Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 12 March 2010

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Intelligent Design. Please see also the article-specific editing notes below.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID). To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject. Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god. In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept. The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons: The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article The article is not genuinely supportive of ID The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source. The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999 Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. "embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19. See also Sternberg peer review controversy. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog) Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44 "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

	Article-specific editing notes.
Please read before starting: This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience and related fringe theories NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below or use the searchbox below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	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.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
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 July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept December 14, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days

One of the Best Written Biased Views of a Famous Historical American Debate I Have Ever Read

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All meaningful questions and criticism along these lines are still covered in Question 4 of the FAQ. Archiving due to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM--LexCorp (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Misplaced Pages cannot tell this article fails as an objective piece with a straight-forward purpose such as to explain, discuss, inform, or present facts is beyond me. It is clearly primarily persuasive, attempting to set the American populace off in the direction of its rival's view and recent court rulings. Misplaced Pages cannot thus assume this article was written in good faith and neutral unless it is supporting a particular point of view itself. The article is clearly evolutionists' view of a two-sided national debate. For the most part, this probably reveals a severe weakness in Misplaced Pages's editorial policies, in that it is willing to protect voluntary labor and free contributions from anyone willing to embellish and giftwrap them sufficiently. Misplaced Pages's sense of fairness and even-handedness thus are taking back seats here to a majority view. And it is willing to yield control to any group's rival who is willing to move early into a scholarly vacuum and expend considerable resources in bludgeoning its opposition, as long as Misplaced Pages gets its publication rights. Why hasn't Misplaced Pages concluded that this article lacks an expository purpose, and is essentially persuasive in character? The article begs that question. The piece is to be commended for having an abundance of subtopics and references built on top of a historical framework. However, Misplaced Pages has earned the right to be criticized about editing naivety here. The naivety shown by its taking the carrot-stick approach, following tantilizing tidbits from one side of a national debate (most the moderators over this encyclopedic entry are bitter opponents of the topic's viewpoint), will probably go down in the history books. Is the abortion issue being handled with such obvious one-sided bias by Misplaced Pages? Are all national debates and issues? It is time for the American media to wake up and check this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.138.198 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is.--LexCorp (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• LexCorp, we have looked at the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is -- those explanations are NOT admissible. How is it possible for a skewed and biased FAQ to justify the bias in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "admissible"? This isn't a court, so adding random legal jargon does nothing for your argument by assertion - ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Admissible -- synonymous with acceptable, appropriate, and justifiable. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ is quite appropriate on a page devoted to discussion and it is justified by the number of repetitive questions people put forwards, so whether or not you personally find it acceptable, it will stay. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an FAQ, I'm talking about the FAQ on this talk page which quite clearly is biased in and of itself. A biased FAQ cannot justify bias in an article (since, as stated above by LexCorp, "Please see the FAQ at the top of this page for explanations on why the article is written the way it is." I have looked at the FAQs and I do not think those are sufficient and accurate answers to very reasonable and relevant questions. An FAQ should fairly answer frequently asked questions without any bias. It is very obvious to me (and many others) that this article is biased, and the rebuttals made on this talk page that attempt to justify the bias refer to the FAQ (which is biased). So what I want to know is: how can an FAQ that answers frequently asked questions with a biased perspective warrant the biases present in this article? --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to study Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. You seem unlikely to find that it fits your bias, but be assured that it reflects carefully considered Misplaced Pages policies and you won't change them by going on here about "bias". . . dave souza, talk 00:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User dave souza makes a very good point. Pointing out ad nauseam that you and other editors find the article and its FAQ biased is not very constructive. You should make specific criticism, by reasoning or argument, and discuss also on how Misplaced Pages policy and the article reliable sources supports said thesis and also if possible make an edit suggestion that will resolve the issue in your view. Then we can engage in a meaningful exchange of views here in the Talk Page in the hope that a consensus may be reached.--LexCorp (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and while you're at it, read the article on Myth of the Flat Earth and then try replacing each instance of the phrase "intelligent design" in the section of the ID FAQ that deals with the accusation of bias, with "idea of the Flat Earth". You might find it easier to grasp the principles involved in an area where you have no personal interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An aside discussion: After re-reading the Talk:Intelligent design/editing notes. I find them very informative and they seem to answer fully all the points raised by the "biased Article criticism" type of objections. Why were they removed from the top of the page? If because of length. Can not we implement a collapsing link as with the FAQ?.--LexCorp (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't notice I implemented your fabulous suggestion.--LexCorp (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You Sir are a fine man!--LexCorp (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you! You've done a splendid job. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Intelligent Design

It would seem that you are off by 77+ years in you description of the origins of Intelligent Design as illistrated in Michael A. Flannery's book "Alfred Russel Wallice's Theory of Intelligent Evolution" which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Alfred-Russel-Wallaces-Intelligent-Evolution/dp/0981520413/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263845908&sr=8-6

the second part of this book is simply a reprint of Alfred Russel Wallice's original publication in 1910.

This is in reference to the following description in the Introduction:

"The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state." NYC2LA (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the creationists are now claiming Wallace! Next thing, IDiots proclaim a belief in natural selection and spiritualism! However, "intelligent design" as we know it began in 1987 as stated and properly sourced in the article. . . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Handy link . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... So much for the guidelines against personal attacks. Simply suggesting correction of the true history of ID. Source provided.NYC2LA (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling people 'IDiots' reveals the extreme bias of the owners of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, sorry if you identify with these "design proponents". Unfortunately, that's not a reliable source for the True History of ID as such claims are rather commonplace. Wallace wasn't the only one invoking divine intervention in evolution at that time; Mivart, Owen and the Duke of Argyll had already been much more prominent proponents of such views. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is informative. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether I take it personally or not is irrelevant. I simply found it interesting that you would call someone an IDiot for simply pointing out a factual error - in good faith. I have not identified myself with these "design proponents" one way or the other. The entry in the article as quoted above is that "The concept ORIGINATED" after 1987 which is factually incorrect based on Wallice's writings as late as 1910. How is a reprint of a book originally published 100 years ago not a reliable source?NYC2LA (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I have no opinion on you, and am sure that you presented this information in good faith. My personal view is that Michael A. Flannery is an ID proponent acting with the idiocy which seems common in ID authors, though doubtless he's highly intelligent. Wallace's book doesn't seem to contain the term "intelligent design", he could be described as a precursor, but then so could Plato and Paley, as we show in the article, so he clearly wasn't the first. If he originated ID, then it originated as a form of theistic evolution in which God is replaced by a spiritualist belief, and natural selection is strongly supported. Shows how much it changed when intelligent design was formed from the ashes of creation science in 1987. Of course that would be accepting Michael A. Flannery's interpretation of Wallace, which is hardly reliable. Your own interpretation of Wallace would be unusable under original research policy. Trust you find that informative. . dave souza, talk 20:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated very clearly in the FAQ of this discussion page that ID = Creationism. If that is indeed the position of the consensus of the authors of this article then it follows that when the article gives the history of ID, it would be incorrect to say that the "Concept" of ID began began in response to the US Supreme Court case of 1987. You yourself have noted that the concept has predated even Wallace which is long before 1987. It is becoming clear that this isn't really an article about the concept of ID in general, rather it is specifically about the current ID movement and it's critics. If that is the case then the article should read "The current Intelligent Design movement began in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court..." or perhaps "Intelligent Design as it is currently known began in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court..." The way it is stated now is misleading in that it implies that the 'concept' didn't exist prior to 1987 which is factually inaccurate as you have essentially agreed with, even citing several others from history that held similar 'concepts'. NYC2LA (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "concept of intelligent design" could be improved. In context, it's clearly referring to the modern form of intelligent design, but the word "concept" can definitely be construed (as NYC2LA has pointed out) to include theistic evolution as a whole, which is definitely older than 1987. However, we still have this distinction to make: Intelligent design is different from other forms of theistic evolution/creationism in that it tries to present creationism as a valid scientific theory, and that is what began in 1987. Removing "concept" seems like a good edit to make, since ID is defined in the previous paragraph as being presented as scientific theory. If we try to add more distinction, I'm worried that splitting hairs between theistic evolution and intelligent design, especially in the lede, will detract from the quality of the article. Mildly Mad_C 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks to both of you. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth Merriam-Webster's puts the origin of the term "intelligent design" back in 1847. Gabbe (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see the #Origins of the term section of the article: The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove, and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin. – we give more detail than they do! We also draw the distinction between use as a descriptive phrase, and the modern term. By the way, we don't seem to cite a source for that, but this gives a handy reference. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. :) Gabbe (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Concept of ID traced back to 1759! . . dave souza, talk 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Has an exhaustive search been done?

Has an exhaustive search of every peer-reviewed scientific journal been done? The claim that "The article does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals" seems to be begging the question, and the sources do not seem to point to any exhaustive studies - they only present further arguments.  —CobraA1 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This was a significant feature of the Kitzmiller trial, as shown. The idea that ID proponents are hiding their peer-reviewed scientific journal articles is absurd. They do make claims from time to time, and invariably the articles are in inappropriate publications, and fail to support ID. An update to the article will of course be welcome, to be based on a reliable source and not on ID posturing. . . dave souza, talk 12:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that explains why creationist/ID organizations are now publishing their own journals. Thanks.  —CobraA1 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a source, but seem to recall that ID proponents pretty much gave up on their own journal without actually publishing anything resembling a paper supporting ID. More recently, this is an example of something with at the most something resembling obscure tangential "support" for ID getting into an inappropriate journal. More detail. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall AiG has their own journal. But I guess that's more creationist than ID. Just wondering, though, not saying I agree or disagree or whatever.  —CobraA1 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed publications, in science and academia, refer to verification by experts of the rigorous standards of methodology, ethics, and reasonable interpretation that research needs to be included in said publications. ID papers are not and cannot be included until reliable, repeatable, and reasonably interpreted studies with the proper methodology has been done and support the ID hypothesis. The publications created by creationist or ID organizations do not have these same standards, and are not considered by the scientific community to be sufficient. 07:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenaChemistry (talk • contribs)

Display the "Theory of Intelligent Design"?

I just looked over the article, and couldn't find any information on the "scientific theory" behind the intelligent design movement. (There is a source link in the introductory paragraph, but the "theory" is not actually printed.) This might be worth mentioning, since much of the criticism of ID stems from a perceived lack of use of the scientific method, and it'll explain the ID-ers claim to scientific relevancy a bit more. I'll provide a couple links that detail ID's reasoning: One from the ID-ers: ] Another from a more neutral POV: ] And of course, the one already listed in the sources: ] Does anyone else think that the "theory of intelligent design" is worth a mention? Bpenguin17 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the information that you're looking for is in Intelligent_design#Integral_concepts. But you know what? I did notice that the lede doesn't really explain any of the central concepts of ID. It jumps right into the debunking without really explaining what ID is. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not just the debunking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence states verbatim the "theory" of intelligent design given in the first and last sources, carefully describing it as an assertion rather than using the misleading word theory, which "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." As is properly required by policy, this assertion is put in the context of the vast majority scientific view of this claimed "science". If you'd like to propose a brief well sourced summary of the "central concepts" together with their scientific reception, that can be considered. . . dave souza, talk 07:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, not just the debunking, much of which is repetitive. Ledes don't need cites. On a side note, another thing I noticed previously is that the US federal court ruling is cited as if it has some sort standing within the scientific community. Nah, not enough free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This was actually an unusual court ruling. The scientific community made a case before a conservative judge, who accepted it and ruled. One day Misplaced Pages, and America, may possess the detachment to write about the situation, but for now it's enough to write about the facts. --TS 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the federal ruling in the lede might make more sense if we tied to it the fact that it effectively killed the ID movement as a serious political force in the US. Do we have a cite for that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection

I don't understand something about the various articles on "Intelligent Design". It is clearly understandable why there would be an article about this in wikipedia, because of the court cases regarding the introduction of creationist ideas in schools in america. What I cannot understand is why there are so many sub-articles like "specified complexity" etc explaining concepts which are clearly not encyclopaedic. These concepts which stem from self-published individuals and which are clearly not science since they have never been published in scientific journals but which claim to be scientific although at the same time flawed and discredited as such by scientists shouldn't be in wikipedia. Here is the reason why I think this: By this logic we would have to include books and literature published by individuals on a subject like e.g. astrology not only in a general form (as already existent on wikipedia) but in detail discuss the concepts - as if scientific - presented in these books. This would clearly be nonsensical and waste a lot of space. Why this particular set of self-published individuals gets this preferred treatment of discussion of their ideas in an encyclopedia is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.203.40 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although these concepts are not necessarily entirely scientific or encyclopaedic in nature, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is notability, not encyclopaedic-ness. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopaedia, so we can include any topic that is adequately covered by reliable sources, including ID concepts such as specified complexity. Having the sub-articles also serves the interest of keeping the ID article to a reasonable length. Thanks for your comment! Mildly Mad_C 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of new evidence

After reading through 58 pages of archived discussion, it has become clear to me that the patience exhibited by dave souza is irrefutable evidence of an infinitely benevolent force in the universe. This article ought to be updated accordingly.66.134.4.226 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I always suspected it was due to a genetic mutation myself. Auntie E. (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Golf Clap) thanks for the laugh. Nefariousski (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL also. Just put it down to Wikisloth and a misspent retirement. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect

The Discovery Institute does not seek to prove that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian God. It has Muslim, agnostic and Jewish scientists associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.249.116 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to tell us this, but Misplaced Pages requires attribution of such claims, and the statement in the article is based on a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The sources (footnotes 9 & 10) for the claim that the intelligent designer is the God of Christianity are 1) a Misplaced Pages article, which though it is probably accurate should not be used to source another Misplaced Pages article, 2) a dead link, and 3) a publication of Focus on the Family. Shall I add Focus on the Family to the list of WP:Reliable sources?

I'm quite sure Dave will not object if I just go ahead and replace those references with this one:

In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Is the Discovery Institute exclusively Christian?

Berlinski is a secular Jew and agnostic. .... A critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture,... http://en.wikipedia.org/David_Berlinski

...Dr. David Berlinski, a senior fellow with Discovery's Center for Science & Culture. http://www.discovery.org/a/2846

But those factual references can't be used because one is from WP and the other from the Discovery Institute. This would work:

Berlinski, a Princeton Ph.D. in mathematics who has written a number or popular books on math and science, describes himself as a "secular Jew" and "agnostic" with "no religious convictions and no religious beliefs."

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34048328/Delusions-of-Scientific-Adequacy

I don't know about Muslims; using this article would be OR and SYN-- http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/discovery-institute

Jonathan Wells has been a member of the Discovery Institute since 1996. As early as the 1970’s, as a member of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church,... http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/07%20Wellsv4.pdf

Yopienso (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Editing that page looks too complicated for the likes of me! So I won't change the footnotes, but there's all the information if anyone else cares to. Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You err in thinking that this source is Misplaced Pages – it's Wikisource and an accurate transcript of http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf which provides a well supported basis for the statement. While you may consider the god of UC members, Jews and Muslims to be different from the god of Christianisty, that was not the conclusion of the court. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about Wikisource. How I might define the god of various belief systems, should I care to, has no bearing on this discussion. I was providing the attribution you required of the unsigned commenter. Yopienso (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's intelligence

This addition appears to be original research, with no established connection to ID, so I've moved it from the article:

Martin Gardner quotes Albert Einstein as saying, "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many tongues.... The child does not understand the languages in which they are written. He notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order which he does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." ref>http://www.jstor.org/pss/185680</ref Einstein, in his 1934 book, The World as I See It, wrote, "But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=JFXWosy8ywYC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=einstein+world+as+i+see+it+utterly+insignificant&source=web&ots=dKeiZyk1OK&sig=hkkIxiuST_h02p7AyhYbWRODIJI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref He concludes a brief essay of the same title thus: "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." ref>http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm</ref

Since Einstein famously thought in terms of Spinoza's god, any relation to ID is tenuous at best, and this appears to be a peacock addition suggesting borrowed greatness out of context. . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity I'm pasting in a dialog with Dave I started on his talk page. I should have started it here.

Hi, Dave. Unfortunately, just as I finished (or almost finished--I was going to change something) editing the Intelligent Design article last night, my internet went down and I was unable to write you a note asking you to check it out. I see you have anyway! I didn't see the article is semi-protected until I was showing the preview.

In any case, I think the Einstein quotes are very relevant to the history of the concept and are no more "peacock additions" than the inclusion of Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Paley, and Browne. He would be the last in a string of great thinkers to have conceived of the idea of a higher intelligence behind the ordered cosmos.

I will come back later today as I really don't have time for this right now but did not want to just leave this hanging. Thank you for moving my contribution here instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, one big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID – there are plenty of references saying that Paley was a predecessor, and as I recall the same applies or should apply to the others. The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence "behind the ordered cosmos", like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence. Thus the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." A moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development continued in the New Testament", was an immature stage with a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility, would disappear in Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements. Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion. So, reliable secondary source needed to establish the connection. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, I'm home now and my internet's working. Yay!

"One big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID."

But his concept doesn't connect to the modern ID movement. For the most part, the modern ID movement is a thrust to justify the biblical narrative. Einstein would never have done that! Neither would Plato or Cicero if they stumbled across some version of the Tanakh. Aquinas and Paley are more precursors of the current movement. (Not familiar with Browne.) I think Einstein belongs in this chronology of philosophers, and would hope no reader would think Plato or Cicero or Einstein endorsed the present movement.

I understand the "Origins of the concept" part of the article to give the progressive history of the concept itself, apart from the current movement. The next part discusses the origin of the modern-day term and offers a link to a timeline. The timeline begins in 1920, when Einstein was 40, but the events it traces are far removed from any of his ideas or work.

"The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence 'behind the ordered cosmos', like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence."

Yes, your wording on this is more accurate. Still, he saw design and intelligence and reason, not randomness. I'm perhaps OK with the idea of a randomly fashioned design, like driftwood carved by the sea or the fantastic wind sculptures in the world's deserts.

"Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion."

I wasn't trying to please nor to ruffle them...nor anyone else; just adding relevant material.

In sum, I thought and think I had a worthwhile contribution, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing the facts, whether I'm allowed to publish them or not. I do have a little problem with your calling it "original research" since I merely provided germane quotes from a man of science and philosophy.

Now, the other business of reverting my correction of no ID article ever being published in a peer-reviewed journal is a different matter. It's not worth it to me to argue or get a referee about your overriding preference regarding my Einstein quotes, but Meyer absolutely did, by hook or by crook, pull off the coup of getting his ID article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Misplaced Pages has two long and contentious articles on that very deed. I'm astonished you don't see Harper-Collins as mainstream, but no problem--I'll use "The Panda's Thumb" and "Skeptical Enquirer." So that one I'll polish up and restore. Maybe Harper-Collins isn't mainstream cuz they just published Sarah Palin's Going Rogue!! :D Just kidding. (Hey, I know how to spell both rogue and rouge!)

Dave, I always feel hampered by this format where you can't see the twinkle in my eye. Yes, I have some fundamental differences of perspective and consequently of opinion with you, but I'd love to have a friendly visit with you over a glass of Shiraz. Best, Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just noticed that in my haste this morning on a borrowed computer I answered on your talk page instead of the article talk page. If you wish, please feel free to move either one so they're on the same page.

Came back when I found it's the National Enquirer but the Skeptical Inquirer. I read neither. Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ==============================End of copy-and-paste

Peer review and Sternberg

So, what I propose to do is change this sentence:

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

A specious argument could be made on what "supporting" means, but that is too nice a distinction. I believe it should be replaced with:

To date, the intelligent design movement has published only one quickly repudiated article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and its review process is a subject of hot debate. http://ncseprojects.org/news/2004/09/more-meyer-00565

It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Actually, I find I've left my flashdrive in my office and am not going to go looking now for the more than half dozen reliable sources I copied for this assertion. So tomorrow I may change it again. Aaarghh! Yopienso (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement noting that the article represented a “significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history” and was “inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” and that it is known that the peer review process was substantially bypassed for this particular paper. My opinion is that we shouldn't really change anything. In any case if we go on and decide to implement some kind of change on those lines then it is my view that we should then explain the publication "controversy" fully per Stephen C. Meyer page.--LexCorp (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The peer review was at best questionable, and this later source describes "the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory". The issue is dealt with in the body of the section, Yopienso apparently wants to move that discussion into the first sentence of the section, giving undue weight to a discredited paper showing a creationist negative argument rather than any positive support for ID. . . dave souza, talk 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to keep a false statement in the article? Yopienso (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What falsehood? The Meyers article neither supports ID as such, and shouldn't have been published according to the journal's policy. In addition, you can't say that something is "subject to hot debate" based on a 5.5-year-old source. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The falsehood that the paper was never published. The fact that the council later issued a repudiating statement doesn't change the fact that it was published. Just because people wish something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I agree that my proposed change should say "provoked hot debate" rather than "is a subject of hot debate." (Perhaps the only place it's still a subject of hot debate is on WP talk pages! LOL)

New suggestion: to avoid the kinds of explanations requested by LexCorp, why not just delete the false statement? Yopienso (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We have the oddity that when ID proponents had the opportunity to present all their "peer reviewed" work at Kitzmiller, they didn't include that one. You seem to be going further than them in claiming that it has any credence. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the article has any credence whatsoever, only that it was, in fact, published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you don't want to get in to all the in's and out's, (I don't!) let's just delete the offending sentence.

Here is what the WP article says about why Stephen C. Meyer did not testify:

This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions – William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This was purportedly because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own attorneys present during deposition, but Discovery Institute director Bruce Chapman later said that he had asked them not to testify (as well as Behe and Minnich, who testified anyway). http://en.wikipedia.org/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Background

We don't really need to extend our discussion into the question Dave has raised. But I do want to provide ample proof that an ID article, albeit much to the chagrin and displeasure of the scientific establishment, was published in a peer-reviewed journal. I am not passing judgment on the merits of the article or of the manner in which it was published. I am unequivocally declaring that it was indeed published, and further, requesting that the statement in this WP article saying otherwise be modified or deleted.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml

http://ncse.com/news/2004/09/bsw-repudiates-meyer-00552

http://ncse.com/news/2004/10/bsw-strengthens-statement-repudiating-meyer-paper-00528

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/mustread/

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk40.html

http://debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/meyer.htm

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=1369

"It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal."

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

Jim Giles

Abstract

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism. A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a.html

The Scientist.com likewise reported,

It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.

Read more: Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/38440&id=38440#comments#ixzz0gE5W5Syx (Registration required.)

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephen_C._Meyer#Peer_review_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

Yopienso (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that the article as it stand now is misleading then simply changing

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

to

No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

will suffice. Do you really think the change is absolutely necessary and that the article as it stands now is really misleading the readers? I ask because to me it seems a bit nitpicking and immaterial.--LexCorp (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I really think the sentence as it stands now is really misleading the readers.

This article seems on the whole to be quite accurate, complete, fair, and unbiased. (I admit I haven't studied every word of it.) It seems a shame to allow it to be tainted with an untrue assertion.

This, "No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals,..." is not true, except for the nitpicking fact that it is in the plural. The Meyer paper was peer-reviewed. The exact circumstances of the reviewing and the identities of the referees are unknown, but, after the initial alarmed flurry, no one is accusing Sternberg of totally obviating the review process. Some did allege the process was unorthodox. To get all those innuendos and explications into one sentence in an encyclopedia is impossible. The Sternberg peer review controversy article and the Expelled:No intelligence allowed articles track those controversies ad nauseum. Can we just leave them out of this one? The sentence is gratuitous. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No one is offering any reason why I cannot delete the sentence in question, so I'll go ahead and delete it along with half another such sentence, and change one word in yet another. The report of Meyer's paper being published in the BSW journal is right here in the article, annotated with footnote 193. We don't want the article to contradict itself.

As to why Judge Jones in Kitzmiller concluded no ID paper had ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I can only ascribe that to the foibles of our judicial system. One contributing factor was likely the absence of several Discovery Institute fellows as expert witnesses, and another factor could be how limiting the definition of an "ID paper" may be: Michael Behe is quoted in this article as saying,

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". (My bolding.)

The largest factor, however, is most likely simply the human one: this was one man's conclusion, and while decisive, another person may have decided otherwise. The SCOTUS, too, shows its human foibles in such contradictory rulings as the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 that says, at least in the English translation,

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Not quite 100 years later the court ruled in CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

So we must accept that Judge Jones wrote--or copied--what he did for his own reasons and accept his decision as the official word of the court. Yet at the same time we know that at least one ID paper--the one by Stephen C. Meyer--has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

To summarize:

1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?

2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

I'm assuming there is a consensus that the answer to both questions is "Yes." Yopienso (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. The paper as published and subsequently withdrawn was not properly peer reviewed, and in addtional it's questionable if it actually supported ID. Taking your assertions into account I've modified the rections you edited accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have in good faith sought consensus on this page; no one pointed out any errors in my reasoning. I would appreciate your joining the discussion instead of waiting to pounce and change my work as soon as I move forward with my unopposed plan. You have summarily removed or changed my work without any discussion four times this week.

"Misplaced Pages pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Please work together with me. If my assumption (not presumption, as you called it in your edit summary) is incorrect, does that mean you believe Stephen Meyer's paper, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," was not published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington? Surely you do, since it was. Therefore, you must mean you do not want the WP article to reflect that reality. Why not?

Did you intend to cast aspersions on the BSW journal with this sentence?

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal."

It is a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal. Meyer's paper may even have been properly peer-reviewed. If it wasn't, I don't think it's fair to the journal to characterize it as not properly peer-reviewed because of one article out of hundreds. Yopienso (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal presumably is usually properly peer reviewed, but as shown in the Sternberg peer review controversy, in that instance it wasn't, according to the publishers of the journal. Their statement, not mine. The fact remains that it predates a detailed examination in court of claims to peer reviewed publication, and we report the findings of that detailed review. Your speculation as to the reasons for ID proponents not even putting this discredited paper forwards is no more than speculation. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors withdrew the paper, saying it wasn't done right, wasn't in the scope of their journal. Getting published isn't a game that you can win by gaming the system. It's not like a trial where you can get off on a technicality. If the paper should never have been published, it can be withdrawn, sometimes years later like the Wakefield vaccines-cause-autism paper, or some others where it came to light that data was falsified. The role of a journal's editorial board in protecting the integrity of it's "product" doesn't end when the editor signs off on a paper. Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written "speculate that to be one of" rather than "ascribe that to."

Please answer my 2 questions. For your convenience, here they are again:

   1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?
   2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality? 

Fact: for a paper to be withdrawn, it first must have been published.

We want both facts that conform with reality and internal consistency in all WP articles. This one briefly and accurately recounts the Meyer episode in the "Peer review" section. I'm asking that the rest of the article conform to the facts there presented.

New suggestion: Change the troublesome sentence to, for example, "No paper on intelligent design currently stands in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or, "No paper on intelligent design has withstood the rigors of a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or some such.

This would be consistent with the treatment of the withdrawn Wakefield paper here:

"In February 1998, a group led by Andrew Wakefield published a controversial paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet. ... In response to the GMC investigation and findings, the editors of The Lancet announced on February 2, 2010 that they 'fully retract this paper from the published record.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/MMR_vaccine_controversy

I maintain that it is unfair and inaccurate to cast the BSW journal as improperly peer-reviewed:

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Another suggestion:You could modify your sentence to work in the notion Judge Jones eloquently expressed here:

"'A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory'."

As far as I have been able to ascertain, that sentence is completely true if we leave out the peer-reviewed publications that are unacceptable to the mainstream scientific community. Which we should.

New question: Do you think it is good policy to promote the statement of one court document against 15 reliable sources? Is this not giving it undue weight?

My goal here is to help improve a good, informative article. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI

I have just posted this on Dougweller's talk page:

Intelligent Design

I'm sure you're very busy, but would you have time to read through the most recent part of the talk page at the ID page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Intelligent_design The sections to which I've contributed are "Factually Incorrect," "Einstein's intelligence," and "Peer review and Sternberg."

I am now retiring from the scene unless I am asked for further comment. I am disappointed in the responses of LexCorp, Dave souza, and Guettarda. My specific request to you is that you explain to me how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian. Thanks.

Yopienso (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simple - if the DI folks really thought that a paper had been published, they would have said so in the Kitzmiller trial. Instead, Behe said "no". It's not our place to second guess reliable sources, especially when you're talking about statements made under oath by leading people in the DI. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to modifying the language in the peer-review section of the article to the effect that one paper (by Sternberg) was published then withdrawn by the JPBSW due to failure to properly follow the normal peer-review process. But please note that right in the opening paragraph of the "peer review" section it already says: "The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal." with two appropriate citations in support of this statement. Having said that, I think LexCorp, Souza and Guettarda all have put forward sound perspectives here. Yopienso, w.r.t. your request to explain "how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian", I think you have been a good Wikipedian here. Further improvements tend to come with experience, via further good-faith participation and by gaining more familiarity with WP conventions and its editorial policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• FA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles