Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 17 February 2007

Intelligent design

Archive

Excellent work on a highly controversial topic. It does have difficulties: It's a discredited arguement, (c.f. s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.), but a few, very vocal people still propogate it. A balance was, with great difficulty, attempted, and I think it comes as near to WP:NPOV (noting the "Undue weight" clause) as possible. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There remains some unsourced theories and material in the Intelligence as an observable quality. Until that is resolved I don't think the article can proceed yet.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Working on it... Adam Cuerden 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria and one of Misplaced Pages's better supported articles. Oft cited offsite as a good article on the topic by neutral sources such as School Library Journal, Jurist legal news and research, Univertisty of Pittsburgh, Talk of the Nation on National Public Radio, and Librarian and Information Science News. Offered as a source by Salon and as a primer by Science & Theology News. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 21 citations in the lead??? It's meant to be a summary of the article where information is referenced in the body. Web sources are missing date retrieved and publisher (website). Image:Time evolution wars.jpg is missing a fair use rationale - too many external links. M3tal H3ad 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of these seem like valid critiques and need to be addressed. However, just responding to the first concern 21 citations in the lead- the presence of those citations is due the controversial nature of topic which has resulted in everything being cited in great detail even when something is arguably a summary of a later information in the article. JoshuaZ 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read through WP:LEAD, it would appear that the lead should be supported like any other text (after all, it isn't an abstract). Anyway, there's a reason that everything is cited. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support An incredibly impressive article given the controversial nature of the topic. If this made FA it would serve as a great example of how this sort of thing ought to be done. But... according to WP:WIAFA, it really needs a "References" section that lists all of the sources that have been cited in the article. Given the number of footnotes, I don't envy the person who puts it together. But it really has to be done. MLilburne 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this is an excellent article and is especially well referenced. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fair use image (magazine cover) not significant to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Adam Cuerden 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: it’s a good article, but there are some issues that stop me from supporting just now:
  • The article (correctly) portrays the issue as endemic to the USA, but this is only said explicitly once, in the ‘Movement’ section, and it is not cited there. If I understand correctly, there should be a mention of this earlier in the article (maybe in the lead?) and there should be some kind of citation to substantiate the geographical disparity.
  • There are several definitions of ‘science’ or ‘scientific method’ in the article that are not thoroughly referenced. It may be enough to have them all share one footnote, but that footnote must appear next to each.
  • Per the Manual of Style punctuation at the end of an inline quoted passage should be outside the quotes, “like this”, unless “the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (‘logical’ quotations).” (Also, I happen to prefer Unicode quotation marks to ASCII quotation marks, but that’s not an objection to the article.)
  • Use a consistent dash style (outside of quotations, where of course the dashes should be preserved). Apparently the preferred style for the article is to use spaced em-dashes — like this —, but I’ve noticed several en-dashes.
  • There should be no spaces between punctuation marks and subsequent ref tags.

  —xyzzy_n 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. Not comprehensive - no treatment of how it is viewed outside US, UK and Australia. Also, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. See also is very large, per MoS the relevant terms should be incorporated in text. Finally - can we have some pictures?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on a controveisal topic. I do have a small quibble with the criteria listed in 'Defining intelligent design as science'. It says a theory must be "Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)" while at the same time being falsifiable. These would seem to be contradictory. Given that the "Evolution can't be falsified" argument is a common ID canard, this should probably be clarified. Raul654 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references? That's a rhetorical question by the way (please don't waste your time and tell me to read WP:LEAD. I practically have it memorized). The load of references in the lead is ugly beyond comprehension. Quadzilla99 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The rule as we have defined it is that the lead should established the notability of th subject, and summarize information found in the rest of the article. Thus, for a properly written lead, refs are not necessary, but not prohited either. This article is fine. Raul654 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could explain the rule to you backwards with my eyes closed so there's no need to attempt to explain it to me. I commented the lead was ugly and your basic response was "This article is fine." Quadzilla99 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you know what the rules are, you wouldn't have said "Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references?" when no such policy has ever existed. Raul654 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ugly but funtional. Being a controversial topic, content (especially in the lead) is regularly challenged or removed, especially by new editors. Referencing every statement in the lead reduces this problem, and thus improves the stability of the article. Guettarda 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as per comments below

• 2.5 out of the 3 lead paras discuss the controversy of the topic, and what it is not. More info needs to be put in on what it *IS*.
• The lead para, as per[REDACTED] policy, should not be so heavily cited
• You do not distinguish between footnotes and citations. See Roman-Spartan War for a far better way of distinguishing the two
• The "Creationism" navbar template is flawed, since it puts all the articles listed on a single footing and puts ID and Hindu Creationism on a similar footing, whereas ID and Young Earth Creationism are a sub-theory of "creation science", which is itself a subsection of christian creationism.
• "The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" - "intelligent design" doesn't have a stated purpose, it is just a concept. People have purposes, concepts don't.
• "ID" - I don't like this acronym being used, since it has a much more common usage for another word. I'd use the full phrase.
• "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology " Weasel words. Find someone who does say that and cite it, or don't say it at all.
• "Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical" Why? Were the earlier examples disproved? If so, I would mention this, it seems apposite.
• Proceedural Aside - I'm not sure I like the idea of the Featured Article Director supporting FAC nominations and contributing to discussions. the FAD is supposed to objectively review the comments made and reach a conclusion on consensus, this will surely be hampered by a personal involvement in discussion on the article

When these are fixed, I am happy to support - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This is not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article against Intelligent Design. Many of the criticisms may be referenced, but that the criticism is there, especially in the quantity it is, is POV-pushing. This is not a neutral article, but an anti-ID article.

• The criticism begins in the introduction, and 70% of the introduction comprises criticism or rejection of the idea.
• Almost every section other than perhaps the sections under "Overview" includes criticism of the aspect of ID being explained.
• One section ("Arguments from ignorance") is entirely criticism, without even putting an ID answer to that criticism.
• It argues some points rather than documenting them, such as the second paragraph under "Peer Review".
• It makes demonstrably wrong claims. The claim (in the first sentence under "Peer Review") that there have been no peer-reviewed ID papers, whilst supported by the first of the two references supplied, is contradicted by the second reference (which tries to dismiss the paper, but does acknowledge that is was peer-reviewed). It also overlooks likely ID papers published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation.

The above is not meant as an exhaustive list, but merely to provide actual examples of the bias in this article. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the peer review comment, the article states "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". This is what the sources say. The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed science journal. Guettarda 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT what the second reference says. The second reference acknowledges that there was a peer-reviewed ID article, as I said above.

The Journal of Creation is (a) peer-reviewed, (b) has articles about science, and (c) is a journal. So your counter claim is false.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The peer review section could be better cited but the rest of your claims are less than persuasive. If a topic gets a lot of criticism, it isn't NPOV to pretend otherwise. If every single aspect of an idea is rejected by the larger scientific community, that should be clear. Meanwhile, attempting to argue that content published in an avowedly creationist "journal" constitutes peer review of ID is funny at so many different levels...(and in any event, we have reliable sources saying there is no peer review material making your personal opinion about what constitutes peer reviewed papers irrelevant)JoshuaZ 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that the article should pretend that the topic doesn't get a lot of criticism? I didn't. And neither did I say that it shouldn't be clear that it's all rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Both those points could be briefly mentioned (not argued). I said that the article should be about ID, not against ID, which is how it is at the moment.

What provokes your sense of humour is irrelevant. That the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed is NOT merely a personal opinion. It is a fact, despite what your apparently unreliable sources claim. If you still maintain that it is not peer-reviewed, could you please show me where these "reliable sources" claim that the Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed. I will be interested to see if they exist, and if they do, whether they have anything to back up the claim or are mere assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reviewed by a peer, to make sure it follows creationist values" is not what is generally meant by "peer-review". I suppose that definining terms might help here. Adam Cuerden 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you didn't invent a fictional definition to argue your case. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some evidence that JC is "peer reviewed science"? It isn't ISI indexed, and while the Instructions to Authors say "Do not use too many big or extra words", there's nothing about peer review or any idea of the composition of the editorial committee. The assertion that there are no ID publications in peer reviewed scientific publications is supported by references, including evidence under oath by ID-proponent Michael Behe. Do you have any reputable references which say otherwise? Guettarda 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're simply looking for something that says that the Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed, see here.

I don't know why you are asking for a reference for peer-reviewed ID articles when I've already pointed out twice that one of the two references in the article to the very statement in question talks about such an article!

Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rayment's "strong oppose," appears to be just the sort of objection with no basis in policy or fact that is discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design as a bad faith or clueless objection. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that no matter what the answer was to one of Rainman's objections, including agreeing with him, he'd find some reason why the answer was wrong and simply raise another specious objection. Best not to feed the trolls. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any reason why the Discovery Institute's reprint of "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" is cited along with the original version from The American Spectator website? They say the same thing, and I don't have to worry about how on Earth I am supposed to indicate where it's reprinted using the template. Unless they have policy of making content unfree after a certain period of time, which seems rather unlikely given the date of publication, I see no reason to include the reprint.

And all web references --Rmky87 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the referneces go to the web but whether or not they are reliable. One of the most cited sources is the testimony and ruling in the Kitzmer case (and specifically, links to them on the web). These are reliable. So to complain that they are "all web references" is to focus on the wrong thing. Raul654 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- well-written and fully supported by references (which are necessary, BTW, given the controversial nature of the topic). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)