlin 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC) -   - :::::: "I don't write the fucking definitions" you said that didn't you. Please review the wiki rules on 'civil" You sound unstable. ProtoCat 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)  -    - :::::::That was not uncivil. But if that offended you, I'll delete it. Orangemarlin 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)   -    -    - :::::::: Read the rules under civil. it was de jure and de facto uncivil. and immature. you are a doctor? a scientist? I am sorry I do not believe you. You sound like a high school kid. ProtoCat 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. Too funny.  Orangemarlin 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh by the way, I have read WP:CIVIL carefully. The use of profanity is not uncivil, only if it is used against another editor.  So, calling the definition "fucking" is fine.  It's how normal people in the world speak.  Maybe not in your world, but in most worlds.  Second, if I used profanity against you like "f--- off" or "you are a motherf--", well that's uncivil.  Lastly, calling me a high school kid, well that's covered.  But see, I ignored it, because, the best way to deal with uncivil comments is to ignore them.  And to save you embarrassment, I archived the discussion.  But you put it here, and I feel bad that the uncivil comments you made against me are now in the public.  I'll try to help out in the future, because after reading all of the comments before this, it appears you need some mentoring on the rules.  Just drop me a note whenever you need some guidance.  Orangemarlin 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I said you 'sound' like a HS kid. Using fucking and freaking etc. Now really would this be a good place for say a nice, say 10 year old girl to go for information if it was considered proper ettiquette to use words like cunt, cock and fuck like you think is OK? This is in the public domain. And kids look at it. Please do not say using words like cunt, cock and fuck are OK here. You are wrong! And I feel that using words like fuck and cock etc like you think is OK is more like speech a unruly HS kids would use rather than a 'scientist' or 'doctor' Would a Dr. say fuck and cock to his patients? Then dont do it here in public. ProtoCat 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I said I'd mentor you, so I am. You really should quit the personal attacks, because it's not going to help you going forward.  And your language is appalling.  You really should tone it down a bit.  OK, again, if you need some guidance on Wikipedia issues, please do leave me a message, and I'll be glad to help you.  Orangemarlin 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks? My language? You are the one that says profanity is OK here. I am against it and I want the rules changed. I do not think you really want to mentor me. I am beginning to think this is all not to be taken seriously. If people are not sanctioned for profanity then I do not think I want to be a part of this. And I feel sorry for children that might be offended by the bad language here. ProtoCat 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I should have pointed you to no personal attacks, so that I can mentor you through your issues. Again, if you need anything, just leave a message.  Orangemarlin 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you could start by pointing out the 'personal attack' and you could join me in making sure profanities are prohibited here. I would also like a policy where if an editor claims to be something (like a Dr or a scientist) they should prove it somehow. Otherwise people can falsly claim credentials they do not have. ProtoCat 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you raised these points. I'm here to help.  You should read ignore all credentials.  In other words, it doesn't matter what an editor is, just that they write well, provide verifiable sources, and adhere to a neutral POV.  I'm glad I was able to mentor you through the maze of understanding editor's credentials.  It's good that you've been asking for help here, because you can be a much better editor that way.  Again, if you need anything just ask.Orangemarlin 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you could start by pointing out the 'personal attack' and you could join me in making sure profanities are prohibited here. Well I have heard in the discussions " I am a scientist. I am a doctor' etc. Why do people say things like that when they are trying to make a point. Maybe the ignore all credentials should be read by them. ProtoCat 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're starting to catch on my young protege. I don't edit medical articles (mostly), because my credentials don't matter.  I edit Evolution and Creationist articles because I don't like religion interfering with education.  If I make a point, I make it using references or my opinion.  When I edit an article, I do so with references and no opinion.  I edit articles on volcanos, on dinosaurs, on WWII history.  My credentials don't exist.  You have made attacks on people based on their credentials.  It's not helpful.  I don't care what your background is, nor do I care about anyone else on here.  So should you.  But if you want to make a point to me or any other scientist or non-scientist, then you better have your facts right and your verification sound.  Once again, I appreciate your asking for advice.  I'm most willing to help out.  Orangemarlin 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You could help by answering the question I have been asking over and over again: Well you could start by pointing out the 'personal attack' and you could join me in making sure profanities are prohibited here. Well I have heard in the discussions " I am a scientist. I am a doctor' etc. Why do people say things like that when they are trying to make a point. When they should not be bringing up credetials? ProtoCat 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 The only time I mention I'm a doctor is usually being funny, quote Bones from Star Trek. "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a......" No one says you cannot bring up credentials. In fact, I think it's appropriate. What Wikipedia says is that you should ignore those credentials, that the credentials themselves do not bring authority to a matter. It's references, writing style, grammar, everything else. If a High School student wants to edit Evolution go for it, although mostly what I see is vandalism. A scientist is a broad self-description that is someone who has a lot of education (at a minimum), study and employment in the natural or physical sciences. So it could be a teacher with an MS in Education and BS in Biology, or it could be a genetics researcher and lecturer with multiple degrees. I have multiple degrees, but I'm 50, and the last time I took a science course was before most of the editors on here were even born. However, I'm well-read, I look up references, and I am opinionated. I keep the opinions to the talk pages. I use references in the article space. And trust me, I and many others, have reverted bad edits from editors who have a Ph.D., and we have happily kept edits from people who smoke pot and drink beer, and their knowledge of science may be how to grow the perfect pot plant or which yeast ferments the best beer. But they may understand certain sciences better than you or I. Orangemarlin 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You could help by answering the question I have been asking over and over again: Well you could start by pointing out the 'personal attack' and you could join me in making sure profanities are prohibited here. My definition of 'scientist' is much more stringent than yours. I would not consider you a scientist by what you are claiming. And of course anyone can claim anything here since there is no verification. You could be a HS kid having fun by pretending you are a Dr. And you seem more like the pot smoker type than a professional. And you said it did not matter so do not say I insulted you. I think you are not being fair here. You set people up. For instance the whole G_d thing. You say 'fuck' but someone is evil if they correct 'G_d'. And the jewish thing. Why did you bring that up? That could be a lie and how is that appropriate. Frankly you are making jewish people look bad. I might be jewish. And I have seen you say you like to taunt Christians. How is that good? Really I think you have too much animosity towards christians to be editing an article on a Christian (as you think) concept. I think you should not edit this article because you are not objective because of your intense dislike of Christians. ProtoCat 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew if I continued this conversation long enough, the truth will come out. Thanks.  Good luck.  Orangemarlin 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you agree with me. And I hope you will refrain from editing the article. ProtoCat 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These sentences seem to be erroneous "Intelligent design (ID) 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."

ID does not want to be an alternative but an enhancement or addtion to present theories. ID is not in opposition to Biology. It accepts 99% of what biology states now. This sentence gives the impression that ID does not accept natural selection which it does. And it accepts mutation also. It also accepts the scientific method. Or at least most of the present interpretation of it.

I think these sentences should be deleted. ProtoCat 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As the sentences in question are heavily cited, and you have offered nothing but your opinion, the sentences stand. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Where are the cites? ProtoCat 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) The article is stuffed with cites already, a large number of which support the statement in question. Nonetheless I added a couple more, tacked onto the end of the second sentence, but covering both. ... Kenosis 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC) "Enhancement"? ID is simply incompatible with science in general, and biological science in particular. If you haven't yet reviewed the article Scientific method, you might find it useful in understanding the difference between actual science and what the ID group refers to as "scientific". The current version of the sentence is quite accurate and should remain. Doc Tropics 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I have thoroughly reviewed the article. ProtoCat 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a theory of anything by any standard. It isn't science. It isn't Biology. That last 1% is what makes all of the difference. Orangemarlin 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) You are missing the point. ID is not in opposition to biology. ProtoCat 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC) No, it just seeks to create its own version. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Strange then that over 99% of all professional biologists feel that it is. I wonder why that is? Are all biologists just stupid then? --Filll 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Show me the cite where 99% of biologist think ID is in oppostion to biology. ProtoCat 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Uh, look at the references. 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The instant you insist on including magic, the supernatural and other assorted unscientific mumbo-jumbo, you are not using the scientific method. Intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology. And that is being generous.--Filll 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Who is including magic? or the supernatural. The point I am making is that it ID is not in opposition of biology. It accepts natural selection and mutations. Those sentence imply that a person who accepts ID rejects natural selection and mutations and the scientific method which is simply not the case. ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC) If you are unaware of the necessity of including the supernatural in science, you are clearly not familiar with intelligent design. You better do more reading.--Filll 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I think you need to do more reading and thinking. Do not just accept what your gurus tell you. ProtoCat 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they're accurate. Odd nature 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Where are the cites? ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC) How many times a month do we have to get into this conversation? Orangemarlin 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) It comes up often enough that I have to take my shoes off to keep count. The consolation is that once I'm barefoot, I can peel two bananas at the same time (ya just gotta love those prehensile toes, right?). Doc Tropics 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Prehensile toes aside, we should create a bot that zaps these repetitive sentences. Think of them as mutations that were not among the fittest. •Jim62sch• 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I wonder if Creationists will be selected against. Think about it. Evolution is the basis of all biological sciences, including medicine. Well, if they think evolution is false, then maybe they'll refuse products, like say a vaccine, that is a result of of evolutionary synthesis. Then they start dying off from smallpox or something. Suddenly, the world will be filled with evil "Evolutionists." Then we can take over their homes and cars. We can reverse the 2000 vote, and just erase George W Bush from the history books. Then I'd install myself as the Atheist Ruler of the Planet. I can see it now. Oh, sorry, I got distracted. Orangemarlin 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Evolution is not the basis of all biological science. You are aware that 'creationists' accept mutations and natural selection. Where do you get this info? Do you think creationists believe that allelles do not change over time. Of course they do. ProtoCat 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I thought we were discussing ID, not creationism. Oh, my bad, they're one in the same. •Jim62sch• 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Some creationists and intelligent design advocates believe that allelles change with time. Some do not. Some believe in mutations. Some do not. Some believe in natural selection. Some do not. Some believe in a young earth. Some do not. What most if not all creationists and intelligent design advocates push for is the inclusion of the supernatural in science, where it has no place. And as Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” So do some reading and learn what you are talking about before you spew more nonsense on these pages. Thanks.--Filll 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very aware of Dobzhansky's statement. I know what I am talking about. And that is uncivil to say I am 'spewing nonsense' Just because TD states something does not mean it is true. Is that how you accept things as truth. TD says it and you just agree without analysis? That sounds like cultism. Creationists believe in natural selection and mutations. Why do you think they don't? You should do some reading on it if you believe that. ProtoCat 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC) We are not here to proclaim the "truth", whatever that is, but to write an encyclopedia article. And all that matters is what is verifiable. And yes, what TD has written is verifiable. Sorry.--Filll 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) A man says something and that makes it a verifiable source? I don't think so. Sorry. ProtoCat 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Kinda depends on the man. See WP:RS. •Jim62sch• 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Well that was a great explanation. ProtoCat 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC) A freindly reminder about WP:Don't bite the newbies! Filll, thanks for pointing out Dobzhansky's article Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, a classic piece of literature written in the face of tremendous resistance from religious quarters. As to the more basic questions that keep popping up on this page, I like the notion of a link to a voice-mail message; can this be done on WP? "Please listen to the following options, as our menu has changed. Para español, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press 3", etc. ... Kenosis 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) LMAO! I love the idea, but I'm afraid we're stuck with doing it manually for now : ) Doc Tropics 00:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC) My point seems to be too subtle to be explained here. ::: My point is that 'creationsits' believe in natural selection and mutations. Show me any source that says otherwise, Please. ProtoCat 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I am sorry to disabuse you of your notion, but if "creationists" believe in all the same thing that conventional scientists do, then what is the problem? The problem is that they do not believe in all the same things. They believe that there is some limit to what natural selection and mutations and genetic drift can accomplish. The hand of God must magically appear to create species at certain times, since there is some sort of invisble species boundary that evolution cannot cross without exterior help. However, there are some creationists who believe this, and others who believe that God must intervene even more often and profoundly. And all kinds of other variations. There is no single "creationist" belief. Far from it. Some of them are so angry at each other that they engage in viscious attacks and diatribes against each other, since they cannot agree on what biblical literalism implies. It was always thus. That is why we have literally tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity, and several thousand different religious sects of various kinds.--Filll 00:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying creationist = IDer? I thought we were talking about ID here. I think you are mixing terms and issues ProtoCat 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) That creationists (in general) do believe in natural selection and mutations is plain wrong. Some ID believers do, some do not; as Filll has just pointed out. Please be aware that many ID-believers - and practically all scientists believing in ID - are far from being creationists. You should really check out creationism before saying such things. Filll's objections to your arguments were in fact correct. Malc82 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Uh, Protocat, you equated the two above. Read your own screed. Sheesh. •Jim62sch• 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Creationists are equal to ID'ers. There are a number of references that show that. And as for Protocat, I'm beginning to be convinced that we're not dealing with a newbie. Hmmmmmm. Orangemarlin 01:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) There are lots of ID-believers who aren't creationists, simply because ID in its basic form is a very vague concept and institutions such as the DI deliberatlely count peolpe with very different positions as part of their "movement". That being said, I also doubt that ProtoCat is a newbie. The last edits are bordering on trolling. Malc82 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, there do seem to be some similarities with previous editors. Odd, that. •Jim62sch• 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (undent) I dunno, they all start to sound alike after awhile. Maybe we should just copy-and-paste this section back onto the talkpage every few days; it would have the same net effect. Note that this isn't intended as an attack on anyone, but as a wry observation on the nature of certain controversial talkpages...Doc Tropics 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to tell if an editor is just repeating some nonsense picked up off of "Answers in Genesis" or "Creation Research", if they genuinely are confused and are asking a newbie question, or are intentionally stirring up trouble once again. It blends together. But the modus operandii of certain users starts to sound familiar. Orangemarlin 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Modus operandi aside (and acknowledged) and since we're already off-topic again and onto the creation-evolution debate for a brief spell, I think it deserves to be acknowledged that there remain many, many things that biology hasn't yet fully explained. Among these many aspects that require much more research, three things tend to stand out in this debate today: punctuated equilibrium, morphogenesis, and, of course, abiogenesis. With it understood, hopefully, that the words "intelligent design" don't successfully address any of these issues merely by attibuting these and other phenomena to, in essence "something really smart", it ought be conceded that there is a whole lot of work yet to be done in the various biological sciences. If, and I'm speculating here, if the underlying point that ProtoCat is trying to get to in some way is that some kind of consciousness is involved in these three phenomena and maybe others, a potentially useful theory or "sub-theory" in biology ought depend, I should think, on what's meant by the word "consciousness". If by "consciousness" one means a reciprocal feedback system of some kind that might be involved in the process of discrete speciation (closely related to Gould's observation of "punctuated equilibrium", part of the "controversy" that ID advocates have chosen to harp upon), I trust that biologists will in the future develop one or more "sub-theories" that better explain what occurs when species transition from one form to another. And heck, it may turn out to be some manner of change that's not merely a totally random set of gene mutations independent of any other factors. But that, of course, if it turns out to be what's going on, will require empirical evidence and a theory that can be replicated out in the field by the folks that do the hard work of investigating and cataloguing the numerous species. Which brings me back to ID, a proposition that at best has provided nothing useful in advancing the field of biology. ... Kenosis 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Protocat, the statement is accurate because ID is a rejection of science. To begin with, no science can be built upon deception. ID is built on a foundation of deception, and thus stands in opposition to biology. ID rejects methodological naturalism, which is the foundation of the scientific method. Biology is a science, built upon methodological naturalism. Thus, ID stands in opposition to biology. And finally, biology is built upon evolution. Without phylogeny there is no basis for an awful lot of inference in biology. Without inference, there is no science, just stamp collecting. A method of knowing which is built upon the acceptance of supernatural explanations is unable to generate new knowledge (as has been shown by the total lack of science on the part of ID over the last 20 years, despite the millions of dollars that they have had at their disposal). ID is an anti-scientific "way of knowing" about the natural world. Consequently, it stands in opposition to biology, which is a scientific "way of knowing" about the natural world. Guettarda 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again all of the above is your OR. Where is the cite that indicates that a propononent of ID states 'we are opposed to biology'? ProtoCat 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I disagree. First of all I do not think one can go throught a logical process and then make a conclusion and post that conclusion on wiki. I think that is what was done on those sentences. Where is the cite that indicates that a propononent of ID states 'we are opposed to biology'? And with the TD quote. Why can a man say something and then it is a verifiable source? I am sure I can find lots of quotes to the opposite. Many scientists have said that biology is independent of the study of origins. I can find quotes for that. Can I use those? ProtoCat 12:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC) No, because this isn't the Origin of life article. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The quote you took stands in the context of the political movement and the article already references dozens of sources that either implicitely or explicitely state that the political ID movement is in opposition to science. This is not at all OR. The TD quote is not "evidence" but a very well-known argumentation, which the editor maybe didn't want to point out in detail. Malc82 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The IDM is not in opposition to 'science' Please show me the source that explicitly states that. And ID accepts 99% of biology so how could it 'oppose' it? And where is the cite for that? I see how this works. Rules are selectively enforced here so erroneous statements can be published. Any good scholar would see right through this and from what I read people advise not to take this encyclopeda too seriously. I have asked for the cites on these things a dozen times and never got an answer. I think I see how this works here. ProtoCat 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (outdent) You are asking for a cite for the IDM being in opposition to science, is that correct? Which statement in the article do you feel is inadequately sourced? Please paste it here, so I understand exactly which statement you feel is unsourced. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to mentor ProtoCat, but it's been difficult. I think that ProtoCat, who makes a statement that ID accepts 99% of biology is unable to source that statement, first of all, but more importantly, since this is not a Biology article, but one on ID, which explicitly and implicitly denies Evolution through the only two scientifically reasonable processes, genetic drift and natural selection. Without those two items, what's there to have in biology? Orangemarlin 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC) “Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.” ID accepts 99% of biology? Source, please. ..... dave souza, talk 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I am not proposing putting my statement in the article. So I do not have to come up with a cite. That is my point. The article says 'ID is in opposition to biology' and I said that statement should be deleted whether or not it is true because it does not have a source. This is the way the rules work here. Sorry. But I am beginning to see that rules are not enforced. ProtoCat 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The statement in the article does not say "opposition to biology". Rather, it says, as it has for quite some time now: Intelligent design (ID) 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. Six footnotes are presently provided in support of this statement, which is also supported by a consensus-based choice of language that reasonably expresses the information gleaned from the various other sources in the article. By "reasonably expresses", I mean to say that reasonable, objective persons without a pre-existing agenda relating to how the statement is phrased would generally understand what the sentences are stating about ID, and that it would be regarded by such persons as consistent with what the WP:reliable sources also say about ID. ... Kenosis 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The proponents of ID have stated over and over that the definition of science has to be enlarged to include the supernatural (so things like magic and astrology and alchemy and magic spells and witches and ghosts and so on would have to be defined as science along with intelligent design and God and any number of other gods as well). I do not have a cite readily at hand, but I am sure I can find a few hundred if you doubt this. Just this alone is enough to make ID unscientific, and in fact, antithetical to the scientific method and pure poison for science. THIS is why ID is opposed by the vast majority of scientists and why it has lost in legal battles in court, as is well documented. You doubt this? You want sources? Read the article and its references and then get back to me.--Filll 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for cites over and over again and I do not get them. Those sentence seem to be OR to me. I think your logic in the above is faulty. But again we cannot use OR here. But it seems that what really matters here is how many people support a POV. Wiki is a good source many times but not always. Nothing is perfect. Like I said a good scholar will search many sources and see how a few wiki articles are erroneous. That's just the way it is. I can live with it. I will be waiting for those cites. Thank You. ProtoCat 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Actually, these sorts of claims are easily cited(and are in fact cited in the article I think) to both Behe's astrology comments in the Dover testimony and Jones' subsequent findings of fact in the trial among other places. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Show me. ProtoCat 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Footnotes 15 to 19, at time of writing. Really, I wish you'd learn to click on the little numbered boxes next to the information you doubt: It takes you straight to the footnotes in question. Adam Cuerden talk 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The sarcasm is unnecessary and borderline uncivil. I looked at the cites. No where does it say that 'ID is in oppostion to biology' Show me. Thanks. Of course a person can use OR to conclude that but there is no quote that says that. ID accepts 99% of biology so how could it be in opposition to it. That would like saying Einstein was in opposition to Physics because he did not believe in ether. Really Please. ProtoCat 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I smell a troll--Filll 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.” ID accepts 99% of biology? Source, please. ..... yes, Filll, something under that bridge? ... dave souza, talk 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) It has been so difficult to mentor young ProtoCat. He has not grasped the rules on civility and personal attacks. Well, maybe some of you can help out on his talk page. The sources, to which young ProtoCat keeps referring, are found throughout so many articles here, it would take days to list them. Orangemarlin 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to quote a bit of Behe's testimony at Kitzmiller to try and answer Protocat's question. I don't like doing this: Behe has an awful habit of whittering on for ages and ages. A. = Behe.

A. Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories. Adam Cuerden talk 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And where does he say he is 'opposed to biology' ? The sentence I want remove is where it say ID is 'opposed to biology' This above is discussion is about the term 'theory' ProtoCat 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"It stands in opposition to conventional biological science," where is the cite? ProtoCat 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ProtoCat 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't read citations much do you? From the Kitzmiller citation as given: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena." So if anything, ID stands in opposition not just to biology but to science. JoshuaZ 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)." - William Dembski How's that?Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC) You know, we ought to consider adding that as a cite, along with the others... Adam Cuerden talk 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) And where does he say he is 'opposed to biology' ? The sentence I want remove is where it say ID is 'opposed to biology' Saying he wants be biologists to have more understanding of engineering is saying is opposed to biology? He is dead on with that comment. Most biologists I have talked to do not understand how machines work. Most of them are categorizers. ProtoCat 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) He's talking about firing every professor who he can - that is, without tenure, dismantling all divisions of biology but the one that superficially supports his preferred metaphor, shoving the rest of the tenured faculty off into a ghetto-department! Zoology? Botany? microbiology? Mycology? Goodbye! Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Not that it was necessary, but I added three more citations to help reassure any wary participants that the editors of this article are playing by the rules of WP:A and other relevant fine print having to do with the substantive and procedural aspects of Wikipedia articles. ... Kenosis 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can put 500 number after 'it stands in opposition to conventional biological science' but if none of the cites actually state what the sentence says it is OR. I see how things work here. You make up something you believe in then find a cite that is in the basic same subject area. Then interpret the cite as backing up what you are saying. Clever but disingenuous. ProtoCat 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Six footnotes are presently provided in support of this statement, which is also supported by a consensus-based choice of language that reasonably expresses the information gleaned from the various other sources in the article. By "reasonably expresses", I mean to say that reasonable, objective persons without a pre-existing agenda relating to how the statement is phrased would generally understand what the sentences are stating about ID, and that it would be regarded by such persons as consistent with what the WP:reliable sources also say about ID. As to the extent of consensus involved in the statement in the article, that can be read: "an extremely strong and stable consensus" or "it's not even reasonably reasonably debatable that the point is settled". ... Kenosis 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) "objective persons without a pre-existing agenda" ???? Behe simply did not say you what you are saying he said. you are making your own conclusions because you do not like ID or DI correct? ProtoCat 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref for first sentence I spotted this while getting the above Behe quote:

"Its principal argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected causes such as Darwin's theory of natural selection." - Pamphlet used by the Dover Area School District, agreed as accurate by Behe.

This might be worth adding, but it's a bit of an odd source, so I didn't want to just go ahead and do so. As an aside, I like "undirected causes" better than "undirected processes", but assembling our favourite parts of all the variants would become more awkward than just paraphrasing in the end, and "Darwin's theory of" is just awful. Adam Cuerden talk 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's completely consistent with the existing def as used by the 3 leading organizations, of which Behe is a Fellow of 2, I don't see to need to add it as a source or alter the def. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Eh, evrything seems to need over-referenced of late. Adam Cuerden talk 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) WP:A does not require, and never required, a direct citation for every statement in an article. Summaries and other descriptions of one or more aspects of a topic quite frequently involve a consensus process about how something will be expressed in "original language", which is quite different from "original research". The additional footnotes, as FeloniousMonk has previously observed and with which I agree at this stage of discussion, help to make clear, to persons whose wont is to make hasty conclusions or assert pre-conceived conclusions about some aspect of the content, that the article reflects a great deal of attention to sourcing. Occasionally, there is legiimate question about whether a particular footnote properly reflects the article-statement(s) to which it is appended, or vice-versa. In my personal opinion that's more than fair enough (assuming it's a rational question), and I believe there may still be some more work to be done on those 170-or-so footnotes. ... Kenosis 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ayemm true, but so many of the questions of late are completely irrational. Adam Cuerden talk 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

oppostion to biology "He's talking about firing every professor who he can - that is, without tenure, dismantling all divisions of biology but the one that superficially supports his preferred metaphor, shoving the rest of the tenured faculty off into a ghetto-department! Zoology? Botany? microbiology? Mycology? Goodbye! Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yes he is saying that he does not think many biology depts are run correctly. I do not see how that means he 'opposes biology'. You are really stretching. So he does not like the present education system. he did not say 'I oppose biology' the statement is OR. no one has provide a cite. sure you are implying things from what he says. isn't that called 'quote mining'? ProtoCat 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) No! He is saying that biology depts should not exist. This most certainly means that he "opposes biology." He is not saying anything whatsoever about whether biology depts are "run correctly." He doesn't want a biology dept at all and would fire all non-tenure biology staff. Hrafn42 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Please. He is simply saying that the present crop of biologists are weak in engineering skills. Which is true. And saying you want to rearrange biology depts does not mean you 'oppose biology' quite the opposite. You want it to be studied more correctly. And still you are interpreting what he states in a metaphor about biology depts as his 'opposing biology' Really that is quite a long, long stretch. He is absolutely right on his explanation of theories and in this article he taken completely out of context and quote mined to death. ProtoCat 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC) "He is simply saying that the present crop of biologists are weak in engineering skills." He is not saying this. He is saying that the only biologists that have any value are those that have engineering skills and that the only form of biology that has value is that which can be considered to be a sub-field of engineering. This is a profoundly anti-biology statement. "Which is true." There is no reason whatsoever to expect Biologists to be trained in engineering, they are only tenuously related fields. "And saying you want to rearrange biology depts does not mean you 'oppose biology' quite the opposite." Getting rid of all non-tenure staff and placing all tenure staff who don't know a tenuously-related field (i.e. engineering) into a ghetto-department mockingly called the "Department of Nature Appreciation" isn't "rearrangement." It is the virtual destruction of the biology department -- a highly anti-biology move. "You want it to be studied more correctly." William Dembski is neither a Biologist nor even a scientist. He is grossly unqualified to determine how Biology may be "studied more correctly," and in any case seems determined to minimise the extent that it will be studied at all. "And still you are interpreting what he states in a metaphor about biology depts as his 'opposing biology' Really that is quite a long, long stretch." No! The "long, long stretch" is your claim that this anti-biology rant is a mere "metaphor." "He is absolutely right on his explanation of theories and in this article he taken completely out of context and quote mined to death." William Dembski is a dishonest religious ideologue whose pseudo-mathematical gibberish has been described as "written in jello" by a prominent mathematician. The quote is in context, and fairly typical of the ludicrous anti-scientific rants on his blog. Hrafn42 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) It looks like in context to me, if you think it is out of context please explain in detail how it is out of context. The statement that you are going to dismantle departments and completely remove most area of biology and that there will be no biology departments at all in his ideal world sounds pretty opposed to biology. JoshuaZ 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

is there a source, cite for the following? "If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)." - William Dembski How's that?Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by ProtoCat)

If you looked at the original more than a moment, you'd have seen the entire post is a link to the cited text. Adam Cuerden talk 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design"

I see how the game works. Anyone who brings up and objection is silenced somehow. Behe did not stay that. ProtoCat 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) ProtoCat 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
To be blunt, that would matter if maybe it looked that way in context. Now, if you can show why the context suggests that then you might have an argument. JoshuaZ 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase? ProtoCat 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The concern with the Dembski quote matters if you can show given the context of the quote that it is reasonabble to conclude thatt Dembski was joking. Otherwise, its hard to see why we shouldn't take the quote at face value. JoshuaZ 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

'It stands in opposition to conventional biological science' that was the quote. it = ID.

now you are saying that the concept of intelligent design is in oppostion to conventional biological science because one man has said that he would elimiate the 'biology' dept in a college and split it into 2 different depts one of which would be biological engineering. what Behe thinks about how college depts should be named has little to do with what a term means. Where in the standard def of this term does it say it opposes biology? ProtoCat 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the six citations currently provided to support the statement you are contesting. At some point, a reasonable editor would concede that a sufficient justification has been provided. Or do you intend to reject all six of these, and demand more? SheffieldSteel 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Ruling, page 64 ff
 * "Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds." William Dembski, in the forward of How Blind is the Watchmaker? Nature's Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science. Neil Broom. 2001
 * "If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new "Department of Biological Engineering"; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new "Department of Nature Appreciation" (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)." "Truly Programmable Matter", William Dembski, 10 January 2007 published at Uncommon Descent. Downloaded 24 May 2007.
 * "Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution’s threat to culture and society, 'abrupt appearance' implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its 'strengths and weaknesses,' and to alert students to a supposed 'controversy' in the scientific community." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 34 (emphasis added)
 * "Additionally, [leading intelligent design advocate] Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 30
 * "Intelligent Design ... supposes that the origins of living things require supernatural interventions to create the intricate, design-like, living forms that we see all around us." "Natural selection vs. intelligent design" From: USA Today (Magazine) January 1, 2004 Author: Ruse, Michael.


 * not in 'opposition to' different yes but not opposition. People who believe in ID accept most of biology as fact. how can that be 'opposition'? ID says conventional biological science does not explain a 'few' things. not that biology is completely wrong. ProtoCat 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Behe wanted to kill biology? He just said the present theories do not explain everything. ProtoCat 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) John has no problem with Jane's life, except the fact that her heart is still beating, and would like to inject her with something to change that. Is John opposed to Jane's life, or is his opinion of what is best for her merely different?
 * 1) Fred wants to remove the lowest 1% of the material making up your car's fuel tank, and replace it with a hose leading somewhere else (which he carefully avoids defining). He has no problem with the other 99%. Is there any way in which Fred's actions might affect the functioning of your car's fuel tank, or anything depending on it?


 * Youre kidding right? You are implying something that is not true. ProtoCat 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. Is ID opposed to science, or is it helpfully trying to make a small adjustment?


 * Centuries old? ID permits supernatural. Study harder. It does not. ProtoCat 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hint: if you can figure one of these out, the rest should be easy. They all follow the same pattern. SheffieldSteel 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They are bad analogies. You have got to be kidding. Well sure you are afraid of me because I can you how illogical your statements are. Oh just ban the opposition. That is science. ProtoCat 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been indefinitely blocked, because evidence at Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (4th) has shown that this account is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:Kdbuffalo used to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Orangemarlin 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I am not a sockpuppet. Where is your evidence? No what I did was raise valid arguments about very specific points. Somepeople think they own these articles. Really does not matter. Most people realize this is how it works on wiki. ProtoCat 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Compelling evidence?? And what is that? Well you are wrong. This is just a childish game I am seeing. ProtoCat 20:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Good bye.  Orangemarlin 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarline misidentifies another as a sockpuppet of Conservative and/or VacuousPoet. Den of snakes, OM is an enforcer.