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 19:31, 14 January 2008 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Fallacy In This Article:: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:32, 9 January 2025 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,459 edits →Intelligent Design and the Law 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{notaforum}} {{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 21: 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 36:
|action6result=kept |action6result=kept
|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 |maindate=October 12, 2007
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
}} }}
{{controversial}}
{{TrollWarning}}
{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|24.155.14.10|Intelligent design|editedhere=yes}}


{{Round in circles}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|{{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''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.


{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
] 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 ].


{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
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:
{{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}}
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 Philosophy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
}}


{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
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 (]).


{{User:MiszaBot/config
Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's ''']'''.
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
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 (]).
|counter = 89

|minthreadsleft = 4
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.
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|-
|algo = old(180d)
|'''Notes to editors:'''
|archive = Talk:Intelligent design/Archive %(counter)d
#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 ].
}}
#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.
{{archives |search=no |
#Please use ].
]
#Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics.
|} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Intelligent design/Archive index
{| class="wikitable" width="300px" cellpadding="3" align="right"
|mask =Talk:Intelligent design/Archive <#>
|-
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
}}
----
|- style="font-size: 90%"
|
{{hidden begin|header=2002&ndash;2004}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{hidden end}}
{{hidden begin|header=2005}}
*]
*]
*]
*Archives ], ], ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{hidden end}}
{{hidden begin|header=2006}}
*]
*]
*Archives ], ], ]
*]
*]
*]
{{hidden end}}
{{hidden begin|header=2007}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{hidden end}}
{{hidden begin|header=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?'''
#:
{{hidden end}}
|}

== References ==

{{reflist}}

==Fossil Record?==
One of Phillip Johnson's main objections to evolution (in "Darwin on Trial") is that it is not supported by the fossil record. Should a discussion of the fossil record be in the article? ] (]) 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:Johnson's record is cracked (he's from the era of 78s, so he'd get that). At most merits a brief reference to .. ], ] 10:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:This article is about Intelligent design, not objections to evolution (though there may be lack of clarity at times between the two). Is this an attempt to make a point?--] (]) 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

::No, I just thought it was one of the main arguments used by the ID people. Is ''this'' an attempt to make a point? ] (]) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:::This is not an article about ID people or (all) their arguments. See ], ], and ].--] (]) 03:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article. It is not a place to answer the comments of the intelligent design supporters, or engage in debate. You might want to investigate ] or Talk Reason or Talk Design instead. Also, the entire premise of this comment is a bit silly:
*Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore is no authority whatsoever on dinosaurs and fossils or evolution, in spite of his pandering vacuous book. We are an encylopedia, not a place to publish and answer the rants of cranks.
*The vast majority of paleontologists and anthropologists and geologists have no problem with the fossil record. However, that is not discussed in this article, but the appropriate articles dealing with that subject
*Well over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields believe that the complaints of ID supporters like Phillip E. Johnson are just pure nonsense, to put it politely. Since it is a minority position, we will treat it as such (see ] for example)
*What you might be looking for is ], which is the closest that we have on Misplaced Pages, or ], but they do not address that point exactly, I do not think. Misplaced Pages is written with a different goal in mind than answering this sort of junk by the uninformed and ignorant.--] (]) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:This sounds like a POV issue. You are engaging in debate here. I was not engaging in debate, I was asking if an argument brought up by one of the leading proponents of ID belongs in the ID article, I was not discussing its merits or demanding that anyone agree with it, or agree with me. I didn't ask for anyone to answer anything. Please try to assume good faith. ] (]) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article cannot have everything in it. It is too long as it is. This has to be relegated to daughter articles. If you want to write articles on the claims that have come out of intelligent design supporters, and the response to them by the science community, be my guest.--] (]) 23:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:So, maybe a separate article about ID objections related to the fossil record? ] (]) 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

::Put is it an ID objection, an ID proponent objection, a Discovery Institute objection, or a Johnson objection. (or even simply a creationist objection)--] (]) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would check around first with others. My personal opinion is that topic might be too narrow for an article. I would suggest you research the subject more carefully, and compile all of the main arguments of ID supporters, and if that is too broad, maybe all the main arguments of Johnson and the response by the mainstream community to them. Perhaps if you added Meyer's material about fossils, and a few others, it might be enough for an article, but I am not an expert. You would have to do some digging. Probably wouldnt hurt to read their books, for example. Probably you could get them in the library if you had to.--] (]) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:The point is covered at ], which could probably do with citations and a brief reference to the common creationist claim he is reiterating, as well as Eldredge's response to these claims in pointing out that punk eek is still a gradual process, if intermittent. The claim had already been made in '']'', and refutation of the claim formed a significant part of ] where ] testified on October 14 – that could do with expansion, see the Nova programme for a summary. ... ], ] 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:I think it would be a pointless ]. No DI objections towards the fossil record are that unique to the DI to require a specific DI-objections article.--] (]) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

== Junk Science Link ==

Including a junk science is not NPOV. It's saying that it is junk science, which according to the article,"The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives."
That shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
] (]) 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
:It's an accurate reflection of how a significant proportion of the scientific community has received ID, so is required by ] and ], in my opinion. Of course ID may be theological Truth, but unfortunately they claim it's science. ... ], ] 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
:: Has intelligent design been called "junk science" (those words) by any notable person? If it has, then it's perfectly NPOV to include a link to that - ID is linked to junk science by the sourced person saying that ID is junk science. If it hasn't, then applying the definition ourselves to decide that it applies to this case is probably an ]. ] (]) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
::: ...and yes, it has, because we source it in reference 17; so this is fine to include. ] (]) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:Sure it is. As long as it remains a notable viewpoint and verifiable per our policies, it is required by ] for a balanced article. BTW, it has been shown that the leading ID proponents meet all four motives ascribed to junk science. ] (]) 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== Use of word "Assertion" ==

OK, as directed I'm taking this to the talk page. I don't think the term "assertion" should be used in the first sentence, because advocates of ID do not consider an argument un-necessary. They do at least attempt to defend their position, regardless of whether they do so in a way that is scientific, accepted or correct. Furthermore, in that same paragraph it says ID is a modern equivalent of the teleological argument for theism. One would never consider the teleological argument an assertion, because it is...an argument. It has more than just the assertion, there's an argument with it, convincing or not.

Anybody agree/disagree? I haven't read the whole talk page and article history. Is there a good reason why the word "assertion" was agreed upon? I changed it because I consider it obvious that ID is not an assertion, but a theory, in my opinion an unconvincing one, but still not an assertion. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*Firstly, your edit did not involve calling ID "an argument", it called it a "body of theories" -- which is clearly fallacious, as even some ID advocates admit that ID has no formal theory. Also see ].
*Secondly, the 'teleological argument' has experienced sufficient rebuttal over the centuries (see ]) that to reduce a modern attempt to retread it (and to portray it as "scientific") to the status of "assertion" is not unreasonable -- and this use of it is characterised as an "assertion" in ].
<font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, then why not use one of the words "belief", "conjecture", "idea", or "notion", as these words are neutral with regard to whether or not the notion is defended.

I don't see why we would doubt that there are theories involved in ID, if theory can have all of its usual definitions. Just Behe's theory about irreducible complexities is a theory. When I put in that edit, I hadn't seen the note on this page that says the word "theory" is being used only to mean "scientific theory". Theory can in general refer to all of

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory

But if you guys want to use the term "theory" that way, fine. Why not call ID a belief, notion, conjecture or idea instead of an assertion? By using "assertion" we imply a lack of an argument, and these other word options don't imply that. Meanwhile an attempt at argument is made by some ID believers. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You will find that scientists and even a court of law agree there is no supporting argument behind ID, unless we accept that the ] approach adheres to the ] and is not a ].<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

*ID is not a "belief" as many ID advocates are YECs whose actual beliefs are only tenuously related to ID.
*ID is not a "conjecture" or a "notion", because these are ''speculative'' -- and ID is a ''prejudged'' position.
*ID is not a "theory", even under a colloquial definition, (1) because it makes no novel predictions & (2) because it is entirely lacking in specificity.
*Irreducible complexity is not a theory, it is an ] and thus a ].
<font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::How about replacing "assertion" with "philosphical position" ? It's the sort of thing the DI say, though they tend to add "theological" ... ], ] 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I would accept calling it an "intuition" -- which reflects its nebulous & getting-ahead-of-the-facts nature. I think "philosophical position" is rather vague. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::What about "assertion"? :) Sadly, this is a road we've been down before. We don't have a better word, since the most accurate characterisation I can think of ("body of half truths and lies") doesn't flow well enough to use in the opening sentence. ] (]) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::A comment from an occasional visitor, if I may: the only problem I have with "assertion" is that it looks syntactically a bit odd. Supporters of ID presumably ''assert'' that ID is the explanation, but ID surely isn't itself ''an assertion''. ID is ... the ''suggested route'' by which things got to be the way they are ... a ''proposed explanation'' for the natural world ... Hmmm. On reflection, maybe it's simplest just to say "ID is the assertion that ..." Or how about "ID is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it explanation for ..." ] (]) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course ID isn't itself an "assertion", to be technical. The term or phrase "intelligent design" ''refers to'' an assertion that the WP article proceeds to summarize for the reader. Nonetheless, that is the same as saying intelligent design ''is'' an assertion, the nature of which the article proceeds to describe. It is an entirely valid use of the word "is". ... ] (]) 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::I like that. "Refers to the assertion..." ] (]) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::"'''Intelligent design''' refers to the assertion...", or "The term '''"Intelligent design"''' refers to the assertion..."? My preference would be for the latter, but I agree that both are an improvement over the current opening. ] (]) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::Unless we want to go back to the "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" opening that held sway at the beginning of the year (accurate, perhaps, but a little provocative), how about simply "Intelligent design asserts that "". It is a modern form of the teleological argument..."? Alternatively, if we're sticking to the existing sentence structure, how about "proposition"? ] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why ID could not be called a belief. A belief is something one believes. The ID supporters believe it, so it is their belief. If one is a YEC, then there's an obvious connection between ID and being a YEC. Also not all ID supporters are YECs.

Does anybody object to calling ID an "opinion"? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If you'd read the archives you'll see we've discussed this issue at length many times before and the consensus was strongly in favor of "assertion." Unless there's something new to discuss, and it appears there isn't, "assertion" it is. ] (]) 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::Most of all, ID is an ] against naturally-caused evolution. The main point of the argument is covered in ].

::And this relates to the bit that H just reverted - very politely, by the way. :-)

::A significant number of ID proponents want their anti-evolution argument to be considered on its own merits. They claim to have "scientific" objections to evolution, along the lines of saying that the ] showed "signs" of having been designed.

::A lot of the difficulty we've had at Misplaced Pages, describing the conflict, is that people don't want to take their opponents' arguments at face value. Well, I for one believe in the sincerity of people who cling to naturalistic evolution on the grounds that only material forces can be detected with the senses.

::Support for naturalistic evolution need not be motivated by materialism or atheism, so I do not claim it is even if "those suspicious religious folks" level that accusation. ], right?

::Likewise, opposition to naturalistic evolution need not be motivated by religious belief.

::At some point, Misplaced Pages is going to have to come to terms with the fact that some ID proponents simply think it's the best explanation, and that there is a disputed between (1) the side which claims that ID *is* creationism and (2) the side which says that ID is just as distinct from creationism as naturalistic evolution is distinct from atheism and materialism. --] (]) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:::The trouble is that the two sides do not have equal weight of argument as (1) there is considerable (academic and court) evidence that ID is a close descendent of Creationism; (2) for there to be equivalence, it would have to be between evolution<->atheism and creationism/ID<->''theism'', but this is clearly untenable given the significant number of theistic evolutionists. I would also point out that as ID explains ''nothing'' (not who, how, why, where or when), it can hardly be a "''best'' explanation", and that Misplaced Pages thus has no need to "come to terms" with this patently fallacious viewpoint. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::For once, I've some sympathy with Ed's basic point, and think it would be appropriate to change "assertion" to "argument" – ID is essentially a theological or philosophical argument. As for the other points, without doubting their sincerity, it's puzzling to me how frequently ID proponents feel that the logos of St. John (I am the way, the truth, and the light) is an imperative instruction to tell outrageous lies. Perhaps their very ability to see physical evidence of the supernatural blinds them to the plain facts that are in front of them. The parable of ] is instructive in that regard. ... ], ] 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

===Argument vs assertion===
Strictly speaking an assertion is a statement (e.g. "all plants are green") and an argument is an attempt to substantiate an assertion based upon more basic axioms and logical inference (e.g. "all plants are green because they contain chlorophyll"). An argument can be invalidated by proving its axioms incorrect, or its logic invalid, an assertion can only be invalidated by a counter-example (though it can be rendered unproven by invalidating arguments made for it).

I would assert 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" is an ''assertion.''' It contains neither axioms nor logical inferences from them (it contains no "because"), it is simply a statement.

The ''argument'' generally made for it is that (1) evolution has been disproven (e.g. by irreducible complexity) and that (2) because of this 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" must be true. (I of course dispute the truth of axiom (1) & the validity of inference (2).)

Unless specific axioms and inferences are hard-wired into the articulation of ID, it cannot be an argument, and remains an assertion (on the basis of arguments that are not themselves ''essential'' to ID). <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking as ID is only an assertion, it cannot be "a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" in and of itself, however taken in conjunction with its underlying arguments (irreducible complexity, specified complexity and/or a fine-tuned universe), it is. I can't immediately think of a concise phrasing of this to go in the lead. Perhaps "In conjunction with its underlying complexity and improbability arguments, 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." <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:I think you're parsing words too closely here. Whether it's an argument or a critique, the point is that ID supporters are "arguing" against naturalistic evolution.

:What gets lost is the dispute over whether the critique necessarily entails belief in God. "Shows signs of having been designed" can mean different things to different people. I don't thing a plate of spaghetti designed the ]. Nope, pasta just isn't smart enough for that, even if my friend last month called me "dumb as a bowl of pasta". ] wrote a classic detective story in which a deceased showed "signs of having been murdered". If you haven't read it, sorry to spoil it for you, but it hinges on the ] of ].

:There is a dispute over whether the two ideas are separable: (1) that some forms of life show signs of having been designed and (2) that only a god (or the Abrahamic ]) can design life.

:Come to think of it, if assembling a flagellum is so easy that natural forces can do it, maybe it doesn't take an infinitely wise being.

:Anyway, I'd like the article to report neutrally on the issue of whether ID's argument implies that the "designer" is ]. I come to Misplaced Pages for answers, so I'd like you well-read folks to tell me '''who''' says so and '''who''' says not. From glancing at the intro, I get the idea that all pro-evolution people say that ID makes God the designer - hence the argument that ID = creationism. But I seem to recall reading at least '''one''' notable author who claims that "signs of having been designed" are unrelated to the "who the designer is". (Could be spaghetti, an ape, E.T. or anything other than an "unguided force".) --] (]) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::ID taken as the statement 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" is even less a critique than it is an argument. That ID supporters make arguments does not make ID itself an argument. This is ''not'' a matter of "parsing words too closely" it is a matter of '''basic meaning'''. If we don't pay attention to this, we may as well call ID a "butterscotch" or a "concerto". <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::Before wikipedia can "report neutrally on" issues related to it, we first have to establish that "ID's argument" (as opposed to ID's ''assertion'') exists. What are its axioms, what are its logical inferences, and what ] documents them as being essential to ID? <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::ID is not, in and of itself a "critique of evolution", it is an ''assertion'', for which several of its supporters make ''arguments'' that are ''critiques'' of evolution. Unless it can be claimed that IC/CSI/FTU/etc is ''essential'' to ID, such that refutation of the argument counts as refutation of ID itself, then ID is not itself an argument or critique. This is a matter of "what is ID?" Is it the statement that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection", or does it also ''explicitly'' contain claims about IC/CSI/FTU/etc? <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 17:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:::As set out carefully in the Dover judgement, ID is the ], though in its own definition the DI simply presents an assertion that "this is the best explanation". Either term does. .. ], ] 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Strictly speaking, Jones said that the "argument ''for'' ID" (my emphasis) was the argument from design, again differentiating between assertion and supporting argument. I have no objection to the lead speaking about this "argument for ID", as long as it doesn't conflate this argument with the assertion it is supporting. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that ID supporters might object if you defined ID as just a complaint about evolution, since some of them have no problem with evolution. They onl claim that they see fingerprints of design. That is their one common feature that defines the "Big Tent". --] (]) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:Sober makes a nice distinction between what he calls "mini-ID" (the core assertion that we cite in the beginning of the article, which is common to various ID proponents and acceptable to both YECs and other creationists) and the different specifics that people like Behe, Dembski and Wells have come up with. ] (]) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

==Identity of the designer==

Who says the designer's identity is relevant? And who says it's not?

Are all sides in the ] agreed that the designer's identity is essential?

If not, then is there a dispute between (1) a side that says the designer's identity is essential to ID's critique of evolution and (2) a side that says ID's critique of evolution should be considered without reference to the designer's identity?

Consider (again) the example of Edgar Allen Poe's '']''. A person showed signs of having been murdered. Everyone assumed a human being did it. But it turned out to be a different kind of being - what some biologists (or theologians?) would call a "lower form of life".

Anyway, what I'm asking is whether anyone "out there" in the world of academia (like science or theology) has requested that ID's critique of evolution be broken down into two parts:
#the assertion that "life shows signs of having been designed" - and arguments over whether this means that natural causes alone are sufficient; and,
#speculation about the identity of the ], such as "Is it ]?" or "If God exists, who created Him?" (opening salvo in an atheistic argument)

If this is only my own idea, then I'll take it elsewhere. But I'm asking all you knowledgeable contributors here whether any published authors have floated it. --] (]) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is more complex than that. The two main issues are:
#The militant disinterest that ID's intellectual elite exhibits towards the identity of the designer, in stark contrast with scientific pursuits (and academia generally), where we'd normally expect intense speculation, and efforts to propose and shoot down hypotheses.
#The fact that this carefully unnamed designer leaves an equally carefully crafted God-shaped hole, leaving no doubt that this is an exercise in ], not bleeding-edge science.
It is not the identity of the designer, ''per se'', but what the failure to make any attempt to identify him lets slip, that is the crucial issue. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:It has to be realized ''why'' the ] tries not to identify the designer. It is for at least two reasons, I think. It is for legal reasons, to dodge the court rulings. And it is to make a big tent, to focus on "]" so that the internicine warfare between various interests groups is quelled, at least for the moment.

:Also, this is of interest by other ]s, who do not understand or seem to understand this strategy. Many other creationists or apologetics have attacked the ] for this reason. This is part of the reason there is some trouble associated with the upcoming movie ], in its content and promotion. Other creationists are also jealous of the money and attention the intelligent design movement gets. We have many examples of brutal attacks on ] for this reason. For example, see ].

:Therefore, one reason to focus on the identity of the designer on WP is to unmask this legal strategy. It is also to document the basis of conflict with other creationists, and the impression that the rest of the apologetics community has of intelligent design. --] (]) 16:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::"Brutal"? I would consider ''Beyond Intelligent Design'' to be about as brutal as being gummed by a toothless chihuahua. But maybe it's the thought that counts. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Good point.--] (]) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:I also note that part of the disgust expressed by ] for ] is this very issue; refusal to identify the ].--] (]) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you, Filll and Hrafn, for taking my queries seriously and giving me plenty of food for thought. Happy New Year to you both! --] (]) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of the section entitled "theological problems" ==

The views expressed in this deleted section were well written, concise, legitimate views published by two authors in two separate books by two separate publishing houses. I would hardly call these views "under-represented." To remove them is to fail to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic explanation of ID, its facets and the consequences of its assertions. ''']''' <sup>(] | ])</sup> 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:I read your edits and enjoyed them (and would enjoy reading more if you find a place where they belong). But I'm not sure they belong in this article. There was once a movement here to include the catholic take on IDC, the jewish take on it, the protestant view, the fundie view, etc. That ended up looking like a theological train wreck that seemed to lack focus and took away from the article. Adding every viewpoint was spinning out of control. Again, I enjoyed reading your work (and the authors cited), I just don't know if this article warrants that entry. Maybe in a related IDC article it would work? But who am I to say, I don't even have an account!

:One more point, when you have one religionist saying the other religionist is wrong, you have two people with an unreliable viewpoint that cannot be proven. From a religious standpoint who can say with any authority that IDC is bunk? You can make this claim and back it up from a science viewpoint, but not a religious one. What gives religionist A more credibility than religionist B? When someone says "your god is too small" what the hell did they use to measure him with? furthermore, saying "your god is ______" is silly until you can demonstrate the god in question exists in the first place. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I as well think that there might be a place for this material, but not in this article. I would advocate a subsiduary daughter article. Some people on creationism pages have advocated something similar and I have also said there that we need a daughter article for this kind of material. We just cannot shove all of it in this one article, which is already too long.--] (]) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

==deism?==

in the see more section (or whatever) someone has linked to ] note there is no mention of intelligent design in the deism article. why is it being linked? linking to it smacks of POV, especially since I don't recall EVER hearing anyone from the IDC camp memntioning the word deism. You might wish IDC was related to deism, that might make IDC more credible, but as of yet there is no relationship between deism and IDC. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yeah I noticed that people were trying to shove inappropriate links into see also lately. I deleted some, but of course they are persistant.--] (]) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well if the link to deism is restored can I link to ]? He, like deism, has nothing to do with IDC but he wrote some cool songs.

:I figured it would make sense to link to Deism since Deism is similar to Intelligent Design (both state that the universe was created by a God). Obviously, there are also differences (Deists reject Christianity and other religions that claim to have revelations from God, while Intelligent Design tends to assume that the Creator is the Christian God; Deism doesn't claim to be science, while Intelligent Design does), but there are also similarities. ] (]) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::Eh, the IDists are very much anti-deism, they want ] with empirical evidence of God lying about, not a Darwinian idea of God as a creator of unchanging laws. As for Marley, not from anything I can recall, but Genomic Dub Collective Origin in Dub: the Video Mix Bonus Track: Dub fi Dover should be ok ;) . . . ], ] 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm well aware that the people promoting the "science" known as Intelligent Design are opposed to Deism. One deist website refers to Intelligent Design as "Creation Science" masquerading as Deism (see ). It appears that there is a consensus that Deism shouldn't be in the See Also section, so I will defer to that consensus. ] (]) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

==ID and God==

Have we clarified yet whether ID asserts the existence of ]?

I have read contradictory information on this point.
*The consensus of Misplaced Pages writers hostile to ID is that ID '''entails''' belief in God
*Other anti-ID writers, outside of Misplaced Pages and hence capable of being referenced as sources, generally agree that ID is '''identical''' to the ] for God's existence

However, I have recently read some pro-ID information that:
*claims ID is just a critique of naturalistic evolution (e.g., "the ] couldn't have just evolved because the parts are useless until the whole thing is assembled)
*claims ID's critque of naturalistic evolution is "scientific" and can be evaluated separately from any religious implications

Am I just making this up (] is not permitted, I know!) or have notable published writers made these points? If they have, would it be allowable under any Misplaced Pages rules or guidelines to include these ideas in the article? --] (]) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*Sourced material of course is appropriate. However, "ID's critque of naturalistic evolution is "scientific"" seems to contradict what already is known: ''ID is inherently unscientific.'' Second, merely observing "science cannot answer all questions" (paraphrasing) seems to me insufficient to warrant the term "an alternative explanation."<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a "big tent" that Johnson has constructed to try to deal with only ]". This covers many flavors of ideas. However, one common idea is the existence of an ], and from the quotes of almost all the main proponents and promoters of intelligent design we have collected, this intelligent designer is the Christian God and even a particular version of the Christian God in most cases. They of course do not always call the intelligent designer God since this is bad for them on legal grounds in the United States. This is noted in the article. The other common feature of all those in the big tent is a rejection of "]" and its more stringent cousin, "]". That is, the desire to find room for the supernatural in science, although they do not always call it the supernatural since that word has bad connotations, and probably has negative legal consequences as well. So there is what they advocate and claim, and then there is how they disguise it, and then there is how outsiders view it. And these are all covered in the article at present.--] (]) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's legitimate to describe (but not ''define'', especially in the lead) ID as a "critique of naturalistic evolution", as long as we realise that the vital word is ''not'' "evolution", but "naturalistic". ID implies - and ID proponents, including Behe on the witness stand, have stated explicitly - that the designer is ''supernatural''. Is it legitimate ''not'' to describe a supernatural designer as "God"? I don't think so. ] (]) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think it's legitimate to describe it as a "critique" ''only'' if you're careful to differentiate the core ("mini-ID" per Sober above) assertion that "design is a better explanation" from the more amorphous 'maxi-ID' that contains critiques (IC, CSI, FTU) that are not ''inherent'' in mini-ID. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All ID advocates believe the designer to be the god of the Jews; this has been made abundantly clear. They attempt to pretend to random people that it is otherwise, but to groups of supporters (Christians, really) they do state that the designer is their god. We MUST point this out, as omitting it would be to omit reality and would not be neutral. Just because it makes the IDers look bad and exposes them as liars doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. ] (]) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::is there no advocates of intelligent design within moderate Islam? According to the page on ] "the ideas of Islamic creationists are closer to Intelligent design than to Young Earth Creationism." ] ] 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:Um the main supporters of Islamic creationism (those associated with ]) have come down soundly against intelligent design, seeing it as an evil western plot against Islam to impose Christianity on the Muslim world. They also hate the Jews, being strongly antisemitic and Holocaust deniers and anything that would boost the God of the Jews over Allah would not go down too well.--] (]) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


" claims ID is just a critique". (was this ] by any chance) -- anyway. ID proponent material is often non-consistent even to the point of contradiction. (Is it merely a critique, or a rival explanation with superior science, or a shining of light of god-given revelation in a world-gone-mad?). I think it would help best if you linked or said your source. Then we could evaluate it and how best to put it in. '''DI's and other ''significant'' pro-ID views do belong in here''', but they need to be expressed as such, they will likely not outweigh major consensus from multiple, repeated, independent secular sources that equate ID with teleology.--] (]) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages should not endorse a consensus but merely indicate its existence. Hence, my attribution of the view that ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God to "the academic and legal community".
::Baloney! Should we likewise insert wording to indicate that it is only "a consensus" that the Earth is round? Unless you can demonstrate a substantive opposing view, there is no reason for these ]-words. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:We should note that some advocates claim that ID is '''not''' making the ].
::''Substantiate'' this, don't just ''assert'' it. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Probably the most important part of the ID controversy is whether ID should be taken mainly as a critique of evolution ("natural forces aren't enough") or as a campaign to promote creationism ("only God could have done it").

:While the '''motivation''' for making the argument this way is religious in nearly every case, we ought to tell our readers that the political or philosophical arguments for Creationism consist of distinct steps:
:#"Pure ID": Evolution isn't enough
:#"Creationism": Because evolution isn't enough, we must look (philosophically or religiously) for a ]. Come to our church and find out more! :-)

::This structure is purely fallacious. The core (i.e. "pure") "mini-ID" assertion contains a designer/Creator. The "Evolution isn't enough" arguments are on the penumbra of ID, not at its centre. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:The ID article will be much improved when it distinguishes between (1) the critique of evolution and (2) the '''use''' this critique has in the wedge strategy, etc. --] (]) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::Can you present any substantiation that the critiques are any more fundamental to ID than the Wedge Strategy is? <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:I came here not to argue but to describe. I do not have a position on ID. My religious faith is unrelated to it.

::If your religion is that of the ] (as your editing patterns seem to indicate), then I would dispute that your "religious faith" is unrelated to anti-Evolution beliefs and thus to ID. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:It sounds like you have information that ID is primarily (or only) an element of the Wedge Strategy. Perhaps you agree with the scientific and legal mainstream and disagree with the points made by ID advocates.

::The Wedge Strategy and the origins of ID are inextricably intertwined. In fact the ID movement referred to itself as the "Wedge movement" during those formative days. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:If so, I hope we can work together to create an article which fulfills Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. If I recall correctly, the non-negotiable requirements are (1) to describe each view fairly and (2) to refrain from endorsing any view as "true" or "correct" or "real".

:Do you and I have the same interpretation of NPOV policy? --] (]) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Evidently not, Ed. You're ignoring ] and the undue weight sections, and adding original research without a reliable source. Two reliable secondary sources are shown, you want to upstage them by your vague memory of some primary source. And if you study ID, you'll note that its proponents present it as validating the existence of God, and at least Behe refers specifically to Paley's argument as a forerunner. ... ], ] 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Exactly. It appears that Ed, once again and despite being on arbcom probation for just this, is edit warring to to enforce his own, slanted notion of what ] is and demands and lack of awareness on the topic and expects us all to accept his notions and state of understanding at face value. The content he questions is supported not only by the sources provided in the aritcle, but by the own statements of the ID proponents provided later in the article; ID is an argument for the existence of God. Try reading the sources already in the article about what Johnson and Dembski say about the identity of the designer and the purpose of the ID argument next time Ed. Later today I'll be adding sources to the passge he's editing from the leading ID proponents wherein they state that design is proof of God or leads people back to God and similar statements. ] (]) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you disagree with my interpretation of NPOV policy, please tell me where. Here is my interpretation. Please tell me which of these ideas you disagree with, and why:
# We should describe each view fairly
# We should refrain from endorsing any view as "true" or "correct" or "real"

Where do you agree or disagree?

Secondly, the edit we are discussing is my labelling the mainstream scientific and legal view of ID as "mainstream".

* I wrote: ] for the existence of ] http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intelligent_design&diff=182321566&oldid=182308399]

Are you saying it's not the consensus?

Or do you simply disagree with ''labeling'' the mainstream view like this?

You speak of ''the content he questions'' but I'm not questioning any content: I was trying to put in ten words, "The consensus of the academic and legal community is that ..."

Please stop intentionally missing my point: I have never said that ID proponents all deny that ID is an argument for the existence of God. What I am saying is that '''some''' ID proponents have indicated that ID's critique of evolution can be treated separately from their motivation to use that critique.

The article should distinguish between (A) those ID proponents who incorporate ]'s anti-evolution critique in pro-God arguments, and those who simply assert that natural causes are insufficient on the grounds of "life shows signs of being designed".

And stop saying things like "his own, slanted notion" unless you are planning to put into words exactly what you think that slanted notion is. Harassment and personal attacks have no place on Misplaced Pages. You must address the writing, not the person. Otherwise you (who harp so much about policies) are yourself violating ]. --] (]) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:There is a widely held notion that ID advocates' claims that their arguments are independent of religion, are not representative of those advocates' actual intentions and beliefs. This was part of the Kitzmiller ruling, for instance, and is also discussed in regards to the Discovery Institute's ].

:When one party to a discourse is shown repeatedly (and even in court!) to not be acting in good faith, reiterating those arguments is not generally such a useful way to contribute to a discussion. Even if ''you'' are acting in good faith here, please understand that you are reiterating arguments that are widely held to have been fashioned in bad faith by creationists for the purpose of garnering illegal government support for creationist religion. --] (]) 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::The problem is that the concept of Intelligent Design by definition goes beyond a simple critique of Evolution by Natural Selection. To say that EBNS is not enough does not by itself imply a jump to Intelligent Design. One could fall back on ] or hold out for some as yet unknown mechanism. Indeed a neutral commentator critiquing evolution would put forward all three options as possible lines of inquiry. By promoting only ID as an alternative, advocates are clearly supporting a designer, for which two options have been put forward - God, and little green men from outer space. And I don't see much promotion of little green men. --] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious except the incredibly naive and those who are engaged in the calumnious behavior, is that ''intelligent design'' is a strategy developed by liars and schemers to circumvent US law. This is an attempt to pull a fast one by the dishonest. And so far, the legal system has seen through this fairly transparent subterfuge and noticed that this is really creationism attempting to fraudulently pass itself off as some sort of secular science. It is nonsense, the courts so far have declared it as clear creationism, nonsense and "breathtaking inanity". Trying frantically to get Misplaced Pages to buy into this thoroughly discredited bit of deception is just unreasonable and does not serve the needs of our readership.--] (]) 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

==Science of ID==
----
(written before edit conflict with Filll)

Thanks, Fubar Obfusco, for pointing out the relevance of the advocates' motivation. Perhaps that also sheds light on the critics' motivation.

I'm wondering how much of the article should focus on the '''scientific''' (i.e., natural forces only) dispute between "evolution" and ID. I've read a lot of legal arguments which simply assert that scientists have refuted ID's arguments about "insufficient causation". Is there room in the article for discussion of the merits and flaws of the complexity argument?

*For the machine to be assembled, all or nearly all the parts must already be there and be performing a function. Why must they already be performing a function? Because if a part does not confer a real, present advantage for the organism's survival or reproduction, Darwinian natural selection will not preserve the gene responsible for that part. In fact, according to Darwinian theory, that gene will actually be selected against. An organism that expends resources on building a part that is useless handicaps itself compared to other organisms that are not wasting resources, and will tend to get outcompeted.

In the six years since I first began this article, I have often seen Misplaced Pages writers mention the idea that "this has been refuted". Perhaps we could present the refutation to our readers now.

Behe said: "None of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion."

And: "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."

One, are these quotes accurate? That is, did Behe really say them?

Two, are his claims undisputed? That is, has any published author proposed a detailed model of the gradual, natural build-up of a complex system? --] (]) 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, his claims were refuted overwhelmingly in court. This is dealt with on the article on ] and I think also in ]. We do not have room in this article for all kinds of ludicrous discredited silliness. We do not have to address all the arguments for and against ID here. We have a few daughter articles that address a little, and that is all we can do, because we do not have room or time or energy to deal with all of it. It was effectively revealed in the trial that Behe is a fraud and does not know anything about the literature and damn little about his own field of science. He is an embarassment to science and academia, and clearly his academic department feels that way in press releases about his presence they have made. --] (]) 02:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:So, then, you agree that Misplaced Pages should side with NCSE et al. (perhaps on the the strength of the Fitzmiller ruling) that ID is wrong? In that in this matter, unlike others covered by NPOV, Misplaced Pages is amply justified in taking sides?

:It would not be sufficient to remark merely that "the consensus of scientists and judges alike is that Behe is a fraud" but we must say only that "Behe is a fraud"? --] (]) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:Ed, no there is not "room in the article for discussion of the merits and flaws of the complexity argument" -- this article is already ''very'' long, and that discussion already exists in ] and ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== The little edit war ==

Please {{tl|editprotected}} as that was not a real edit war. Besides, I want to get back to the other addition I made, which was reverted by pill. <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">T</font>able<font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">M</font>anners <sup>]·]·]</sup> 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:If you want to change the LEAD away from the Discovery Institute's definition of intelligent design, to introduce some of your own ] instead in the first few lines, you will have to get consensus first. I invite you to try to get it here on the talk page. I do not think it will be easy, however. Sorry.--] (]) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*'''Disagree''' with TableManners proposed edit (even if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't contain the required "specific description").
*Does six edits in 24 hours count as an edit war, and particularly one of sufficient intensity to warrant page protection? That level would seem fairly normal for as high a profile and contentious an article as this one.
<font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Too early to unprotect. Editor who's prompted the protection is on arbcom probation for disruptive editing and ignoring consensus, so unlocking it now is not a good idea. Besides, there's doesn't seem to be much, if any, support for your changes.
:Now let's talk about you calling Filll "pill." Are you trying to troll him or us? I know you have a history with him, but intentionally antagonizing him will only reflect poorly on you. ] (]) 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the heads-up FM, there'd been somewhat of an information-vacuum previously. Is there anything in the arbcom probation requirements we should know about? <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The ruling is here: ]. If he disrupts the article again, including this talk page, a filing should be made here ] with diffs of today's incident and it's resulting protection and the tendentious talk page arguments. ] (]) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not really an edit war. Neither Dave (2 reversions) nor me (1 reversion) violated the 3RR rule.

I undid '''one reversion''' Dave Souza made, because he didn't give a good reason. He repeated his reversion, this time with a good reason, and that was the end of it.

I request that the article be unblocked. --] (]) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:{{cross}} '''Request declined.''' {{tl|editprotected}} must be accompanied by a specific description of a requested edit. For unprotection, go to ] and provide a reason, please. ] (]) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:"''I undid '''one reversion''' Dave Souza made, because he didn't give a good reason.''" Can you point me to the policy or guideline that says you should in turn revert those who've rejected changes made without consensus because they lack a "good reason." Here's a good reason: Gain consensus talk page before making controversial changes to this article moving forward. Considering your history, you should be doing anyway. ] (]) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::Consensus is not required to edit a page. This is a violation of ]. You don't own the article, and you can't just revert edits because they weren't discussed on the talk page. ] (]) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sources for ID proponents on ID as an argument for the existence of God ==

Ed would like to alter the article to claim that only scientific community and the courts see ID as an argument for God, but not ID proponents. Here are 5 sources showing 3 of the leading ID proponents stating they see ID as an argument for the existence of God:
*"... intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right! ... Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God" William A. Dembski, August 4, 2005.
*"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." William A. Dembski. February 1, 2005.
*"The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." William A. Dembski. 1998.
*"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin. 2000.
*"By uncovering evidence that natural phenomena are best accounted for by Intelligence, Mind, and Purpose, the theory of Intelligent Design reconnects religion to the realm of public knowledge. It takes Christianity out of the sphere of noncognitive value and restores it to the realm of objective fact, so that it can once more take a place at the table of public discourse. Only when we are willing to restore Christianity to the status of genuine knowledge will we be able to effectively engage the 'cognitive war' that is at the root of today's culture war." Nancy Pearcey, ed. William A. Dembski. 2004, p. 73

I'll add these to the article tomorrow. I have approximately a dozen more from Dembski (who is a particularly prolific writer on this topic), Meyer, and Johnson, and another dozen from lesser ID proponents. Ed, you could have found these with Google easily enough had you bothered to look rather than edit warring and continuing hammering away on the talk page: 20 minutes of research is worth 2 days of time wasted arguing on the talk page and rv'ing others. I think you need to rethink your method of participating, particularly in light of your edit warring having resulted in this article being protected. ] (]) 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:You are incorrect about what I want. Where on earth would you get the idea that I want "to alter the article to claim that only scientific community and the courts see ID as an argument for God, but not ID proponents"?

:If you will quote from a talk page comment (or an article edit I made), I will understand why you think I want this.

:If you ignore this question, I must assume that you realize your mistake. In any case, let me go on record as saying that '''I do not want the article to say that.'''

:What I would like, instead, is for the article to distinguish between two ideas that ID proponents have put forth:
:#That natural forces don't explain life's biochemical complexity as well as design; and,
:#If something this complex was designed, there must be a supernatural designer, i.e., ]

:If I have failed to make myself clear about this, I apologize. But now it's clear, right?

:To sum up, what I'm asking is that if not all ID proponents say ID is an argument for God, we should report this fact - but if (as FeloniousMonk has implied) all ID proponents have always said that ID is an argument for God, we should report that fact.

:Is this clear now? --] (]) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::Ed, you're simply moving your goal posts now. In your change you've been editing warring over your edit summary clearly says "''Except for its proponents, everyone thinks it's an "argument for the existence of God''" and your fighting to change "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" to "''The consensus of the academic and legal community'' is that ID is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." And now you've created a new policy fork (which I've properly labeled an essay for you), ], where you're trying to argue that "''When writing about scientific consensus which appears to coalesce around a certain view of a scientific matter, Misplaced Pages should not endorse this consensus.''" While superficially true, it ommits the fact that when writing about intentially contrived controversies (like ID) which make certain claims, Misplaced Pages should not repeat these views as fact. Also, your attempt to have this page unprotected used a very misleading summary of the situation here, compounding the issue that you are being disruptive. ] (]) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Speaking of consensus, Samsara seems to think that what you called an "edit war" has all been cleared up. I wish you would not keep threatening me but would simply respond to my questions and suggestions with good faith.

:::By the way, an "essay" is not a "policy fork". I'm simply commenting on policy, which you know is allowed. You do it, too. --] (]) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe this is not as clear as I thought. I need to ask everyone here a question first.

Do all Misplaced Pages writers working on this article agree that, if (1) natural forces didn't explain life's biochemical complexity as well as design, then (2) this necessarily implies that only a Supernatural Designer, i.e., ], could have created life, which means (3) that ] is true?

Or is there even one Wikipedian working on this article who sees #1 and #2 as independent propositions?

I will have more to say about how we can work together on this article based on the answers (or lack of answers) to these questions. --] (]) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:FM, thanks for an excellent resource. One correction, ''Forward by Phillip E. Johnson'' sounds like it's published by the Salvation Army, so I've changed that. Ed, read the Kitzmiller conclusion memo. You've just posed the classic false duality, see ], 1982. On a happier note the religious programme on Radio 4 this morning had a sermon basically setting out the basis of ], that science explains the facts, and religion explains purpose and meaning beyond the facts. He went on to describe the 3 Wise Men as using science to follow the star, and religious revelation of the religious light to find their destination. Which immediately reminded me of ]. .. ], ] 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Ah, the Life of Brian. Now there's a religious story I can appreciate. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::Actually Dave, he's flubbed his wording of it, so that it isn't even a false dichotomy (it just looks like one). It is in fact logically trivial because it assumes its conclusion (supernatural design) as part of its premise. This premise is fallacious, as explicitly ''supernatural'' design is never a good scientific explanation -- as it is unfalsifiable ("God just decided to do it and make it look this way"). <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

::: This is almost irrelevant to this particular debate, for which I'm sorry; but you seem to have made an unjustified leap there from "unscientific" to "fallacious". Consider, for example, the statements "my favourite colour is blue"; or, alternatively "most wars are really caused by personal hatred". Neither of those is falsifiable, and therefore neither is a scientific statement. On the other hand, neither is necessarily fallacious or logically invalid. The scientific method and methodological naturalism are not innate to logic; and if we assume they are, I don't think that we can treat the subject of this article neutrally. An explanation which posits a supernatural cause can never satisfy methodological naturalism and generally cannot satisfy the scientific method; but that doesn't mean that it is fallacious or that logic cannot be applied to it. The adherents of this theory are questioning methodological naturalism; I don't think that we can treat their arguments neutrally if we take methodological naturalism as an axiom. ] (]) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'll be adding them to the article then. ] (]) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:A comment on Ed's specific point. "''Natural'' forces do not explain biological complexity as well as design" (emphasis added) does indeed imply a supernatural designer, and "A supernatural designer is a better explanation than natural forces" is indeed creationism. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


:*I think as most of these sources overwhelmingly come from Dembski (and <sub>a few from</sub> Phil E. Johnson)- it should be made clear who specifically is *outing* ID as un-subtle teleology. Dembski is a very prominent proponent, but he should not be taken as speaking for the entirety of the movement. --] (]) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that every major supporter and promoter of ID has made almost identical statements, including Behe and Wells and Meyer and Nelson and so on and so forth.--] (]) 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:If '''every''' major supporter has made '''identical''' statements. Then it will be on record, and citable (preferably in a handy collated format). But if by "almost", you mean "sorta-in-that-really-annoying-crafty-lawyer-not-quite-actually-explicitly-using-the-the-exact-phrase-naming-a-Judeo-Christo-deity-damn-christo-fascists" then its not good enough. That's called quote-mining or putting-words-in-people's-mouths. Something we don't like round these parts, at least, that's the impression I had. Failure to uncouple the ID/DI machinations from conservative christo-creationist roots, is not the same as explictly identifying their designer as Jesus³ to the exclusion of any other explanation. As a group they have repeatedly, on record, implied, heavily suggested, and non-explictly implicated Jesus³, but that's not the same as unanimously explicitly identifying him, when they have made repeated unanimous announcements to the contrary. I'll go with what cites are provided, if they say differently. Dembski definitely overwhelms the others at goofing(?) at naming the designer and deserves special singling out as a repeat offender at naming the elusive designer as Jesus³.--] (]) 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:POSTAD - I don't want "every" DI fellow on record. I just think that if 70-90% of our quotes are from Dembski, that shouldn't read as "all leading intelligent design proponents"--] (]) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::Dembski is not "all leading proponents": he can't be more than 25% of them (!) if you consider the top 4 to be Dembski, Behe, Wells and Johnson. --] (]) 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I would put Wells on the next tier down along with Gonzales, Weikart, Richards, and probably one or two others. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::That sounds about right. He might be in the top 5 "pro-ID authors who attract criticism" - because of his incredibly annoying ''Icons'' book. But he's more of an attacker and explainer. ID is not his baby: he's just taking it out for a walk. --] (]) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Not one, but two reasons to reject ID on the basis of science ==

From ]

"However, mainstream science rejects ID on the grounds that an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural."

This is not the sole exclusive conclusion of ID, nor is it the sole reason for its rejection.

There are two outcomes from ID reasoning that make it equally and totally rejectable by science.
# an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural.
# an Intelligent Designer requires a designer, or naturalistic means to explain its existence. (Ultimate Boeing 747).

I agree, ID cannot be classified as true science, because the proponents of mainstream science are so bigoted and godless, they can't possibly accept the notion that God exists. Anyway, ID ''is'' definable as science because it puts forth a hypothesis like any other science, it just involves God, so therefore it is rejected by the scientific community. In my opinion, the proposition that God doesn't exist by so called scientific meothods, should also be rejected by mainstream science because it commits the same supposed crime as ID. JIMBOB <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Very rational. Not. Just ranting and nonsense. Science has ''nothing'' to do with science. It is pure poison for science and it is bad theology. But we are here to improve the article, not to try to talk to people like you. Thanks. --] (]) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ID itself, as presented by DI and other cdesign proponentists, reject 2).

While science rejects 1) on the basis of simple scientific naturalism and refusal to bow to mystic nonsense.
And also rejects 2) on the basis of Occam's razor - we have a perfectly fine and validated naturalistic explanation for life and the universe without throwing some intelligent designer in there too.

This paragraph should be rephrased to show that there are two, equally valid and oft-espoused, reasons why ID fails to meet the simplest of criteria to be even a basic scientific proposition.--] (]) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:Sure, but the infinite regress argument steps outside of natural science and touches on theology. It is, in fact, an atheistic argument.

:Bear in mind that ID is rattling the cage here - not that Misplaced Pages should help it do so.

:ID is demanding a change in the philosophy of science. Our response should not be to endorse or condemn this demand but to describe those elements of the demand that would be of interest to our readers.

:For example, ID objects to the methodological naturalism of science, whereby it restricts the scope of the ] to natural causes alone. Dembski wrote: "Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable." Thus ID mixes vanilla scientific claims with chocolate philosophical demands.

:Stop me if this "insight" is simply ]. All I know is what I read online and in books. --] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::No, you're correct. It's part of the "wedge strategy". ID proponents want science redefined as simple empiricism, rather than methodological naturalism (assuming that everything has a natural explanation). ] (]) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No Gus, what they have ''explicitly'' demanded is ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how an atheistic argument becomes theology? Or how dealing with non-god (an unidentified designer) in a non-religious context (science) becomes theology? This is how ID fails in ''reality'' because they are demanding the supernatural, everyone knows they are talking about ]. But on the philosophy of it all, ID fails before this, without the premise that a designer itself is unsatisfactory scientifically, proponents would not have to bring out their "Oh, but it's a ''mystical'' designer" card.
:This failure of a designer as a scientific premise is discussed by multiple sources, and Dawkin's Ultimate Boeing is just one argument. One could see these two points as opposite sides of the same coins, but I definitely assert that #2 has far less theology in it than #1. #1 is calling ID religious (because it is not-science). #2 is calling it not-science (because it is religious).--] (]) 11:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Of course evolution is a secular science, as all science is, and can be used as evidence in a philosophical argument for atheism, or as evidence in that branch of philosophy defined as theology as an argument for a religious position. That the ID argument failed both as theology and science was recognised by ] and many theologians after him. .. ], ] 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::All I am trying to get across that "an Intelligent Designer must be supernatural" is a false ] here. ID fails because it must either 1) have a supernatural designer OR 2) allow a naturalistic explanation for the designer be investigated (not necessarily provide itself). ID proponents shun 2 in favour of 1 - but 1 is not the default premise from scientific reasoning 2 is.--] (]) 12:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, that's at the heart of the matter. ID is based on there being empirical evidence, actual material artefacts which can't be explained by natural processes so must be explained by a process beyond the reach of science, and in the realm of philosophy or theology. As they say. Science is based on explaining material empirical evidence by material processes, and is secular in not ruling out processes beyond nature, but in taking no account of them when constructing a scientific explanation. If it's not material it's immaterial. If ID produced a testable hypothesis about how a physical intelligent designer works, then it would be science, and then it would have failed in its stated purpose of redefining science to accept ]. Gotta drink the kool-aid. .. ], ] 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The heart of the matter is a dispute over the ]. Referring to what Dave said, ID's claim is (1) that empirical evidence and material artifacts cannot be explained by natural processes; therefore, (2) science needs to expand its scope to include the possibility of supernatural intervention.

Biologists are (with extremely rare exceptions) opposed to this proposed extension of the scope of science. They insist that biology is a ], and they refuse to do any sort of "scientific work" which considers non-material forces.

Note that there are other fields of science than physical science. For example, ] is not dominated by the empiricism and 'methodological naturalism' of physical science. The field of psychology is, in the academic world, generally seen as separated from the "]" like physics and chemistry. I daresay one reason for this is that You cannot directly observe the thoughts, emotions, and desires of Him. The scientific study of the human mind necessarily relies on each person voluntarily describing "what's on his mind" - which is a dodgy business.

Dave, I don't think any ID proponent seriously proposes a physical designer. They are just saying that "signs of being designed" should be studied as part of science - even if this means science must expand its scope.

I understand that two objections to this expansion are (1) if it's supernatural, it can be anything, any whim of a perverse or flighty god like Zeus (jovial one day, nasty the next); and (2) if there's a god who creates, then who created that god (the "infinite regress" objection").

The problem with the current article is that it '''agrees with physical science proponents''' that science is philosophically correct to retain its empirical scope. I submit that the endorsement of this philosophical POV is a violation of the policy of this project. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to endorse a POV, but merely report which scholars and experts espouse it. --] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:As I read the article, it seems to deal primarily with what science ''is'', rather than what it should be. As science is currently defined, it doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Since ID requires supernatural explanations, it's not scientific ''under the current definition of "science"''. Nowhere do I see this article making a stand that this definition of science must be the way science should be. If you see this somewhere in the article, then I agree that it probably shouldn't be there. Would you mind pointing out a specific line where you see this? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:: There may be differences on what science 'is'. Here's Behe in his response to the Kitzmiller case, :
::: "The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
::: On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind."
:: Interestingly, Dawkins' ], mentioned earlier, doesn't work on the principle that intelligent design is outside science. It works on the principle that it CAN be considered within science, and therefore be found to fail by scientific reasoning (due to its lack of parsimony). ] (]) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::*Precisely my initial point.--] (]) 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::To use that, we'd have to establish Behe as being a reliable source on what constitutes science. Given that in that trial, he admitted that under his definition, ] would be considered science, it would be quite a difficult task to establish this. As the article is, it mentions that ID proponents believe ID is science, while mainstream scientists and the courts don't, which is perfectly fine. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::] comes from ], not Behe.
::::{{quotation|Dawkins concludes that the argument from design is the most convincing . The extreme improbability of life and a universe capable of hosting it requires explanation, but Dawkins considers the God Hypothesis inferior to evolution by natural selection as explanations for the complexity of life.}}
::::Dawkin's concede's that design has merits, but is inferior c.f. leading mainstream theory. --] (]) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not that there's much relevance now, but I was referring to the first part of TLP's comment (the problem with pronouns, sometimes what "that" is isn't clear). In any case, even if Dawkins believes ID is or can be treated as science, that view is in the minority among scientists and contrary to the decisions of the court. There's a lot more I could theoretically say on this, but with the disruption gone, there's not much point (unless someone has a good faith disagreement here, in which case I'll gladly discuss further). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: For what it's worth, I do disagree. Misplaced Pages is not here to judge the sides of an argument and establish which is truth. When there are disagreements, Misplaced Pages should not be seeking to say, "Well, that source seems more reliable, so let's say that one's fact and the other is wrong". The paper by Behe is a reliable source for ''what Behe considers'' science to be; and that is all it needs to be. We do not need to say, "Do we think Behe is a reliable person to say this?" If Behe says it, then that stated view exists, even if only as his view. The question still remains as to whether that view is is ''significant'', but given that this article is about the view of which Behe is one of the most prominent spokemen, it seems to me that it is significant to this article. So, we are should not be talking about one side that says what science is, and another side which is saying what it would like to change science into. We are talking about two sides with different published views on what science is - one much better supported, but that doesn't mean that we present that one as fact and the other as an attempt to alter fact. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The ] (deciding what is science and what is nonscience) is essentially unsolved. Different things like ] and ] etc have been proposed, but all pretty much are unsatisfactory for various reasons.

People do not state what the basic problem of the supernatural in science is however; it would destroy science, since there would be no reason to ever do science again and find an answer to anything, since "god dun it" is an answer to anything. And how could you get funded to find an answer when you already have one?

I am reading an article by Meyer from about 1994 where he argues that you can come up with fancy artificial rules for when "god dun it" and when naturalism is the more proper assumption, but these rules are ludicrous and complicated. They are completely unconvincing and you would never be able to apply them in practice.

The Muslims had the most advanced science, medicine, mathematics, navigation and engineering on planet earth for about 400 or 500 years, until they made it official policy to always say "god dun it" (see ]). Within a few years, Muslim science went back essentially to the dark Ages, and it has not emerged in the last 1000 years from this Dark Age. All because "god dun it" is the answer to everything, and it is the official answer that you are not allowed to question (or else get beheaded or something).

What people do not quite understand is that once "god dun it" is the answer to every mystery, then in criminal investigations and criminal defense, "god dun it" will be the answer to everything. P:"How did the bloody knife with your fingerprints get under the coach Mr. Jones?" J: "God dun it" P:"Oh so sorry, case closed, you are free to go Mr. Jones". All jails will have to be emptied. No more criminal prosecutions. No one will be able to be held responsible for anything. P:"Why do we have 10 witnesses to your robbery if you did not do it Mr. Smith?" S: "God dun it" etc. --] (]) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

: You can sort out most of this by simply stating that science does not search to answer ''WHY'' nature works, but ''HOW'' does it do it. Science is not concerned at all about any '''finalism''', while questions of this nature are the central pillars of any religious doctrine (and you managed to give two examples, one question starting with ''how'' and the other with ''why''. While there only one possible true answer to the first question, the second is obviously totally unscientific, as for example there are a multitude of possible reasons why the person asking the question could have exactly 10 witnesses!) ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Hmmm. Well who woulda thunk? "Why not how". Why didn't someone else think of that? 2500 years of philosophy and tens of thousands of tenured faculty studying this and thousands of courts and hundreds of thousands of lawyers and the US Supreme Court, and you solved it all! "Why not How". Amazing.--] (]) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Really amazing, isnt'it? It is deplorable to see that so many people waste so much time and energy by not realizing the fundamental differences between all the questions such as "Why was the solar system formed?" and "How was it formed?". Only one of the two kinds of questions is relevant to Science, the rest being whatever you want to call it, but not Science. ] (]) 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey, Filll, was that your own opinion, or are you voicing a commonly held or scholarly idea? Maybe the problem with Muslim science was that "you are not allowed to question the official answer" - which is kind of the complaint some ID proponents are making about the theory of evolution.

ID proponents have been complaining that physical science is too restrictive: "If it's not a physical cause, we don't want to hear about it."

Anyway, which philosophers of science have asserted that supernatural (intelligent) causes are too erratic to be detected? This is not a challenge. I want their names so we can reference that viewpoint. As in:

Professor X rejects ID because, "Spirits are erratic and unpredictable." --] (]) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Ed you are free to go back to the Dark Ages if you want, pre-Enlightenment. However, you are not allowed to force others to go with you. Live in a cave if you want, but do not use force to make others live in caves too.--] (]) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::That would just be so funny if it wasn't scary - the definition of a word does not fit our purposes, so let's change the definition. Talk about 1984. Ed, if you don't fit into the science tent, just accept it, you can't demand the tent be moved to accommodate you. --] (]) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::At some point is it reasonable to ask Ed Poor to take the time to actually understand IDC before wasting everyone's time here? He's been trying to make IDC out as something it is not in this article for several years now. He continues to ask the most ignorant questions, as if he'd never heard of IDC before, and he continues to be nothing more than a distraction. At what point do you tell an editor he needs to actually know something about the article? His comments and question suggest he knows nothing about science, IDC or evolution. At some point you've got to be able to hold him to some reasonable standard of conduct. And now he's asking for names of "science philosophers who said ..." Ed this is not a place to do your research nor are the editors here your personal tutors. And EVERYONE knows IDC is a creationist scam to outwit Edward vs... so they can get creationism back in the class room. And EVERYONE knows IDC is not science....But you...Good god man are you as dense as you appear to be on these talk pages? Seriously. Do you honestly expect us to buy you're dense as a fence post act? I'm stunned the other editors here give Ed more than 2 seconds consideration as he has a history that goes back several years of disrupting this and other IDC related articles. He always wants to portray IDC as something it is not. Again, at some point Ed needs to be held to some sort of reasonable standard of conduct. - Guy who's getting tired of the IDC nonsense. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

See ] (]) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Heartily supported - thank you, Raul. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks - Guy who's getting tired of the IDC nonsense. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===removed===
Orangemarlin removed the phrase and its related paragraph from the section on the basis of unsalvagable POV . Perhaps this section should be archived. It's getting OT. --] (]) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

==Central claims of ID==

In http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm#_ednref3 Dembski says:

*Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Am I the only one who feels that this description of ID should be in the article somewhere?

:I suspect you are. It is merely a less equivocal ("necessary" instead of "better") articulation of the assertion currently in the lead. Given the IDM's penchant for restating the same thing hundreds of different ways, with varying equivocation, I would demand strong evidence of the notability of any particular articulation of this assertion, before it got a mention in the article ''in addition'' to the existing one. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==Interesting quote from the vice president of USF==

From

{{cquote|Goodman, who has worked to promote the new campus among Polk's civic, business and political leaders, stopped short of criticizing local school board members. Intelligent design, however, merited no such tact.

"It's not science," Goodman said. "You can't even call it pseudo-science."}}

] (]) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:See ] which includes that quote, as well as quoting Margaret Lofton, one of the school board members supporting intelligent design, who said "They've made us the laughingstock of the world". It's not clear whether "they" is the Pastafarians, or the cdesign proponentsists. Of course, this could lead to quote-mining – "see, it's not pseudoscience!!!" . . ], ] 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Daubert ==

In reference to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag raised in the article, I seem to remember a law-review article stating that Jones' decision (and resultant rejection of ID evidence) hewed fairly close to the Daubert standard in evaluating the credibility of ID evidence (I'll see if I can track it down). However, as KvD has been the only ID court case, and as the plaintiffs in that did not mount a Daubert challenge of the defence expert witnesses (a stroke of strategic genius, considering how extensively their testimony was used ''against'' them), there has been no ''explicit'' consideration of whether ID meets Daubert by a court. The paragraph in question will probably therefore require some rewriting. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: Google does reveal some blogs which mention it. Daubert doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant to Kitzmiller, as no-one was at any point attempting to use Intelligent Design as a standard for evidence in court (e.g. "this is the murder weapon - intelligent design proves it"). The court case was entirely about whether ID was admissable in schools, not in courts. It may be ''true'' that ID doesn't meet Daubert, but it's of dubious relevance - I'm sure there are lots of other standards it doesn't meet too, but as no-one has at any point tried to use it as a standard of evidence in a US court, whether it would be admissable as one doesn't seem that relevant. ] (]) 11:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Google turned out to only be useful for tracking it down when applied with ''considerable'' lateral thinking. It was . It states:
::{{quotation|Yet despite this impermissible purpose, Judge Jones’s analysis of the content of ID and Of Pandas and People also concluded that “ID is not science.” More specifically, he wrote: “ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.” Though the opinion makes no mention of Daubert, observe that the three factors Judge Jones focused on – testability, peer review, and general acceptance – are precisely the applicable three factors from the Daubert analysis.}}
::<font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Verifiably stated, then, but a bit tangential. The article is more about whether the Kitzmiller verdict's similarity to the Daubert standard suggests that the Daubert standard might be a good tool to use in evaluating content for science curricula. It's not really a judgement on ID itself (which it notes was rejected in court primarily for reasons unrelated to the standard - that it was advanced with an impermissible purpose, not that it was not science, though the judge did also rule that ID was not science). It might justify a sentence with a link to the relevant article, but I think that the current text in which the Daubert standard is described in full in this article is a bit excessive. ] (]) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I'd agree there. The source quoted above seems to be a step too far from the actual court case and ID - along the lines of an independant observer reviewing it and expressing their opinions on how the judge's ruling invokes shades of Daubert. I can see justifying a quick mention, a sentence or two at most, given that we do have this source making the connection, but we shouldn't be giving it as much weight as the current article does. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Just from memory, my recollection is that this section in the article long predates the Kitzmiller trial. The point, that ID violates science as defined for legal purposes, can now be stated more concisely with reference to the Kitzmiller conclusion. .. ], ] 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes, but we still need a ] (preferably a legal expert in an area relevant to Daubert) stating that ID's 'evidence' doesn't meet the ]. The article above is the closest I can remember having come across (but as others have pointed out, it falls rather short). <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 11:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::: My word. It has been in a long time. I'd just assumed that it must have been added recently, as it should really have been picked up at FA nomination; but it seems to have survived at least two years, including two FA nominations, an FA review, a GA review and a peer review without anyone picking up an entirely unsourced assertion. That surprises me.
::::::: I think that the source given might justify a mention of Daubert, along the lines of "In a (date) article in (publication), (author) likened the judge's reasoning to the ], which determines what expert testimony is sufficiently scientific to be admissible in US courts." I don't know whether, even with a strong reliable source specifically saying that ID fails the standard, it would justify much more than that (it could be stronger, but probably not much longer). ] (]) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== The Bill Greene Show ==

*ouch*

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-greene-rips-wikipedia-a-new-one/

I didn't feel a thing, but then again I am not one of the editors of this article. ] (]) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: (Misplaced Pages mentions start at 6:43. I tell you that because this show moves very, very slowly. That is 6 minutes and 43 seconds of your life you can save. I'm not sure there's actually anything of substance said in those first 6 minutes and 43 seconds. In about 20 minutes I'll say whether anything of interest is said after that.) ] (]) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for the public service announcement TSP, it is much appreciated. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Misplaced Pages/Intelligent Design references (but not referring to this page in any detail) go on until 13:00, then it moves on to another topic; it picks up again about 18:00 with discussion of ID in general, then moves on to Misplaced Pages a few minutes later - I'll give a time when I have it. ] (]) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: No more Misplaced Pages mentions before 30:00... ] (]) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Oh, it's back at about 51:30. Bill urges his listeners to come to this page and see whether they can improve it. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: And some more at 55:00. ] (]) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::: ...and that's it. I wonder if we'll get anyone from it. (Maybe we've already had someone from it.) ] (]) 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Well what else would you expect after Bill Greene acted in such an outrageous manner here on Misplaced Pages? And given his own views, which are pretty close to ] as near as I can tell. Not much of a Christian, from my knowledge of the faith. --] (]) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: He was a Wikipedian? ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He is still here. He managed to get himself unblocked although we complained about it. I listened to the whole thing and the November 30 show which is similar. A lot of ignorance there. Amazing. So deep you need a shovel.--] (]) 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:TSP thanks for doing the work for us. I think I'll utilize that hour for more productive things like downloading porn or getting drunk. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

==Talk about what ID is, not what it isn't==
"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". This is clearly ID propaganda. It alludes to the common creationist ploy of mischaracterizing evolution, Darwinism, natural selection, etc., as being synomynous (who has EVER claimed that natural selection explains life?), and it raises the diversionary question of whether natural selection is "undirected". It has absolutely no place in the lead. The lead should be a discussion of what ID is, not a forum for repeating ID jabs at evolution.] (]) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Evolution ''is'' undirected, in the sense of not having someone in charge of it. You might be confusing this perfectly sensible claim with the creationist claim that evolution is ''random''. --] (]) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That definition is there because that is the Discovery Institute definition, word for word. The problem is that no matter what you write, someone will claim that it is too favorable to the pro-ID side or the anti-ID side. --] (]) 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

==Relationship with other forms of theism==
] compares ID advocates with ], who assert that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and all life forms were created by God. While he acknowledges that ID advocates are more reasonable, he points out that they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private and will not say so in front of their creationist peers out of loyalty and fear of offending their fellow theists. He suggests that they will have to make such concessions to have any chance of being taken seriously by the scientific community:<ref>Dennett, Daniel C. (2006), '']'', Viking (Penguin), ISBN 0-670-03472-X</ref>

{{Cquote|"We're serious about this!" they insist&mdash;"but please don't ask us to acknowledge the falsehood of the sillier versions of our position!"

No. Not if you want to play in the big leagues.}}

:Can I have some feedback on this (now) proposed addition? There is little or nothing here on the dynamics of the various creationist/pseudo-creationist franchises, except for theistic evolution/ID. I can't see what section (or daughter article) this would fit into, so I created a new one. Apparently it's POV, despite relaying someone else's opinion, though since I agree with him and prefer to call a spade a spade, I might be overlooking something. ] (]) 06:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well, it's hearsay (strike one), with no attribution as to who said it (strike two), from an advocacy source (I'll call that a ball), designed to mock progressive thought and learning (another ball). For those of you unfamiliar with american baseball metaphors, I'll craft another phrase, (pretend Behe said it), which might work for those who know this particular biological topic well. 'Some evolutionists have said: "Sure, we once might have thought that all evolution was gradual and rambling, taking thousands and thousands of years, without any sharp divisions, but please don't ask us to acknowledge the falsehood of the sillier versions of our position!"'...(for those not following, see ]). If Behe had said that, would it belong in the evolution article, or would it be a POV attack? ] (]) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


== Shorten the SD ==
:: I'll list some other POV issues. "He points out..." gives the claim authority yet all we have in support of the statement that "they will only admit Young Earth Creationism is nonsense in private" is his opinion. This is also done here "he acknolwedges that ID advocates are more reasonable". Again it is just his opinion that ID advocates are more reasonable but it is presented as if he is stating a fact. I suggest you take a look at ] as it is very easy to introduce POV when presenting opinions through your choice of wording. ] (]) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (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)
:::I don't think the analogy with evolution is, well, even an analogy... Evolutionists never believed in 'constant speedism' and it's hardly as if the 'punctuated equilibrium' model has unanimous support either. If you want a real analogy, it would be something like a modern camp of evolutionary biologists believing evolution acts for the good of the species, or in a purposeful direction. And if they were the case, you know as well as I do that they would be unsympathetically ridiculed by their peers. But since it is somewhat hearsay-ish (though I doubt Dennett is just making this stuff up to make IDers look bad) I can accept that it isn't appropriate for the article. The fact that IDers would never say this stuff in a form we could cite basically makes them immune on this one. ] (]) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (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.
:Well - the first problem is the title - it isn't a comparison with other forms of ''theism'', it's a comparison with other forms of creationism. Apart from that, it gives undue weight to Dennett's opinion - after all, it doesn't mesh with the fact that there are prominent YECs within the IDC big tent. While Behe has clearly identified himself as an old-earther, most of the other prominent IDists are silent on their beliefs. ] (]) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::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)
--------
'''Artificiality'''


:] 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)
I would like to add this to the bottom of "Intelligence as an observable quality", but I don't have a reference. I'm sure a source that has said something similar that can survive the Wiki Reference Police exists somewhere. I'd appreciate if somembody found a similar passage. --] (]) 06:26, 13 January 2008 (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
: ''It could be argued, however, that we may be able to test for artifacts from beings that in some ways have intelligence or behaviors that resemble human intelligence. Thus, a sub-set of all possible intelligences may be detectable if it falls within boundaries of our detection or recognition ability. (Of course, the verification of artificiality may be more stringent than mere detection of candidate artifacts.)''
: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.
:] (]) 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.
:] (]) 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)
::I'm guess what you wrote in the article makes sense to you, yes? The reason I ask is because it makes absolutely no sense to me. And before you start commenting on the "wiki ref police" you might want to spend some time actually learning about Wiki policies PRIOR to making youself out to be a victim of the "wiki police". Making yourself out to be a victim because you cannot make up your own rules as you go along is very childish. Can I write what ever I want on your personal creationism/pseudoscience/huckster website, or will the Tablizer Police delete my comments? I am so persecuted. Personal and side note, based on the utter nonsense you write on your creationism web site you're going to have a very difficult time with any articles on IDC or science. If your website is an indication of your personal beliefs you're clueless on matters of science and being clueless will not help you be a good wiki editor, especially when it comes to articles about pseudoscience such as intelligent design. And I assumed good faith on your part until I read your website and now I know exactly where you're coming from. Let the claims of persecution begin! ] (]) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::{{tq|So, unless the version you are proposing is very closed from the current version}}
:::] 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-->
::: Please ]. This isn't a fight. ] (]) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::::{{tq|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.
:::::::::::{{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? ==
=Fallacy In This Article:=
This article deliberately deceives readers into thinking the overwhelming majority of scientists reject Intelligent Design.
"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience" Notice the fervent use of the adjective "unequivocal". First of all what is the scientific community? Is it members of the National Academy of Science? This article has two options: it can be honest and truthful, or it can be deceiving. The "unequivocal" fact (since we like that word) is that the National Academy of Science represents a mere 2% of the total amount of scientists listed in tbe American Men and Women of Science, hence doesn’t represent the broader scientific community. The Gallop organization has polled scientists since 1917 on their belief in God and to this day, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God. Does that sound like "unequivocal consensus" to you? If this article was truly neutral, it would not cite politically motivated scientific organizations as the authoritative representative voice of the "scientific community". In the United States, the scientific community are those people listed in the Americann Men and Women of Science....period! This article is peer-reviewed? Another lie. Certainly not by objective scientists. The following is a fact: 40% of scientists in the United States believe in a personal God that answers prayer, and over 1/3 believe in Creation (not theistic evolution but ID). Polls on the National Academy of Science show only 7% believe in God...but as we have already stated, the NAS does NOT represent the entire scientific community. This article deliberately misrepresents the fact that a significant amount of scientists indeed do believe in ID. I suggest the "scientists" who wrote this article do a little wiki search on the term "scientific community". Just because the NAS and a few other formal organizations of scientist make statements...that does NOT EQUATE to the "scientific community". If you took a philosophy 101 course, you would know a bit more about logical fallacies, and the fallacy in the introduction of this article is a huge one. But because the authors and protectors of this article are biased, I do not expect the "unequivocal" fact that a statistically significant amount of SCIENTISTS believe in creation to be mentioned. One last note: I find it humorous that there is not even a single article on WIkipedia about the American Men and Women of Science, which lists most of the scientists in North America, far more than exists in NAS. Now that, my friends, is the real scientific community of the US, only a pittance of which, are members of NAS, the AAAS, or the NST. Start asking members of the broader scientific community if they believe in God (rather than the narrower NAS, which is only a fraction) and you will see "unequivocal consensus" evaporate.


Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say:
Yes, my atheists friends....a statistically significant amount of scientists believe in creation, this is verifiable since 1917 all the way to the present. But you wont admit that, will you? {{unsigned|24.18.108.5|22:04, 13 January 2008}}
“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)
:Sorry you are confused. "Unequivocal" just means clear. And if you check ], the support by scientists varies someplace between 95% (counting probably engineers and mathematicians and goodness knows what as "scientists") and 99.85% (from Newsweek 1987) or 99.9% (from NIH 2006 or so) or 99.995% (from ] lists). So no matter which of those you take, it is ''clear'' that most scientists accept evolution. Ok? Also, evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and by claiming that you are exposing your ignorance. Thanks.--] (]) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::See ] and ]--] (]) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::Hi Fill. None of your cited polls drew from the wide range of scientists. If you knew anything about statistics, sampling is vital to the interpretation. We can accurately claim that 93% of all NAS scientists reject God, but we absolutely cannot extrapolate that as the "scientific community". I am assuming you know what the scientific community means. None of your polls drew their sample from a American Men and WOmen of Science. Only one poll, that I know of, draws its sample from the American Men and Women of Science. That is the Gallop Poll. And it has done so for almost 100 years. 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God that answers prayer. That is indisputable, Fill.
:::Also see ]. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:Fill, when you insult every single person that disagrees with your viewpoint, it makes you sound like a fucking 4th grader. What's even more ridiculous, is the number of people in power here that allow you to do it just because they agree with your bias. ] (]) 10:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:: GusChiggins21, your reminiscences about what 4th graders sound like when having sex are well off topic.. .. ], ] 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ::::And ] and ]. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --] (]) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
]
].--] (]) 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::so you resort to ad-hominem because I bring up a legitimate point? The ole' "troll" poisoning the well fallacy?


::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)
]. Enough said.--] (]) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (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. ] (]) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
:::: ] - 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)
:::::It's more accurate to say that ID advocates claim him as a precursor. ] (]) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::] - 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)
:::::::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)
::::::::] - 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.
::::::::{{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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::] 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)
:::::::::::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. ] (]) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::] 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)
{{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)
::] 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)
:::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)
:The gallup poll refutes your position. 5% of scientists believe in biblical creation, and many more believe in theistic evolution, is not unequivocal belief that ID is pseudoscience. It's actually evidence of significant variety of views. But the protectors of this page wouldn't be able to see that, because they want to defend a position held by less than 10% of the population as "scientific" and "unequivocal" and "peer-reviewed", and other such nonsense. ] (]) 10:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Filll has referred you to another article with explicit evidence, you seem to be pulling numbers out of a fundamentalist source. However, if you can produce reliable sources and propose improvements to the article, that will be welcome. .. ], ] 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::So Gus, as I recall, you were blocked for a week for making personal attacks? I thought so. Maybe you ought to relax and try to contribute peacefully. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::"Theistic evolution" is ''not'' ID. Why include TE advocates with ID advocates, unless you're trying to inflate the numbers? Also, how is ID anything other than pseudoscience, ''regardless'' of the number of people who believe in it? Since when has "degree of popular support" been the deciding factor? --] (]) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Robert, that's why I drink heavily. Editors who have a POV just defy logic sometimes. Just drink. It makes it easier to stomach. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


== Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence? ==
Look ] has about 700 signatories, after more than 7 years of effort, drawing from people all over the world, including English professors and philosophers and engineers and surgeons and mathematicians and people who never worked in science and so on. Only about 20% of those are biologists, at most. There are something like 1.1 or 1.2 million biologists in the US, or more. There are probably a similar number worldwide. So 140 out of more than 2.5 million? Does not sound like a lot, frankly. ] garnered 7733 signatures (which were checked to be real scientists working in science) in 4 days, at a rate almost 700,000 per cent faster than the Dissent petition has grown.
{{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==
Efforts to shove ] and every other belief in to artificially inflate and deceitfully misrepresent the minimal support for intelligent design is common at the ]. The petition ] which was signed by less than 0.02% of those eligible to sign, was launched by the DI with publicity for a poll which was summarized in the press release as "Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design". The Discovery Institute, by shoving theistic evolution in with those who are intelligent design supporters, announced the complete ''opposite'' of the poll results, continuing to lie and make themselves look like utter fools. So keep it up. You are following a great tradition.--] (]) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (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)
:Filll, this argument shows up once every two or three months. We should just have the facts placed somewhere we can just point them to it, and end the conversation.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:31, 14 January 2008 (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)

Latest revision as of 09:32, 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)
Categories: