Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 11 May 2007

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

• (2002-2003)
• (2003)
• (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?
• (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable?
• (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?
• (Nov-Dec 2004)
• (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
• (Jan-April 2005)
• (April-May 2005)
• (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits)
• Archives 11, 12, 13
• (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis
• (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV
• (Mid-Oct 2005)
• (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins
• (Late Oct to early Nov 2005)
• (early to mid Nov 2005)
• (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections
• (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text
• (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review
• (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors
• (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case
• (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision
• Marshills NPOV objections
• Reintroduction of Vast discussion
• Archives 27, 28, 29
• July 2006
• August 2006
• DI warning, DI and leading proponents again
• First archive of 2007
• January 22, 2007
• Jan – early Feb 2007
• Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007
• - April 19, 2007
• Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007.
• April 19-April 26, 2007
• April - early May 2007, including work on lead.

Points that have already been discussed

The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:

1. Is ID a theory?

   Fact and Theory

   Does ID really qualify as a Theory?

2. Is ID/evolution falsifiable?

   Falsification

   Falsifiability

   ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.

3. 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

4. Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?

   Argument Zone

   The debatability of ID and evolution

5. 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?

6. Are all ID proponents really theists?

   ID proponents who are not theists

   A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?

7. Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?

   Scientific peer review

   Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)

8. 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

9. 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

10. Is the article too long?

    Article Size

    Notes

    The Article Is Too Long

11. Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?

    Inadequate representation of the minority View

    The "fundamental assumption" of ID

12. 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)

13. Discussion regarding the Introduction:

    Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)

    Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)

14. Is this article is unlike others on Misplaced Pages?

    Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule

    Call for new editors

    Archives 22, 23, 24

15. Is this article NPOV?

    NPOV

    Archive 25

16. Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?

    Support among scientists

    "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation

    Archive 26

17. How should Darwin's impact be described?

    Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\

18. Peer Review and ID

    Peer review?

    Lack of peer review

    Peer Review: Reviewed

19. Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents

    Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?

    Archive 32

20. Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?

    Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design

21. 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

New York Times article

this article seems like a goldmine for discussing the political end of ID, especially the split in American conservatism over the topic. JoshuaZ 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I watched the debate (not because I'd vote for a Republican, but because I'm a wonky kind of guy), and when the question was asked, McCain seemed to stumble for a second or two. Interestingly, McCain, Guliani and Romney did NOT raise their hands. Romney was most interesting lending credence to the fact that the LDS faith is not anti-Evolution. Of course, if you watched the abortion question, I believe that the answers were unanimously right wing. But I wasn't absolutely sure. Orangemarlin 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance at the moment. The main task here is to report what the reliable sources say about intelligent design. Seems to me the creation-evolution controversy is another topic, and other political issues are relevant to yet other topics. Or was this just intended to give broader insight into the contemporary political jockeying in the US, with which ID was somewhat intertwined? . ... Kenosis 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are all bright people, so interesting information that frames this debate is useful. The fact that the New York Times states that "Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances." What reads like social Darwinism may in fact move this debate from a political one to a strictly fringe-religious one. Right now, a certain number of right-wingers might take anti-Darwinism to be a matter of political gospel, when in fact it's not. And yes, this is an American problem, but ID is pretty much nothing outside of the US. Orangemarlin 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis: not too sure I understand the vehement dismissal of the article. While the ID article may not be the perfect place to bring up the NYT article (Intelligent_design_in_politics might be better), it does have a bearing on the bigger picture of ID as a movement, which we do touch on in this article. •Jim62sch• 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Jim, I didn't intend to be vehement, nor dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps I could have said "I'm afraid I don't see the relevence at the moment", except I'm not "afraid" of not seeing the relevance. Orangemarlin explained it adequately for me, saying essentially that it's relevant to the wider context, to framing the debate. ... Kenosis 09:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not a-scared?  ;) •Jim62sch• 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - 1650: 6 May 2007

Intelligent design is the proposition, claimed to be a scientific theory, that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the ancient design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. All of its original proponents, as well as all of its principal proponents today, are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates assert that as a scientific theory it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Can we all at least tolerate this version? No "teleological", "leading proponents" paraphrased. If so, I think we can unlock. If not, can anyone who objects single out particular sentenences that are at issue, rather than attempting to rewrite the whole thing? I also think it's time for an archive of last week's discussion. Tevildo 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be stubborn here:

1. It is not "claimed" that ID is a scientific theory, it is flatly stated to be.
2. The quoted description of ID is complicated. In fact, I will state that natural selection DIRECTS evolution, just not willfully.
3. Sentence 2 is confusing. If it's an argument for G_d, then how can it not specify the designer. In fact, they do, if you read testimony from Kitzmiller, the Wedge Document and other parts of DI's goals.
4. The last parts are fine.

I prefer the original lead. It was clear, to the point, supported by references, and NPOV. Remember, DI is duplicitous, and we need to state that. What they publicly say is in opposition to what they say privately. See what I wrote above:

• Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing...Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority--William A. Dembski, 2004
• Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.--William A Dembski, 1999
• From Jerry A. Coyne ( Brockman, John (editor) (2006). Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vantage Books. ISBN 9780307277220. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)): Well, which is it? Is intelligent design merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science--an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom? ...you won't find the answers in the writings of the leading advocates of ID. The ambiguity is deliberate for ID is a theory that must appeal to two distinct constituencies. Toe the secular public, ID proponents eprsnt their theory as pure science. This, after all, is their justification for a slick public-relations campaign promoting the teaching of ID in public schools. But as is clear from the infamous "WEdge Document" of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle, and the center for ID propaganda, intelligent design is part of a cunning effort to dethrone materialism from society and science and replace it with theism. ID is simply biblical creationism updated and disguised to sneak evangelical Christianity past the First Amendment and open the classroom door to Jesus. The advocates of ID will admit this, but only to their second constituency, the sympathetic audience of evangelical Christians on whose support they rely.

Herein lies the problem. The NPOV would be to represent not only what DI is "saying" but they are "doing". We must show the duplicitous nature of ID in the lead. Orangemarlin 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be so weasely in our lead if facts are these guys are lying to the public. Orangemarlin 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are _not_ going to get consensus. This needs to be escalated somehow. It looks like FAR is not the way to go - to whom do we refer this? WP:ANI? Tevildo 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Orangemarlin's objections:

1. "'claimed' to be a scientific theory" is a judgment anyway. I'd agree to use the words "asserted to be a scientific theory". The response of the scientific community and the federal court system is given in the second and third paragraph, respectively.
2. The fact that the quoted definition is complicated should not be an obstacle. It's not excessively complicated, far less so in light of how complicated the topic itself is.
3. The second sentence states the verified fact of the matter in plain English, which is that it's framed in a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the "designer". This is resolved in the following sentence, which states consistently with the reliable sources that its main proponents believe the designer to be God.
4. I have no problem with the last parts either. The differences between this and the previously consensused version are merely syntactic, assuming that all the existing citations are kept intact.

... Kenosis 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One sentence that seems missing from the above lead that I thought was of benefit was "Intelligent design's proponents assert that what they call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer." This gave more description about what ID is about and better summarizes the article content, since both of these topics have their own section in the article. Morphh 23:55, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the idea of introducing these specifics in the "overview" section, which presently is lacking this aspect of overview. That is, one of the things presently missing in the overview is a specific, concise statement of the key terms, irreducible complexity, specified complexity and fine-tuned universe, the concepts that are explained in more detail in the point-counterpoint sections farther down in the article. Not that I think it absolutely needs it, but I think it would be an improvement to the overview section. ... Kenosis 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Since I'm dealing here with the issue of the level of specificity at the lead stage of the article, I also think that the statement about Michael Behe's court testimony is a bit too specific for the introduction. So I'd probably be among the advocates of placing that passage farther down, at least as far down as the overview section if not at the beginning of the "controversy" section. ... Kenosis 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I liked about the Citizendium article was the use of "contention" as opposed to proposition. contention suggests more contraversy and an argumentative/confrontational tone to the proposition at hand, which i feel is an accurate portrayal of ID.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's inaccurate and incomplete, the current version is much better than the proposed version. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, what part of what is "inaccurate and incomplete"? ... Kenosis 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro para reshuffled

Reading the above, it seems to me that it could help if we use the more detailed description as an intro, then cite the DI definition verbatim as their statement:

Intelligent design is the contention that features of life and the universe which its proponents call irreducible complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by current scientific theories about the evolution and origin of life, so must be the work of an intelligent designer. It is a version of the design argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be God. They claim that it is a scientific theory requiring a fundamental redefinition of science, and state that "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Natural selection isn't linked as it's a quotation, and could be linked and briefly noted as not being "undirected" in the next paragraph about the response of scientists. .. dave souza, talk 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) revd. 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you're among the most thoughtful, rational persons in these parts of the world in my opinion. But........ "Intelligent design" can't contend anything. I've no serious quibbles about much else that you've just put forward as a possible option for the article lead. I still think the safest route is to quote ID's primary advocates' website for the initial definition, consistent with past consensus (within the last year and three months at least) about how to introduce the concept/proposition in the first sentence. ... Kenosis 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had "is the proposition", tried "is the contention" then thought "contends" might work – it would with "ID theory" but I wanted to avoid theory too early. Changed to 2nd option .. dave souza, talk 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is no improvement on the current version. FeloniousMonk 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the current version, but think it could be improved by clarifying some obscurities. It seemed attractive having a direct quotation, as we did (cropped) for a while, but thinking it over, the term "proposition" used by Jones does show that it is the view of its proponents and not Misplaced Pages, so it's overall better to have the reworded summary as at present. See below for suggested clarifications. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, I think I might have started this whole war, because I reverted the lead to a version from the end of March or beginning of April. THAT version is the one that is the best. IMHO, everything has been downhill since. Orangemarlin 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's now like a sled, with greased rails, running down a 70 degree icy slope. •Jim62sch• 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reshuffle mark II

For comparison, here's the current lead first para –

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

It's concise, and close to the DI definition, but like that definition is too vague to give any idea of what the ID arguments are, other than saying they're claimed to be better. Here's a suggestion accepting that "proposition" is enough to indicate that this is the concept of its proponents, while giving more of an idea of the claims of IC and SC, and adding what to me is a very important point, that ID openly requires a redefinition of science. Note that the "undirected" which has been omitted from the current lead is a subtle reference to teleology, and could be translated as lacking an aim or purpose. Here's a suggestion with those points added to the current lead para:

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of life and the universe, described as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, cannot be explained by aimless processes such as natural selection and so are evidence for an intelligent designer. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that it is a scientific theory requiring a fundamental redefinition of science, that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The version OM favours put the "argument for the existence of God" first, and did not have the point that it's modified to avoid identifying "the designer". Would it be worth having a straw poll to get an idea of who else shares that preference? .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think OM has a good point: ID is a teleological argument at its core, it is nothing more or less. (Of course, teleological arguments are functionally fallacies as they attempt to prove that which can neither be proven nor disproven, and hence are neither scientifically nor logically valid. But I digress). In any case, "contention" is certainly not the correct word; and what comes after is not really accurate. We're going around in circles trying to please people who see ID as some sacred theory that gives a "scientific" voice to religion. In the meantime we are missing the forest for the trees and are creating leads that are obfuscatory and fallible. •Jim62sch• 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

God, no! Aimless is even worse than undirected! Adam Cuerden 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation Proposal

I would like to suggest that we take this to formal mediation, with the following parameters:

Involved parties

• Orangemarlin
• (Other users who are not prepared to accept definitions other than "argument for the existence of God" - FeloniousMonk? Filll?)
• RBJ
• (Other users who are not prepared to accept "Leading proponents" - Morphh? Adam C?)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• WP:RFC link - Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive37#Request_for_comment:_lead

Issues to be mediated

• Should the lead begin "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God", or "Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.", or appropriate paraphrases of either?
• Should the lead contain "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute"? If not, how should this fact be expressed?

I hope I've identified the two main issues that are holding us up. I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so it would probably be better if anyone who feels that they should be parties to the proposed mediation adds their own name before we make it official. Tevildo 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead has been completely renegotiated since the start of the RfC cited above, so rather than going on to another stage, what's needed now is identifying the areas of dispute, which you're doing, then another RfC if we can't agree a form of words. .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt whether another RfC is going to be productive, as I don't see how it's going to differ from the discussions we've been having over the past two weeks. However, if that's what we need to do, let's do it. I think that any formal process has to restrict itself to the above very narrow issues, rather than being a general discussion of the lead, if it's going to get anywhere - can we rely on everyone involved to do that? Tevildo 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

¡Mira, Sancho, los molinos de viento! ¡Los carguemos ya! •Jim62sch• 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know - which is why I think we have a case for going to mediation _now_, without the pointless exercise of an RfC beforehand. However, if the bureaucracy insists on it... Would there be any objection to putting the RfC on a sub-page (Talk:Intelligent design/RFC, perhaps) so that it at least has a chance of not getting overwhemled? Tevildo 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, Don Quixote was written in 1604, but the inverted ! wasn't introduced until 1754. Just in case anyone doesn't get the reference). :) Tevildo 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was involved with lobbying for ID to primarily designated a TA, I was envisioning something like "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God that proposes "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I don't see these as mutually exclusive phrasings. I think the second statement (even though its a ID quote) is better as a primary designation, but I feel a simple proposition is a weak non-specific noun when compared with linkable design argument.--ZayZayEM 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing here to mediate

Again, the tendentious and incessant gripes of the ID promoting crowd notwithstanding, there's nothing here to mediate: This article is accurate and extremely well sourced. In fact, it is one of the most heavily sourced articles in Misplaced Pages and its tone is consistent with all the most sources on the topic. That being the case, any misuse of mediation to force in less than neutral content into the article will 1) fail, 2) be viewed for what it is and only compound the already substantial evidence of chronic and disruptive pov pushing by those seeking to promote the minority (pro-ID) viewpoint while downplaying that of the majority (the courts and the scientific community). FeloniousMonk 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Felonius Monk has told me, by e-mail, that he was representing a large number of admins who think that the continued protection must end.

Fine. However, I'm laying out some ground rules:

• ANY edit warring will be met with temporary bans.
• Do NOT revert the whole article just to protect your preferred lead. You can copy and paste. Really, you can. It's easy. Takes 5 seconds more.
• Don't change all three paragraphs just because you dislike something in one.
• THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. Anyone using that as their purported reason for a revert will get a tongue-lashing from me. This is not to say you *CAN'T* revert, but actually explain why, e.g. "That was a well-cited fact. Revert to version in agreement with citations."

The current version is not necessarily the preferred version, but it's my best gess at the least controversial that does not compromise on cited content. Adam Cuerden 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather imagine the pro-ID editors won't like it, but let's wait for some specific comments. One minor change I'd suggest - "...a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories..." isn't very well-expressed. Can we lose one of the "scientific"s? Preferably the second one. Tevildo 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "...stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories?" Or, even better, "equal or better footing with established theories." Adam Cuerden 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the first option is better. "stands on better footing with" is, if not ungrammatical, at least unidiomatic. Tevildo 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We're probably going to need to combine the references: That is ugly. Adam Cuerden 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New lead is not bad. However, how can you have an overwhelming consensus? Isn't consensus by definition, well, kind of everybody? Orangemarlin 15:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what was suggested to replace having the wscientific scommunity "state" something, which is evidently impossible. I don't think that aspect really got discussed much beyond that objection, so... well, editing's open. Fix as you like =) Adam Cuerden 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the probability of removing all of that crazy HTML code stuck within the lead. It makes it very difficult to edit. Orangemarlin 16:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find it very difficult to edit without the code: I can't find where the text is because it's so outweighed in length by the references. I suppose we could be clever and use transcluded subpages to hold the longer references, but I suspect that would be even more awkward. Adam Cuerden 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't even get consensus on the HTML code for this article. LOL. Orangemarlin 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to suffer, provided you do the citing up if we agree to major rearrangements. Adam Cuerden 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whine. I hate cites. But if we want this to be a great article, I'll clean up the cites. Of course, I need to click back to the article to see exactly how many cites there are!!!! Orangemarlin 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say "major reorginisations". At the moment, the cites... should be fine. Adam Cuerden 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If this _is_ going to be an issue, my opinion is that we shouldn't encourage unecessary coding-based red tape - it's one more thing outside the text that needs to be checked during editing, which increases workload without an obvious corresponding benefit. Tevildo 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My current opinion on the lead is that it's factually accuate, but not really what you'd call well-written, though perhaps better than the older versions. Perhaps it's trying to condense everything into too little space, perhaps a discussion of Edwards v. Aguilard would pull out some of the awkward clauses (particularly the one about the leading proponents being connected with the DI). But it doesn't have, in my opinion, POV or OR problems, at least. I think the best thing we can do is add a section on Edwards v. Aguilard. All the oddly-placed bits seem to deal with the history of Intelligent design, and pulling them together should help. Adam Cuerden 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of (between the current first paragraph and the Kitzmiller one):

The roots of the intelligent design movement came about after the [[United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creation science (an attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Genesis creation account and Noah's flood, through supposedly scientific proposals) alongside evolution was unconstitutional. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon were then working on a creation science textbook, and after the trial revised it to eliminate the explicitly Christian material, replacing references to God with an unspecified designer, and dubbing the result "Intelligent Design". The Discovery Institute was founded soon after...

I dunno. I'm in another of my illnesses. Can't seem to shake them of late. Adam Cuerden 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather pleasantly surprised to see the current form of the intro. I made a slight alteration at the end where about 3 wikilinks ran into each other, but overall it rates as not bad at all. I think this shows that there's hope for the wiki-process, even if it can be painful at times, and everyone here deserves a pat on the back (except me; I've been shamelessly avoiding the worst of it). SheffieldSteel 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dammit Adam, I'm a doctor, not a...oh yeah, I'm doctor. So go see your doctor. A depressed immune system can be related to anything from exhaustion to something a heck of lot more serious. NOW!!!!Orangemarlin 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to take your Adam. SheffieldSteel 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield that was one of the best Doonesbury ever. Perfect!!!Orangemarlin 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I keep heading in. But they never find anything wrong. It's really frustrating. Adam Cuerden 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this lead sentence. I'd still like to see a bit on irreducible complexity and such. Morphh 17:49, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there ought to be a paragraph tracing ID's evolution from Of Pandas and People and Edwards v. Aguilard onwards through Irreducable Complexity, Specified complexity, and then into the Kitzmiller paragraph as it stands, though adding a mention of Teach the Controversy as its successor. But that's not really first-sentence stuff. Adam Cuerden 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On another front, I don't like Morphh's addition of a sentence on Irreducible complexiuit and specified complexity, as it defines neither term, so is just a jargon-related-to-the-issue list. I've left it in for the moment, though, as my attempt to fix it (below) got a little too complicated to make without discussion. Adam Cuerden 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FM may have asked for unprotection, but I don't think he wanted the article completely rewritten. Look, I'm sorry guys, but the lead is clunky, innacurate, and with the parentheical comment in the first sentence, utterly unreadable. •Jim62sch• 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate? I was careful to use the FA-version as the base, applying the changes to that, so anything inaccurate would be inaccurate in the old lead too, unless you dislike some specific sentence, which you're free to tweak. But I had to do something that would at least stall the revert wars, and, with full expectation of it being tweaked and changed, I tried to come up with some compromise that would suit as many productive editors as possible.

Change things as you like, but... I did what I thought necessary. Adam Cuerden 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Have changed from unprotected to semi-protected: Forgot how bad of a vandalism/POV-pushing magnet this was) Adam Cuerden 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Adam Cuerden, in addition to unprotecting the article, decided to rewrite the lead. My opinion is that it's now a conceptual and linguistic mess. It gives little or not credence to the "vote" staged a week or two ago, now archived. It also bears little resemblance to any prior version that involved a consensus process. But I'm willing to give it a bit more time to see where this rewrite goes. ... Kenosis 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Er... I know this is a little off-topic, but... do you think we're done with some of the earlier discussion? Because this talk page, even after removing everything before the vote, is still over 300kb long, which seems excessive. Adam Cuerden 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can archive most of it - certainly up to "Answers in Genesis", and possibly all the way down to "Unprotected". Tevildo 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested major addition

Intelligent design is a traditional argument for the existence of God (modified to remove explicit identification of the creative force) which claims that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences explaining that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science. Indeed, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified, under oath, that there is no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Intelligent design grew out of creation science, a more explicitly religious form of creationism based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that forcing schools to teach creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the principle of seperation of church and state. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon revised a creation science textbook they had been working on to remove most of the explicitly religious references, and replaced "creation science" with the term "intelligent design". This term was then picked up by a newly-founded orginisation, the Discovery Institute, with which all the leaders of the movement would be connected, This led to the term being expanded and refined, changing it from the original book, Of Pandas and People's assertion that things "began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact" to a more subtle definitions, for instance, Michael Behe's irreducible complexity which claims that biochemical systems where one part cannot be removed cannot be evolved, a claim disputed by biologists, and William Dembski's specified complexity, an expansion of irreducible complexity based on calculation of improbability. However, Behe was forced to admit under oath that irreducible complexity did not actally address the task facing evolution; and specified complexity has not been the basis for further independent reseach, and the one attempt by Dembski to apply it involved calculating the probability of a protein coming together by pure chance, not by natural selection. Intelligent Design itself went on trial in 2005 in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, and thus the public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as happened to creation science in 1987. The Teach the Controversy campaign follows it.

I think you can see why I didn't feel right just adding it in without comment Adam Cuerden 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's too long for the lead, if that's where you're proposing to put it. I personally think it would be OK to cut the lead down to the first paragraph of this version and put the second paragraph in the "Origins of the term" section (perhaps replacing part of what's there already), but it means we don't have the "Leading Proponents" bit in the lead - is this too much of a sacrifice? Tevildo 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On a secondary issue, I don't think it's right to describe creation science as "a more explicitly religious form of creationism". I know what you mean - "a more explicitly religious form of creationism than ID", but, without saying up-front that ID is creationism, the sentence as it stands is misleading. Creation science is (on paper, at least), _not_ solely based on the Bible, but on science, making it _less_ explicitly religious than the more honest "You believe in the age of rocks - I believe in the Rock of Ages" type of argument. Tevildo 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, can we cut it down a bit instead? Move anything that isn't important into the rest of the article (Where it *should* be repeated anyway). Let's work without references (much easier than all the cut-and-paste references force) and revise, noting the cuts so they can be placed elsewhere. Adam Cuerden 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice allusion to Inherit the Wind ;) Anyway, I seem to be missing the point of the overwhelming zeal to rewrite the lead. How does anyone feel that these rewrites are in any way an improvement? •Jim62sch• 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Work

Intelligent design is a traditional argument for the existence of God (modified to remove explicit identification of the creative force) which claims that an intelligent agent has designed certain aspects of biological life and the universe. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, established theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences explaining that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Intelligent design grew out of creation science, an attempt to scientifically justify a literal reading of the book of Genesis, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that forcing schools to teach creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the principle of seperation of church and state. Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon revised a creation science textbook they had been working on to remove most of the explicitly religious references and replaced "creation science" with the term "intelligent design". A newly-founded orginisation, the Discovery Institute, with which all the leaders of the movement would be connected, picked up the term, and expanded and refined it. The original book, Of Pandas and People's assertion that things "began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact" were replaced by more subtle, biomolecular definitions, such as Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, which claims that biochemical systems where one part cannot be removed cannot be evolved. However, Behe was forced to admit under oath that irreducible complexity did not actally address the task facing evolution. Other proposals such as specified complexity have not fared much better, and Behe himself was forced to admit under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Intelligent Design itself went on trial in 2005 in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and, like its predecessor, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, is essentially religious in nature, and requiring public school science classes to teach that intelligent design was an alternative to evolution violated seperation of church and state.

The "Teach the Controversy" campaign followed its defeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

The information is good, but I think the style is a bit too "chatty" - good for a newspaper article, but not for an encyclopedia. Some obvious changes - "seperation of church and state" needs to be "First Amendment", as the two are _not_ identical. I don't think that we can claim - er - common descent from the very crude Pandas definition to Behe. "Have not fared much better" is (a) imprecise (b) borderline OR. I think we should keep the wording of the current version as much as possible, and add information gradually, rather than attempting radical re-writes at this stage... Tevildo 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. Let's leave it for now, then, but make an effort to gradually add more information, while cutting unnecessary parts. Adam Cuerden 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as size, I don't think it is overly large. WP:LEAD#Length states our lead based on article prose length should be three to four paragraphs. However, they may be too lengthy and detailed. Morphh 23:41, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

For elsewhere

• Suggested cut: A public statement by the U.S. National Science Teachers Association described it as a pseudoscience, other public statements have agreed or called it junk science.
• Why?: While this rhetorically strengthens the side of the scientists, really, you know the real reason it's added is to justify Category:Pseudoscience. The new material will do the strengthening role.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

• Suggested cut: Specified complexity
• Why? Woolly, not-really-defined term which has never actually been rigourously applied as Dembski set it out anyway. Does it really need to be in the lead?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

It's what they call it, the main point is that the mysterious "certain features" are two varieties of complexity, not dissimilar to a famous pocked watch lying amongst some stones... or shiny pebbles if you're posh like Citzendum. In other words, their underlying argument is just a more sophisticated "this looks complex and sort of designed, so it had to be done by a designer". The sentence gives an indication of this argument, including what Jones called a false something (duality?), the argument that if evolution can't explain it, it must have been God or similar. Both varieties of "complexity" need to be mentioned as they're not treated as the same thing by the DI or by this article. dave souza, talk 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be in the lead. This topic has its own heading in the article so it should be mentioned. Per WP:LEAD: The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:

• Try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
• Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs.

We need to look at how well our lead summarizes the article content and follows the above recommendations. Morphh 23:45, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's hard to see how to deal with specified complexity briefly. It might be better to just make it clear that there are other arguments, but only mention the ones we can put across briefly and NPOVly. Adam Cuerden 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted rewrite and why

I've reverted to the last accurate and supported version. Recent changes were poorly phrased and not a meaningful improvement over it. We're not rewriting an FA just for the sake of rewriting it (and the gripes of those who'd like to see the article repeat the claims of ID proponents as fact). FeloniousMonk 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make bold assertions. Explain why things are less accurate, and copy and paste in reversions. I have reverted you. Adam Cuerden 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, why do I even bother? You lot are just going to keep doing exactly what you want, revert *any* attempt to change the lead, and then in a few years lose FA just like Evolution. I'm frankly tired of this, and am just finding the whole thing depressing and frustrating, and it's probably time to just give up on whe whole thing. It's not bloody worth it. Adam Cuerden 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly Adam, it looks to me like you're the one who's doing exactly what you want, repeatedly trying to change the lead, despite no there being no inaccuracies or NPOV issues (gripes from the ID pov promoting crowd notwithstanding). FeloniousMonk 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't bloody bother. I'm a mass of frustration and depression just now, and having the second-worst week of my life. I'm not in the mood for any whining bugger who tells me the ball's in my court, then who's first reaction on me acting upon that is to immediately revert, not give any reasons for the change other than supposed "inaccuracy, and insist that the lead as it stood is holy writ, unchangable and immutable forever and evr Amen. Frankly, I'm getting sick of the whole damn wikipedia experience, and probably should just leave the whole thing behind. Spend three weels trying to reach a consensus of everything, despite projectile vomiting, being bedridden, and not relally wanting to? "Hi! Great! Thanks for your work. We'll be going right back to the version we like now, ignoring every issue that came up. Because, you know, weveryone who says bad things about our holy writ is a creationist."

And, yeah, I'll probably be sorry I wrote this in the morning. But the last week has made me about as close to suicidal as I've ever been, so the rage is something to cultivate, don't you think? Because, otherwise, the depression at losing another damn social structure (third this week) starts to set in. Adam Cuerden 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've been contributing to this article for 3 years now and this is just one of literally dozens of minor kerfluffles here. It's always like this, Adam; the three things you can always count on are that seldom more than half the participants are going to agree with you at any one time, that the ID supporters here will never agree to any description of the notion and the movement that doesn't repeat the spin of the Discovery Institute as fact (or at least so plausible that it stands in contrast to more neutral sources), and that you'll be accused of bad faith POV pushing for insisting on a neutral description of the topic or including the viewpoint of the scientific community. You've gotten way too personally invested in rewriting the intro, it appears to me, and clearly need a break. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got it exactly backward, Adam: The onus is on the one seeking the substantive changes to an article (which would be you) to make their case and gain consensus, not on those who support the existing version (which would be us). And as I said here before, I don't see your changes as any improvement on the previous version; in fact, it read worse. It was muddled and unclear. I'm sorry, but there it is. FeloniousMonk 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FM, please understand that I'm not attacking you. However, I have left several messages with you to get involved with this "process". I didn't think the lead needed ANY change, but a few highly POV editors pushed here, and Adam tried hard to build a consensus (although none really came out). From my standpoint, DI is engaged in a duplicitous effort to fool people. They pretend that ID is a science, and state that to everyone. But then when speaking to religious groups, they say it's religion. Well, that should be how we describe this article in the lead. I thought the original lead effectively stated what was going on. But now, we're, in essence, allowing the Discovery Institute to state their propaganda in the lead. We need you here! But please, Adam is doing the best he can, even though I don't quite agree with the end result (although I'm willing to live with it). Orangemarlin 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it back once again to the last version that reasonably resembled what's been previously consensused. I also reinserted the quotation marks and put in the correct quote for the definition of ID put forward by its "primary" (or is it "leading" or "principal" or "main") proponents here. This preference for the quoted version is about the only thing that can be accurately asserted to have come out of the recent "vote" too. ... Kenosis 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good quote

It has been unanimously rejected by the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and every other major scientific and science education organization that has considered the issue, including, we learned this morning, the American Society of Soil Scientists. Adam Cuerden 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. JoshuaZ 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just caught this. That last group-- think they're reliable? there's a lot of dirt in that business of theirs.  ;-/ ... Kenosis 12:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as neutral a source as Jones' summing up, but very useful. The paragraphs that follow it point to a fundamental issue:

"As William Dembski stated, unless the ground rules of science are changed to allow the supernatural, intelligent design has, quote, no chance Hades, close quote. In this courtroom, Steve Fuller confirmed that changing the ground rules of science is intelligent design's fundamental project... There's a reason that science does not consider the supernatural. It has no way of measuring or testing supernatural activity. As Professor Behe testified, you can never rule out intelligent design."

Which explains my suggestion that the lead include not just that proponents state it is better than conventional theories, but that they state that it requires a fundamental change in science. .. dave souza, talk 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The requirement of a fundamental change in the definition, boundaries and methodology of science, while definitely true, might complicate the lead ... unless you can be pithy about it.  ;) •Jim62sch• 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You taking the pith? Howsabout changing

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life."

to

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory which requires a fundamental change in the ground rules of science and is as valid as current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, or even more valid."

Pithyenuff? ... :) . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ick. How about: "Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, as this requires the collection of "empirical" data in the realm of the supernatural, the ground rules of science would need to be fundamentally changed." •Jim62sch• 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I bow to you as a wordsmith. How about:

"Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, subject to science being fundamentally redefined in terms of non-naturalistic theistic realism instead of the methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific method.

We've got references for this in the Defining intelligent design as science section. One point: Theistic realism has lately been tagged for lacking sources, and indeed it seems to have a lot of quotations without properly citing sources. Could someone with access to the sources tackle that? ....... dave souza, talk 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed minor changes

I hope that we've managed to reach something akin to consensus now - however, there are a few points which came up earlier that I think can be safely changed.

• Removal of HTML comments.
• "teleological argument" -> "design argument". (I personally prefer "teleological", but there was considerable opposition to it)
• "Abrahamic God" -> "God". (Fairly clear consensus on this issue earlier)
• Put NAS objections before "pseudoscience" reference.
• "support of the intelligent design hypothesis" -> "support of intelligent design". (Just my personal opinion, but, just before this, we've had a statement that ID _doesn't_ generate hypotheses). Tevildo 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All seem sensible to me - I've not been around for a while, but agree with Tevildo's suggestions..... Petesmiles 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One person does not consensus make. Traditional design argument makes no sense, Abrahamic God is there for a very specific reason, in short, it's no improvement. If you can get a consensus beyong just petesmiles and one or two other people, then fine. In the meantime, I'm restoring it to Kenosis' version. •Jim62sch• 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive39#Voting_on_the_nature_of_God shows a 6-2 majority opinion in favour of "God", and only one editor - me, as it happens - in favour of "Abrahamic God". I know, "voting is evil", but that's as clear a consensus as we're going to get on any aspect of this article. "Teleological", I'll leave to Orangemarlin. I'll give up on "hypothesis" as a lost cause, despite it contradicting what's said about ID in the previous paragraph. The HTML, see my comments above. Or is the lead now as the laws of the Medes and Persians? If so, at least let's put in another HTML comment to clarify that - and it's not a policy I support, if that needs saying. Tevildo 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a markedly limited poll, and involved only one regular (as in a year's time or more) editor. In addition, "God" cannot be assumed to refer to the Abrahamic God, which is precisely whom the ID proponents believe the designer to be.

Mot too sure where you're going with the Medes and Persians.

BTW, your counting is a bit suspect. •Jim62sch• 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I counted Morphh twice. If we're ignoring simple counting arguments, "God of Christianity" (from the source) might be a candidate. Daniel 6:15, incidentally. Tevildo 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, thanks, I'm not fond of the prophetic books -- like Stephen King on acid. The God of Christianity (aside from the triune nature that...well, that's a separate screed) is the Abrahamic God. And, while OM has noted that Jews don't believe this ID crap, there are several Jewish ID proponents who've been trotted out by the DI, and several proponents from Islam (Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design. •Jim62sch• 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe

I'd like to tidy up and improve this section - does anyone have any further information, insight or comments on any of the following points?

• Does Gonzalez/the DI actually argue that life couldn't have existed if the universal constants were different or is the current implication OR?

• Why is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this section?

• Does the DI promote or support the notion that evolution violates the 2nd law? IMHO they're too smart to be that dumb, but you never know....

Tnx - Tomandlu 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All valid questions...lemme go one at a time because I have to do a bit of research:

• Yes, see Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0-89526-065-4. •Jim62sch• 19:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now read some of the reviews, which seem to confirm that the book at least makes a partial argument that a fine-tuned universe is required for life. Hard to tell if it's a vague suggestion or a firm assertion. Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's been used by leading ID proponents. See . Dembski has actually been dumb enough to support that tripe. •Jim62sch• 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we can confidently say that Dembski is an idiot regarding the 2nd law, but should this have its own section - it doesn't really belong in "fine-tuned universe", does it? Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. As a creationist, I've always understand the application of the 2nd law in these arguments to be to the whole universe, not just to the earth. Both of the rebuttals here (footnotes 45 and 47 seem to be the same article based on a quick skim of 47 after reading 45) seem to express the idea that creationists (yeah, or ID proponents) are only thinking of the earth as a closed system. It would be good to have references showing ID proponents saying they think the earth is a closed system, if that's possible - or to highlight the misunderstanding.NigelCunningham 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that (the whole universe) be even sillier? Tomandlu 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How so? NigelCunningham 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I read 45/47 too quickly :) It's the ID side. Perhaps it would be good to put it right after the ID part of the sentence? That said, perhaps I'm still reading too quickly, but I don't see where in the DI article they assert that the earth is a closed system. NigelCunningham 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see . •Jim62sch• 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And this might answer some other questions as well . •Jim62sch• 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, he DI tends to pick and choose which parts of science/pseudoscience they are going to adopt. With the DI, it seems that anything Dembski says is OK by them as he is their "intellectual" leader.

Tom, 2LOT may not strictly belong in the section it's in (although that depends on how you define fine-tuning), but it is germane to ID as ID is simply creationism reheated. •Jim62sch• 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I still don't think that reference shows that DI thinks the earth is a closed system. My Googling has only found evolutionists saying the creationists say this, giving the impression this is a straw man. NigelCunningham 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NigelCunningham, please don't insert your comments in the middle of comments by other editors – I've moved it here for clarity. One creationist who presents 2lot as an argument for ID is Granville Sewell, and his article making the case is hosted by the DI. Two of his articles are cited by the Discovery Institute as "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", so you might say there's a connection. What was that about a straw man? .. dave souza, talk 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re in the middle, okay. Sorry. Re the rest, I'm not disputing the use of 2lot. What I am disputing is that it's used to refer to the earth only as a closed system. My understanding has always been that the argument is "If the whole universe is a closed system that has always existed, then 2lot means entropy should be complete by now." HTH. NigelCunningham 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> NigelCunningham, you seem to be thinking of Claim CF001.2: as put by Wallace, Timothy, 2002. in Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution: the link provided now goes to Wallace's response of 2005-2007. For other claims see An Index to Creationist Claims, and for articles on the subject see Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism. Note that each of the pages listed in the index has a reference to the original claim. .. dave souza, talk 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

I was speaking to another Englishman about ID/DI the other day. He was fairly well-informed, but was nevertheless amazed when I explained how the issue of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) was a major factor in the creation of the ID baloney. I've given up trying to make any changes to the intro, but this might be something for the holy guardians of the lead to consider (i.e. that it currently assumes that the reader will know about and understand how the SOCAS affects the issue in the US). Tomandlu 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate how this might be done,

The term was introduced in 1987 after the Supreme Court of the United States in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out the teaching of Creation science alongside evolution. Drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People were then altered to replace "creationism" with intelligent design. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

SOCA is already covered under the Establishment Clause, which doesn't mean much to non-U.S. citizens but seems a bit complex to introduce into the lead: perhaps this adds to the case for the first section being an overview which goes over the main points briefly with more explanation than is suitable for the lead. .. dave souza, talk 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC) corrected 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking it over,

The term was introduced after the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 ruled in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that requiring teaching of Creation science alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. Drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People were then altered to replace "creationism" with intelligent design. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was also a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Constitutional corrections welcome. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) corrected 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War! I was just about to submit:

The trouble is that this is only covered in the main article in one paragraph in "controversies" - a ", which prohibits the promotion of religion in state-schools." (or similiar). Not necessarily the lead - it could be in the overview imho. Tomandlu 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your version is better imho. Tomandlu 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave's version looks good to me also. JoshuaZ 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Dave was pithy with something.  ;) Looks fine. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of this issue had already begun within the last couple weeks, with Dave and I advocating a mention of the Edwards case and how ID was framed to try to meet the standard set by the US Supreme Court in 1987. I think the discussion should continue until the idea is either rejected or a way is found of stating the information to the reader earlier in the article than it presently is. Presently, this information is not given until the third paragraph of "Origins of the term". As of now, I think it should be at the beginning of the "overview" section, and Dave thinks it should be in the article lead. And I also think we still have not found the needed language to express this chain of events from 1987 to 1990 more concisely than it presently is in the "Origins of the term" section. ... Kenosis 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave Souza, being from the Isles, may have a better perspective than I do on this aspect of the information gap about ID, which would appear fairly consistent with Tomandlu's perspective and related anecdote. How about considering an intermediary fix, so as not to break up the 1,2,3 balance of the lead (what ID is, what the scientific community says, and what the legal status is). Under this preliminary proposal, a modification of Dave's, the "Overview" section would begin:

• The term "intelligent design" was first published in 1989, in the book Of Pandas and People, after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that requiring teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Edwards case, had also held held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."[cite to Edwards case.} In 1987 drafts of the school textbook Of Pandas and People, all derivativations of "creation-" were replaced with "intelligent design", a change involving over a hundred instances of the use of "creation science" and other uses of the root word "creation-". In the 1990's the term "intelligent design" became increasingly used by advocates of teaching a creation-based alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States.'

This proposal is submitted with the presumption that the Overview would just continue as it's already written from this point onward. .... Kenosis 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) year of substitution corrected dave souza, talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Errm, I'm not from The Isles, but from the Scottish mainland. The required cite could be "The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision." Ruling - context, pg. 31 – 33 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. – link to page 33, the three pages refer to Edwards which is also described at Page 22 of 139: "the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by 'restructur the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint.' Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593." In my opinion this and other info discussed earlier or raised by Adam can greatly improve the overview, but the particular point is important enough to summarise briefly in the lead, as suggested above. ... dave souza, talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Isles, mainland, whichever - the edit looks good to me, wherever you happen to be. KillerChihuahua 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmph. Thank ya', Dave, for puttin' it straight. Aw'Right, time fer a bevvy ... S'no yoor round, 's'ma round, ånd may yer lums reek lang ånd weil. ;-) ... Kenosis 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now, we have a valid citation to two reliable sources, Edwards v. Aguilard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. The latter concludes, based on the evidence of drafts of Of Pandas and People before and after the Edwards case, that the post-Edwards drafts of the book had substituted "intelligent design" in place of all the uses of the root word "creation-", such as "creation science" and other variations of this term. I think this is adequate to support the proposed paragraph.

If I correctly understand the views put forward by participants in this discussion, it appears that Tomandlu, Jim62sch, JoshuaZ, KillerChihuahua, Dave Souza and myself are in support of including this paragraph or a close variation thereof. I want to go ahead with inserting the paragraph, with these two citations for now, at the beginning of the Overview section. Any objections? ... Kenosis 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop chewin' the cud an' jest put 'er in'ere. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the proposed revision to the lead is accepted by the above as well as Kenosis' more detailed clarification to the overview – both can refer to the same references. Any objections? ... dave souza, talk 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cite to the Edwards case: 482 U.S. 578, 594. ... Kenosis 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Being economical (Scots!) I've added the page numbers/links to the existing reference to provide citations for the whole of the revised lead paragraph with one inline link. It probably makes good sense to repeat the exercise with the overview, or if all three links are suitable the lead citation could become "ref name=" for re-use with a suitable title. Trust the lead now explains things better for us ignorant foreigners ;) .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence with the quote from the Edwards case is vital to making the point. That's why I advocated putting it at the beginning of the Overview section. Arrgh. ... Kenosis 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kenosis. Except I have no parrot on me shoulders. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section on the origin of the term to overview and removed the info from the lead. As "First Amendment" and "Establishment Clause" are linked I don't see a need for what I've moved being in the lead. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Unfortunately this leaves the lead incomprehensible to us foreigners who aren't familiar with the US Constitution, introduces Edwards without explanation and loses the point about Pandas changing to the term to evade Edwards. It means we're relying on newcomers reading on to the Overview before they begin to understand these points. Anyway, "The term "intelligent design" was first published in 1989" is contradicted by the Origins of the term section, suggest "The term "intelligent design" in its modern usage was first published in 1989". There's an overlap with the latter part of that section, suggest it be merged into this introductory paragraph of the Overview. ... dave souza, talk 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang you Isles foreigners -- we have to learn about your bloody Magna Carta, you could return the favour!  ;)

Anyway, Kenosis reworked it, I'm OK with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not our bloomin' Magna Carta mate, and do you learn aboot the Declaration of Arbroath? Anyway, agree Kenosis has cracked it imo, all good. Now for the other points about the Overview sections... .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i did rework it, tentatively at least, until we can sort this out and arrive at a reasonable expression from an international point of view.

I very strongly disagree that "first published use of the term" is contradictory. Prior to the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People the words had only been used as a descriptive phrase attempting to describe something else, and even then only in transitory passing. In 1989, it became a term, a classification of a category of things, a subject or topic of its own accord. ... Kenosis 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair point that could be made explicit in the Origins of the term section. ... dave souza, talk 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Kenosis is assiduously working on that.

Yes, Dave, we did learn about the Declaration of Arbroath. What, do you think we're provincial louts or sumpin? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably learnt more about it than we did – too insular here! . .  :) . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen, I made several significant changes and a series of minor adjustments today in the article, the combination of which, I hope, correctly expresses the collective intent of the participants in this discussion. Tomandlu, thanks for the informative anecdote that you gave at the start of this section, which provided an extremely useful perspective on the information gap that needed to be filled. Hopefully it's now more-or-less taken care of, at least as far as mere information can go (until the next set of vociferous arguments of course). For now, good regards to all, and also to any and all particpating Scots whether from the Isles or not. ;-). ... Kenosis 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for all that work. The sentence "Its first published use was in 1989 in a textbook intended for high-school biology classes, and the term's use became increasingly frequent in the 1990s and early 2000's, culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classes." seemed a bit clumsy, and focusses on the term rather than the proposition, so I've modified it to "Its first published use was in 1989 in a textbook intended for high-school biology classes, and the proposition was given increasing publicity culminating in a 2005 trial challenging its intended use in public school science classes." Technically its use didn't go beyond an admin reading out a statement that "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" and commending Pandas to the class, but it was in actual use to that extent, so is "intended" necessary? Guess it does show that it was intended, or dare I say designed. ... dave souza, talk 08:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the wording of the rest of the sentence, proposition is decidedly the wrong word. "Intended" belongs right where it is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it seems a bit clumsy, I would first try breaking it up into two sentences. ... Kenosis 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I broke it up into two sentences, and tried a slightly different approach, keeping in mind both the international perspective discussed in this talk section and WP:LEAD. Gives the reader a quick take on how the use of the words turned into a movement, essentially all in response to the Edwards case. ... Kenosis 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its quite good, Kenosis, thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statistic mining

Currently the article states that a 2005 Harris poll concludes that "ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as 'so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them,'" but neglects to mention that 64% of respondents stated they believe man was created directly by God. As direct divine creation is a subset of intelligent design theories, isn't it rather misleading to leave the 10% statistic out there as though 1/10 respondents said they believed human creation was guided somehow, when in fact 74% of respondents said so? JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For my own part, just one piece among many persons involved, I advocated leaving it out entirely, based on poor statistical method, questionable operational definitions and phraseology by the poll-takers. But, the Harris Poll appears to have wanted to differentiate between "pure" or "traditional" creation-oriented beliefs about origins, and "evolution-based" beliefs about origins (I use the word "belief" loosely in referring to the "end-users" of these ideas, those who were polled to sample their views). And apparently they assumed that "intelligent design" is a whole separate category, which, well, as experienced editors involved with this article know, well, it is, sort of, and then again it isn't, sort of, and then again, it's a legal strategy, and then again it's about a "designer of some kind" and then again about "God", depending of course on which audience they're talking to at the moment, and then again, it's about redefining "science", etc., etc.

And that's only the beginning of the issues with this poll. But to be direct, I personally think the next question should have been something like: "If you ansered "God", please answer the following question too. 'If your church officially told you as a child that God would not punish you for picking the "evolution" option over the "God" option, would your answer be different? (Yes - No - Maybe)" and "If you ansered either "God" or "was guided by an intelligence", would your answer be different if we had provided you the option to pick "More-than-one-of-the-above" or "All-of-the-above" (Yes - No - Maybe so, maybe not). In a couple words, the sampling method was highly questionable.

As to what part of the Harris Poll is relevant to the article on "intelligent design", only one part is necessary, the part about "intelligent design" or however the Harris Group put it. The rest belongs in creation-evolution controversy or somewhere else (like the proverbial "round file") ... Kenosis 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

However, transferring this discussion from my talk page, JDoorjam and I were discussing whether ID is a subset of Creationism, which I believe it is. Orangemarlin 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes OM, and ID is a subset of the teleological argument, and panentheism is partly a subset of theism and partly a subset of pantheism and partly a subset of creationism, and so on and so forth. And (I say this in the friendliest of ways) "So what?" ... Kenosis 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care all that much. JDoorjam asked me on my talk page, and I told him I'd bring it here. It's all fantasy to me. Orangemarlin 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. With regard to the particular Harris Group poll presently under discussion, the most pertinent fantasy to me is the question, put very roughly (that is, about as roughly put as the more pertinent questions on broad-based issues most often are): "If you answered C, or D: How, if, as a child, you had not been taught that God would punish you solely for not believing in Him , would you have answered the question, in 2005, "Do you believe in evolution or in Me ?". Note very carefully that the Harris Group also had provided no option to say, for example, "Um, no, the question is ridiculous the way y'all put it". Misplaced Pages, ridiculous as it is at many times, at least provides this opportunity; and, I might add, given our common history I would think there's no reason to expect the argumentation about this article, complex, provocative, sometimes duplicitous, and often unnerving as it is, to stop at the present time... Kenosis 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the Harris poll either. The only strong reasons to keep it are 1) its the only large scale poll we've got and 2) The DI has the same objections . I wouldn't be surprised if they just got it from reading the top of this conversation. They do seem to spend so much time complaining about the state of this article. I suppose its what they do when they take breaks between all that cutting-edge ID research. Joking aside, the only reasonable way I see to include the Harris poll is to give everything verbatim and that seems to have its own issues. JoshuaZ 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with simply removing the poll, too. I went to try to improve the line, but couldn't decide what to put in. Other statistics quoted in the report only confuse the issue further - compare, for example, tables 1, 3 and 6. If it does stay, perhaps table 6 should be used. NigelCunningham 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with removing it; as it stands it's the half-expression of a badly constructed poll. JDoorjam JDiscourse 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Move the whole paragraph to Intelligent design movement, it probably fits better there anyway. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading section heading!! The interpretation is that of the Harris organisation, at a time when ID was not creationism oh no certainly not my goodness that is a coincidence that we're all in this big tent... A better summary:

A 2005 Harris poll identified ten percent of adults in the United States as taking the intelligent design position, that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them", while 64% agreed with the creationist view that "human beings were created directly by God" and 22% believed "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution).

As Jim says, probably best moved to the movement. It was introduced when polls claiming massive support for ID were being waved about, methinks such polls less likely now... dave souza, talk 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this move. The poll, to whatever extent it might possibly convey useful information, is more relevant to the article on intelligent design movement. The issue can, of course, be revisited later if the demand is strong for the Harris Poll and DI-poll information in this article. ... Kenosis 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I love subtle sarcasm, Kenosis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the movement article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Overview Section:

Hi guys, just browing the article, which obviously many people have put a lot of time and effort into. I just have a question, that may have already been discussed in another talk page. In the Overview Section, in the last paragraph it is stated that according to a Harris poll, 10 percent of individuals believe in intelligent design. In my humble opinion, this is somewhat misleading. I think the contents of the entire poll should be posted, so the reader gets a better grasp on all aspects of this poll. I think the reader is left to assume that, therefore 90 percent of individuals beleive in evolution, which is clearly not the case. I think it would be more clear if this sentence stated 10 percent believe in ID, however almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, or that "human beings were created directly by God." While approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution), as stated in the Harris poll. I think that would provide more clarity to this statement. Overall, it seems the editors have taken a lot of time to explain both sides of this issue. Thank you. 131.44.121.252 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks. A number of participants were just discussing this above, and deciding what to do about that paragraph which mentions the polls. ... Kenosis 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See above. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article in the news

FYI... this article is mentioned in news articles that are showing up on Google News: this and this came up in my customised Misplaced Pages section. Mikker 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the flurry of interest in that poll. So, Casey's out of date already! However, are these reliable sources? . . ;) . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Americans believe in Sasquatch, Alien abduction, and Miller Lite is really beer. I guess it makes sense that so many believe in Creationism. Of course, these articles fail to point out how bad these polls were. Orangemarlin 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article talks about how I and others dealt with Chahax :) Raul654 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I remember reading about that – so you've created another Martyr to the sacred cause of ID! Will it get as much coverage as Sternberg? Also note the complaint that we didn't mention that the poll shows "a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools" – so if they get what they want, you'll have to introduce more RI classes! (joke - we used to get a period a week of Religious Instruction) .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying lead

Well, I'm off on holiday in a few hours - it's kind of a last minute thing, but my rather spectacular meltdown seemed to merit it. It's looking a lot better now. I'm not... completely sure that things are always presented in the most logical order in the lead, but, well, I'm not going to argue about it until I'm a bit calmer.

I have made one change - revert it if you like, I guess, but I do think something needs done about it: "undirected processes" is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, so I kept the first, less controversial bit of the quote, but paraphrased the second bit to a more exact "unguided". I also changed "proposition" to "claim", as, well, with the "best" and all, it's being described in the proponent's terms. "Claim" makes that reasonably unambiguous, whereas "proposition" is a fairly neutral word that would go best with a neutral phrasing, or something not so strongly disputed.

It now reads Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" as opposed to unguided processes such as natural selection, which I think is a little more precise. See you sometime Tuesday! Adam Cuerden 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam, hope you have a pleasant holiday, and come back refreshed. ... Kenosis 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I must say I really like the new paragraph three. Great work, everyone! Adam Cuerden 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"derivativations" of the term

Hah! ;-) Amatulic, thank you so much for catching that here! (;-/ And yes, "cognates" well replaces either "derivatives" or "derivations " ... Kenosis 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

an old but stubborn error of semantic.

besides the fact that the references do not support the claim that both ID and WAP are tautologies (the references say only the common belief of many cosmologists that the WAP is a tautology), the statement is stupid and makes the article look stupid. we've been here before. a statement that is a tautology or truism is itself a "vacuous truth". it is about the most non-controversial statement one can make. i think it's reasonable to say here that ID is not considered to be uncontroversial nor "true" because of its very definition. ID is actually claiming something that is controversial, so much so that the "overwelming" consensus of science rejects it.

what becomes controversial is when such a vacuous truth is used to support a claim of something else that is not obviously true. sometimes the WAP is used to support the concept of the Strong AP or the Final AP, both of which are also controversial. just because the WAP is obviously true, does not mean that the SAP or FAP (or the "CRAP") or ID is true. WAP is a tautology, ID is a controversial claim. a controversial statement is not itself a tautology. r b-j 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, in all the sources given , the point is being made in the context of discussing ID. Odd nature 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

duh, your source do not support inclusion of ID as a tautology. they never have. and since ID is a controversial claim, it's not a tautology. not only are you being ignorant, you're being lazy. and you're expecting your ignorance to be reflected in the article. r b-j 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." (Known as the teleological argument) Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
2. Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
   Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)
   Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.
3. Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
4. See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
5. National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
6. "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
   National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
   Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
   "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
   Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
7. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
8. "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest
   "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
   Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
   "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
   "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
   Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science.
   "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
9. Kitzmiller v. Dover area School District, Testimony by Barbara Forest, Day 6, a.m., quoting Of Pandas and People.
10. Decision of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p. 73
11. Rich Baldwin, (2005). Information Theory and Creationism
12. Mark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
13. Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8.
14. Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch] by Richard Wein.
15. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles