Misplaced Pages

Talk:Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:50, 3 August 2007 editYqbd (talk | contribs)370 edits →Peer review issue raised by []← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 9 January 2025 edit undoMjolnirPants (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,655 edits →Intelligent Design and the Law: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Talk Header}}
{{ArticleHistory

|action1=PR
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
|action1date=02:18, 2 Feb 2005 |action1date=02:18, 2 Feb 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design/Archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive1
|action1result=reviewed |action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=9889411 |action1oldid=9889411
Line 20: Line 21:
|action4=PR |action4=PR
|action4date=04:06, 9 January 2007 |action4date=04:06, 9 January 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2
|action4result=reviewed |action4result=reviewed
|action4oldid=99478501 |action4oldid=99478501
Line 36: Line 37:
|action6oldid=146596873 |action6oldid=146596873


|action7=FAR
|action7date=22:49, 14 December 2008
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive1
|action7result=kept
|action7oldid=257436809

|maindate=October 12, 2007
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
}} }}
{{controversial}}
{{TrollWarning}}
{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|'''Please read before starting'''
First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's Intelligent Design article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.


{{Round in circles}}
] to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a '']''. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid ].


{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
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 (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
*''']'''
*''']'''
*''']'''
*'''].'''
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 ] guidelines.


{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
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 (]) and Cite Your Sources (]).
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Top|Intelligent design=yes|Intelligent design-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}}


{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (]) and to abide by consensus (]).


{{User:MiszaBot/config
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 ]. If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of intelligent design or promote intelligent design please do so at 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.
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|-
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|'''Notes to editors:'''
|counter = 89
#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 ].
|minthreadsleft = 4
#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.
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
#Please use ].
|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Intelligent design/Archive %(counter)d
|}
}}

{{archives |search=no |
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
]
<div class="infobox" style="width: 300px; font-size: 90%">
}}
<div style="text-align: center">]<br />
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
]
|target=Talk:Intelligent design/Archive index
</div>
|mask =Talk:Intelligent design/Archive <#>
----
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
*]
}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*Archives ], ], ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*Archives ], ], ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

'''Points that have already been discussed'''
:The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:
# '''Is ID a theory?'''
#:]
#:]
# '''Is ID/evolution falsifiable?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
# '''Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
# '''Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?'''
#:]
#:]
# '''Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
# '''Are all ID proponents really ]s?'''
#:]
#:]
# '''Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?'''
#:]
#:]
# '''Is ID really not science?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
# '''Is ID really not internally consistent?;'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
# '''Is the article too long?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#'''Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?'''
#:]
#:]
#'''Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#:]
#'''Discussion regarding the Introduction:'''
#:] (Rare instance of unanimity)
#:] (Tony Sidaway suggests)
#'''Is this article is unlike others on Misplaced Pages?'''
#:]
#:]
#:Archives ], ], ]
#'''Is this article NPOV?'''
#:]
#:]
#'''Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#'''How should Darwin's impact be described?'''
#:]\
#'''Peer Review and ID'''
#:]
#:]
#:]
#'''Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents'''
#:]
#:]
#'''Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?
#:]
#'''Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much?'''
#:
</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

== Cardinal Schoenborg does not support ID ==

The article says that " also received support from the Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn", but the very source cited has Schoenborg clearly stating that he was referring to a religious idea of creation (which he says is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution), rather than to ID as a supposed scientific theory. Therefore the erroneous statement should be removed from the article, or changed to something like "Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn was at one point reported to support ID; however, he later clarified that he was not referring to ID as a supposed scientific theory, but rather to a religious belief in creation, which he said is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution." ] 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:The entire Scheonborn episode bears the fingerprints of manipulation by a few ] principles. I think that this suggestion by 87.13.254.25 has some merit, and with appropriate sources, some clarification/expansion of this episode might be appropriate.--] 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Agreed. I have removed the following text, because the references do not actually support the claim being made about Cardinal Schoenborn's beliefs:
:::It also received support from the ] ], ] <ref>Sherriff, Lucy, , The Register, October 05, 2005.</ref>, though others in the Catholic Church strongly oppose it.<ref>Gledhill, Ruth, , The Times, October 05, 2005.</ref><ref>Sheriff, Lucy, , The Register, 21st November 2005</ref>
:: We should be very careful not to attribute beliefs to individuals if we don't have good evidence that they actually do hold those beliefs! --] 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I believe we should document this carefully, possibly in a daughter article if there is enough material, rather than just remove it. --] 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The actual statement, criticism and reaction are well covered in Schönborn's bio page, but there have also been statements that the DI set it up and manipulated it – for example on the BBC's War on Science programme. A brief mention here is appropriate as it's one of these stories dragged out to claim support for ID. ... ], ] 18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think, we should eliminate all direct implications between ID and the religion of the proponents of ID. There is an ID-theory, and the theory should be discussed. But not the religions. --] 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Your thought is contrary to the reliable sources cited in the article, which show in considerable detail that ID cannot be separated from its creationist and religious roots. However, your statement that there is an ID-theory sounds interesting – do you have ] setting out what this theory is? ... ], ] 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Hi. You may call it theory, or hypothesis or a mere idea. Anyway, there is a written postulate, and we have to discuss the postulate. Not the religions of the proponents. Even an pure atheist could be a proponent of "irreducible complexity" or "specific complexity". Why not? I am a European. We do not prefer to publish the religion of a creative person in connection with his work. It does not comply with "political correctness" and ethics. Besides, such a "usus" could even call psychos, extremists and terrorists;-( Therefore, please eliminate the religion of the ID-proponents from this wikipedia-site !!! --] 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh my! Look how late it is. I really have to be going. Check please! ] 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sensortimecom, read the article carefully. ID is mostly a religious movement, it has very little to do with science. Any article on ID without any mention to the religion of the main proponents would be incomplete. - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We must carefully separate the "ID-religious movement" from what is matter of ID-theory or ID-hypothesis. In Europe, we meanwhile have many proponents who are neutral in question of religion. They do not want to be in the same pot, and they will fight against linking. --] 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::If ID had a ''true'' theory, you'd have a point: it doesn't and you don't. Let's move on. ] 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::For that matter, if you know of an intelligent design proponent who is not merely "neutral in question of religion" but not associated with the Discovery Institute, several editors will be delighted to know who they are. ] 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Hi. In Europe, there are many ID-proponents who are neither associated with DI nor with religion. They do not mention any religious assertion or religious link in their literature. Such a behavior is usual here. We cannot imagine a hodgepodge like Dembski did it.--] 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::And some examples??--] 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Here is an example. Its a paper from Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-weg 10, 50829 Cologne, Germany
::::::::::http://www.sensortime.com/loennig-dygmosoic-e.htm
::::::::::http://www.sensortime.com/loennig-dygmosoic-e.pdf
::::::::::Could you find any hint or link on religious implications? --] 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: mentions this 2004 paper, which "refer to arguments and facts supporting the view that irreducible complexity (Behe) in combination with specified complexity (Dembski)" suggesting a link with our DI chums. ... ], ] 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

===The Europeans===
Collect here references documenting the European (and Oceanic?) intelligent design movement. ] 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

* {{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070626-attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash.html|title=Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash|publisher=]|author=John Timmer}}

* {{cite web|title=The dangers of creationism in education|url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm|author= Mr Guy Lengagne, Committee on Culture, Science and Education}}

* {{cite web|url=http://www.harunyahya.com/|title=An invitation to the truth|author=Harun Yahya}} (A Turkey-based European creationism advocate.) Also: {{cite web|url=http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php|title=The Atlas of creationism|author=Harun Yahya|year=2007}} (A controversial book in the European creationism political debate.)

* {{cite web|url=http://www.uip.edu/uip/?lang=en|title=The Interdisciplinary University of Paris (UIP)}} (A creationist university in Paris, apparently promoting intelligent design (see .) A co-sponsor of ].

:I guess I must be missing something because those examples do not appear to be neutral about religion. And in addition, they all are allegedly connected with the DI, actually.--] 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Ah... yes, these aren't neutral about religion. I agree. I latched on to the claim that intelligent design was disproportionately represented here as an American movement. Although I think it primarily is an American movement, it can't hurt to include some references about the European counterpart. So, I'm just collecting a few here for possible discussion. ] 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::: I would agree with this, either for this article or a daughter article. At one time I put a few in the external links section but they were removed. They will still be in the history however.--] 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: FYI: is where you added them. ] 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
*
*
*

I think that is them again.--] 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

: Apparently they were deleted in response to . Is it worth revisiting this? There does seem to be some logic in making a daughter article for the movement outside the US. ] 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

* {{cite web|url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/961_creationism_news_from_around_t_11_2_2006.asp|title=Creationism news from around the world|publisher=] (NCSE)|year=November 2, 2006}}

::The movement outside the US (except maybe in Australia) was still-born. Articles I've read in various European newspapers have been quite dismissive of ID. An article from ''Le Monde'' (it's in these damned archives somewhere) was particularly scathing in its reviews of both ID and the ]. (Note that we have an article on the ''movement'' and that is likely where the European stuff belongs.) Even in the few countries where ID is thought of positively, it is seen as an adjunct to OEC or YEC paradigms. ] 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Is there a definitive document (like the ''Dover trial'') that we can point to? The closest I came was the parliamentary letter cited above, but this seems to be more of an advocacy letter than an official action. (Incidentally, it references the Dover trial.) ] 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Not that I'm aware of. As the farcical nature of ID was seen pretty clearly by the Europeans, there's very little on any real debate.
::We have this regarding the Netherlands, "En Europe, en mai 2005, la ministre néerlandaise de l'éducation, Maria van der Hoeven, a tenu des propos à ce sujet en invoquant elle aussi la théorie du Dessein intelligent qui cherche d'abord à établir « scientifiquement » le fait que la nature semble être « pensée » avant de se hasarder à sous-entendre par qui elle l'a été. Cependant, elle n'a pas été suivie par le reste de son gouvernement." -- Roughly translated as "(In Europe) in May of 2005, the Dutch minister of education, Maria van der Hoeven, issued an opinion on the subject by calling it 'the theory of the intelligent design', holding that ID seeks primarily to establish 'scientifically' that nature appears 'to be thought-out' without defining the designer. However, the rest of the Dutch government rejected her opinion." ] 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Here's another link (sorry, I'm not translating this one, I don't feel like doing that much typing) ] 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::<p>If I may say, the ripples of ID into other nations, as a practical matter, is worthy of mention and the article already does so. But, consider the implications, by way of very rough analogy, of insisting on more detailed treament of ]. Yes, there are ripples of Götaland theory into the United States, and into the rest of Europe, but it's not the prime source of the controversy. (That said, I'm not attempting to negate the importance of clarifying the stance of Schônborn and the Catholic Church, nor of any other nation in which it's manifested in a notable way, which it very briefly did in the UK, Netherlands and Australia.) Just a thought. ... ] 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Combine these with the '''International section'''. It is easy to find articles against ID. The important issue is whether it is expanding internationally. These links to ID in Australia, Italy and Finland are important in contrast to: "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." Recommend taking the "International" section and expanding it to a daughter page, including those materials that were deleted. Then summarize that for the main ID article. ] 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The existence of ID movements outside the US is not incompatible with the statement "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." - as most of these are very small, fringe movements, lacking in any significant influence. ID & Neo-creationism is a strategy to get around the ''US'' constitution, so has at best marginal relevance outside the US, where any acceptance of Creationism is more likely to be of explicit (rather than Neo-) Creationism. ] 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::::The driving forces behind ID in the US are money, and the judicial decisions. These do not exist in any particular measure in other countries. So although there is a bit of "monkey-see, monkey-do" going on overseas, it is unlikely to catch on. Just look at how few edits the talk pages at the other articles on ID in other languages have. Almost none by comparison! Europeans and other foreigners in general who show up on this page are amazed to hear about it because they have never encountered it in their home countries, or believe it is just a joke, all of the huffing and puffing of the DI and its supporters to the contrary. And Muslim countries such as Turkey, where ] has had a substantial influence, use some of the ID arguments, but it has quite a different flavor than the DI ID movement. In particular, on the Haran Yahya website recently, ID was denounced soundly, once the Muslims realized that the ID movement was connected with the US and Christianity and JEWS in particular, which the despise as much if not more than evolution. All this appears to the Muslims as some sort of evil plot by the West to destroy them, apparently! So I do not think that ID has much long term traction in the Muslim nations either, since it really is a nuanced and sophisticated argument that is really uniquely tailored for the US legal playing field.--] 12:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is intresting report by ]: , 8 June 2007. "Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." Scroll down and you can find country reports. I can confirm that in Finland Intelligent design has received very little support. We have one professor who is trying to get publicity for ID but i think he has so far failed (he has translated some ID books (Dembski etc) and has done some lectures about ID). ID is mostly supported and accepted by some fundamentalist ] christians (pentecostals make up some 1% of population). They have done most (or all) of ID websites like intelligentdesign.fi. --] 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

== Copyedit ==

Hey all, I am doing a light copy edit in response to the FA review. I know this article is the product of lengthy discussion and consensus-building, so I am trying to avoid any substantive changes, but I'm making even minor edits mostly one at a time so it's easy for folks to see what I've done.--] 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:They all look like needed improvements to my eyes. Foo, see how she does this? It is gradual, it is visible, and reasonable. Slow incremental progress is best.--] 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Oddly enough, that's how I started out , and got reverted with a bunch of hostility. It was the hostility towards minor changes that led me to my concern that this article was ''stuck'' and needed to be un-stuck by a broader review. --] 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:::And now we have a competent copyeditor in Margareta. The changes you made subtly reduced the effectiveness of the article. ] 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that this is how routine corrections should be done - progressive, with good, accurate edit summaries. One minor point, though - according to the Manual of Style (]), commas (and other punctuation) should go _outside_ quotation marks unless they form part of the original quote. I've made the appropriate changes. Apart from that, Margareta's work is to be encouraged and praised. :) ] 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was using the rules from ''Chicago'' and ''AP'' manuals of style, which both use the 100+ year old tradition (going back to the original ''Elements of Style'') of putting periods and commas inside the quotes. I didn't know Misplaced Pages was different. I think it's silly, but I'll abide by the WP MOS (though I won't like it).--] 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:MoS's do have that tendency. :) The "logical comma" style is enthusiastically endorsed by Fowler, and it _is_ - well - more logical, but these things are entirely a matter for the personal preference of the MoS authors. Thanks again! ] 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Ok folks, what does this mean:

:Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.

Would it be accurate to say this: "went on to become the program adviser of the Center for Science and Culture, where he worked with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy."?
:I think "went on to work with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy, and became the program advisor of the ." is a more accurate summary of the history. ]
:The two sentences are problematic, as the ''intelligent design'' movement complete with lobbying school boards, petitions, pushing teachers to take it into science classrooms etc. was on the go before Johnson published ''Darwin on Trial'', and it seems that he barely mentioned ID in that book: it's certainly not mentioned in the review cited as a source. There's a common perception that he's the father of ID, but doesn't seem to have promoted it before 1995. Suggestion –
:In his 1991 book '']'', the retired legal scholar ] advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyer in forming and executing the ] of the ], and became the program advisor of the ].
:The structure of this part of the article is odd, going from ID's post 1987 historical development at the start of the ''Overview'' back to its philosophical predecessors, then previous uses of the phrase before looping back to post 1987 history. It would be better to start with an outline of the post 1987 developments, then have subsections for predecessors of basic ideas and of the term. A new main section on ''Concepts'' or ''Arguments'' would then have subsections on ''Irreducible complexity'', ''Specified complexity'' and ''Fine-tuned universe''. .. ], ] 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I made it through the end of section 1, but now I really have to go do some real work. I'm sure I'll find a need to procrastinate later, and come back and finish.--] 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

:I made a few realatively minor edits to your edits, but overall, well done. ] 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to pick up now where I left off. I'm sure you'll want to go over my edits when I'm done, but I'd like to ask one little favor--please wait until I'm done to start editing my edits, just to avoid edit conflicts. I will probably have more than one window open while I work and edit conflicts will just confuse me. I'll post again here as soon as I finish. Thanks!--] 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:Wrapping up for now at the end of ], so have at it!--] 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== Dodgy quote ==

The article quality seems in general to be okay...but I follwed up the quote 'Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."'; he does say this, but he does qualify this statement by saying straight after that "No argument that rests on empirical observations can have such force. " I think it might be better to remove that second quote because of that. ] 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:Probably so. Ironically, creationists use the same kind of fallacy against evolution: "You can't ''prove'' it." --] 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:The quote is accurate, not used out of context. Behe's caveat falls under unverifiable personal opinion, whereas the quote given does not. I don't see an issue with it. ] 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::The thing is that it's true of anything that one might say about the natural world. I think that one might be able to 'confess to "sloppy prose"' in some meaningful way, but it's meaningless and misleading, I think, to say that he *confessed* to not giving a logical proof to an (at least partially) naturalistic hypothesis. You're right that his talk of its force of effect can't be quoted here as it would require some additional interpretation, but the sense of it is quite reasonable, and does, I think, make the quotation a little bit out-of-context. ] 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Fine-tuned universe ==

I think the following quote by Richard Feynman might be useful to illustrate the "Fine-tuned universe" Section

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was
coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking
lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license
plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in
the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one
tonight? Amazing!”

As we exists (do we?) in this universe, it is not a valid objection that the probability of getting the current cosmological constants is very low.

] 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)heg

:: I think a better analogy would be you travel to a State thousands of miles away from your home and you check into a motel and find a picture of yourself on the wall. ] 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Not really an apt analogy, whereas Feynman's is. ] 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: Actually a very good analogy where Feyhman's is not. The finding of a random plate is not a significant event where finding a picture of yourself is; as finding a fine-tuned universe is also significant. The quote should not be added because it is not applicable. ] 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::::: The strong anthropic principle is more like traveling to a place thousands of miles away and checking into a hotel ... and pointing at the mirror on the wall and saying, "Why is there a picture of ''me'' on this wall?"

::::: It neglects to note that if someone different were in the room, the picture would be of that person ... and if nobody were in the room, the picture would be of nobody. --] 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::: The other false analogy is the one where getting a perfect bridge hand extremely rare and the response is 'getting any particular bridge hand is rare' but only with a very perfect hand is there a workable universe etc. The point is how do we determine if the perfect bridge hand was caused by chance or intent. It is a scientific pursuit. ] 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:Without commenting on the content of the quote, it would be better off, if it's going to be anywhere, in ] or ]. It doesn't really address Intelligent Design specifically. ] 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== Ambiguous sentences ==

If I come across any sentences that are ambiguous in meaning I'll post them here and let you discuss them, rather than changing them to say what I ''think'' they mean. Starting with:

:1. “The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere.”

Was it the ''campaign'' or the ''agenda'' that was going to “ intelligent design arguments in the public sphere”?

:2. Under ]: "Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy."

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I'd like the "this" to be a little clearer. Is it correct to say that "this" refers to the contradictory statements made by the Discovery Institute?

:3. This isn't ambiguous, exactly, but I think this could use a citation. Under ]: "The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues..." Otherwise it sort of looks like OR.

:4. Also under ]: "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories (sometimes called empirical science)."

Is it "natural science," or "the repeated testing of hypotheses and theories," that is "also called empirical science." (If it's the latter, the sentence is correct as writtern; I just want to be sure.)

--] 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
#The campaign. By employing ID arguments, the DI sought to advance the agenda.
#Yes.
#Agreed - I'm sure there's something in Kitzmiller we can find.
#It's both - "based on observation" ''and'' "testing of hypotheses".
And thanks again for this most thorough approach. ] 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:A quick expansion of #4. Empirical science seeks to create knowledge based on observation and testing of hypotheses. Natural science is a subset of science (along with, for example, economic science). Natural science, as currently practiced, is (an) empirical science, but the two aren't identical. ] 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'd lose the parenthetical "(sometimes called empirical science)". ] 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::Based on what ] says, wouldn't it be better just to say "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories."--] 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:This might be clearer without the extraneous commas and by splitting it into two sentences:
::“The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign was directed by the Discovery Institute.” ] 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:5. Another place that needs a source, under ]: "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be..."--] 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:6. And another place for a source, under the same header: "Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard."--] 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Though I guess the wikilink to ] kind of has that covered.--] 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:::It's difficult to tell who's talking about what in #4 above, but in response to some of the assertions hereinabove, the first sentence of the third paragraph now reads:
:::<blockquote>] uses the ] to create '']'' knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories.</blockquote>
:::This edit is based on the presumption that ] is a subset of ], because ] is also involved in the discussion, and is generally regarded as "science" or "empirical science" to the extent that the particular social science(s) use ]. And, I think we can reasonably expect the citation police will be involved at some point, because this particular sentence, while a reasonable summary of the lay of the land, so to speak, is not, at present, cited to a ]{{fact}} Also, the proper term is "scientific method", not "''the'' scientific method" , because scientific method is both a ] and an ].{{fact}} As a matter of pragmatic procedure, though, thus far the particpants in this article have chosen to accept that repetitive insistence on changing "scientific method" to "the scientific method" will occur frequently, and that as a matter of course the participants in this article are not prepared, if history is any guide, to devote the necessary effort to defend a minor point such as this -- but on this particular point I digress somewhat.
:::<p>Please note, too, that this is closely intertwined with a set of issues recently, perhaps presently, under discussion at ]. ... ] 03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::In that case, I think we should lose it altogether - "Empirical science creates ''a posteriori'' knowledge...". "Empirical science uses scientific method" is just bad grammar, "Empirical science uses Scientific Method" goes against this article's prohibition of capitalization and doesn't address Kenosis' point (namely, that there's no such thing as ''the'' scientific method), and "Empirical science uses scientific methods" or "Empirical science uses the methods of science" would be tautological. ] 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::For the moment, maybe we can tentatively leave this particular point of discussion by acknowledging that there's no such thing as ''the'' scientific method, just as there's no such thing that can be called a ] or broad classification as "''the'' water", or "''the'' intelligent design" or "''the'' creationism", etc., at least not in English-language usage, because they're either ]s or ]s, or both. That said, there may still room for improvement of the sentence at issue here. ... ] 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For #5, I've added a source for the point that a demarcation problem exists for ID. But for each of the points used as demarcation criteria, source are already provided at their own articles or at ], ], etc. already pointed to in this article. So per ] we do not need to add repetitive sources here. ] 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

==neo-creationist==

The first sentence in the "Movement" section uses the obsolete term "neocreationist" which came from Barbara Forrest's 2003 book ''Creationism's Trojan Horse''. I propose that we change this to the term to one supported by Forrest's latest paper. ]. May, 2007. page 2 bottom. With some rearranging of words and addition of more information from the Forrest paper the first paragraph of the "Movement" section would then look like:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.<ref> ]. May, 2007.</ref> The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the ] to promote a religious agenda<ref><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the ], although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the ] philosophy of ]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic ] that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat ] ]" represented by the theory of ] in favor of "a science consonant with ] and ] convictions."<ref name="wedge_doc"> Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref>

Note that this change also deals with the copyedit issue described above by Margareta. ] 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:The problem that I can see with this is that, presumably, "progressive" creationism isn't the same as ]. Do we really need an adjective at all? "A direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980's" seems adequate to me. ] 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::I have no problem dropping the "progressive". I was using it because that's the way Forrest describes it. ] 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:<p>I have no objection to revisiting this section introduction, with caution and hopefully a consensus process involved. I imagine, if I recall the history of the article correctly, that FeloniousMonk and perhaps a few other long-term participants will want to weigh in on this issue that Pasado just raised. ... ] 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


:::The basic problem this touches on is the difficulty in sorting, organizing and understanding the tremendously wide variety of creationists and similar beliefs in the US and overseas, in Christianity and other faiths, over the last 150 years. Neocreationism, progressive creationism, OEC, preadamism, YEC, Day-age creationism, intelligent design, assorted Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, ], gap creationism, theistic evolution, progressive evolution, Cremo's devolution theory, Aurobindo's cyclic evolution theory and many other varieties from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other faiths make for an extremely difficult and confusing cacaphony to sort out. Each will claim that they and only they have the true knowledge of how life and humans appeared on earth. Each casts aspersions on the scientific approach, or tries to hijack science for their own purposes, and attacks the competing religious theories and movements. When seen in this framework, intelligent design is one of many many such anti-evolution and anti-science movements and beliefs, and certainly not the last one by any means. It is tricky to sort out exactly how it relates to the others, where it came from and why.--] 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I think the best we can do is find the most reliable, verifable sources available and use them. The current thinking of a major ID researcher (Forrest) whose material was heavily used at Kitzmiller should be able to provide clarity on this issue. ] 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::I would agree. I would feel even better if we had the views of a couple of other researchers as well that we could throw into the article.--] 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:No objection ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>17:32, 09 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

I changed "progressive" creationism to ]. On page 4 of Forrest's paper she goes into more detail about the ancestry of ID. I'll give it another day and if there's no other issues I'll update the first paragraph of the "Movement" section from:

The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized ] campaign, directed by the ], to promote a religious agenda<ref><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign primarily targets the ], although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the ] philosophy of ]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic ] that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat ] ]" represented by the theory of ] in favor of "a science consonant with ] and ] convictions."<ref name="wedge_doc"> Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref>

to:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the ] of the 1980s.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper>
{{citation
| url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy
| first = Barbara
| last = Forrest
| author-link = Barbara Forrest
| date = ], ]
| month = May
| year = 2007
| accessdate = ], ]
}}.</ref>
The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the ] to promote a religious agenda<ref><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the ], although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the ] philosophy of ]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic ] that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat ] ]" represented by the theory of ] in favor of "a science consonant with ] and ] convictions."<ref name="wedge_doc"> Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref>

] 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:The progression from creation science to ID is exceptionally well documented. If your saying creation science and hence ID are part of a ], then say that. ] 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::The first statement does not appear to be disputed, while the second may be if you define ID as part of creationism. There is a slight difference between progression from and defining it as. Be careful on wording. Attribute the statement if you change it to state that it is part of. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::<p>I'm a little concerned about adequate sourcing. I'd like to see additional sources cited, beyond Forrest's 2007 paper that traces the lineage of ID to "progressive creationism", such as the writing of Walter Bradley (previously a CSC fellow and mentioned in Forrest's paper) and perhaps others.
::<p>Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the language that the movement is ''physically'' headquartered in the Discovery Institute's ]. Perhaps drop the word "physically"? ... ] 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit complex, since ] was originally YEC. Essentially restated creation science so that YEC tenets like ye fludde weren't essential, and ID was developed by OEC proponents like Behe. Thus Forrest saith:
{{quotation|“Intelligent design theory” is the newest variant of the traditional creationism that has plagued American public schools for decades. Most ID proponents are “old-earth” creationists (OEC). ''ID is a direct outgrowth of the “progressive” creationism of the 1980s'', a form of OEC based on the belief that nature operates according to both natural laws and periodic acts of special creation by God to create progressively more complex life forms. ... some are “young-earth” creationists (YECs)... However, virtually all reject natural selection as the mechanism of significant evolutionary changes. ... All believe that the limited power of evolution must be supplemented by God’s acts of special creation.}}
Dunno if extracting the bit in italics does it justice. .. ], ] 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Maybe try something like the following modification?: ''The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the ] of the 1980s.<sup></sup> The movement is headquartered in the Discovery Institute's ] (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda<sup></sup> calling for broad social, academic and political changes.'' Perhaps a mention that some have termed it "neo-creationism" might still be appropriate, with a cite, say, to NCSE and Forrest? Perhaps also a mention of Forrests and Bradley's mention of "progreesive creationism" in a footnote might be appropriate? ... ] 00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I posted the change with your recommendations. Feel free to add cites or add more material from the paper. This should also address Margareta's issue #1 above. ] 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

==Third sentence of the lead==
I propose to change the third sentence of the lead slightly such that it reads as follows:
<blockquote>Intelligent design is the claim 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."<sup></sup> It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.<sup></sup> Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,<sup></sup> believe the designer to be ].<sup></sup> Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,<sup></sup> and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.<sup>.</sup> </blockquote>
<p>As of this posting, the sentence reads: ''Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,<sup></sup> believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.<sup></sup>.''
<p>As can be seen, the word "God" in the body text links to ] in this proposal. I think this is more parsimonious than the last consensused version of this sentence, and says exactly the same thing. Because the relevant clause here reads "...believe the designer to be . . .", it's completely obvious which "God" we're talking about, and for any readers with questions, there's the link to "Abrahamic God". Hopefully this does not require a complete rehashing of the last round of debates about the article lead, which took over a month and might have raised the stock prices of manufacturers of headache remedies and alcohol distilleries a bit. Reasonable? Yes? No? maybe? ... ] 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:LOL - It works for me. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>2:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>

:Reads better to me. ] 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::On second thought, after reading DGG's tirade on the FAR page, perhaps we should look at using reference lists. The article would look better with no more than one reference tag per sentence. ] 06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:My ''preference'' is still for "God of Christianity", as that's the phrase used in the source, but I can't see any objection to either "God" or "Abrahamic God". Agree with the suggestion to combine the references, incidentally. ] 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, saying "...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." is better if that's what the cite uses. ] 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Since this is the lead, the more concise "]" works best for me. The detailed point about the source saying "the God of Christianity" belongs in the body of the article, together with the point that the DI claim to include a Jewish protagonist and have Islamic supporters. .. ], ] 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Tentatively, then, accepting (1) that Orangemarlin and Tevildo have expressed reservations about the form of the word "God", but (2) that everybody in the modern world knows what the heck we mean here despite occasional protests, and (3) that the phrase uses the words "believe the designer to be...", a belief verified by statements of proponents and the Kitzmiller decision, I'll go ahead and make the edit. I leave aside, for now, the issue of "God of Christianity" because other sources have shown that the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture has one or more fellows who are Islamic, hence "Abrahamic God", which is inclusive of "God of Christianity" . Here goes with the next cautious little step. ... ] 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Given that it has the benefit of accuracy, I see no problems with the edit. Why is this even a conversation? The only difference between the "God of Christianity" and Yahweh/Allah, is that the "God of Christianity" actively compresses polytheism into a form of monotheism (e.g., the ] of God.) And that, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Let's move on. ] 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

==Lead paragraph 3==
The third paragraph of the lead is misleading or inaccurate in suggesting that advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula began with the formation of the DI in 1990: such campaigning began with the FTE in 1989, and the DI don't seem to have been involved much until Meyer got them to fund the CSC in 1996:
{{quotation|The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In this trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.}}
This revised proposal aims to clarify the development of campaigning:
{{quotation|The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 ] ] that teaching "]" in ]s contravened ] ]. The high-school biology textbook '']'' introduced the term to replace "creation science". On its publication in 1989 campaigners promoted the teaching of ''intelligent design'' in science classes. A group developing their ] to change science to ] with support from the ] developed the "]" pressing for political and educational changes. The inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula was challenged in 2005 at ] when a group of parents of high-school students objected to a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". The court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the ] of the ].}}
This says a bit more about the aims of the DI, and mentions "educational changes" as their initial target was university education rather than schools.. ], ] 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Dave (and others too), please don't forget to keep a close eye on what specific material is introduced in the "Overview" and in succeeding sections. That's at least three successive levels of depth, maybe four. One of the organizational issues right here is that the third paragraph of the lead must explain this quickly and sufficiently to give a ''basic idea'' of the ''legal history and present legal status'' of ID, leaving further detail work to the Overview, which in turn sets the stage for more in-depth explanations in other sections that follow. (Incidentally, Dave, it's good to interact directly with you once again--it's been awhile.) ... ] 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:<p>A note to newer participants here. A number of months ago, the participants also agreed to integrate an international perspective in that paragraph too, via making clear by the choice of words that ID is fundamentally a product of the United States, a response to US Supreme Court decisions affecting public-school science-education policy and the ]. This the paragraph already does, both in the present version and in Dave Souza's proposal. The specifics of international developments, the outward waves or ripples, so to speak, are then summarized in a later section w/ several subsections. ... ] 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Good to talk, our paths have wandered onto different projects lately. However it's phrased, the important point is that publication of ''Pandas'' introduced nearly all the concepts and public campaigning for "intelligent design" organised by the FTE without any involvement from the DI or Johnson, who had his own parallel anti-evolution agenda: the two tracks converged with Behe contributing whale blood clotting to the 1993 edition of ''Pandas'', and combined by 1995 with Johnson calling his disciples "intelligent design scholars" just before the DI's funding came fully on line through the CRSC. As I understand it.
::This should indeed feature in the more in-depth sections, including the "overview", which in my opinion need reviewing along these lines. Will try to look at that shortly. If you don't like the proposal above, we can discuss the minimum changes to avoid the paragraph being misleading. .. ], ] 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd use violated, not contravened. Subtle difference, but contravened is not generally used in this case. ] 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Agree. ..], ] 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This sentence is a bit unclear, "A group developing their wedge strategy to change science to theistic realism with support from the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes." Did they do "abra-cadabra, science is now theistic realism"? ;) ] 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Jim, you've uncovered their secret method! Cite ''"theistic realism" ... the defining concept of our movement''. The sentence and the Kitzmiller sentence need rethought. .. ], ] 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::"in 2005 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" -- at is the wrong preposition, and the syntax of the entire sentence is a bit off. ] 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::<p>I'm not sure, on the evidence we have, that the statement about the founding of the DI "the following year" is at all misleading and must give way to a reference to earlier developments such as the FTE or to "creation science", or other specifics, at least not in the lead. The DI was founded following the publication and failure of the book ''Of Pandas and People'' to gain a foothold in the marketplace (I'm not necessarily implying direct cause-and-effect). So the book gets published 1989 after a lengthy development period and changing the words "creation-" to "design", etc., but is a commercial flop; and immediately on the heels of this marketing failure the Discovery Institute is founded and ID advocates from a number of places, including the Texas-based], begin to collect around this mechanism provided by the DI's political and marketing experience. This is a watershed, or major cusp, so to speak, in the development of the ], and its mention is quite reasonable because the DI continued to develop offshoots and subsidiaries like the ] and its cousin the ]. I do understand the point that it can be tracked back further to the FTE, and also can be tracked back to ]'s review of the '']'' briefs in ]. And, among other possibilities it also can be traced back to the book ''Chance or Design?'' by James Horigan, a 1979 philosophy book whose cover features a logo virtually identical to the DI logo () and which uses the words "design", "designed", and "intelligent design" many times throughout (though not as a term intended to describe a ''field of inquiry'' but as a philosophical argument--yes, another ], which in turn can be traced back further to at least Aquinas, and probably to ]. All this and more is mentioned in various levels of depth in the article, as antecedents in "Origins of the concept" and "Origins of the term". The practical development leading up to the publication of ''Of Pandas and People'' also is introduced in more depth in the "Overview" and in "Origins of the term"
:::<p>Note that the sentence about the DI being founded the following year, proceeding to advocate ID, etc. does not make any claim to being a definitive marker that says, e.g. "ID starts ''HERE'' ". So, I don't see the need to change or futher complicate this particular aspect of a lead that's already somewhat packed with specifics. Thoughts? ... ] 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::<p>I do, however, think that the sentence introducing the "Dover trial" and leading into the following sentence "In this trial, ]..." could definitely be tightened up somewhat in its syntax and flow, without changing any of the substance of what's being said there. ... ] 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ... For one specific thing, there's absolutely no need for the words "In this trial", when simply "In ] will do just fine. The prior sentence already introduced "the 'Dover trial", so there's no value added, nor any reasonable source of confusion avoided, by using those two extra words. So, proceeding cautiously as before, the words "... this trial ..." are outta' here. Any serious objectors please feel free to revert without any further argument from me. ... ] 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> "''Pandas'' represents the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement. This fact is obscured in most recountings... which usually credit Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial ... Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and Dembski (The Design Inference, 1998)... In fact, all of the basic arguments of these ID proponents are found in essentially modern form in the 1989 ''Of Pandas and People'' (Behe's irreducibly complexity argument is found in the 1993 edition of ''Pandas''). The textbook came first, and the "research" to support it came many years later.... Pandas was actively promoted for public school use by creationists, starting in Alabama in 1989 and continuing throughout the 1990's. After 2000, ''Pandas'' activity largely died down". There was a lot of continuing activity promoting ''Pandas'' and it seems misleading to suggest that it was an instant flop. Unless I've missed something, the involvement of the DI really begins with Chapman getting "seed money" in 1993, though Meyer was involved with the nascent Johnson group from the outset and was a co-founder of the DI in 1990. Also in 1993, Meyer and Behe contributed to the second edition of ''Pandas'', but Johnson doesn't seem to have talked about ID until a couple of years later. Clearly the FTE strand and the Johnson strand were coming together by 1993, and "the movement" takes its familiar shape at the summer 1995 conference "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" which forms the basis for the ] forming in 1996.. As you say, this needs to be concisely explained in the ''Overview'', which in my opinion could become ''History'' including subsections for origins of the concept and of the term (perhaps better seen as precedents), with ''Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe'' and ''Intelligent designer'' under a new ''Concepts'' section. ... ], ] 11:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:<p>Yes, that section could alternately have been written explicitly as a history, with a separate section as an introduction to the main concepts--irreducible complexity, CSI, FTU, etc. Presently, though, as it has been for quite some time now, the introductory section of "Overview" is devoted to introducing the substantive aspects of the approach of ID proponents, to which several paragraphs are devoted. I expect one of the issues that would come into play in a discussion of this is the question about how far the article goes in the direction of being about the movement, which has its own main aritlce.
:<p>As to ''Of Pandas and People'', it was central to ], in that the statement proposed to be presented to biology students at the beginning of the semester referred them specifically to ''Pandas'' as an alternative resource. As to the initial marketing of ''Pandas'', the proposal to the publisher originally projected a massive marketplace, one that never materialized. The sales to public schools were probably zero and there were not high sales figures to private schools. The web writings of both sides of the controversy reveal this to be the case, that it was, as I said, a "commercial flop". Here are two references saying this same basic thing from opposite sides of the controversy, and . The Amazon sales rank is presently down to 153,392; and although this can sometimes be misleading with a textbook because schools generally buy directly from the publisher itself or the publisher's licensed distributor, there appears to be little indication that those figures are very high either. In 1987, according to the testimony at the deposition of Jon Buell, president of the ], the original marketing projection estimated that: "... revenues of over 6.5 million in five years are based upon modest expectations for the market provided the U.S. Supreme Court does not uphold the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act. If by chance it should hold it, then you can throw out these projections. The nationwide market would be explosive." By contrast, it took four years to sell the first print run of approximately 25,000 books, and a grass-roots effort needed to be mobilized to do it. Also from Buell's deposition: " Q. Pandas certainly did not live up to your market expectations or hopes, did it? A. Not to our hopes." , with relevant testimony at p95ff and p102ff. See also, the summary in WP at ]. ... ] 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::I rather suspect that the Amazon ratings of such lowly-rated books would be quite volatile (potentially moving large numbers of places on the strength of the sale of a very small number of books), so wouldn't be better to state the rating as a range (e.g. "below 150,000) rather than a specific number (which is likely to become out of date more quickly)? Incidentally the rating is now 158,454 - presumably because they haven't sold a copy lately. ] 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it's a very inexact and quickly changing number; sell a few copies and it jumps up, go awhile without selling very much and it can go way down, only to quickly jump up again. The figure is particularly variable from day to day among books with a lower sales rank (higher number), as is the case here. But this was pointed out in the broader context of pointing out to Dave Souza that sales since its publication in 1989 were not anywhere near what was projected. What was required even to sell the first printing of 25,000 copies in roughly four years was to mobilize the grass-roots troops, so to speak. This was maybe one-twentieth or less of what was projected in the original marketing proposal. (25,000 x wholesale price of about $11 or $12 = about $275,000 or $300,000 gross for the publisher over four years, from which must be subtracted all the costs, printing, marketing, administration and payroll, storage, shipping, etc.. The original marketing projection, as I just mentioned above, said to be based on "modest expectations", was "over $6.5 million over five years.") Main point being, by 1990 it was quite clear it wasn't going to be a blockbuster and that a grass-roots effort would be needed. All this is in context of Dave's excellent research about the timeline of ID, and what were the important events in its development that might possibly affect editorial decisions for the article in the future. ... ] 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, I quite agree that the argument itself is ''''robust''', it's just that I'm suggesting that a rating ''range'' would be a more robust way of expressing the rating. ] 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree -- a range would save us from any debates over the actual current sales number. ] 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Point of information. Presently the sales figures, commercial success or lack thereof of ''Pandas'' are not at issue in the article. This came up as part of an analysis of what were important markers in the development of "intelligent design" such that it might affect the language of the article lead. After I mentioned that by 1990, the year the DI was founded, ''Pandas'' was already known by its proponents to be a "commercial flop", Dave responded that he didn't think that was a fair characterization. And I responded by pointing up reliable evidence that its market showing was indeed quite weak if not an outright failure, ultimately taking four years and a grass-roots effort to sell out the first printing, and which amounted to less than 5% of the original market projections for the first edition. To this analysis was added information about sales of ''Pandas'' in recent years, initially brought up by Dave. Nothing more than that was at issue for the present text in the article-- or at least I think that was the case. ... ] 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Woops, sorry not to have responded earlier, I've been busy setting up ] amongst other things. There's no question that Pandas flopped: as ] notes, in 1987 Buell was projecting "revenues of Over 6.5 million in five years" on the assumption that they'd LOSE at Edwards! Surveys seemed to show plenty of demand, what stopped them was immediate activity by the NCSE. However, as ] shows, they kept trying to push it till about 2000. As far as I can see they had no assistance from the "Wedge" bunch until about 1995–1996, that group were busy with conferences and university level activity. Post 1996 the DI"s CRSC made it into a high profile PR campaign with immense political pull, but ''Pandas'' seems to have been almost forgotten until the clowns at Dover decided they wanted a 12 year old textbook, which is rather ancient for school texts. The fact that any at all are selling today is a testament to how slow creationists are to update their ideas, and how slow the ID crew have been to produce their long promised new textbook to have a controversy about. Hope alles klar, .. ], ] 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

* '''Legal summary vs Legal section'''
The Intro has a long 8 line discussion on legal status. However the text has only 2 references to Kitzmiller.


* Summarize Intro & Add '''Legal Status''' section
Since there are many complaints of too long an intro, recommend adding as short section on "Legal Status" and
moving this long section to that Legal Status section. Reference the Kitzmiller page for further detail. i.e.:] 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:You mean, you want to hide the origins of ID in Edwards away in the body text and not mention this essential point in the intro? The lead is of appropriate length: see ]. ... ], ] 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
====Introduction legal summary:====
'''In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a US federal court ruled that requiring biology teachers to note availability of intelligent design materials as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life" violated the religion Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.'''
] 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:See above. .. ], ] 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ... oh, and astonishingly enough you don't seem to think "that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" belongs in the lead. See ]... ], ] 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:Boy, talk slanted. I understand you're trying to put the best face on it, but can you at least attribute the Discover Institute's spin to the Discovery Institute please? ] 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::The excessive length of the intro was one the critiques raised in the review. There is a long discussion of the legal status in the lead with little in the main text. Thus the editorial effort to summarize the intro and put full detail in main text.] 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I am agreeable to moving more of the legal stuff into the main article (Kitzmiller really ought to have its own section), but ''emphatically disagree'' with the proposed summary at the top of this section, as I feel that it does not provide an unbiased summary of the case. ] 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

===Legal Status===
''' ''For more details on this topic see:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to mention availability of intelligent design materials in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the religion ]] of the US Constitution. have critiqued that judgement.<ref>David K. DeWolf, John G. West & Casey Luskin, Intelligent Design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover.</ref>'''] 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then in Kitzmiller v Dover refer to and cite DeWolf plus the following.
"<ref>Peter Irons, Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 59 (2007).</ref>, <ref>David K. DeWolf et al. Rebuttal to Irons, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 89 (2007).</ref>, <ref>Editors’ Note: Intelligent Design Articles, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 1 (2007)</ref>"

NOTE that DeWolf (2007) cites these other publications.] 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:Given that all three of the authors of this article are DI members (and thus highly partisan), and two of them have no significant legal experience, I do not think that this article's opinions have any real credibility. Even its title indicates that its true purpose is rallying the disheartened troops, rather than any serious legal analysis. I do not therefore consider it to be an appropriate citation for a section on the "Legal Status" of ID. ] 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::Montana Law Review gave a major focus on the Kitzmiller v Dover case with an editorial summary of the case history and providing legal reviews with Irons giving the prosecution's side and DeWolf the defense side. Citing these three articles give Showing all three These together give the balanced review. I'm happy to explicitly include these four references. Here are the original links to the Montana Law review:
* Editor, Kitzmiller Chronology, 68 Montana Law Review pp 1-6, (2007)
* David K. DeWolf, John G. West, Casey Luskin 68 Montana Law Review pp 7-57, (2007)
* Peter Irons 68 Montana Law Review pp 59-87 (2007)
* David K. DeWolf, John G. West & Casey Luskin, , 68 Montana Law Review 89 (2007).
] 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Ref formatting ==

I don't see that the FAR needs to continue in general, but I notice that many of the refs aren't formatted, particularly toward the end. Could this be done and then we get rid of the headache? (I post this here rather than there, because of the acrimony.) I'll do the refs...but damn, there's a 185 of them. ] 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


:As I noted on the FAR page, we have of course tried different formats. The reason we settled on that one is to endow each of our statements and claims with a sense of overwhelming ''gravitas''. Although this format might look unreadable and ugly, part of the goal is to hit the reader over the head with a hammer. It says, "hey buddy, you might not like this, but a LOT of people view it this way and it is well documented in a lot of reliable sources." If you can think of another format that has that kind of impact, but looks a bit prettier, then tell us what it might be.--] 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

::My thought is we apply as many of the refs to the ] as possible. I don't care for the refs that just seem to discuss the view in more detail (seems like a self reference with no verifiability). It seems they should reference something external for the source of the information, even if we don't elaborate on the thought in the note itself - the reader can verify it. I would think we could reduce footnotes for a statement if we attributed more statements to a particular person or group, even if multiple groups make the statement. I certainly think we could reduce the footnotes in the lead. The lead is only a summary of the article, so the data can be more heavily referenced in the body. Troll objections can then be referred to the body content for in depth verifiability of the statements. I understand some of the refs look like that for a reason and perhaps some need to stay as they are. Though many don't have access dates, proper publisher information, etc.. I'm not bashing anyones hard work here.. just offering some constructive thoughts to help address some of the concerns raised. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::::Yes, Morphh. There is a small group of them in "Defining as science", for instance, that consists of extra little explanations which have the benefit of avoiding unnecessary clogging of the body text. But we should ideally find external citations for these. The citations are out there, but fairly obscure, and just need to be found and placed into those notes. IMO, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say they need to be removed. Incidentally, I hate those citation templates with a passion; but if we're going to use them, by all means let's begin to standardize cite-web, cite-book, etc. But please don't ditch the extra explanations unless there's something plainly wrong or superfluous about the explanations. And please, please don't give a "ref name" to citations that involve references to different locations within a document, particularly Kitzmiller, and particularly books, articles and websites that involve different pages for different citations. We ran into a problem with that before, when a number of them needed to be carefully re-separated so as to refer to the specific locations within the sources. ... ] 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ref name tagging has improved in the past year. It use to be that the main name tag had to be the first instance. This is no longer a requirement, so you can move text around without fear of blanking out the ref in the notes section. So long as one of the name refs has the content, it will display correctly. Not sure if this was your concern or not from your statement.. but it was a new feature so I thought I would mention it. Without using name tags, you run into having the same ref repeated muliple times in the notes section. Seems to be the common thing to do and effective on articles with similar length. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
::::::Offhand, seems like a bit of a step forward, so long as it allows separate page refs and avoids the trap of having one footnote # with different page references within, repeated with ^a, ^b, ^c, ^d, etc. For my own part, I also still think it looks absurd to see footnote #1 following footnote #121 and such, though I recognize how this came to be. ... ] 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Just so I'm not misunderstood, Filll, I did not mean the placement or volume of refs, but the lack of info provided. Some are simply weblinks with a title. Author, publisher, and date are also needed. The cite templates are one way to do that. You don't have to use them, but the way in which they break out info provides a useful template. (As I say, I'll help.) ] 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Certainly if author, date, publisher etc are not included, this should be corrected. This is one thing I am sure all can agree on and a very useful contribution.--] 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:Just for information, there are two approaches given in ]: the "cite book", "cite web" etc. templates are tailored to each king of cite, but don't have the option of cite footnotes in a "Citations" section linking on to a main "References" section. The other approach uses a standard all-purpose ] which is simpler as a basic template, and gives the option of this extra functionality when used with inline ] templates. This would simplify multiple references to the same document with the "Citations", for example, being Jones 2005 p.34 and the "p 34" giving a link to the exact page. More info on request, but it's a choice to make before starting to redo all the citations. This article was at the forefront of citations in linked footnotes, and it's already been through a few versions of that feature. .. ], ] 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::Hah! ;-) So, less than two years ago the article was at the forefront of the ], and now it's possibly becoming a ]. Ah'swear, sometimes I want to be a ], and live like ... ] 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

===It begins===

I have started formatting the refs. As I have not yet received my citation implant, this takes a bloody long time. I am using ]. I know some people don't like the templates, but on a page with dozens of editors they are the best means of ensuring consistency. I have started from the bottom; someone else might go from the top. ] 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== Lead, 2nd paragraph ==

Two suggestions (] 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)):

1) The journal Science is much more notable than its publisher, the AAAS (or the NSTA). I recommend saying "The publishers of ] and the ] say it is ]."

2) "Others" is far too vague an attribution for such strong words as "junk science." It would be much better to say "Biologists and philosophers of science have called it 'junk science'."
(Gnixon 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:With regard to #2, it's come up before. I don't have the time or the inclination to look back through the talk archives now, and particularly not on an issue like this. But here's the relatively recent history of this issue in the article itself, as to the second paragraph of the lead as it relates to what Gnixon says it would be bettter to do, presented here at various sampling points through the time period within which it appears to be relevant to Gnixon's recommendation. Myself, I have no idea what's "better" in this regard, given all the suggestions to date. Not all the edits below are directly related to the second paragraph, so one may need to scroll down to see the then-current version of it on the date quoted immediately below.
:*<p>
:*<p>In response to a lot of quibbling on the talk page, I changed it to this, on
:*<p>Later, It was changed to the following on
:*<p>More recently it turned into a version closely resembling the current one on
:*<p>After that it changed again no later than
:*<p>Any other specifics Gnixon or somebody else will need to research independently. ... ] 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:<p>I just had a chance to look over the history again, and would like to propose that the second paragraph be revised a bit, without changing its basic content. Presently it reads:

:<blockquote>The ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science.<sup></sup> The ] has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<sup></sup> The ] and the ] say it is ].<sup></sup> Others have concurred or termed it ].<sup></sup> </blockquote>

:<p>May I suggest the following change, attempting to get it to read a bit smoother while trying to minimize interference with others' edits and feedback on it in recent months:

:<blockquote>The unequivocal ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science.<sup></sup> The ] has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<sup></sup> The ] and the ] have termed it ].<sup></sup> Others have concurred, and some have called it ].<sup></sup> </blockquote>

:<p>I changed the words "say it is" to "have termed it" in the third sentence, and "termed it" to "and some have called it" in the fourth sentence. As to the proposed addition of the word "unequivocal" in the first sentence, I propose using it to replace the previous use of "overwhelming", which was removed late in 2006 if I remember right. An argument was made on the talk page at the time, to the effect that either something ''is'' a consensus or it ''ain't'' a consensus. As we have seen, there can be strong consensus, developing consensus, clear consensus, etc., etc. The consensus in the scientific community about this issue of intelligent design not being science can reasonably be characterized, in light of the references already provided in the article, as "unequivocal". Thoughts? ... ] 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::How about "There is a clear consensus in the scientific community that ...."? I think that conveys the same information and might be a gentler tone for the lead of a controversial article. The attributed statements and quotes following give a good impression of the strength of scientists' feelings without letting the article adopt them. ] 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::Regarding the last sentence, I really think attribution is important here. The phrase "biologists and philosophers of science" is (a) accurate and (b) makes clear that "junk science" doesn't come from just anyone---it's from scientists in the relevant field (biologists) and those who think about "what is science" (philosophers of science). I know this paragraph has been fought over ad nauseum, but attribution is an important principle, and this wouldn't seem to conflict with any of the previous versions. ] 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:::"Biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow: The opinion has been expressed not just by "biologists and philosophers of science" but scientists of all stripes, not to mention leading scientific professional organizations, like the American Society for Clinical Investigation. There are many others that are not listed here but are easily found, so to attribute the view to "biologists and philosophers of science" is give a false impression. ] 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The references given were from a biologist and a philosopher of science, along with another article I wasn't able to view from here. I'm just saying that the specific (strong) phrase "junk science" should be attributed to those who specifically used it. Below I propose a more general phrasing. ] 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::<p>Geez, folks. We are talking about the article lead, where the article must summarize ''in brief''. Presently the beginning sentence of that paragraph makes clear it's the ''scientific community'' making these assessments. WP:Weasel generally does not apply to the lead in quite the same way it might in the article proper, because it is the purpose of the lead to introduce the topic in general terms, leaving the article to spell out in more detail. Alternately the specifics can be relegated to footnotes. In the last sentence, it is spelled out in the footnotes. That is what Gnixon says must be done, and that is what the footnotes do.
::<p>This requires judgments to be made so as not to overly clog the lead with specifics. Here, it appears not to be necessary to state, in the last sentence of the present approach to the second paragraph, e.g., ''"Other notable members of the scientific community and philosophers of science have concurred that it is pseudoscience, and some members of the scientific community and one philosopher of science has called it ]"''. It's simply not necessary. ... ] 23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Believe me, I agree your longer version isn't necessary. I personally think it would be sufficient to use only one sentence to mention that some notable body, presumably speaking for science, says ID is not science. (The "publishers of Science" seems like a good choice to me.) If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase. My answer: it can convey the strong feelings of "biologists and philosopher(s) of science" ''if'' we specifically attribute them in the text. ] 06:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I would agree with Gnixon here. Firstly, and most importantly, we don't discuss the "pseudoscience" or "junk science" claims anywhere else in the article. In default of a "Critisism" section (and I'm sure some would argue that the article is one long "Critisism" section), then the discussion should be in "Controversy" - at the moment, this section just addresses why ID is not science, rather than why it's pseudo/junk science. According to ], "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and I would argue that an accusation of "pseudoscience" is significant. Secondly, if we're applying pejorative labels to ID, we need to identify our sources - "''Everyone'' says it's junk science" isn't good enough. I personally would remove the entire sentence from the lead, but, if that's not acceptable, "Others in the scientific community have described it as pseudoscience or junk science" would be OK, ''provided'' we substantiate those descriptions somewhere else in the article. ] 10:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I agree with Tevildo very much in that the second paragraph has bit by bit become overly specific over the past seven months. Look back at its form at the beginning of 2007 .
:::::<p>Regarding Gnixon's statement "''If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase."'': Actually, I believe this paragraph has reported for at least a year-and-a-half now that all three usages have been used in various measure by multiple ] persons and/or organizations intimately familiar with scientific method and/or the ]. Those three characterizations, used in various measure by various combinations of organizations and individuals in the scientific, educational and journalistic communties, are: (1) not-science or unscientific, (2) ] or peudoscientific, and (3) ]. Numbers 2 and 3, if they are "incendiary", are included because this is what ] have said about the topic. The article isn't responsible for creating the controversy, merely for reporting and describing it.
:::::<p>The solution here may be to begin a discussion about placing some of the specific material presently in the second paragraph and its footnotes into the Overview as a paragraph describing in a bit more detail the responses to the assertions that iD is science and therefore should be presented in public high-school biology classes alongside standard biology texts and lessons. The responses of the scientific and science-education community in this regard can quite readily be elaborated upon a bit futher down under "Controversy" in the opening to that section or in the subsection on "Defining as science". It should be a simple matter, I would think, perhaps moving some of the material from the footnotes into the body text of the article. I don't see any major problems with such an adaptation, but I feel sure it will require discussion and consensus before imiplementing a significant move of material such as this.... ] 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Just to be clear, as I said above, quoting "junk science" can be useful to convey the strength of feelings of scientists, but that only works if attributed. Otherwise, "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are redundant with "not science" or "unscientific", and we need only quote one reliable source using one of those four synonyms in order to make the point. ] 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Regarding a "Controversy" section, I think it would be a brilliant idea to provide a detailed section on controversy that would allow most of the rest of the article to simply describe what ID is and where it came from. ] 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I was going to post the following last night when my laptop battery died. I'll read above comments momentarily... ] 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::For example, how about:
:::::''The publishers of ] have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.''
:::A single footnote on the 2nd sentence could say "For example, see a, b, c, d," perhaps with more detail, such as quoting "junk science." ] 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I don't see that as any improvement on the original phrasing, and agree with odd nature's point about downplaying here. I can't support this change. ] 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Odd nature's objection was that "biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow. Isn't "numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science" broad enough? Or is your objection that not using "junk science" constitutes "downplaying"? I'm not sure how to be both so broad and so specific in the lead, since obviously not all of the broad group have said, quote, "junk science." I thought the chief advantages of my proposed version were conciseness (for the lead) and a representation of how many scientists have felt the need to speak out. ] 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::There's a difference between not downplaying a point, and misrepresentation of our sources for that point. "Not science", "pseudoscience", and "junk science" are three separate descriptions, and I don't think it's fair to say that every scientific organization that's critisised ID can be taken as supporting all three of them. I agree that we don't need to list every source individually, especially not in the lead, but we do need to make it clear to whom we're attributing each of the three descriptions. ] 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::<p>The paragraph already breaks up these three classifications applied by various parties who represent or participate in the scientific community or in the professional philosophical analysis thereof, presented in summary form as a lead is expected to. It says:
::::::<blockquote>The unequivocal ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science.<sup></sup> The ] has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<sup></sup> The ] and the ] have termed it ].<sup></sup> Others have concurred, and some have called it ].<sup></sup> </blockquote>
::::::<p>If Tevildo is currently alleging that this paragraph involves "misrepresentation" of any kind, now would be the time to state specifically what it is that's misrepresented, and provide evidence in support of any such assertions. ... ] 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry for not being clear enough. I think the paragraph is fine as it stands in terms of content, although I agree it is a little on the wordy side. What I would object to is something along the lines of, to quote Odd nature - "Scientists of all stripes consider intelligent design to be pseudoscience and junk science", and I think there may be a risk of this if the sentence is simplified beyond GNixon's suggestion above, especially if the point isn't addressed in more detail elsewhere in the article. ] 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
<p><unindent>Well, anyway, six months ago it read like this:
<blockquote>The ] views intelligent design as unscientific,<sup></sup> as ]<sup></sup> or as ].<sup></sup> The U.S. ] has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<sup></sup> </blockquote>
<p>If the editors here are able to come up with a suitable paragraph describing more specifically the responses of the scientific and educational communities, it can easily be inserted in the "Overview" that follows the lead-- assuming of course that there's consensus for whatever's proposed. Due to the FA review, presently there are more participants paying attention than has been the case for much of the time since FA status was first granted, so I think this might be a good time to create such a paragraph and see if there's adequate agreement on its content and agreement on whether we should insert it and simplify the second lead paragraph, Seems to me that both the new insertion and any significant changes to the second lead paragraph should probably be done more-or-less simultaneously, given the parameters discussed just above in this talk section ... ] 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:I guess what I'm saying is that if we're going to quote specific phrases, we should attribute them specifically. I agree that that level of detail would go better in the body of the article, instead of the lead, which is why I propose replacing the current lead paragraph with
::''The publishers of ] have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.''
:and saving greater detail for the footnotes and/or the body of the article. ] 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Nonsense. ] 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Can you clarify? Do you object to specifically attributing specific phrases or putting such detail in the body of the article? Please don't call my suggestions "nonsense"---I consider it uncivil, and I've been entirely polite. ] 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Endorse Gnixon's compact version. It gives the essence of the argument. This lead has serious case of editorial bloat. A main criticism during the FA review was the lead's length. There was an even more compact elegant summary proposed in the FA review that I would like to point to. Please give a link to that.] 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==Editprotected==
<s>I tried to edit this article and I couldn't. What happened to the 'edit this page' tab?</s>

{{tl|editprotect}}}

'of God' in the lead to 'of a god'. ] 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:According to the decision in ] and other ] including quoted statements made by the notable ID proponents, all of them do not believe the designer is "a god", but that the designer is "God" in the sense in which virtually everbody immediately understands it, even children. The link to ] clarifies this further. The Kitzmiller decision stated that on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the "designer" in ID is the "God of Christianity". In light of this, it would appear there's no overriding reason to mince words in the article. If there is one, kindly call it to the participants' attention. Thanks. ... ] 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::ID limits statements to what can be inferred from observable evidence, not to personal beliefs of its proponents. ID's methodology can be applied to indentifying intelligent causation whether by SETI, in historic, or for origin theories. ] 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== International status ==

"...other religious beliefs within the scientific framework of scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge...". Can we lose at least one of those 'scientific's? I would suggest "within the framework of scientific theories as established bodies of knowledge". ] 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:I replaced it with "standard framework of scientific theories"...I too hate redundancy. ] 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Last sentence of first paragraph ==
Minor edit just made to the last sentence of the first paragraph, so it now reads:
*Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a ] ],<sup></sup> and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.<sup></sup>
<p>Previously it read:
* Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a ] ],<sup></sup> and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.<sup></sup>
<p>The original reason for the insertion of the "also" was in response to those arguing on the talk page that either advocates claim it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, or are trying to change the definitiion of science to accommodate it, but that advocates can't logically have it both ways. In fact, according to the reliable sources, advocates assert it's a scientific theory in order to meet the criteria set in ] quoted in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section in the article, which is 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". The claim that ID is a scientific theory seeks to meet the standard set by the Supreme Court's language, and has been said by various proponents to be justified on multiple grounds, that it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, and the assertion has been made that science must be redefined to allow ] and/or ] aspects. Claims have also made that ID's a scientific theory but that the scientific community has unfairly excluded it, that its main competitor ] is ''not'' science but speculation, and that the court's interpretation that ID is not science in ] is the biased product of an activist judge, as well as on other grounds. All told, though, the words "and also" in the first lead paragaph does nothing more to explain the details of this to the reader than does the word "and", so I removed the "also". ... ] 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==First sentence of third paragraph==
Minor edit just made to the first sentence of the third paragraph, so it now reads:
*"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 ] ] involving ] ]<sup></sup>
<p>The qualification The term", previously at the beginning of the third lead paragraph, was redundant with the first paragraph of the "Overview" that summarizes the issue a bit more explicitly, which begins with "The term "intelligent design"...". Thus the words were unnecessary and superfluous in the third lead paragraph, since the whole affair began after ]. If there are any remaining doubts among readers whether this refers specifically to the term or to the set of concepts, or both, they may proceed to read the article to learn the specifics of how the term came to be utilized by intelligent design advocates.
<p>Hopefully this addresses part of the "redundancies" referred to by one of the commentators at the FA review. ... ] 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:Looks to me like an improvement. Both the term and the "concepts" of "intelligent design" originated post Edwards, though of course the concepts are essentially the same as certain versions of creation science. The sentence isn't very informative in the use of ''"involving"'', and by replacing that word with ''"that teaching "]" in ] violated"'' the context is made a lot clearer. It also allows the sentences after it to be tightened up, shortening the paragraph overall. More on that later. .. ], ] 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::Please look at over the article in making these assessments. That is almost verbatim what the first sentence of the fourth paragraph (first paragraph of the Overview) says. ... ] 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But much condensed, as befits the lead. That paragraph was introduced into the overview, introducing a brief and incomplete mention of origins before going onto the "overview" which mixes fragments of history with current concepts and claims. In my opinion Edwards is important enough to justify that position, but the whole "overview" section would benefit from splitting with, firstly, a history/origins of the intelligent design concept section which would include the present "origins of the concept" subsection redefined as "previous teleological arguments" or predecessors, and "previous use of the phrase" rather than "origins of the term. The second section on "Concepts" would include all but the first paragraph of the present "overview" bit, and the "Irreducible complexity" subsection onwards. Judging by , the overall meaning of theistic realism also merits prime mention. The history of the concept(s) from the 1960s to the present needs clarified, while the history of the movement in the ID movement article also needs straightened out, and the timeline is still only a start. So much to do.. ..], ] 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::One of the comments in the FA review described it as a "forest through the trees" issue. Before taking serious aim at a reformatting of the whole article, the participants will need to look at the whole article carefully and be familiar with where every bit of content is presently placed. Though I don't necessarily object, it would require a lot of work. Another thing to keep a heads-up for here, IMO, is that history and substantive concepts are deeply intertwined on this topic. ... ] 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Fully agree, which is why it's easier to tweak the lead. For very valid reasons a lot of the closely argued content predates Kitzmiller, and could benefit from reviewing and simplifying in the light of recent knowledge. For example, in the ''Defining as science'' section, footnotes 144 – 148 provide essays rather than citations, and it should be possible to cite these points. In the meantime I'll try to pull together the timeline to get to grips with the history. .. ], ] 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== "Fine-Tuned Universe" ==

Under the topic of "fine-tuned universe," the author states the following:

"Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design. Critics assert that this is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles."

After reading Granville Sewell's article linked under citation 82, I would move citation 82 to the end of the first sentence above since he is a proponent of the theory not a critic as the second sentence states. I read the article expecting Sewell to be a critic due to the location of the citation.

This is a topic that greatly interests me as my thermodynamics professor asked us to prove or disprove the origin of life using the 2nd law on a test. (It was a bonus point question.)

I for one am thankful that science is finally opening its eyes instead of squeezing them shut against any possibility other than that life originated by pure chance and that increasingly complex organisms can come from less complex organisms. Common sense does not lead one to such conclusions, in my opinion.

My last comment is that the article does not take the theory of intelligent design seriously--calling it a "claim" rather than a theory. But, really Darwinism/Naturalism is also a THEORY or a CLAIM. . . No one really knows what happened when life began or sprang into existence. No one has observed the leap from one species to another through natural selection alone. I just wish Darwinism/Naturalism was more often taught as a THEORY so that scientists would be true scientists and explore other possibilities as well.
] 06:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you for your great insight. I am glad that you were able to prove that life doesn't exist. Though you might want to familiarize yourself with, say, ], ], ] and ] before you speak next time. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Reinis, your sarcasm is a violation of our ] policy. Please don't make such comments. ] 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Affirm that] 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Really?...seems to me they're just accurate comments based on the apparent ignorance of life-sciences and science itself displayed by "Stayingup". Oh, and when was sarcasm banned? I didn't get the memo on that. ] 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm sure you recognize that that sort of sarcasm is uncivil. ] 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::No, it's just sarcasm. ] 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I sounded like I had all the answers--I know that I do NOT know everything when it comes to science or anything else. It's been a while since I took undergraduate and graduate level thermodynamics, and we did not focus on the origin of life the whole time--as is demonstrated by my apparent "ignorance." I really do appreciate the links from Reinis and will peruse them thoroughly. So far, I must admit that I like my apparent "ignorance" and prefer theories that lean towards intelligent design--we can agree to disagree (and you are free to think that I am so stupid that I don't know what a theory is after years of chemistry and chemical engineering classes). I must say I expected to be attacked for my scientific "ignorance" because those who differ from "established" science are often maligned for their views. . . Just as some scientists have been maligned by religious authorities in the past. Thank you Gnixon for your polite referrals to civility.
] 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:It's a relief that it's been a while since your thermo lecturer gave you that odd exercise, because it seems to have been based on or resulted in a very strange misunderstanding. An ] might help clarify things, though in my experience it's not an easy field to get to grips with. Your preference for a ] to overcome natural laws when life or species form is understandable, but please be assured it's not needed for the 2lot. .. ], ]
::This might help too: . Remember, entropy &ne; disorder. ] 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Order, please! is also rather amusing. Anyway, back on topic. Stayinguptoolate hasgotagoodpoint about the Sewell cite going at the end of "his" sentence, and before "Critics". On my machine it seems to be cite . Any problems with moving it? By the way, ] isn't a THEORY, it's what ] do. Unlike supernaturalists. .. ], ] 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::: I support this common sense correction of moving the reference to the sentence it refers to.] 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::Back on topic and then you bring up supernaturalists? Goaheadmoveit. ] 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Have done. The disco link needed moved too, it's just a dupe of Sewell but shows the connection. .. ], ] 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Regarding Jim62's comment about entropy, according to , entropy is the natural tendency of a closed system towards disorder. Scientists can have "fun" using natural laws to prove or disprove theories (as well as gain more knowledge by going through the proofs themselves), which is why I will not forget "disproving" evolution (or the tendency to create order out of disorder) using the law of entropy. Other students probably thought it was fun to prove evolution exists. Of course, many scientists disagree with using entropy to disprove evolution as the originator of life, several of which you have cited, but there are also arguments for it, such as Sewell's article discussed (now at citation 81). Thanks for the enlightening discussion and the in-depth article on ID.
] 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::Just for your interest, the analogy of entropy as relating to molecular level "disorder" is discussed more fully at ], which provides links to various interesting sources, including of a study into the effect the concept of "disorder" has on student understandings of entropy. .. ], ] 17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Had common entropy definitions used "differently-ordered" rather than "disorder" (and occasionally "chaos") the concept might be less problematic. Energy dispersal, a very good way of explaining entropy, is slowly becoming the way entropy is explained in text books -- a good thing in my estimation. ] 10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

==Recommendations for the article (]) ==
Detailed problems/recommendations follow:

=====Evidence for intelligent causation=====
The following introduction statement only states the criticism, not the ID position:
* It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

As an article on ID, this should instead summarize the ID position:
'''Intelligent design tests for evidence of intelligent causation. It is an empirical form the teleological argument for the existence of God.'''''' ] 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:See ]. You cite a pro-ID wiki - not a RS. ID has no tests for evidence of intelligent causation, and is no more empirical than any other teleological argument: see Kitzmiller. ... ], ] 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::You are just making an assertion. See Dembski's filter etc.] 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::See, for example, ], where the subject of the article is primarily being described instead of criticized, even though all the "not science" objections raised against ID could be applied equally there. ] 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Apples and rocks. ] 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Astrology is not being used by the Christian right in their efforts to overthrow science and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in an attempt to establish theocracy. ID is. ] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That may motivate some of us to rail against ID in our personal (or professional) lives, while dismissing Astrology as harmless, but those emotions shouldn't affect the tone of Misplaced Pages's coverage. ] 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Anything, be it ID or astrology, that poisons the intellect and stunts the growth of "the little grey cells" is dangerous. But that's hardly why this article is concerned with undue weight. ID is pseudoscience and as such, falls under ]. ] 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::::And Marxists put all who disagreed with them in "reeducation camps." Please avoid the red herrings.
* The proposed sentence states the ID case. If you want to add the critics, then add:
"Critics claim ID avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer." ] 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:Red herrings and Marxists...ROFL. ] 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

====Intelligent Designer====
Similarly this section begins by stating the critics position, not the ID position:
*"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit."

ID and critics' positions should be balanced. e.g. by stating:

*'''Intelligent design limits its statements on the nature or identity of the designer to what can be inferred from evaluating empirical evidence. Critics claim it intentionally avoids identifying the posited intelligent agent.''' ] 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Proponents also state this – for example, see numerous statements by Johnson such as "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." .. .. ], ] 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::<s>DLH's point here is also correct, and follows from a simple reading of ]. I find it incredibly revealing that an editor of this article would disqualify a statement because an ID proponent might say it. ] 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)</s>
::::I find it incredibly revealing that an editor would deliberately misunderstand another editor's statement as "disqualifying...because an ID proponent might say it." The simple fact is, ID proponents state what the article already says: that ID arguments intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent. DLH's point is incorrect by proposing to add a claim that only ''critics'' say this. That's not NPOV. -] 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::My apologies to DS for misreading his comment. ] 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

====ID Origins, First use, First ID Publication vs ID movement====
I find this article missleading with numerous false or contradictory statements regarding the origins of Intelligent Design, the first ID publication and the ID movement. The statements relating to origins, first use, first publication etc. need to be harmonized with facts to justify FA.
e.g. at least with those listed in the following articles and compilations:
* ]
<ref>: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design, ], ]</ref>,

Reference should be given to much more detailed comprehensive compilations of references to "intelligent design". e.g. to:

*''' <ref> ResearchID</ref>'''

e.g. the following statement in the introduction is false and missleading:

* "Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state."

"Intelligent design" was used by advocates and critics from the 19th through the 20th century before 1987.
"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and Chief Justice Rhenquist recommended against using this phrase.

The following introduction statement is similarly missleading:
* "Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes."

The Overview similarly incorrectly states:

*"The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion."

e.g., Following are some of the significant books and articles prior to 1989:

1986 John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press.

1985 July 26-29: Walter R. Thorson presents "intelligent design" at an Oxford conference, PSCF 39 (June 1987): 75-87

1984 Charles B. Thaxton et al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (ISBN 0802224466)

1983 Raymond G. Boblin and Kerby Anderson, The Straw God of Stephen Gould (JASA 35 (March 1983): 42-44)

1982 Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp 27-28 ISBN: 0894900838;

1979 James Horigan's book Chance or Design refers to "intelligent design".

* Recommend the following statement in the introduction:
'''Intelligent design principles were presented in early publications by Horigan (1979), Thaxton et al. (1984, 1989), Barrow & Tipler (1985), Thorson (1985), Johnson (1991) and Behe (1996).'''

with respective references to:

Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen ''The Mystery of Life's Origin''(1984), Barrow & Tipler ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' (1986), Pandas and People (1989), Johnson ''Darwin on Trial'' and Michael Behe ''Darwin's Black Box'' (1996).'''] 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:This topic of earlier teleological arguments and previous uses of the phrase is fully covered in the article. Use of the phrase as a term began with ''Pandas'', and as its publisher Jon Buell has more recently stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use." . . ], ] 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:: "Intelligent design" as a descriptive phrase does have the long history claimed. What was different with its deployment in 1987 in drafts of "Of Pandas and People" was that "intelligent design" was there said to be, itself, a scientific field of endeavor and human inquiry, and not merely a descriptive phrase of no particular significance. The weak and flabby "intelligent design principles" stuff is obfuscation; the real issue concerns when "intelligent design" was touted to be a thing unto itself, and not just a means of describing some other concept. We have the date for that, established and verifiable in the trial record of <i>Kitzmiller v. DASD</i> as 1987, and its locus as drafts of "Of Pandas and People". The article should clearly reflect this. --] 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

====International status====
This section is one sided against ID. e.g.:
*"Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S."

Some editors refuse to allow counter evidence. Recommend adding:
*'''"Yet, by 2007 ID events had been held in Canada, Czech Republic, Norway, and the UK, with growing international interest.<ref> </ref> ] 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Institutions in Australia, Canada, Netherlands, UK have held origin courses including intelligent design.<ref>'''</ref>] 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' DLH's many objections here are a textbook example of the sort of the policy- and guideline-devoid disengenous objections from ID promotors long term contributors to this article have had to contend with. Before anyone cries foul I'll point out that User:DLH has in his 1.5 year at Misplaced Pages yet to make any meaningful contribution to an ID related article but has an established history of using Misplaced Pages articles to promote ID views and rhetoric while discounting the mainstream view and ignoring WP:NPOV, as well as link spamming ID-related articles to his pet project, an ID wiki : . ] 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Very curious. I seem to recall having tried to make numerous editorial improvements, particularly to balance the discussion, many of which were systematically reverted by one FeloniousMonk. How is it that critics are free to criticize, but efforts to actually state ID positions or balanced statements are reverted? ] 06:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Your "improvements" of late have consisted of original research on flimsy evidence: above, you seem to be citing your pro-ID wiki. A few "events" and "origin courses including intelligent design" hardly constitute much support, but evidence from reliable sources can be considered in context. .. ], ] 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The ''ad hominems'' from FM and DS, directed at DLH, are entirely inappropriate, especially considering that he has raised several legitimate issues in good faith and a civil manner. ] 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm afraid that you might have a very bizarre concept of ''ad homs''. Ad homs criticise the person only, not their actions. If you'll not, both FM and Dave were criticising the user's actions and contributions. I assume that we understand each other. ] 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::FM calling DLH's objections "disingenuous" is equivalent to the ad hominem of calling DLH "disingenuous." "DLH has yet in 1.5 years to make any meaningful contribution" is, likewise, essentially an ad hominem. I apologize to DS if I misunderstood his tone, which came off as a personal attack when I read it after FM's comments. ] 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::See ]. And get off the ad hom kick, will you, you see attacks where none exist. In other words, when the sky really does fall, no one is going to believe you. ] 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
*"Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." This statement is also an assertion without reference. Either delete or balance it.] 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:Look at the bottom of page 24 and top of page 25. {{citation
| url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy
| first = Barbara
| last = Forrest
| author-link = Barbara Forrest
| date = ], ]
| month = May
| year = 2007
| accessdate = 2007-07-18
}}. ] 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

::DLH, a little advice: thoroughly read the refs before making meritless accusations. ] 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

====Peer Review====
*'''Harmonize outline structure.''' It makes no sense to have this a lonely subsection. It should be moved up to the same outline structure as surrounding sections.] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:There being no response, I moved orphan "Peer Review" up on level in outline to match others.] 05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::Lonely? Orphan? This rightly belongs with its siblings, under mummy question of whether ID is science. .. ], ] 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Edit down to relevant Peer Review subject matter'''. This section has numerous comments extraneous to "peer review" that should be moved to other sections or deleted as redundant. e.g. reference to the "wedge strategy" should be deleted as it is already mentioned four other times in the article.

The following sentences belongs under "scientific Method" not "Peer Review":
"Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence." . . ."The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community." ] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Present both Pro/Contra ID positions'''. The section goes to great lengths stating as fact the critics position that there are no ID peer reviewed articles and burying at the bottom the ID position that there are peer reviewed articles. The should summarize the ID position first with references, and then the critics position.
This should refer both to the Design Institute's list of ID publications, and to Dembski's annotated list of ten articles:
", William Dembski, Expert Witness Report, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, March 29, 2005, Appendix 3, p 28-30."] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Reconcile publication statements.''' Stating that there are no ID peer reviewed publications is internally inconsistent with stating that Myers article was published. ] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Harmonize Overview with Peer Review'''
The Overview only mentions the critics position, not the ID position. i.e.,
*"However, 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.'

Recommend changing the Overview to read:
*'''ID proponents list articles they hold support ID and have been peer reviewed, while critics say no articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.'''] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Correct statements on Meyer's article'''.
The "STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON" nowhere states the article was withdrawn. It was only disavowed based on claimed inappropriate subject matter. The editor Richard Steinberg, states that the article was appropriate, and that editorial policies were followed. The statement on its being withdrawn need to be corrected.
] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''State both sides of editorial policy argument'''. TO be NPOV, Steinberg's position on editorial procedures, policy and subject matter need to be stated as well as the critics position.
] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is misleading by citing out of context.
"In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "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.""
In ''Darwin's Black Box'', Behe says the same thing for evolution. This reference to Behe should therefore be balanced to state:

*'''Behe has stated that neither evolution nor intelligent design provide detailed rigorous accounts of how any biological system has arisen.''' with both citations.
] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

====Scientific Research====
The Overview and the Peer Review section combine Peer Review with Scientific Research cf:
*" nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.'

*'''Separate out Scientific Research into its own section.'''
Recommend separating discussion on Scientific Research into its own section separate from Peer Review as this addresses different subject matter. e.g., the following section should be separated out:

*"The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review.""] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The statements referring to Templeton, ID and research proposals contain several false statements. i.e. Templeton never asked ID to submit proposals, and Dembski had submitted a proposal.

The article needs to be corrected/harmonized with the facts. See:
*

*

*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/correction-to-the-templeton-foundations-latest-about-id/
Correction to the Templeton Foundation's latest about ID]

*

*

*'''Refer to ID research. The section should refer to research questions ID proponents are proposing and to research that is being funded by the Design Institute etc. See:
*''''''] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
] 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::Your pro-ID wiki shows a lot of vague "questions" and no evidence of any scientific research. Don't seem to be any reliable sources there supporting your assertions. .. ], ] 09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I think the tough question is how to represent ID proponents' claims that they have proposed research without performing ] to dismiss them. ] 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Hmmmm - while it's verifiable, is simply ''proposing'' research really notable? ''Doing'' it (and ''publishing'' it) should surely be what's required for a science topic to be taken seriously by an encyclopedia. Whether ID applied for Templeton funding or not, its near-total (total?) absence in the scientific literature is very telling (especially when one considers that even ] makes an appearance there). Anyway, we certainly have sources pointing to the absence of ID in scientific journals, so no fear of ] on that particular point. --] 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Is it verifiable? What's presented above seems to be a wiki blog, a primary source giving the Templeton Org's response to the wiki blog, and links to Dembski's blog. Please present ] that fully comply with ], with assessment by secondary sources to avoid ] in interpreting primary sources. Again, the "research questions" ID proponents are proposing according to the ID wiki seem to be vague philosophical queries, a long way from being a proposal for scientific research. Surprisingly enough. .. ], ] 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm sure it's verifiable that ID proponents claim they have proposed research, which is all I'm saying. Is it notable? It might have a place in a discussion of whether ID performs research. ] 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::There you go again Gnixon. Research? Shall we define research before we say they actually perform it? Love your POV. ] 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I could wax poetic about my plans (if I had any) to build a rocket to go to the moon, but until I build the rocket and get my ass to the moon, it's all just talk. ] 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:Propose the following citations:
'''Jonathan Wells posited that Centriole cause the "polar wind" and proposed research to test it.<ref>
Jonathan Wells, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 98 (2005), pp. 71-96.</ref>'''
This is a published ID proposal in a scientific journal.] 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

::It's a "proposal", nothing more. Proposals carry no weight, only action does. Also, Rivista di Biologia is hardly a very good source, in fact it's crap. ] 21:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Your ad hominem attacks cannot fail to disprove that this is a published reference. Wells has reviewed the literature, and given a testable hypothesis. He is now working on ways to test that. That is citable ID scientific theory and research in a published citable journal.] 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Rivista di Biologia is not ]:
::::{{quotation|Since 1979, Sermonti has been Chief Editor of ''Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum'', one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world (founded in 1919), which, prior to Sermonti's assumption of the role of Chief Editor was considered to be respectable journal. Since Sermonti took over, however, it has published papers which would be regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community, particularly articles by creationists such as Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, as well as articles by Morphogenetic field advocate Rupert Sheldrake and holistic scientist Mae-Wan Ho.}}
::::] ] 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Rivista di Biologia is a well known pseudoscience journal. Do your homework before coming back to Misplaced Pages again and destabilizing an article with tendentious claims. ] 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

====Religion and leading proponents====
This section appears biased, pushing Foresters argument on creationism. This should be deleted. If it is kept, it needs to be condensed and balanced with corresponding evidence for agnostics and moslems advocating ID.
For it to be kept, a corresponding section should be placed under Evolution emphasizing the number of atheists including Dawkins who advocate evolution. Recommend adding the following:

*'''ID proponents include Moslems, agnostics, and former atheists (e.g., Mustafa Akyol <ref></ref>, David Berlinski <ref></ref>, Andrew Flew <ref></ref>)'''
] 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*Convert section to an article on '''Origin theories and religion'''.
All origin theories have philosophical implications separate from the theory itself. It is inappropriate to focus on ID and prevent similar discussion in Evolution.

Recommend converting this section to a separate article that addresses the religious beliefs of practioners of origin theories.
Include sections on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creation Science. ] 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:See Kitzmiller. Also note "leading" proponents: Akyol appears to be a creationist making some references to ID, and Flew may be a proponent but has hardly "led". ,,, ], ] 09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::DLH, that is a great vomitous spew you have favored us with, but the more you write, the more obvious it is to me that you will only be happy if this article is written in the same style as the articles on that other wiki, and is essentially an advertisement for the Intelligent Design position. Now ask yourself, seriously, how likely is this to happen? --] 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Filll, characterizing DLH's comments as "a great vomitous spew" is extremely uncivil and an extremely inappropriate response to his/her polite comments. It seems to me that DLH favors ID, but that in no way disqualifies him/her from helping to improve this article---in fact, his/her knowledge of the subject and interest in it is a strong qualifier. DLH's comments, in my opinion, are ''far'' from suggesting that s/he wants to turn this article into an advertisement for ID. For the most part, his/her comments amount to simply suggesting that ] is presented in the same style as, say, ]. The latter is hardly an advertisement, in my opinion. ] 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Gnixon, once you and DLH have basically discredited yourselves, you create a certain image of yourselves and your suggestions. And frankly, I think "intelligent design" is presented the way I would like to see "astrology" presented, especially if there was a dishonest, lying and cheating bunch of intolerant jerks pushing for it to be introduced as science in the classroom. In that case, sure, present them the same way. Why not? But to do that, lets not lighten up on intelligent design, but instead crack down on pseudoscience and assorted horse puckey like astrology even harder.--] 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::It's important to remember that it's not the mission of Misplaced Pages to shoot down Intelligent Design and Astrology. ] 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. .. ], ] 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Nobody is saying "give equal validity to minority views." I just don't understand why <s>most</s> so much of the article should be about debunking ID instead of describing it. ] isn't about making all of Misplaced Pages's articles about pseudoscience topics turn into debunkings. It's okay to indicate the strength of moral repugnance many scientists may feel toward ID, but it's not okay for the article to adopt that POV. Our readers are intelligent enough to decide whose perspective to accept. ] 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately many proponents of ID, while doubtless very intelligent, seem to spread misunderstandings about science which this article has to try to clarify for those looking for information. It's understandable that those who want science to comply with their faith might find that a debunking, but this article has to inform readers rather than support faith. .. ], ] 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't appreciate your insinuation that my statement has something to do with some religion I might follow----I've never offered any information about my personal beliefs, and I haven't tried to guess yours when evaluating your comments. My point about "debunking" was simply that every statement or paragraph about ID is followed by a statement or paragraph about the position of its critics. That's a straightforward observation, from which follows my opinion that it ruins the flow of the article and makes it read like it's going out of its way to emphasize the position of ID's critics. Regarding your comment, I don't agree that this article is compelled to correct the supposed ignorance or gullibility of its readers on the basics of science, which are not the subject of the article. More generally, it's obvious that the positions of scientists, federal courts, etc., must be presented at some point, but why turn the entire article into a long list of point-counterpoint? ] 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I've not commented on your religion, or indeed my religion. Your concern about the flow of the article suggests you'd like the views of non-proponents to be separated away from the points they're discussing – that's actually a lot harder to follow than fully discussing each point as it arises. .. ], ] 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand it would be awkward to try and address each point in some separate section, but why is it important that this article addresses each point? ID is generally the argument that nature shows signs of a designer. I think a section on the scientific/social reception could generally indicate that scientists disagree. Another issue is that much of ID is about attacking the basis of evolution. I think a section on scientific reception could simply give a couple examples of why scientists think the objections are baseless, then link to ], where they ''are'' appropriately addressed point-by-point. I really think a couple examples would serve to get across the positions of scientists, then readers could link to Objections for more detail if they wanted it. I think that layout would drastically improve the readability of the article. ] 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

::These objections and proposals appear to turn WP:NPOV on it's head, giving the minority viewpoint precendence over the majority view and treating the ID movement's spin of the facts as fact. DLH, have you even ''read'' WP:NPOV? Because until you acknowledge that the scientific community (which has dismissed ID as not science alonside the courts) is the majority view there's nothing here to dicuss. This huge list of complaints about the article reads just like a Discovery Institute press release. Literally. ] 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, OddNature, GNixon is reknowned throughout the land for misunderstanding NPOV, then yelling long and hard (of course, throw in the filing of ANI's against anyone who might stand up to his POV warrior attitude) when he doesn't get his way. He ignores the undue weight clause, because, well I wish I knew why??? ] 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DLH is simply yet again regurgitating the Discovery Institute's same tired rhetoric, shown to be outright falsehoods over a year ago in ], and yet again expecting it to be taken at face value and considered afresh and misrepresenting sources (again) in so doing. He apparently expects us to favor completely partisan sources over more neutral and credible sources. DLH, read the ] in its entirety and accept it. Then read the sources in the article. We're bound by policy to rely on source, and not just any sources, but the most credible: NYT, NAS, AAAS, the courts, etc. Wholly partisan sources like those you cite, are suitable as primary sources only. We're not going to be playing the same game here as the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center tried in Dover, misrepresenting both the view of the scientific community and those who testified on its behalf like Forrest. In fact, your very objection to Forrest is the same one made by the DI there, and whose reasoning was ultimately rejected by the judge. Your proposals here will never fly as long as they continue to employ partisan rhetoric to inflate a partisan viewpoint to a degree far beyond its level of support, sustained by partisan sources. Again. ] 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:I could swear we went through all this before. I could swear we went through all this before. ] 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm. Which is a more ] on the beliefs of ID advocates: statements made by those advocates, or interpretations of those statements made by opponents? It seems to me that the best possible source for a claim such as "Joe Foo believes proposition X" is a reliably-sourced assertion by Joe Foo that asserts proposition X ... not an assertion by some third party that "the wicked and treacherous Joe Foo claims to believe proposition X". --] 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This is not a proper categorization of what an opponent is. When objective reliable sources such as numerous scientific organizations overwhelmingly agree "that's a bunch of bunk; it's not science" and other objective, reliable sources say "it's philosophy or theology or religion", and a federal court admonishes the advocates for their dishonesty, etc., etc., that doesn't mean WP editors must assume all these are "opponents" and that we're thus obliged to strike some kind of balance between the proponents' preferred version of events and that of the many published commentators and analysts of the situation. But, I had been wondering if this sort of opinion might be FOo's position with respect to this article. Thanks for helping to clarify. ... ] 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I was thinking exactly the same thing. Foo, I have your number now. It ALL starts to become '''''VERY CLEAR'''''. Thanks so much for your honesty and forthrightness. --] 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> FOo, personal blogs and wikis are not reliable sources, even for the views of their proponents. "Official" sites are a better source for such views, but as a primary source they should as much as possible be read in the context of a secondary source. DLH was proposing a wiki and Dembski's famous blog as the sort of references we should be using, without secondary sources. Need I say more? .. ], ] 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::::: '''Argument from Fascism''': FeloniousMonk apparently wishes everyone to accept his POV or his interpretation of the majority position without question and thus establish fascism (contrary to the First Amendment.) Are the courts so infallible that he would have us bow to the Dred Scott decision? I am afraid that the skepticism essential to science, engineering, and democracy prevents me from so "bowing the knee". Perhaps FM would care to ponder on the ancient proverbs: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." Proverbs 18:17; "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17. ] 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::See ] and ]. ... ], ] 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
* Thanks for all the ad hominem comments. When do we get to substantive discussion on the issue? Yes I have read NPOV. FeloniousMonk is avoiding the substance of my recommendations. This is my perspective, not DI; This section tries to claim ID is invalid because of the religious beliefs of some of its proponents without mentioning beliefs of other proponents. That is equivalent to saying Evolution is valid/not valid because some of its proponents are atheists. That is a logical fallacy that needs correcting. This should be in a separate page by itself.] 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::Here we go again. Evolution is part of science. It is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence gathered, rather surprisingly, by scientists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. One can be of any belief system yet understand evolution. That it negates some aspects of some belief systems may be unfortunate, but neither here or there as far as those studying evolution are concerned. ID claims to be science. This claim is not supported by the scientific community and ID was ruled in a US court not to be science but rather an attempt to import religion into the teaching of science. One of the most notable things about ID is that it is not what it claims to be. Therefore the motives of those who make the claim are of interest. To better understand those motives, their religious backgrounds are important. The religious backgrounds of those who work on evolution are not important because their work has nothing to do with religion. --] 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Johnson, You are avoiding the logical fallacy and revealing how little you have read on the issue. If you address motives of ID proponents, then you equally need to address presuppositions and motives of evolutionists. THose are the two opposing origin theories based on opposing metaphysical presupupositions. Since science cannot prove that intelligent causation does not exist, it is logical to allow that it might and test for it. Again evaluating presuppositions and motives of both should go on a separate page addressing those issues.] 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Hmmm well that post really shows your POV, and clearly indicates you have very little understanding of either evolution or how science works. Science cannot prove that little green jellybabies are not running the universe, but the complete lack of any evidence would indicate that further investigation is unlikely be productive. OTOH substantial evidence supports evolution. But what, pray tell, are the motives of scientists, other than to better understand the natural world? But hey, given what you have written, there really does not seem to be much point in furthering the discussion. --] 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::And here I thought it was little ''blue'' jellybabies, oh well. Bottom line that DLH and other POV-warriors fail to comprehend is that evolution is mute on the existennce or non-existence of a deity or deities; it's simply irrelevant to the theory and thus to the discussion. ] 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::::DLH: The problem is that there's a wide variety of presuppositions that might lead one to accept Methodological Naturalism, Science and Evolutionary Biology, including a disbelief in God and a belief in a God that generally allows the universe to proceed via consistent and determinable natural laws (as well as a wide variety of other equivalent presuppositional positions based on agnosticism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc). On the other hand the presuppositions that lead to promoting ID (and rejecting Methodological Naturalism) are much narrower, more onerous, and thus more directly topical. Science is under no obligation to test for every wild speculation. If ID-ers want their speculations to be tested (and eventually accepted), then it is up to them to formulate, perform and publish these tests for themselves. ] 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'd add that since this is an article about ID, the motivations of its proponents are much more relevant than the motivations of those who accept evolution. ] 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::I might note that in every case where tests have been proposed, such as those by Dembski and Behe, the tests have been attempted and ID has failed the tests so far. So even if it is claimed that this possibility must be accepted and tested for, the result has been negative. So...do you have any tests for green jelly babies?--] 12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive this section since the FAR is closed I feel. ] 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

== Excessive size ==

Sheesh, this page is (was) 439 KiB long! Archiving, anyone? ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:At first glance, everything before ] could be archived without losing anything currently under discussion. Think that's a good cut off point? .. ], ] 12:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::You may wish to consider something like miszabot for archival. It's very easy to set up and it's pretty flexible. ] 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed, archive away! ] 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Done. -] 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

== TalkOrigins ==

I have cute this ref. Formatted with cite web, it looks like:

<nowiki><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html|title=Index to Creationist Claims|publisher=The TalkOrigins Archive|first=Mark|last=Isaak|date=2006|quote=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}}</ref></nowiki>

From the homepage: "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins." A Usenet archive does not meet our sourcing policies. ] 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:''Also'' from the homepage:
{{quotation| The '''TalkOrigins Archive''' is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.}}
:The article in question is edited by Mark Isaak, himself a published author (''The Counter-Creationism Handbook'', ISBN:0520249267). I would claim that it is a ]. ] 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::If more testimonials than mine are needed, then read ] 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::See also ] and its talk page. ] allows an exception for some authorities on certain topics who have written extensively on USENET, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. ] states Usenet is typically only a reliable source wrt specific FAQs. TOA is well vouched for by reliable sources, and has been discussed and accepted as a RS in the past. .. ], ] 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Dave, the (still debated) exception is for pop culture, such as Babylon 5. (Do you not see an irony in arguing for weaker sources when countering Intelligent design arguments?) However, the awards section proves that reliable third parties have discussed the site, and if Isaak is published in the relevant field then he may be allowed under the exception on V. ] 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I happen to agree with Marskell. Not only is it ironic, but in this instance it vastly complicates the analysis of what is a reliable source. There are many other reliable sources that point up the importance of independent critical analyses in peer review. The article can do without this particular source, I should think, and it can readily be replaced in due course with another reliable source that doesn't involve a separate analysis of the reliability of this particular type of newsgroup. ... ] 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It certainly is ironic that the scientific community has avoided giving the credence of formal discussion of creationist claims, and those dealing with such claims from the early days chose usenet which is deprecated as a source. As I recall, a distinction has been drawn between this well acclaimed Archive and the usenet postings which were used as its basis. Another point to consider is that the FAQs are well referenced in themselves. The exception at ] for acknowledged experts who have published elsewhere makes it an option that has to be treated with caution. There's a further irony in that we have to be very careful about using this well scrutinised and referenced resource, but newspaper articles by ill-informed reporters are reliable sources in our terms. My own opinion is that TOA is a useful resource and should not be lightly dismissed, but that in this particular instance the point may be well enough covered by the Brauer / Forrest / Gey citation that follows it. .. ], ] 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that it would be hard to find peer reviewed work dismissing it, because there's no actual peer reviewed work supporting it. The court cases and the various statements by scientific organizations are the strongest sources one'll find. I also agree about newspapers, and have recently argued vigorously that they should not be used for points of scientific fact.

:If Isaak is well-acclaimed and published, and the site material has been vetted by other professionals since its Usenet incarnation, I will demur per the V exception. Is he attached to a university? I've noticed a blog from a professor at the University of Wisconsin, which we should also be careful with. ] 06:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Talk.Origins Archive is ''not'' an unedited archive of Usenet posts, in the sense of Google Groups or the old Deja News. It is an archive of articles relevant to evolution, many of which have been posted on the newsgroup as well. These articles themselves are generally well-referenced. --] 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Talk.Origins Archive is a reliable source, it's not the usenet or an archive of it. ] 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== Original research concern ==

In the Defining as science section, I'm concerned about the paragraph beginning "For any theory..." It doesn't have references but rather explanatory notes that veer into OR unless sourced. Intelligent design violates Occam's Razor? OK, what reliable source has said so? ] 06:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:I've commented on this before. In my opinion these unsourced notes should be deleted, and if a reference relating that paragraph to ID is not available, it should also be deleted. My view is that the entire section should be reconsidered to incorporate the points set out in ], together with other relevant points which are fully sourced and attributable. .. ], ] 08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:<p>Actually, no. There's a difference between "citation needed" or "unreferenced", and on the other hand "unverifiable", or not in keeping with ]. And it's most certainly not OR. The components on this list can be found in several seminal legal cases, in many standard introductory experimental method texts, and in a number of texts dealing with the philosophy of science. I'll go into my personal library and have a look, for starters.
:<p>As to Dave Souza's point, anyone closely familiar with the philosophy of science and the ] is familiar with the points in that short list. And yes, it certainly can be reworked somewhat and still be consistent with the most widely agreed basic criteria. ... ] 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:<p>OK, I added two references for now. When there's an opportunity, it would be nice, IMO, for participating editors to go over this list of criteria again and review it with a closer eye on the testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. And, it would be nice to begin filling in the specific sources for each of these as applied to intelligent design. Yes, I know they're verifiable, but am requesting that we find the reliable sources and place them in the article. Some of them can be found in the lengthy talk-page discussions around the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006. ... ] 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, that makes it more legit, and agree that in the longer term the section can be reviewed. In some ways the problem has been much illuminated since the section was first written, and it may be possible to tighten the focus. .. ], ] 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But the question isn't whether those criteria are in keeping with the demarcation problem. The question is whether other sources have stated ID violates them. Until you have a reliable source stating "ID violates Occam's Razor," it's OR to say as much. ] 10:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Very true. Perhaps the problem with the "Defining as science" section is that it's attempting to provide definitions of science not particularly related to ID, while the meat of the relevant discussion is directly under the main "Controversy" heading. My suggestion is to move the "Defining as science" heading to immediately before the third paragraph of Controversy", so that it begins with "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on...". The last paragraph of that section at present, which starts "Although intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others...", could be moved up to the "Movement" section where a new subsection "Religious reactions" would follow naturally after "Religion and leading proponents", or could form a new subsection further down in the controversy section. .. ], ] 11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::<p>Marskell's concern here is quite reasonable, IMO. These were originally placed in the article based on reliable sources, but prior to the stage in time during which there came to be a more widespread expectation in WP for stricter fullfillment of ] via placing the sources in the article, as versus the earlier expectations that users be prepared to show the proof of sourcing when a particular issue was contested. Since we're doing the FAR, now would be an excellent time to find some of these and provide them. I'll track some of these down over the weekend. ... ] 14:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This quote from William Dembski might be an appropriate reference for the 'Empirically testable and falsifiable' bullet point:
{{quotation|But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability. But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.}}
] 04:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:There's about a dozen sources in the article that support this bit, take your pick. ] 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==FAR closure==
:: Moved to ]. ] (]) 12:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

==Archeologist==
While was working on formatting a cite in the lead, an edit conflict showed up slightly changing the wording and the spelling of archaeologist to archeologist. It seemed to me no improvement and an odd spelling, so I noted the latter and went ahead with the cite template. It appears that ] is actually a US spelling, and as it's a US subject that's perhaps appropriate. However, you'll note that that's a redirect, and the ] seems to prefer the usual spelling, even for the ]. Is it worth being different? ... ], ] 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

: I was the one who made that small change after consulting a few online sources. I am not sure that ''archeologist'' is even the preferred US spelling (although it is certainly acceptable). For example the main entry on the subject in Merriam Webster (a ) is under '''' with "archeology" listed as a variant, and archeologist not even listed.
: Of course, this is such a minor change, that I wouldn't really object if you decide to revert to the older spelling for whatever reason. Cheers. ] 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

::It's not a big deal, and as noted above it was mainly less hassle than having to start again with the cite template. It was almost certainly a US editor who used the "archaeologist" spelling in the first place, let's see if anyone else feels strongly about it. .. ], ] 20:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Sorry for the confusion. It was '''''I''''' who changed the archeologist -> archaeologist for reasons given in my previous post. ] changed it back to the version without the "a" citing "US spelling" in the edit summary, which I think is incorrect. But oh well ... ] 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::My apologies for any problems caused. This article follows US spelling conventions, and I'm afraid I assumed that "Archeologist" was the standard US spelling (by analogy with "medieval", "encyclopedia", "hyena", etc.). If "archaeologist" is standard US, by all means keep it that way. I was only really concerned with the position of the comma. :) ] 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

::::"Archaeology", "archaeologist" are more common, yes. "Archeology", like "]", is archaeic. :) --]

:::::And also kind of ugly. ] 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Interesting reversal of an old trend-- can't wait to begin spelling "Wikipaedia, the Free Encyclopaedia" and such. Yes, I'm afraid "archaeology" has become more common even in the US. (myself, I like the older way better -- "archeology" -- but it's a minority usage and no one in "acadaemia" uses it anymore.) ... ] 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Never before has the inclusion of in scholarly content generated such heated debate with competing examples, analogies, and views of history and US culture being brought forth! ] 01:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: ... on second thought, and in view of the article's subject, I withdraw my "never before" claim :-) ] 01:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Here's a trans-Atlantic argument over . ;-) ... ] 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Heated argument? If you think this is a heated argument, you've obviously not read the archives! ;) . . Anyway, since there's also an ] in the article, it makes sense to standardise (or standardize) on archaeologist. Or, if that's too many letters, archæologist.. <ducks> Bit rushed now, will sort it shortly. .. ..], ] 08:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
::Dave, I like that...I think we should bring the ] back! ] 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: My last post regarding "heated debate" was ''intentionally'' hyperbolic, and a allusion to the fact that all these debates about ''a'' in archaelogy, or ''s/z'' in -ize etc, pale in comparison to the ones engendered by the ''two measly letters'': "ID". Re-reading my old post, I see that it was far too cryptic, and the attempted humor fell flat as it was taken seriously :-) ] 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:Qualification (to be read in a Yorkshire accent) Call that an argument? In my young days we 'ad to eat coal for breakfast, read t'archives all t'way through, and fight wi pit boots an' pick handles for four hours solid, 'afore we thought we'd 'ad an argument. Trouble at ID? It's their enormous egos.... ], ] 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Some say it is still open. Some say it is closed. Some say it has to stay open for another couple of weeks at least or else people will complain. Someone offered to keep it open for a year. I am confused. Is it closed now, officially? Should the material from the FAR talk page be moved here to discuss different versions of the lead and a possible introductory "fork" of this article? Or should we just drop it?--] 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:A little more investigation just revealed to me that this FAR was indeed closed on July 20 by ]: . Unfortunately, the notice at the top of this page has not been updated accordingly.--] 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::That closure appears to be disputed, unfortunately. I suggest that we keep all discussion here (on the talk page, in case this gets moved) until the FAR process owners make their decision. ] 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I also found out that even though it '''''was''''' closed, they have decided to keep it open, but at its FAR archive page, which is not really an archive page, found ].--] 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Apparently it was just closed again. Who knows if they will reopen it?--] 04:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==Experiment, made more explicit==
The following discussion <s>now moved to this</s> was moved from the ], as it's irrelevant to the FAR per se. If people think it should be on ] instead, feel free to move it there. Thanks. ... ] 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:I am moving it to ] accordingly. Thanks--] 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Background''': During the FAR, it was repeatedly suggested that the LEAD of this article is too complicated and has too many references, and is not nice and simple like the German and French article LEADs. Also it was suggested that this article was not accessible to school children and the general public, which I somewhat agree with. In accordance with that, I decided to explore the issue of creating a "parallel" ] article, and also examine the LEADs the critics said were superior to ours. More information can be found at the ].--] 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

===French version of LEAD===
Here is the present French lead:
{{quotation|Le '''dessein intelligent''' (''Intelligent Design'' en ] <ref> La traduction en français de ''design'' par ''dessein'' est devenue usuelle dans ce cadre. Une traduction par ''conception'' serait plus exacte et permettrait de traduire ''intelligent designer'' par ''concepteur intelligent'' plutôt que par ''cause intelligente''</ref>) est le concept selon lequel « certaines observations de l'univers et du monde du vivant sont mieux expliquées par une cause ''intelligente'', et non par des processus aléatoires tels que la sélection naturelle. »<ref>Voir site du ''Discovery Institute'', un des promoteurs du Dessein Intelligent, ''''</ref>
<br>
<p>
Ce concept a été développé par le '']'', un ] conservateur chrétien américain. Certains commentateurs y voient une résurgence du ].</p>}}

Here is a rough English version of this French lead:

{{quotation|
'''Intelligent design''' is the concept that certain observations of the universe and life are better explained by an ''intelligent'' cause and not by natural processes like natural selection.<ref>See the site of the Discovery Institute, one of the promoters of Intelligent design, ''''</ref>
<br>

<p>This concept was developed by the '']'' a conservative Christian American ]. Some observers see this as a resurgence of ].</p>}}

This LEAD has one reference, to the DI website. None of the other statements is cited. There is no mention of the trial, which was widely covered in the English media. The controversy is downplayed. It is certainly easier and more accessible. It does not say who thinks ID is equivalent to creationism and why. It does not explain what this "intelligent cause" is, or make it very clear that this intelligent cause is not supposed to be the laws of nature. This was mentioned above as a preferable approach. It might be the basis of a companion article called ]. I think such an article would be valuable, but have a very hard time in the current environment. Comments?--] 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure "Introduction to intelligent design" would be the best possible idea, as the title makes it very clearly absolutely dependent on the parent article. Maybe "'History of intelligent design theory" or "Development of intelligent design theory" instead? ] 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I believe you are misunderstanding me. This would be part of ]. It would be similar to ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ]. Making a separate history article is not what I have in mind. Of course, if you feel there is enough material to describe the history of this philosophical argument, from the time of the Greeks, through Aquinas, through Paley, and up to the modern efforts of the DI, then you might consider writing that. I personally would decline to do so.--] 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:This proposed intro is lacking in all respects: 1) It only presents one side of the issue, that of ID proponents, and the summarizing description misses all the nuances of their claims that are so important to understanding how and why the scientific community has reacted to ID. 2) It ignores the reaction of the scientific community to ID in direct violation of WP:NPOV. 3) It also fails to describe ID's legal status, which is central to why ID proponents are in the pickle they are in and why ID has made no inroads into the one area ID proponents have tried to advance it the most: public high school science curicula. 4) It violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV by protraying ID's creationist roots as a view held just "some observers". Sources are already provided in the article that show that ''all'' involved parties in the ID debate acknowdge ID is a form of creationism; every leading ID proponent has admitted ID is a form of creationim (in moments of candid dialog with their constituency), every leading scientific professional society has said it in policy statements, as well as the education community, and now a federal court has ruled it. Describing these already verifiable fact as just a view held by "some observers" is to commit an error of fact right up front in the intro and to promote an impression that ID proponent would like to perpetuate, something we won't be doing in this article. Any intro this dissapated and sparse will never serve as an appropriate summary of the article as called for by the guidelines and is a move in the wrong direct. It will never fly. ] 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::I completely agree with all of these objections by ]. However, I would ask that people ponder the question, can we write a simple short article that covers these points, but still make it readable for someone with about a grade 8 reading level? I have raised this repeatedly on the article talk page when we were discussing ], but eventually I realized it was hopeless and the ] article was going to veer off into a less accessible direction. However, I do think that ] has a point, when he says that most of our readers will not be able to understand the present article, and will probably then just go to the very websites that present the arguments from a pro-ID and pro-DI perspective. Can we make something easy to read, that still makes it clear that ID is pseudoscience, etc? I do not know, but it would present a substantial intellectual challenge, and possibly result in a useful article.--] 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps discussion of the proposed new article's content should be moved elsewhere, perhaps to the WikiProject talk, in order to ensure we don't get confused between ] and ]? ] 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:You might be correct. I just wanted to raise the issue and see what people thought, since this is one of the perceived problems of the ] article and its FA status. That is, people demand that the ] article must be all things to all people, which of course is impossible. How this was successfully broached at the ] article (which suffered from much the same difficulties, frankly), which is mentioned above as a model, was to create a parallel "baby version" of the ] article at ]. This then left the main ] article to be as sophisticated as the editors wished, but still presented accessible material on ] to the readership at the new simplified introductory article.--] 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::In my opinion this illustrates very well the need for the carefully balanced lead that the article has at present, contrary to proposals for watering down its description put forward on the article talk page, and the dangers of a simplified pov fork that gives undue weight to the deceptive descriptions officially presented by the DI when they're not rallying their religious supporters. .. ], ] 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I have to agree with ] as well. If the critics of the current ] article lead read the suggestion (partly put forward by me playing ]) and the objections that it inspires, it becomes clear what the problems are with some of the "helpful" suggestions that critics have made above. I also fear that oversimplifying the argument with a fork might run into POV problems, be hard to write in an NPOV fashion, encourage more pro-ID attacks, and be soon challenged repeatedly by POV warriors who demand citations, until the fork looked pretty much like the original article.--] 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::::You mean you weren't playing the ]? ... ], ] 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::The content and "structure" of the lead, contrary to several complaints that amount to a demand to change it altogether, is in keeping with both the FA criteria and ]. A lead section is not required to be a quick trace of the exact outline of the article, but rather is expected to summarize and introduce the topic and be capable of standing on its own. The present lead does all three of these, summarizes, introduces the rest of the article, and is capable of standing on its own, independently of the rest of the article. Frankly, this one's about as good as it gets in the business of presenting complex and controversial topics. The first paragraph says what ID is said to be by its proponents, what it actually is (a modern synthesis of teleological arguments for the existence of God), summarizes in two clauses who its leading proponents are (all affiliated with the Discovery Institute) , and summarizs in one sentence what its proponents assert to be the class of thing that ID belongs to (a scientific theory). The second paragraph summarizes the response of the scientific and science education communities. The third paragraph gives a very brief picture of the legal history, the emergence of the words "intelligent design" as a term followed by the founding of the Discovery Institute, the gradually increasing visibility of the ID movement, and its culmination in a federal court case that resolved the question whether ID is science and whether it can be taught in public schools,
::<p>The article then proceeds to explain all of these things. Indeed, each of the subsections on particular aspects of ID summarizes the battle between ID proponents and the scientific and science-education communities along with other notable critics, as to each basic class of ID-related concept, as to the strategy of proponents and the responses of critics and the court system, as to whether it is scientific such that it can be taught as science. Additionally noted in the article are a number of criticisms by notable commentators that go beyond the issue of whether it's scientific, illustrating to the reader typical debates about the teleological argument itself, irrespective of whether it's scientific per se, which has also been a notable part of the stir about ID. Where this is done, the article so notes (e.g., by stating "eyond the debate about whether intelligent design is scientific..."). That said, ''of course'' it could be written differently; and ''so what?'' To reiterate: there is no requirement that the article precisely duplicate the internal outline and/or every little point of emphasis mentioned in the lead-- it presently serves the accepted purpose of a WP lead exactly as it stands, and exactly as the article is currently written. ... ] 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

===German version===
A rough translation of the vaunted ] article LEAD, as stated above, is:

{{quotation|Intelligently Design (ID) is a neocreationist position that the characteristics of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by an undirected process, like natural selection. Its most prominent advocates are all Americans belonging to the Discovery Institute, and state that intelligent design is a scientific theory, equivalent to existing scientific theories for the origin of life or superior to them.

<p>
An overwhelming majority of American science organizations state that intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory, but is pseudoscience or “junk science”. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences argues that intelligent design and similar beliefs are not science because they require supernatural intervention in the origin of life, cannot be studied empirically, and make no predictions and do not allow the creation of new hypotheses. </p>

<p>
The legal status of intelligent design was established in the legal proceedings Kitzmiller v. Dover AREA School District (2005), in a US Federal court, presided over by district judge John E Jones III, appointed by George W. Bush. Jones ruled that a public school district according cannot require that students be taught that intelligent design is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. This is in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the US constitution. The decision concluded that intelligent design was not science and essentially religious in nature.</p>}}

I would ask the critics to demonstrate how this LEAD is superior to our current article LEAD? Instead of vague complaints, I want to know exactly why our present LEAD is so terrible, compared to these purportedly "better" LEADs? Could these hold up to criticism by POV critics? Are they as complete? As accurate? As detailed? --] 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:I would certainly be in favour of adopting the German lead. Most importantly, it says up-front that ID is creationism, without the digression we currently have regarding the teleological argument; one major point of contention we have is the word "teleological" itself, and the German approach eliminates this problem. (I appreciate that we might have a similar controversy over "neocreationist" as opposed to, say, "progressive creationist", but the basic message of the statement wouldn't change). The US-centric nature of ID is emphasised by the frequent use of "American" - indeed, if all the leading proponents are American as well as affiliated with the DI, we should include that in our article, even if we don't make any more fundamental changes. The rest of the lead is essentially the same as ours, but simplified and cut down considerably, which I think is a positive feature. The German lead _isn't_ as complete and detailed as ours (I won't comment on "accurate", but I can't see anything wrong with it on that front), but I think that makes it superior, _as a lead_. The place to be complete and detailed is the main body of the article. ] 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree, I simply don't see the German version being any improvement on what we already have. In fact, it's less complete and less accurate. ] 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Do you agree, at least, that (a) "Neocreationist position" (with appropriate reservations about the "neo") is better than "claim" as the key word(s) in the definition of ID, and/or (b) the nationality as well as the religions beliefs of the "leading ID proponents" is a significant ommission from our version? ] 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Uh, the German version was copped from an older version of this page. We've alread had that argument regarding Neocreationist position. I don't get point b. ] 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Guess point b. would make it "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute in the U.S." something on those lines. The US centric nature of ID is indicated by paragraph 3, but not made explicit in the lead. .. ], ] 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Part of the difficulty with that characterization is that it is not ''exclusively'' a US phenomenon, although it is primarily a US phenomenon. Clearly, the DI is trying diligently to spread it outside US borders. There are IDEA student clubs being started all over the place, in Kenya, Canada, the Phillipines, and the Ukraine, as well as all over the US. There have been ID websites set up in several foreign countries as well. They have been making efforts in the UK and Australia and other places, although they have recently had some setbacks politically. In addition, clearly the DI has romanced the ] organization (although it looks like it is backfiring, since they have recently denounced ID, finally figuring out it was associated with Christianity and even, God forbid, THE JEWS, which they definitely despise more than evolution). Also, if you look at ], it is clear that a lot of the signatories are from outside the US, so this muddies the water a bit more. So, short of going into a huge long clarifying discussion in the LEAD, should this be even brought up in the LEAD? --] 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'd just leave it alone. We have a link there anyway (besides, if we wanted to specify, "US-based" would be better). ] 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I think the German version has an idea worthy of adoption. A defining characteristic of ID is that it is some type of creationism. They state this obvious fact up front without any weasel words. Is there some way we could do something like this? I’d like to think so. Here’s my shot:
'''Intelligent design''' is the creationist claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as ]."

Does this sentence not better meet ] requirements? ] 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::While I agree that ID is an updated version of creationism, we already had this debate and ran into significant objections to the use of crerationist or neocreationist in the lead. The German version likely did not as ID is a curiostity in Germany not a battleground. In fact, that is what both the French and German leads fail to convey, the level of controversy ID generates. If the ID flacks who've attacked this article had a clue how to read German or French then those articles would become very contested. ] 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

::::What is not noticed by most of the people in love with the ] or the ] LEADs is that these are similar to LEADs that once existed here in this article. The pro-ID, pro-DI POV warriors forced most of the changes on the current LEAD. One change that was not from them was the use of teleology I think. I personally did not favor using the word ] in the LEAD, but eventually after weeks and months of fighting, consensus headed in another direction (basically, one side gives up in exhaustion). That is how things work on WP, as everyone knows). However, the fact that the French and German versions are able to survive is evidence that the DI's claims that they have legions of supporters outside the US appears to be completely false.--] 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Interestingly, the Spanish lead ''does'' cast ID as a teleological argument, ''"como una justificación a posteriori de la creencia en un creador determinado "'' ] 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

===Spanish and Catalan===
These versions are quite blunt as well, especially the Catalan: , . If you need them translated, I'll get to it later (note that the Catalan version is an expansion on the Spanish version). ] 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==Swedish==
Besides this English article, the only other ID article to get a special "distinguished" rating appears to be the Swedish article: , and so maybe it merits special attention. As I look through these, some of them do not have ANY citations whatsoever. Their talk pages are also essentially empty of any comments, particularly compared to this one. As Jim says, in most other countries this is just a curiousity.--] 12:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Interestingly, it has a separate paragraph to note the pseudoscientific nature of ID, ''"Det vetenskapliga samfundet avfärdar intelligent design som '''pseudovetenskap med religiös grund'''"''. ] 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

==Others==
Several other LEADs in other languages do not have any citations. I have not found any with much in the way of talk pages. The Italian version of the article itself appears to be even longer than the English version, and has only 70-80 citations. However, there are still very few posts on the talk page of the Italian version. A systematic survey of all the versions in all the languages might be interesting, but perhaps not particularly relevant. The environment this article must survive in is brutal.
:I admit I like the Italian terms for "junk science" better, ''"("scienza rottame" o "scienza spazzatura")"'' (literally "scrap iron science" and "trash science" respectively). ] 10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:They also cleverly work in teleology, ''"I sostenitori del disegno intelligente considerano tali critiche errate e dovute a un pregiudizio naturalistico che vorrebbe negare a priori uno status scientifico a qualsiasi '''ipotesi o teoria teleologica'''"''. ] 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

==FAR comment==
I think that ] and ] and other outside admins and editors were somewhat surprised to discover that, ''surprise surprise'', what was reputed to be a controversial and contentious subject, in fact, '''actually was''' a controversial and contentious subject. To this end, there appeared on the FAR talk page no less than 4 POV-pushers, including one who had to be banned, one who paraphrased other's comments and edited the discussion to slant it in his direction, one who was sufficiently irritating that an RfC was lodged against him (and which required incredible efforts to defend him against, wasting the time of all concerned), and one who brought the action and was revealed to have been completely misleading everyone as to his real intent and purpose, and began to act in a petulant fashion. One edited a closed page repeatedly, ignoring all the warning signs and page color. One posted huge long screeds and puerile diatribes that had to be repeatedly removed as inappropriate. This all contributed to making it a uniquely unpleasant and unproductive experience.

In addition, this episode was connected with internal FA dissension, and controversy over the closing of the FAR, which might have negative consequences for some of those involved eventually. These POV pushers, who shall remain unnamed but are well known to all, can thank '''''themselves''''' for getting the FAR closed. They made things so unpleasant and so difficult and so fractious, and their complaints were revealed to be so biased and so baseless that the entire reason for the FAR evaporated, compared to the heat generated by their biased attacks. As near as I can tell, this was just an exercise in producing a platform on which the DI and its supporters could parade around various malcontents and scream about unfairness, throwing public tantrums. As they say, by their fruits ye shall know them...--] 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yep, that sums it up nicely. Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis and put it all down for the record. Now, what to do about the remaining POV pusher? He's still more than a little disruptive, preventing discussion on more relevant issues by resurrecting old issues long settled and misrepresenting sources, or ignoring them outright. Reading ] I suggest bring this to ]. ] 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==FAR closed==
Following some confusion about whether or not the featured article review had in fact been closed, I have decided to close it. This article remains a featured article. ] 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks. The review had difficulties, as Filll says above, but also brought in some useful editing help. We'll update those citation templates yet! ... ], ] 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:<p>If I counted correctly, 15 users advocated keeping as FA, with about five or six users that had miscellaneous complants about it, but who did not agree among themselves as to what thing(s) would constitute proper reason(s) to do anything other than keep as an FA. Personally, I say thank you to Marskell, Dave Souza, and others who had a hand in there, for digging in on some of the hard work of updating the citation templates, along with everybody else who made improvements. Geez, will we ever get all of those footnote templates done? ;-) ... ] 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

==Time archive FAR related debates==
Now that the FAR is close it's time archive FAR related debates so we can get down to actually improving the article as opposed to dealing with sniping criticisms and the same old tendentious objections taking advantage of the FAR, using it as a pretense to weaken the article. ] 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

== New sources ==

*]: Here's the PDF version:
*]: The Federation represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists.

] 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

::Psychology doesn't seem relevant to me, but the second ref looks OK. ] 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, because these days experimental psychology uses animal models and new technologies like FMRI and EEG and genetics and tools of neuroscience, etc, I believe that psychology is relevant.--] 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==

What SallyForth123 ''seems'' to be doing is going around articles that have been semi-protected, but not ''tagged'' as semi-protected, and tagging them. A reasonable action, but likely to have been far more effective if she'd explained her actions in an edit summary. Unless the article is in fact ''not'' semi-protected, I would suggest letting the tag stand. Some system whereby tag & reality were ''automatically'' aligned would be a good long-term idea. ] 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed as to everything Hrafn42 said here. The lock insignia for "sprotect2" is visible but discreet with a hovering tab and a link to ], Unregistered IPs or new users who attempt to implement an edit are notified at the top of the edit-box page what their options are. If the article's long-term sprotect2 involved a mssive template display, it might arguably be excessive to constantly display it, which I'd suppose was discussed in arriving at the lock icon the way it presently is designed. Sallyforth123, I agree, did the right thing. As to justifications given for long-term or indefinite sprotect2, please see ], e.g. the thread currently at the top of the page. ... ] 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::Ummm, I think you misunderstood me on my final point. I was not recommending that ''this'' article get "long-term" semi-protection, rather that having the protection/unprotection of an article ''automatically'' cause the tag to be applied/removed (e.g. via a bot) would avoid confusion due to misalignment of tag versus reality and might be a good long-term idea. ] 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::::No real need for the extra "Ummm", IMO, but NP either. My last sentence was referring to the ''practice'' of having had a long-term semiprotect in place, as this article has done for some time now. I was merely making an additional note that the practice is reasonable and has been well justified and supported to alleviate unnecessary work and disruption of content in articles where there are many "drive-by" edits by anon IPs that do not serve to help the article in question. And yes, a bot would be a reasonable approach to matching the page to the actual protection status. ... ] 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I've seen bots go around and remove tags from pages that are no longer protected. I'll see if I can track down one and recommend to the owner to set it up to also add them to pages that are portected and don't have the tags. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I've put up a request for such a bot at ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

== Evidence for Designer ==

::: A reminder, this page is for improving the article, not debating ID or such. ] 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Quite correct. Therefore, I am removing the material above to the ] talk page.--] 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==Main page picture==
If I wanted to put this article on the main page (as Today's featured article), what image should I use? The only pictures currently in the article are the creationism and watch pictures in the templates, and I don't care for either of them. ] 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some possibilities: ... ] 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:Note that pictures have to be free. ] 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not aware of any costs attached to any of these, and the fair-use rationales appear sound on all of these. I might also proceed to put in a permission request, e.g., to Time Magazine, to use the . They tend to grant these permissions fairly readily. ... ] 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) And, for another example, the cover of ought be readily permitted by the (Harper-Collins), though frankly it's a bit less NPOV to put way up front in the article. ... ] 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Kenosis, "fair use" isn't acceptable for images on the main page. ...], ] 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
]|thumbnail|left|200px| The textbook '']'', first published in 1989, changed the words "creation-" to "intelligent design" prior to its original publication. Its intended audience is secondary school biology classes.]]

]|thumbnail|center|200px| The 1991 book '']'' was among the early "intelligent design" books.]]

]|thumbnail|right|200px| ] proposed the concept of ].]]

]|thumbnail|left|200px| The concept of ] was introduced in ]'s 1996 book, '']'']]

]|thumbnail|center|200px| ], a prominent critic of intelligent design creationism.]]
As I understand things, the book covers aren't going to pass fair-use outside the articles on the books themselves - indeed, it's quite possible that all fair-use images will be banned before too long. The Dembski photo is also a bit doubtful, as it's copied without permission from his own site. Even though the photo is legal, I'm not sure that Dawkins is the ideal candidate to represent the anti-ID position; perhaps Ken Miller or Barbara Forrest, if we can get free-use photos of them? The photo on Miller's article isn't free-use (and isn't that good, to be honest), so we can't use it. ] 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:I can't cite you case law at the moment and have not a clue whose lawyers are writing what to Jimbo Wales' offices in Florida. But this is an article that deals with all of these books and is a almost a poster child for fair use. That is quite unlike the widespread uses of cover art on the web for people's various commercial uses. But I haven't been following the discussion on these matters within the wiki, so if the current discussion says to drop all cover photos from all articles, I imagine they'll get removed. ... ] 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree 100% - Misplaced Pages would be on completely solid legal ground if it were to allow this sort of image. But, it doesn't, and we have to play by the rules, if the Powers That Be aren't prepared to change them. :( ] 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:::See ] below .. . ], ] 11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

== Pictures in this article ==

Since some more pictures have been dug up which can be used, could we insert them in this article and some of the subsiduary daughter articles to make them a bit more interesting and less intimidating?--] 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:No - see ], particularly "Examples of unacceptable use" paras 7 and 8. I've removed the images - reluctantly, but those are the rules. ] 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

::Then I am good and confused.--] 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<p>Here are the criteria listed in ], transcluded from another page:
Non-free content may be used on the English Misplaced Pages under fair use '''only where all 10 of the following criteria are met'''. These criteria are based on the ], the goal of creating a 💕, and the need to minimize legal exposure.

# '''No free equivalent.''' Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
# '''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
# (a) '''Minimal use.''' As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.<br/> (b) '''Resolution/fidelity'''. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.
# '''Previous publication.''' Non-free content has been published outside Misplaced Pages.
# '''Content.''' Non-free content meets general Misplaced Pages content requirements and is encyclopedic.
# '''Media-specific policy.''' The material meets Misplaced Pages's ].
# '''One-article minimum.''' Non-free content is ].
# '''Significance.''' Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
# '''Restrictions on location.''' Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on ]. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add <nowiki>__NOGALLERY__</nowiki> to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
# '''Image description page.''' The image or media description page contains the following.
#* (a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source as set out at ].
#*(b) An appropriate fair-use tag indicating which Misplaced Pages policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags is at ].
#* (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at ]. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

<p>Now, which of these ten do any of the images above not comply with? ... ] 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:The photo of Dembski fails #1. The book covers fail #10c, as the rationales (both template and text description) make it clear that they're being used to illustrate the articles on the _books_. Although the books are a major - indeed, an essential - part of the Intelligent Design movement, _this_ article is not about the _books_ specifically. The photo of Dawkins is OK, and can be re-inserted if necessary. ] 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::All of the images (including Dawkins) also arguably fail #8 - they make the article prettier, but they don't (unlike, say, a map or diagram) _add_ to the content of the article. ] 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
<p>Incidentally, with respect to #8, please look at the images above, and let us know whether the reader's understanding is not significantly increased by their inclusion with captions, and diminished by their absence. Recognizing I could very well be wrong, it seemed to me that the article came to life with the images included, whether viewed from the perspective of "friend" or "foe" of the strategy of intelligent design. An example of the article with images and reasonably brief explanatory image-captions included is ... ] 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:10c is boilerplate. In other words, we'd remove the images rather than providing the rationale? ... ] 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::Maybe it's time to consider seeking explicit permissions such as are quite routinely granted by publishers, who are virtually always willing to have additional exposure for their products. ... ] 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Sounds like a good idea to me. It's also possible that the rationale for "Pandas", at least, could be extended to cover this article (and the Kitzmiller article, too) - however, I must warn you that you're up against forces which make the tenacity of our regular editors look like Teflon®; getting explicit permission would be a much better way. ] 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Tevildo, I've looked into this a bit further, and don't mind seeking explicit permissions from publishers. I can tell everybody from personal experience (specifics irrelevant--see the illustration at the top of ]) that publishers routinely grant such permissions without a second thought. But I don't think this should be necessary here. As to using book cover images relevant to, and capable of improving the readability and explanatory power of this article noticeably, may I suggest allowing a brief period of maybe a few days between installing the images and presenting explicit rationales on the image pages as asserted by #10c, in order to gain consensus that such images are or are not helpful to readers' understanding of the topic. (And, if we need to get to placing the rationale immediately in accordance with current boilerplaete dictum 10c, this too can be done.) Please remember that well chosen illustrations and illustration captions presented in conformance with WP:NPOV and such are capable of being extremely helpful in facilitating readers' understanding because they create a visual reference of an important marker within the topic and have attached to them a brief note about this marker, e.g., "this 1990 Book by author X was among the first 'intelligent design' books", etc. As to William Dembski's image, I suggest it'd be necessary to balance an image such as that of Richard Dawkins for purposes of NPOV-- I think offhand that it needn't necessarily be a one-on=one balance, but it does need to be balanced. And per criterion #1, I don't think anyone here can just go see William Dembski and snap a photo. (If someone here can, please let us know. Or maybe face shots are outta here by consensus or whatever, but IMO they also help to provide aesthetic balance when used in conjunction book and/or magazine cover images. After all, this is about both advocates and the books they've published. In Dembski's case, I personally wasn't able to find an image that meets the criteria set forth in ] with respect to "free images" as presently defined in some quarters of WP.) Thus, lacking presentation of a "free image", Dembski's phono meets criterion #1 I think.
::::<p>So, my preliminary proposal is to change the article to roughly upon recieving feedback from as many participants in this article as care to comment. ... ] 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
]'' introduced ''intelligent design'', and led to ].]]
{{commons|Giant Panda}}
] has the last laugh :) .... ], ] 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


A couple of points:
* Fair use images should '''''never''''' be used on Talk pages (see point 9 of fair use criteria), so the displayed fair-use images above should be changed to simple links.
* Kenosis, you are welcome to ask the publishers for permission to use the book covers, but in my opinion, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they will release them as ] - we all can imagine the what incredible use the anti-ID crowd could put such images (and their derivatives) to if they were indeed public domain! Of course, there is a slim possibility that they will allow the use of those images on wikipedia (although even that is unlikely, given that wikipedia's content doesn't parrot the publisher's /author's beliefs), but wikipedia does not allow wikipedia-only or non-commercial licenses.
* That said, it may be possible to establish a fair use justification for some of the book-covers, since their content are specifically discussed in the article. Perhaps a question regarding this can be posed at ], where editors relatively well-versed in copyright issues hang out. Cheers. ] 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:The hard-and-fast distinction I'm seeing misrepresented by at least two, perhaps three, users above -- between "free" and "non'free" images on the wiki as "yes"/"no" or "go"/"stop", "permitted"/"not-permitted", etc. -- is by far an overly simplistic, and fundamentally false distinction AFAIK. This would be a reasonable time to begin a bit of re-education about these issues around the wiki I would think. (Not that I have enough time to do it singlehandedly. And I could, of course, end up getting sent to a re-education camp myself, as perhaps could others, depending on how things go in our part of the "real world". But that is irrelevant to the current legal status of images produced in the U.S. and subject to U.S. copyright law.) Criterion #9 is, frankly, an arbitrary and overly sweeping distinction for images produced in the U.S. and subject to some basic communication rights related to the same First Amendment that was at issue in the Dover case, except that we're not in a public school science class attempting to teach philosophy, theology or religion. Rather, we are discussing the public implications of the material put forward by those books. But if someone else wants to subsume the inline images on this talk page above into links, by all means please go ahead on this basis with no further objection from me. As to the proposed use of these or any other low-resolution book-cover images, such as the ones displayed or linked above, it is squarely within the applicable fair-use critieria AFAIK; the Dembski photo is self-published in conjuneciton with Dembski's ''curriculum vitae'' on the web, and thus, lacking a "free" alternative, is more than fair game for reproduction in the context of conveying information. ... ] 11:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


===Free image===
]'' introduced ''intelligent design'', and led to ].]]
As Raul has pointed out, copyrighted images have to be under a free license if they're used on the main page. '']'' introduced ''intelligent design'' as a new term and began the campaign for its use in schools, as well as being central in the Kitzmiller case. It uses a pic of a panda on its cover, and made the panda into an icon of ID. We don't have to use the book cover to convey that icon, and have plenty of images of ]s available for free use on the Commons. This picture is particularly bold and graphic, and in my opinion would work well on the article. It would be possible to make "fair use" of the book cover on an article which directly discusses and criticises the book, so that may be arguable but it's hardly the main function of the article. Copyright and care over licences works well for Misplaced Pages, and we have to take care in respect of other people's licences. .. ], ] 11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:Oh. I understand now. Thanks Dave, for clarifying the distinction for me. Anyone care to go to Seattle and snap a photo of the Discovery Institute? Then publish it as free? Sure, I suppose a laughing Panda ought to hit it big with the NPOV police. How about a more demure Panda maybe? ... ] 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
::Here are some additional options at the commons, ... ] 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I think the image suggested by dave is the nicest, and in anycase closest to the cover image of pandas and people. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 14:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the panda pictures (see ]). They are too far removed from the topic. Anybody who is not intimately familiar with the topic will not understand the reason its there. ] 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps TIME magazine will allow the use of their cover? I am not sure what can be done, if the pocketwatch is not good, and the Pandas are too obscure for most people, and the book covers are not available and the main players in the controversy are not suitable or recognizable. There is of course the 747 gambit, but this again is too obscure. Maybe a picture of Darwin? I am not sure. A picture of the Beagle? The tree of life? Maybe a picture of the flagellum tha that is supposed to be irreducibly complex? A picture of DNA to indicate genetic information that ID claims cannot be produced?--] 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::How about a picture of a brain pickled in alcohol? ;) ] 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::: I would prefer ]. Much higher artistic pedigree. :-) ] 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

]
Draft for discussion. <s>May redo if I can be arsed.</s> And don't rush this article to the front page: some points of clarification / reorganisation to be considered, and those cite templates linger on... ], ] 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC) ], ] 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

===Continuing===
I've had a brief opportunity to follow up on this a bit further.
<p>As to the issue of low-resolution images of Time and covers of other news magazines to help visually illustrate a public manifestation of issues that are the topic of WP articles, I imagine this will be important in the future for WP, and is of interest to us presently here at the ] article. See, e.g., the brief thread at ]. That editor, Walter Isaacson, appears to have written as follows (the IP of origin is in Loveland, CO, and Isaacson is chair of the Aspen Foundation, so it's authenticity, though by no means guaranteed, is at least plausible):
<blockquote>Keep . I was the editor of Time Magazine when we ran this cover. I admit that I have an emotional interest, but I would respectfully argue that it is worth keeping. The photograph is by Philippe Halsman, one of the greatest American 20th century portrait photographers, whom Einstein helped escape the Nazis. I personally think it is the most famous and best portrait of Einstein. His widow gave us special permission to use it on our Person of the Century issue, and she kept it out of circulation for the year leading up to that issue at our request. I have read the 10-point Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I can attest that it is fair to use this. Time has always allowed, as a matter of policy, its magazine covers to be reproduced in the context of an article about the issue. In addition, we always negotiate -- and in this case did negotiate -- the right from the artist or photographer (in this case Halsman's estate) that the cover may be reproduced, as long as it is in the context of a magazine cover (in orther words, you could not automatically reproduce Halsman's image, but you could reproduce the Time cover using the image). In my opinion, both the photograph and the Time cover showing him as Person of the Century meet the "notability of this image" criteria. -- Walter Isaacson</blockquote>

I'd say there is a reasonably high probability that Time Magazine would explicitly permit uses such as a low-resolution image of the August 15, 2005 cover as an illustration of a public manifestation of the intelligent design controversy. There are significant commercial advantages for such magazines as Time to freely allow their covers to be reproduced in low-resolution as much as anyone cares to, irrespective of the reason, so long as it does not dilute or infringe the trademark or get used for commercial gain (e.g., by selling a collection of their magazine cover images).

<p>Thus, I want to advocate replacing that image in the article. As to the other cover images of books such as '']'', '']'', '']'', they similarly are low resolution images of book covers that fit the ten criteria for "fair-use" images. They are important markers in the topic of intelligent design that increase the readers' perspective on the topic, along with the other criteria except for 10c, which requires disclosing the rationale on the image page. This, it would appear, needs to be done more-or-less concurrently with placement on the article page, else it would fail #7, which requires that the image be ''used'' in at least one article (not exactly a catch-22 if they're put on the page and the rationale is given at approximately the same time).

<p><s>As to Dembski's photo, it's probably not copyrightable to begin with, since "works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all." If it is copyrightable at all, 1) it's already been placed out in the public domain by the subject of the photograph, with no indication of who took the photograph, 2) it is a low resolution photograph that has no commercial value at all and is already freely posted in electronic form on the subject's website, and 3) it's a fairly becoming photograph that, if there are any serious complaints about it, can perhaps be replaced with an old yearbook photo or a snapshot of this person dodging out of the DI headquarters in the rain (unfortunately we can't find one right now, so there are no "free alternatives" and thereby meets criterion #1).</s>... I've stricken this last paragraph, having had a chance to brief myself on the present debate within WP concerning photographic "head-shots" of living persons. It is indeed a still-debated issue, though in March, 2007 the WP Board of Trustees passed a resolution that states: ''"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."'' An example of the current debate can be seen at ]. In any event, the photographer of another photo of William Dembski has offered to release it into the public domain, so the question may become moot in the near future by taking that photographer up on her/his offer . ... ] 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
<p>So, it seems to me the real question is, "Do the editors wish to include such images in the ] article?". ... ] 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:I personally favor more pictures.--]
::Um. And do you favor the free licensed ] image, as shown above? Any resemblance to ] is entirely coincidental, and in my opinion it concisely summarised the central concept of ID. .. . ], ] 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm still looking around for a public-domain image that meets NPOV, though I haven't found anything yet that seems to fit the need here. I recognize that the watch is not ideal, particularly without a caption noting what the watch means. Similarly it would be with an eye, which would require at least a brief caption to explain its significance.
:::<p>But I'm also interested in knowing whether there's interest in having those other images in the article, as was attempted, for example (scroll down to observe one possible approach). Oh, and then there's the photo of Judge Jones too, if anyone cares to think about that one. Doubless there are other realisitic possiblities as well. ... ] 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the pictures in the article mock-up. It makes the article more visually stimulating. The Anonymous Designer picture is great! We have to have that in the article somewhere. I would like the judge Jones picture used on the first reference to him in the lead. ] 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:I was able to get in touch with the photographer who took the photo of William Dembski that can be seen on http://www.designinference.com/index.htm. He says he will get in touch with me later in the month and endeavor to upload or email the photograph and release it as a free-license. In the meantime, the fair-use photo in ] is still available until the one I just mentioned gets released. Presently I've tried two initial approaches, one that I implemented , and the other of which can be seen with slightly smaller pixel resolution on all of the images ]. Tevildo had knocked down my last attempt to try some images after Raul654 had brought up the image issue, on the basis that the images were not the ideal "free" images but were "non-free" (i.e., "fair-use") which I hope has since been adequately clarified. Tevildo, any further thoughts at this stage? As to Raul's request to look for freely-licensed images that would be suitable for a main-page presentation, we're still stuck for one that captures the concept in the way that Raul requested above. ... ] 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:<p>I've gone ahead for now and re-introduced a preliminary set of images with the following edit summary: ''introducing images per recent talk threads. Fair-use rationales given on Talk, with specific rationales for each category of images, e.g., low-resolution book covers, low-res photos, etc.'' Lacking any major objections, I imagine it'll go one step at a time from here. Most unfortunate to me is our inability to find a "free-license" image that can convey the overall concept of intelligent design such as Raul had requested. Perhaps it's still out there or could be created at some point in the future. ... ] 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::Was there a picture for the main-page the last time this article was there? ] 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not been on the main page to date. This is preparatory, just in case the FA director and FA community decide to feature it at some point in the future. ... ] 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

==Assistance needed==
at ]--] 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks. Difficulty appears to have passed, at least for the moment.--] 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


== Peer-reviewed journals, publications 2==

I'd like to add
<blockquote>
However, there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science|title=Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design}}</ref>
</blockquote>
after
<blockquote>
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.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }} ]</ref>
</blockquote>
--] 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

=== History ===

* The that lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design was presented.
* Assertions were made about the source and the primary source.
* The assertions were challenged and questioned.
* ] moved the discussion to another page.
* The discussion was moved back.
* We are waiting for support of assertions against the source.
:<b>You</b> are waiting. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::For your response. --] 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
* ] and others removed the discussion.
* The discussion part 2 was reinserted.


=== For ===

* The lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design. --] 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Against ===

====Are there any reasons against the addition?====

Unreliable '''primary''' source, completely unacceptable nonsense. See ] and ], and stop what looks remarkably like ] on your part. ... ], ] 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:What is unreliable about the '''primary''' source? --] 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::DI has a track record for lies and misinformation. As such they are a reliable source, for nothing but their beliefs and statements. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Please, answer yes or no. Does the list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --] 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Why is it completely unacceptable nonsense? --] 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


:See ] and ], and stop what looks remarkably like ] on your part. --] 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

====Is there anything incorrect about the addition?====
The proposed addition would be incorrect (i.e., not consistent with the many ] on which this article is based). All of this is discussed in keeping with WP:NPOV in the section explicitly titled ] . The Kitzmiller court made clear in its decision that Behe had admitted on the stand that there are no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design. Behe said: "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." That the Discovery Institute continues to make this claim of peer review, and that ID proponents have set up their own "peer review" consisting only of ID supporters is also already stated in that section, along with other pertinent facts relating to peer review of ID-related literature. ... ] 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:Please, answer yes or no. Does the list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --] 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::You have your answer. It doesn't matter what they list, because it's a lie. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small>

:::Please, state your answer clearly with a yes or no so we may continue. --] 02:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Please, show us how what they list is a lie. --] 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Please, give us an example of lies in what they list. --] 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


:Does "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." equal "no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design"? --] 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Is "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." a subset of "no peer-reviewed articles in support of intelligent design"? --] 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? ===
:Please, sign your answer under Yes or No. Does the list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --] 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

==== Yes ====

==== No ====



==Peer review issue raised by ]==
I've moved the questions presented by Yqbd on a separate page because they are increasingly verbose and already consensused as to the content of this article based on ] such as a federal court and the entire scientific community save for a few that confuse Biblical apologetics, theology and philosophy with what today is termed "scientific method". Yqbd's assertions, and responses to Yqbd's assertions, are now at ]. If there is the slightest hint of possible consensus to revisit the issue of "peer review", please feel free to revert and place that content back on this page. Sincerely, ] 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:Interesting strategy you guys have here. Respond with assertions and when challenged, remove discussion. --] 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Your more than welcome to continue the discussion, but having it on a subpage is more convenient so it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of this page. If you change anyone's mind on the subpage or there is indication that the consensus about these issues has changed then it will make sense to bring it back to the main section. ] 04:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::: Do you agree on moving all the discussions to subpages while we're at it? --] 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


== Shorten the SD ==
::::Not if they're relevant and backed by a reliable source. This has gone beyond raising an issue to disruptive trolling to make a point. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


The ] should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of ]? ''No''. But we do have various articles in ] and ]. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "]"? Again, ''no''. Let's just say that ] is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – ] (]) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Please, respond in the discussion because you're repeating your unsupported assertions again. Respond to the questions of your assertions and let us move on with the discussion. --] 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as ] says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- ] (]) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::I observe that the ] article on the simple English Misplaced Pages treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the ] article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --] (]) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – ] (]) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|This is not a question of RS}} Yes it is. You were trying to change this Misplaced Pages article based on what another Misplaced Pages article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --] (]) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


::If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.
=="Claim"==
::Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --] (])
::: My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "]", etc. The ] guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – ] (]) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read ] instead of just saying it. Also ], ] and ].
::::Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --] (]) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - ]the ] 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::@] You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:
::::::'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as ] says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.


::::::You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --] (]) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The word "claim" is listed as one of the ]. I don't think you can start the article with it. What is wrong with the word "concept". That is what ID seems to be, a philosophical concept that, as the article says, goes back to Plato. ] 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:] appears to only seek the avoidance of "claim" as a verb, not as a noun. Additionally, it is only a "part of the Manual of Style", not a hard and fast rule. The problem with "concept" is that it gives no indication of how controversial and controverted ID is, thus white-washing it. ID is not a well-formed or legitimate "concept", it is a baseless and frequently-equivocated "claim". ] 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


:] Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for ], but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers ] (]) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::In that case it probably should have a shorter article. :-) ] 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.
:I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.
:Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.
:But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. ] (]) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::Yup, the tyranny of ]. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> ] (]) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Straw Man. I am ''not'' criticizing ]. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) ] and secondary implications such as ], overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as ] which you just used on me with your sarcasm.
:::I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.
:::A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. ] (]) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. ] died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. ] (]) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? ] (]) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the ]. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the ] theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. ] (]) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::Big Bang, despite your protestations, ''is'' a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see ]. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|That sounds like an appeal to ignorance}} Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.
::::::{{tq|How do you know one is not already out there?}} The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.
::::::Independent of that, this is ]. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see ] - and does not impress anybody. --] (]) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of ] to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - ] (]) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::::The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. ] (]) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. ] (]) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Read the FAQ. --] (]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information.
::For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture.
::Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution...
::I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing.
::I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia.
::] (]) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to ], and we have the website policy ].
:::About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. ] (]) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to.
::::I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article.
::::You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself.
::::] (]) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. ] (]) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article}}
::::::For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making.
::::::] (]) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
:::::::In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. ] (]) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.}}
::::::::Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused.
::::::::] (]) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::]. ] (]) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned:
::::::::::"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."
::::::::::In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more.
::::::::::] (]) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. ] (]) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The section as worded reads like a clear violation of ]. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs.
::::::::::::] (]) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Misplaced Pages is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody.
:::::::::::::Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias. ] (]) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples.
::::::::::::::] (]) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::}} @] Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- ] (]) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)


:While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un
:::concept- 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. <br>
:Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea. <br>
:] (]) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
3. A scheme; a plan <br>
:As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes.
:] (]) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)


::The ] of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the '''current version''' of the article is likely to be a non starter. --] (]) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2 easily fits.
:::{{tq|So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version}}
--] 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::] I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations.
:::] (]) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to ]. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
::::I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with ]s. About impartiality, see ].
::::Also, I don't see why ] should be provided for a ''hidden comment.'' ] (]) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.}}
:::::I believe the exceptions listed in ] are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having ''five ''citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting.
:::::{{tq|I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.}}
:::::I'm tempted to evoke ] here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid ] by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also ] (much less ]) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to ] in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article.
:::::The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none.
:::::] (]) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::] was a reply to {{tq|more impartially}}. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. ] (]) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially}}
:::::::I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation.
:::::::{{tq|You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial.}}
:::::::I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks ] means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating ].
:::::::This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing.
:::::::] (]) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the ].
::::::::] is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. ] on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. ] (]) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.}}
:::::::::I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience.
:::::::::It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia.
:::::::::{{tq|WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline.}}
:::::::::That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. summarizes a policy which reads {{tq|"which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, '''without editorial bias,''' all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."}}
:::::::::Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with ] with {{tq|"Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias."}} I
:::::::::
:::::::::{{tq|WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy}}
:::::::::Is '''anyone''' here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience?
:::::::::] (]) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::] requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. ] (]) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article}}
:::::::::::I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with ]. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts.
:::::::::::* "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" '''<-- This is ''your ''conclusion presented without a source'''
:::::::::::* "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." '''<-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case.'''
:::::::::::* "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" '''<-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33.'''
:::::::::::* "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." '''<-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized.'''
:::::::::::* "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" '''<--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too).'''


:::::::::::There are more examples, but I wish to move on. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
So you tell me to see the talk page, which I do. I read it. I look up both words in a dictionary. Wiki has a rule that you interpert for one usage of it. Also you feel the word should show controversy (aka pov). I want to add a word that is netural that doesn't show pro or con just says its an idea, aka a concept. Taking no sides. Your opinion of ID doesn't belong on wiki. Its your POV. My opinion doesn't belong on wiki its pov. But the word Concept using the definitions provided are netural not saying its a fact or not just an idea. So tell me again how my netural addition would be wrong for wiki and npov? --] 02:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


:::::::::::{{tq|While you admit that ID is pseudoscience}}
:ID lacks the consistency or coherence to be considered a concept. You might also like to read ]. ID is a claim made for purely political ends. End of story. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings.
:::::::::::{{tq|you seek to soften the tone of the article (...)}}
:::::::::::It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise.
:::::::::::Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: '''I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Misplaced Pages article.'''
:::::::::::It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more.
:::::::::::Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues.
:::::::::::] (]) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience? Creationism? ==
:you must have the wrong book for it to be the end of story. I got a dictionary and it says what I said above. Its an IDEA. a simple controvery tag and the netural text would take care of this. You as the other editor are adding your 2 cents on your belief of the topic. I am discussing word usage not my feelings on the topic. Big difference. Right away you show your bias of the topic how can your view been seen as anything but NPOV? I am trying to change a word for wanting it to show controversy to netural. NPOV. and with wiki thats the end of story (cheesy but its what you did). --] 02:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say:
:So... you say ID is an "IDEA" but you want to describe it as a "concept" - and you accuse others of having a POV. Hmmm. <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
“The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” ] (]) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


: Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at ]. --] (]) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::I should also point out that the lead has for at least two years now, in which time the article has undergone massive revision, expansion, copyediting, discussion and two FA reviews, both passed. Clearly the consensus is that ID is a claim. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::See ] and ]--] (]) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Also see ]. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::And ] and ]. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --] (]) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


::I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at ]. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from ', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a '' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to ] seems reasonable. But ] use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than ] since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers ] (]) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
read the definitons
:::It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.
] what are we arguing about I don't want pov. the editor who changed it admits he wants the word to show controversy. Idea is netural. click the or here <br>
:::So Hoyle did not endorse ID. ] (]) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity. <br>
:::: ] - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention ] as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at ]. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the ] by a few years with his own ideas of ], the argument of improbability and use of ] (similar to ]), his creating the ] metaphor, plus remarks about ], etcetera. His 1983 book "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of ] and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers ] (]) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
2. a thought, conception, or notion: That is an excellent idea. <br>
:::::It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. ] (]) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
3. an impression: He gave me a general idea of how he plans to run the department. <br>
::::::] - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers ] (]) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
4. an opinion, view, or belief: His ideas on raising children are certainly strange. <br>
:::::::No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. ] (]) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
5. a plan of action; an intention: the idea of becoming an engineer. <br>
::::::::] - understood, although I hope you mean ] and ]. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for ]. Third-party would be outside reporting such as - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.
6. a groundless supposition; fantasy. <br>
::::::::{{xt|The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose."}} Cheers ] (]) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Philosophy. a. a concept developed by the mind. <br>
:::::::::To assert that is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- ] (]) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
b. a conception of what is desirable or ought to be; ideal. <br>
::::::::::] well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers ] (]) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
c. (initial capital letter) Platonism. Also called form. an archetype or pattern of which the individual objects in any natural class are imperfect copies and from which they derive their being. <br>
:::::::::::ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.
d. Kantianism. idea of pure reason. <br>
:::::::::::The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.
:::::::::::I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. ] (]) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
8. Music. a theme, phrase, or figure. <br>
::::::::::::] Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers ] (]) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
9. Obsolete. a. a likeness. <br>
{{od}} Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to ] an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . ], ] 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
b. a mental image. <br>
::] Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at ]. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers ] (]) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
6 covers those who don't and 7 covers the middle pro con ground.
:::Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
:::ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. ] (]) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


:To summarize a conclusion to this subthread: There seems no interest and not much attention to the question, so Hoyle remarks exist and are said by IDM as coining the term "Intelligent Design" they later used, but the conclusion is to not include any mention. The thread question was not whether Hoyle endorsed ID, the question was more whether Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor. The probability argument quoted by IP and/or Hoyle's use of the term "intelligent designer" seemed candidates for note either here or at ]. Hoyle notably had a probability argument against abiogenesis (]) although that was more generally for advocating cosmic panspermia (]), such as in the 1982 book 'Evolution in Space', rather than an intelligent designer of ]. Anyway, thanks for what input there was and over & out. Cheers ] (]) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
on the issue of concenus for claim. That line of logic doesn't click. By saying that you could apply that at any time to any part at your will to keep it as is. So far including myself we have 2 editors who have changed it from claim and the topic here is less than 24hr old. As the wikipedia page on concensus says it can change. Here iam trying to add a netural word rather than one that by an editors own statment is to push for controversy while in the same statement saying they don't believe it. While I am trying to make the article start out neutral and let the reader make their opinion which is what the NPOV page says even reading your undue weight part supports that. --] 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


== Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence? ==
So now you (ConfuciusOrnis) revert again without discussion then place a 3rr on my talk page (which I gladly added to yours, don't quite know the point of shooting your own foot there) I am here suggesting someting neutral even compromises of other words that have a npov tone to let the reader decide and you just up and undo it without more discussion or any compromise towards concensus all the while touting your personal feelings on the issue which have no relevancy on the article, nor should they. Notice not once i have said this, how I feel about the article personally. I am trying to follow wiki rules and procedures. I've discussed this shown other choices and been bluntly rv'd with no explination. Please follow your standards and wiki rules and give me the same courtesy.--] 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|The irony has already peaked with the initial comment and been explained with the response. Risking further irony levels would be reckless and might result in injuries as hapless Wikipedians hurt their ribs laughing at this complaint. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I have to wonder if the people writing this have a hidden agenda. ID proponents have never asserted who the designer is--it could be an Alien for all we know. The introductory sentence is very clearly biased and should be rewritten to be historically neutral. Intelligent design proper is a (pseudo)scientific theory that attempts to demonstrate that certain biological systems can be more adequately explained by theories of design. It is false to say that the theory is meant to prove God's existence--that is the philosophical argument from design. While I doubt the editors here are intellectually honest enough to change this, it is the truth. This article serves as proof as to why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source for unbiased information. ] (]) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:] did not do a very good job of hiding ''their'' agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See ] for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". ] (]) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Intelligent Design and the Law==
:I am here to agree with ornis. The word claim is perfectly appropriate in this article, in this context, and as near as I can tell, the consensus states that it stays.--] 03:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Got a link to this from ''Academia'', it's online as linked below, an article in Penn State Law Review . An informative overview, a long read. Possibly a useful source, but think we've already covered the points it make. . . ], ] 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite web |first=Frank S. |last=Ravitch | title=Playing the Proof Game: Intelligent Design and the Law | website=Penn State Law Review – The Flagship Publication of Penn State Law | date=1 February 2009 | url=https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/print-issues/articles/playing-the-proof-game-intelligent-design-and-the-law/ | access-date=21 December 2024}}


::] Does not seem worth an independent mention here as it lacks ] in coverage or significant effect. Also, as you say, it seems somewhat a rehash from earlier works of Professor Barbara Forrest, Kitzmiller, etcetera and somewhat a subset of his more substantial book work Marketing Intelligent Design Law and the Creationist Agenda. There didn't seem to be any post-1990s events being reported or some new legal case or new viewpoint. I'd think the article should avoid repetition of the same content from lesser works -- this seems to show WEIGHT of the selections already used in this article rather than be something new. If you want suggestions, it might help to look at the results if the lead para were run thru an AI bias checker (e.g. ), or for new things not already covered in the article (though I don't think there are any). Cheers ] (]) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Xiahou, you seem to be implying that it is somehow a violation of wiki guidelines or principles to portray ID as controversial. Yet the name of one of the DI's major campaigns is "teach the controversy". This is a controversial topic. When controversy exists around a subject, it is accurate and neutral to describe that in the article. It would be more misleading to portray ID as something ''non''-controversial, or even a topic which has long-standing academic respect. ''That'' is why the editors with experience of this article react so unfavorably to suggestions that ID is "a philosophical concept that... goes back to Plato". <font color="006622">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::AI bias checker? Sounds awful. ] (]) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Some of what I got for lead-text: ''The text primarily presents ID from a critical standpoint. It does not include direct quotes or detailed explanations from ID proponents about their views. ... The text dedicates significant space to legal battles and political associations of ID proponents. This focus may overshadow the actual scientific arguments and counter-arguments related to ID. ... Lack of historical context for design arguments: While the text mentions that ID is a form of creationism, it doesn't provide a broader historical context for design arguments in philosophy and theology. This omission may lead readers to view ID as a purely modern phenomenon... The text mentions the Discovery Institute, describing it as a "Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States" that is associated with the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. This association with an authoritative-sounding organization may lead some readers to attribute greater accuracy or credibility to the Intelligent Design argument, despite the text clearly stating that it lacks empirical support and is not considered science. The authority bias could cause readers to overvalue the opinions of the Discovery Institute simply because it is presented as a think tank, potentially overlooking the scientific consensus against Intelligent Design.'' ] (]) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: "simply because it is presented as a think tank" There are numerous ]s, and most of them serve as ] organizations for their pet causes. Why would the reader assume that their views are reliable? ] (]) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Many readers may not realize that an AI amounts to a ] engine, prone to hallucination. Many may not even recognize that they are reading AI output. ] (]) 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It does offer an easy way to get some outside views, something a bit more than the punctuation check of , also seen in and others. Cheers ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Unlikely. LLMs just imitate what humans write. --] (]) 09:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I work with (and develop) deep learning algorithms, and I can confirm that they're not going to provide an 'outside view'. There's no guarantee they'll even provide an internally consistent view. They're not 'sometimes silly minds' the way a lot of people think about them. They're basically like parrots. They just repeat what they've heard in a way that sounds pleasing to them, with no consideration of what it means. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 9 January 2025

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.
Article policies
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: 6 months 
Featured articleIntelligent 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
December 14, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAlternative views High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCreationism: Intelligent design Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconChristianity Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
? 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:

  1. The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
  2. The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
  3. The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
  4. The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID
If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. 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
  1. ^ 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
  2. "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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. "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.
  6. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
  7. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
  8. "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  12. See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
  13. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)
  14. 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
  15. "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

Archiving icon
Archives

Philosophy sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Shorten the SD

The WP:Short description should be improved. One, the overall article is about the creationist argument. With this in mind we can describe ID as an "argument" and thereby give the potential reader the essence of the topic. But two, more importantly, "pseudoscientific" adds unnecessary POV. Would we be happy with an article title of Pseudoscientific arguments about the creation of the universe? No. But we do have various articles in Category:Cosmogony and Category:Physical cosmology. Would any of the articles benefit from SDs that said "Scientific argument about such & such"? Again, no. Let's just say that Intelligent design is an argument and leave out the unnecessary "pseudoscientific" adjective. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"'pseudoscientific' adds unnecessary POV". Can't see it myself. 'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, it merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument. -- Jmc (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I observe that the simple:Intelligent Design article on the simple English Misplaced Pages treats the subject drastically differently than this one and doesn't even mention pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. But maybe someone should change the simple:Intelligent Design article. I have experience there. Does one replace "pseudoscientific" by "stupid" or "wrong" to change it from English to Simple English? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not a question of RS for either WP or Simple WP. (No matter what, the Simple ID article must be NPOV. And changes to the Simple article are best discussed there.) I "simply" ask that we remove the POV-laden "pseudoscientific" from the short description in this regular WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not a question of RS Yes it is. You were trying to change this Misplaced Pages article based on what another Misplaced Pages article says, so you were trying to use the other article as a source for this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If something is science and looks like science, one does not need to mention that it is science. That is the reason why the "scientific" adjective is not used.
Pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science, so it looks like science but it is not science. That is the reason why the "pseudoscientific" adjective is used. --Hob Gadling (talk)
My concern is about the POV vs. NPOV tone of the SD. We can describe the article as "an argument about ...." and avoid saying it is "arcane", "former", "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "dismissed in scientific circles", "hogwash", etc. The WP:SDAVOID guidance says "avoid 'former', 'retired', 'late', 'defunct', 'closed', etc.." Removing "pseudo" helps us comply with this guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it does not. Calling a pseudoscience "pseudoscience" is perfectly NPOV when reliable sources consistently call it pseudoscience. I think you need to actually read WP:NPOV instead of just saying it. Also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Also, the logic "the rules say we should avoid X, therefore we should avoid Y" leaves something to be desired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" are to be replaced, I do appreciate Hob's suggestion to use the words "stupid" or "wrong" instead. - Roxy the dog 06:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@S. Rich You've failed to address the point I made in immediate response:
'pseudoscientific' is used in the first sentence of the lede, so is clearly considered an integral NPOV element of the topic. As such, 'pseudoscientific' merits inclusion in the SD; as WP:Short description says "These descriptions ... help users identify the desired article", so including 'pseudoscientific' functions to aid in identifying 'Intelligent design' as the article about the pseudoscientific argument.
You don't seem to have any issue with 'pseudoscientific' being used in the article itself, so your objection to it in the SD seems perverse. --Jmc (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Srich32977 Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for WP:SDLENGTH, but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The inclusion of the qualifier "pseudoscientific" is superfluous to the point that it reeks of bias.
I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.
Yes, the short description is… not short. Especially when you compare it to the length of the rest of the article. Further, some of its content is redundant with the body content.
But it's not just the first sentence that has a POV problem. The entire short description—nay, the whole article—is marred with bias to the point that it to me looks not salvageable. And even if it were, it seems that it's guarded by a group of ideologues: fanatics who will pile on their fallacious rhetoric until the hope is sucked dry from you by the tyranny of their majority. Emilimo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup, the tyranny of WP:BESTSOURCES. <sarcasm warning>How sad!</sarcasm warning> tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Straw Man. I am not criticizing WP:BESTSOURCES. When I say tyranny of the majority (which I definitely feel is happening on a large scale around discussion of this topic) I'm criticizing use of specific rhetorical devices and fallacious reasoning such as (but not limited to) argumentum ad populum and secondary implications such as groupthink, overconfidence in conventional wisdom and secular orthodoxy, false sense of inerrancy, and myriad intellectual vices such as appeal to ridicule which you just used on me with your sarcasm.
I'm not without hypocrisy; I admit my previous comment used blatant ad hominem attack. But just because I indulged in intellectual vice for a moment doesn't invalidate my sentiment.
A new article need to be written about what ID really is at a fundamental level—a theory of the origin of life—outside of and disconnected from its social contexts. Emilimo (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It isn't a scientific theory. Not even a scientific hypothesis. Because nobody took care to formulate it as a cogent scientific hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing the hypothesis of intelligent design. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like an appeal to ignorance. The theory is not valid because there hasn't been a person who has put it in a form that acceptable to you and the consensus/majority? Who is the authority on what constistutes a "cogent scientific hypothesis"? Why would we need Phillip E. Johnson to come back to life and do it for us? How do you know one is not already out there? Emilimo (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait you got me on another red herring there; I never claimed it to be a scientific theory. Which is why I think there needs to be a page presenting it without any claims of it being a scientific theory, similar to the page on the Big Bang. Just because I am suggesting the theory—in and of itself—as not scientific does not mean that it is pseudoscience. On the contrary it would arguably call for it to be, by definition of pseudoscience, no longer labeled as pseudoscience. You don't see the Big Bang theory labeled as pseudoscience. As should be the case with ID. Emilimo (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Big Bang, despite your protestations, is a widely-accepted scientific theory. For the metaphysical correspondent of ID, see Teleological argument. That, my friend, is a bona fide philosophical argument, but alas it has nothing to do with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like an appeal to ignorance Oh, the irony. ID itself is one huge heap of appeal to ignorance ("I tried to find a way how evolution can make things like X, and I failed"; insert every biological feature for X); it does not have any actual content beyond that. And that is the very reason why ID is no scientific hypothesis. You are talking to people with lots of experience debating "Cdesign proponentsists", and every time one asks one of them for the theory of ID, one gets crickets.
How do you know one is not already out there? The burden of proof is on the person who claims that it exists. Bring it here, and everybody will be baffled, stunned, and surprised.
Independent of that, this is not a forum. Your claim of bias is commonplace for every article about any pseudoscience - see WP:YWAB - and does not impress anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Sources are sometimes bias as well. Given that it is a controversial topic we should add further in the article that "it is considered by most scientists a pseudoscientific argument" given the right sources, but not in the opening paragraph. Is like if someone made the opening paragraph of Gender pay gap to be "The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the ALLEGEDLY difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working." - Barumbarumba (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, all pro-Intelligent Design sources are notoriously unreliable, and "unbiased sources" are invariably accused and denounced as being negatively biased due to accurately describing Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired, anti-science flimflam. Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Since the professional editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica didn't consider it appropriate to apply the label "pseudoscientific" to ID theory, it seems reasonable to avoid that in order to preserve neutrality. The better approach would be to neutrally include the statement by the US National Academy of Science saying that it isn't a legitimate scientific theory. I would argue that the term 'pseudoscience' is appropriately applied to theories like Flat Earth. Because ID has support from a number of scientists with relevant educational backgrounds, I believe it is more accurately categorized as 'fringe science' or 'questionable science' prominent supporters of ID include: award winning chemist Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, professor of biochemistry Dr. Michael Behe, and Microbiology professor Dr. Scott Minnich. Further, a 2018 Pew Poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 2% of members believed humans had always existed in their present form, and another 8% believed that human evolution was guided by a supreme being. BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I created an account just to agree and complain about the rampant and abhorrent bias and POV narration in the article. While I do not subscribe to the belief myself, the rampant author judgments within is disgustingly transparent and, if I can be crass, immature and embarrassing to read to someone looking for information on the subject. When you have editors like Hob Gadling or Roxy the Dog using charged language like "stupid" to describe belief systems, it worsens the content of the site and makes this article read like the tangents of a lonely Redditor upset that they had to go to Sunday school when they were eight, rather than a source of information.
For comparison's sake, the article on Scientology reserves such personal judgments, attributing labels of ingenuity and falsehood to third parties, not from the author's own original judgments. Similar belief systems are treated with more respect, but this one is marred entirely because of its prevalence in western culture.
Such impartial author viewpoints are rampant throughout the article. A few keypoints of contention I noticed from a cursory search include the tangent of the Discovery Institution (cited from someone saying they're "a leader" because several members of the movement are "associated," as if there's any other article out there that pulls such vague weasel wording. To air out dirty laundry, it's very apparent that this is for the purpose of associating the article with conservative think tanks as a prelude, rather than as a detail later on in the history of the article, where such information should be placed). The line "Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible." strikes me too (the preceding claims should be included in a summary, with these examinations placed in a proceeding criticism section. Such is the norm for most articles, but this one gets an exception because the editors REALLY want everyone to know their takes on it). "The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." line is out of place and only contextualized by scouring the references and notes before when this should have its own section, the line itself following what reads like original research on the dilemma of what the belief states. The article itself is littered with details that add very little ("A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."") There is a separate article for that book; include the information there! In the section on concepts of the belief system, while generally more well-constructed, it still has its fair share of issues. The paragraph of "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity" is vague in referring to whom these critics are, which is embarrassing when the section on Specified complexity does this tactic of citing a vague "scientific community" correctly. The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything! The distinction of the ideology from the movement is made too little too late for how the article presents the relevance of the Discovery Institution...
I could go on, but I have a feeling the people responsible for the poor state of the article have their heels dug in so deeply that they will refuse to acknowledge the myriad of problems within the article, so I'll abridge my grievances: the article is absolutely filled with author judgments more concerned with refuting the subject rather than presenting a clean, readable text, and as a result the article is filled with poor citations, clunky and out-of-place details, and an astonishing amount of frontloaded bloat. It has been an absolute chore to read this thing.
I know this is going to be taken in bad faith to be misconstrued as "remove all criticism from the article," which is absolutely not backed up by anything I just said, so let me repeat that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that the few people with self-restraint here actually structure the article to read like something trying to give an overview of the subject foremost, criticisms debunkings and all, in a clean, readable manner, and not like it was written foremost as a sloppy blog entry wearing the skin of an encyclopedia.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
ID is a paragon of pseudoscience, according to WP:BESTSOURCES, and we have the website policy WP:PSCI.
About Scientology: we don't say that because that is a matter of judging intentions rather than judging facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I would implore you to actually read the post you're replying to.
I do not care about validity of the subject matter (though I do think the "pseudoscience" label could benefit from a citation and end a lot of talk on this page if added, since one thing I keep seeing while reading posts here is that there's apparently a lot of sources calling it one). I'm discussing the poor state in which this article is written because it's entirely from people foremost interested in taking the ideology down a peg thinking they have article ownership and loading it with original research, to a point that it reads worse than other infamous pseudoscience topics. Similar articles have clear and lengthy sections for criticisms and debunkings that serve just fine. This one opts to make a massive mess of the subject. It's a badly written article.
You can agree or disagree with the subject, but from an objective point of view the article is a mess. If I find the energy/time, I'll clean up a lot of my grievances myself.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article, very clearly and unambiguously expressed. In that respect we have no choice, since website policy is binding. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The tone can get copy/edited. But the fact that it is patent pseudoscience should remain inside the article
For probably the third time now, I don't give a crap about that label. I would even agree that it should be there if it was sourced. My problem is the article is poorly written. I have given several examples demonstrating this, please actually read those instead of arguing against a point nobody is making.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, to the point: criticism sections are dissuaded. Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
In other words: the fact that this article does not have a criticism section is a net positive, and the articles which do aren't good examples to imitate. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Criticism should be spread inside the article, refuting each point being made by the pseudoscientists.
Do you have a policy you can point to that illustrates that to be the case? This is one of the only articles I have seen on the site whose reading goes out of its way to meticulously try to debunk everything stated within it. This type of writing isn't employed in many other religious articles if at all, and reads choppy and unfocused.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
While I do honestly appreciate the attempt at giving a policy, the subject of this page should fall under an exception mentioned:
"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."
In the case of this article, there are several instances where this kind of information is haphazardly placed about because of the lack of refrain. I listed one in the article trying to link the subject to a conservative think tank, but there are more.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
ID is propagated by a Christian conservative think-tank. It's not some accidental detail of it, it is so by design. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The section as worded reads like a clear violation of WP:AWW. A stronger relationship than "The leading proponents of ID are associated with" should be provided, and this information should be listed in the section regarding the movement. While the information is important to include, in its current state it's not important enough to include in the opening section, much less before the early history of the ideology before YECs.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me tell you something: the people who hate mainstream science already got the message that Misplaced Pages is against them. So, we're writing for a certain audience, not for everybody.
Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an open encyclopedia, not your personal blog. I don't give a crap what windmill-tilting you seem to think is being waged against a couple hundred creationist nutjobs, the article is written like crap and I've given several clear examples and policies that showcase very specific examples.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@OldManYellsAtClouds Rather than yell at clouds, it'd be better to positively address issues. Here's a small example with a big issue behind it: you say, "The "Fine-tuned universe" paragraph has only one citation, and it doesn't even link to anything!". The reason it (and many pseudo-links like it) doesn't link to anything is the big issue and it needs someone with your energy to address it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the invitation, and will probably take it up when I have more time on my hands, un
Judging byIsome of the rather... let's say "brash adamancy" of some of the regulars on this talk page i. I worry that such radical changes such as removing that problematic paragraph and rearranging the criticisms into a cleaner format would be misconstrued as trying to hide or mitigate criticisms against the subject matter. Rather than risk a one-sided edit war, it would be better for the people adding these text to just provide a proper citation and not make the article a complete mess.both carrying the article's current style, I suspect I may need to take your advice regardless.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
As the article is protected, I'm working at a proposed rewrite that cleans up some of the grievances I have with the page on my userpage. As of writing I have the introductory paragraph glanced at. If you're not being coy, I'd like honest feedback on my proposed changes.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The introduction of an article contains the summary of the body of that article. So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version, any new introduction not properly summarizing the current version of the article is likely to be a non starter. --McSly (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version
It is, just a tad more streamlined, cleaned, and worded more impartially. I left commentary, including two explicit requests for citations.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Also, I don't see why WP:RS should be provided for a hidden comment. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You are requesting a citation for "pseudoscience". But no citation is given, according to WP:CITELEAD. So, yes, there is a reason why no citation is given.
I believe the exceptions listed in MOS:CITELEAD are applicable here, given how contentious the label has been in these talk pages, and from the opening sentence of the article itself having five citations within it. Moving the fifth reference to specifically address the pseudoscience label adds no new citations to the lead and satisfies my complaint with that particular point. I ask in my suggestions for someone to provide a source since (1) I believe there may be a more readily-available source that could be used in its place, and (2) I typed it on mobile and don't like using the article editor for more than basic formatting.
I saw the changes you advocate for: the changes are minor, and often not compliant with WP:PAGs. About impartiality, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.
I'm tempted to evoke WP:SARC here, as "and often not compliant with WP:PAGs" is possibly one of the most vague and thus irrelevant complaints that could be levied. I ask for forgiveness in being heated for a moment; the idea that a simple cleanup to the article, a cleanup in which I've not added anything to even hint at the validity of ID and attempted to avoid WP:POVDELETION by retaining criticisms except in cases where it would be better to move information, is even remotely the same thing as trying to make a false balance is overly simplistic and a tad insulting. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to validate pseudoscience, I can agree and don't think either of us said otherwise, but it's also not a place for authors to engage against the subject (much less focus on discrediting fringe theories) to make it a messy read or use the notion of bias existing to go on tangents about the subject in ways that harm the objective tone and pacing of the article.
The thing that really gets me scratching my head about all of this is that the sources and facts are against ID, so making a clearer article helps ID proponents none.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially. You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial. This all debate seems therefore as much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE was a reply to more impartially
I never asked for more impartiality, I described this as a perk of the cleanup. Please follow the conversation.
You proposed minor edits, so I don't see those as either cleanup of the article or making the article more impartial.
I'll ignore the non-sequitur in that and reassert the context of what's happening: I am pulling teeth against a user who thinks WP:NOOBJECTIVITY means an author should argue against the subject of an article, and am being met with resistance for miniscule cleanups in the opening paragraphs. I would go through cleaning up the entire thing for its other myriad issues, but lack any trust that such exhaustive efforts would be met with anything besides someone violating WP:OWNER.
This debate being "for nothing" can be amswered with one question: what is going to happen if I try to get even those simple cleanups in the lead put in? I hope, in that front, I'd have made a stink for nothing.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.
WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline. WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy. So, obviously, website policy trumps an essay. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, friend, I'm only one editor, so I never decide myself the WP:CONSENSUS.
I'm really interested in what conversation you're having in which you're debating if ID is pseudoscience.
It seriously is grating to read so many replies from you that fail to address even one point being brought up and instead go after some paranoia.
WP:NOOBJECTIVITY is an essay, meaning it is neither policy, nor guideline.
That argument is on-par with the "evolution is just a theory" sound bite creationists love. summarizes a policy which reads "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Emphasis mine. Meanwhile you're on here justifying an article littered with WP:OR with "Our bias is not concealed. People who love Misplaced Pages, love it for such bias." I
WP:PSCI on the other hand is website policy
Is anyone here arguing that ID isn't pseudoscience?
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article. While you admit that ID is pseudoscience, you seek to soften the tone of the article. E.g. downplaying that it is essentially a movement propagated by a conservative Christian think tank. And that it caters to fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals, since Catholics and mainline Protestants made peace with the theory of evolution. And that instead of seeking to discover new objective facts in biology, it is essentially a ploy to introduce God in sciences, i.e. despite the boundaries established by Immanuel Kant, who said he had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:PSCI requires a certain tone of the article
I do not believe you are meeting that tone. You are going beyond meeting explaining that the content of the article is wrong and are more focused on a personal mission to debate everything within it with Original Research. There's several instances where you're barely citing scientific experts or explaining that the counterarguments come from these experts.
  • "A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific, circular, and thereby illogical reasoning" <-- This is your conclusion presented without a source
  • "Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case." <-- Debated by whom? This is the closing paragraph of a section, not the beginning summary. Don't just reference the court ruling in-sentence either, put its verdict at the end and cite the case.
  • "Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications (...) there in the first place."" <-- Move source 34 earlier, since there's a clear split in the paragraph where it stops referencing material from it and starts referencing material from 33.
  • "Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially." <-- I don't have anything suggesting needing fixed here, I want to point out that this paragraph is mostly good. The vague "critics" is part of the introduction, but even it's cited, and later on it starts giving names with specific arguments. This is good. This is how the article should read. There's a lot of sections that read like this, and I feel as if it would be unfair to leave them unrecognized.
  • "Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design;" <--- I say the paragraph is "mostly" good because of this line. This should be reworded or removed. It doesn't help the proceeding explicitly cited debunking, and it is redundant. You are presenting this idea first in the argument list. Narratively, this weight assumes that it's a popular argument (avoid weasel words too).
There are more examples, but I wish to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManYellsAtClouds (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
While you admit that ID is pseudoscience
This statement reads as if you're proposing that everyone who agrees with the scientific community should be okay with the sloppy article, which is ridiculous. It's entirely possible to be objective about a topic known to be false, and to criticize an article on the subject for its shortcomings.
you seek to soften the tone of the article (...)
It is apparent you are not reading my posts, and came in here with a preconceived notion that everyone critical of the article's writing and structure must be a proponent of ID, and no amount of reasoning or given examples of the article's shortcomings will convince you otherwise.
Get this through your head. Sit down and read this slowly, multiple times if needed: I am not arguing about the validity of ID. I am addressing the writing of a poorly-constructed Misplaced Pages article.
It's as if you think not including the sources of these statement would make anyone susceptible to believing ID. When a lot of people see articles like this one, argumentized takedowns that use your own wording more than the scientific community's, they see someone with a personal grudge about the ideology and want to know why it made them so mad, and end up looking into it. Having names behind the statements make the content stronger and more reliable, which hurts ID more.
Instead of squabbling with you further, I'm going to begin making some minor edits to the article to fix some of these myriad issues.
OldManYellsAtClouds (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? Creationism?

Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say: “The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” 2601:404:CB83:D50:44C8:EE37:6741:1F40 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at Argument from incredulity. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX--Mr Fink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Also see Hoyle's fallacy. -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
And WP:RS and WP:OR. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from Hoyle and Horrigan', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a 'variant of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's old claim' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to Junkyard tornado seems reasonable. But p-value use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than Argument from incredulity since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It's important not to conflate the argument from design with intelligent design. The argument from design posits that only an intelligence could have created the universe. Intelligent design OTOH posits that the argument from design is a scientific one and also that it can be bolstered through scientific research.
So Hoyle did not endorse ID. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - That the article does conflate the argument from design with intelligent design is a different topic than the question of whether to mention Fred Hoyle as a precursor - perhaps in the "Origin of the concept" or the "Fine-tuned universe" sections. And to the contrary, Hoyle is listed as a supporter of ID -- though again the question was whether to note him as a precursor, either here or at Specified complexity. To be precise the 'support' means as a precursor he preceded the Intelligent design movement by a few years with his own ideas of life on Earth came from outer space, the argument of improbability and use of Information theory (similar to Specified complexity), his creating the Junkyard tornado metaphor, plus remarks about Fine-tuned universe, etcetera. His 1983 book The Intelligent Universe "Examines the origins of life on earth, analyzes the Darwinian theory of evolution, and argues that life is the result of a deliberate plan." The 'support' does not mean he was a member of Discovery institute and as far as I've googled he made no comment at all about the IDM or court case -- at least nothing as famous as his originating the above concepts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. TFD (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - so to check, are you answering the question with a yes, that the article mention Hoyle and phrase it 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No, not unless reliable secondary sources routinely mention that ID supporters claim him as a forerunner. And even if they do, it doesn't give us licence to copy the quote above. The purpose of the article is to describe ID based on how it is reported in reliable sources, not to engage in advocating it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD - understood, although I hope you mean Third-party sources and WP:WEIGHT. The ID proponents are obviously RS for what ID proponents say, as 'ID advocates claim him as a precursor' is objective fact. Second-party would be anti-ID such as NCSE and hence not reliable for what ID claims nor for WP:WEIGHT. Third-party would be outside reporting such as USnews.com - though I only see they reporting it as fact, not ‘ID advocates claim’ e.g.
The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design." The term "intelligent design" was also used by non-scientist James E. Horigan in his 1979 book Chance or Design? where Horigan used the term "intelligent design" and framed his argument as an empirical one, "without resort to biblical or other religious references," and without investigating questions about "ultimate purpose." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
To assert that USnews.com is reporting it as fact seems a claim too far. It appears in a guest blog by a creationist who begins his post thus: "Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself." -- Jmc (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Jmc well, among all the googles I had missed that header -- so the USnews.com quote is showing one example of ID advocates saying Hoyle was a precursor and their mentioning the objective fact that "intelligent design" was a term Hoyle used a few years before. Anyway -- do you have a position about the question of how or if to mention Hoyle in article ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
ID proponents are not RS for what ID proponents say, because each one is expressing his own opinion, not speaking as a spokesman for the movement.
The fact that Fred Hoyle put the words intelligent and design together in the 1960s doesn't mean he was advocating a belief system that developed decades later.
I don't know why you keep pushing this. Of course some things we cannot explain could be caused by ghosts. But that's beyond the realm of scientific enquiry. TFD (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
TFD Clearly what was published and that IDM mentions Hoyle of the 1980s is objective fact, the question was how or if to mention Hoyle as a precursor in article, which you have already responded to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mark, you seem to be trolling and/or trying to synthesise an argument using primary or unreliable sources. Don't. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

dave souza Hi Dave. I am asking a simple and obvious question — taking note of the IP (which indeed is objective fact and appears fairly commonly mentioned in IDM) to ask if Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at Specified complexity. I would prefer if a simple edit question could be easier with simple edit answers, but I suppose any controversial topic has this kind of difficulty of lots of off-question replies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Per weight, Hoyle only belongs in the article if mentioned in reliable secondary sources about ID. As WP:FRINGE says, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."
ID proponents would obviously have us believe that Hoyle endorsed their views. If he did, it would give them respectability. We would need a reliable secondary source to comment on that. TFD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
To summarize a conclusion to this subthread: There seems no interest and not much attention to the question, so Hoyle remarks exist and are said by IDM as coining the term "Intelligent Design" they later used, but the conclusion is to not include any mention. The thread question was not whether Hoyle endorsed ID, the question was more whether Hoyle should be mentioned as a precursor. The probability argument quoted by IP and/or Hoyle's use of the term "intelligent designer" seemed candidates for note either here or at Specified complexity. Hoyle notably had a probability argument against abiogenesis (Junkyard tornado) although that was more generally for advocating cosmic panspermia (Psuedo-panspermia), such as in the 1982 book 'Evolution in Space', rather than an intelligent designer of Directed panspermia. Anyway, thanks for what input there was and over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence?

The irony has already peaked with the initial comment and been explained with the response. Risking further irony levels would be reckless and might result in injuries as hapless Wikipedians hurt their ribs laughing at this complaint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

I have to wonder if the people writing this have a hidden agenda. ID proponents have never asserted who the designer is--it could be an Alien for all we know. The introductory sentence is very clearly biased and should be rewritten to be historically neutral. Intelligent design proper is a (pseudo)scientific theory that attempts to demonstrate that certain biological systems can be more adequately explained by theories of design. It is false to say that the theory is meant to prove God's existence--that is the philosophical argument from design. While I doubt the editors here are intellectually honest enough to change this, it is the truth. This article serves as proof as to why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source for unbiased information. 104.158.206.172 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

cdesign proponentsists did not do a very good job of hiding their agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". Just plain Bill (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Intelligent Design and the Law

Got a link to this from Academia, it's online as linked below, an article in Penn State Law Review Volume 113, Number 3, Winter 2008. An informative overview, a long read. Possibly a useful source, but think we've already covered the points it make. . . dave souza, talk 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

dave souza Does not seem worth an independent mention here as it lacks WP:WEIGHT in coverage or significant effect. Also, as you say, it seems somewhat a rehash from earlier works of Professor Barbara Forrest, Kitzmiller, etcetera and somewhat a subset of his more substantial book work Marketing Intelligent Design Law and the Creationist Agenda. There didn't seem to be any post-1990s events being reported or some new legal case or new viewpoint. I'd think the article should avoid repetition of the same content from lesser works -- this seems to show WEIGHT of the selections already used in this article rather than be something new. If you want suggestions, it might help to look at the results if the lead para were run thru an AI bias checker (e.g. here), or for new things not already covered in the article (though I don't think there are any). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AI bias checker? Sounds awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Some of what I got for lead-text: The text primarily presents ID from a critical standpoint. It does not include direct quotes or detailed explanations from ID proponents about their views. ... The text dedicates significant space to legal battles and political associations of ID proponents. This focus may overshadow the actual scientific arguments and counter-arguments related to ID. ... Lack of historical context for design arguments: While the text mentions that ID is a form of creationism, it doesn't provide a broader historical context for design arguments in philosophy and theology. This omission may lead readers to view ID as a purely modern phenomenon... The text mentions the Discovery Institute, describing it as a "Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States" that is associated with the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. This association with an authoritative-sounding organization may lead some readers to attribute greater accuracy or credibility to the Intelligent Design argument, despite the text clearly stating that it lacks empirical support and is not considered science. The authority bias could cause readers to overvalue the opinions of the Discovery Institute simply because it is presented as a think tank, potentially overlooking the scientific consensus against Intelligent Design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
"simply because it is presented as a think tank" There are numerous think tanks, and most of them serve as propaganda organizations for their pet causes. Why would the reader assume that their views are reliable? Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Many readers may not realize that an AI amounts to a confabulation engine, prone to hallucination. Many may not even recognize that they are reading AI output. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It does offer an easy way to get some outside views, something a bit more than the punctuation check of Grammarly, also seen in Quillbot and others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Unlikely. LLMs just imitate what humans write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I work with (and develop) deep learning algorithms, and I can confirm that they're not going to provide an 'outside view'. There's no guarantee they'll even provide an internally consistent view. They're not 'sometimes silly minds' the way a lot of people think about them. They're basically like parrots. They just repeat what they've heard in a way that sounds pleasing to them, with no consideration of what it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: