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 19:24, 1 February 2008 editZ1perlster (talk | contribs)78 edits →Fallacy In This Article:← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 9 January 2025 edit undoMjolnirPants (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,653 edits →Intelligent Design and the Law: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Controversial3}} {{Talk Header}}

{{notaforum}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
|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 22: 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 37: 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
}} }}


{{Round in circles}}
{{TrollWarning}}
{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|24.155.14.10|Intelligent design|editedhere=yes}}


{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{| 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.


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


{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
*''']'''
*''']'''
*''']'''
*'''].'''
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the ] guidelines.


{{User:MiszaBot/config
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 (]).
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's ''']'''.
|counter = 89

|minthreadsleft = 4
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 (]).
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(180d)
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.
|archive = Talk:Intelligent design/Archive %(counter)d
|-
}}
|'''Notes to editors:'''
{{archives |search=no |
#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.
}}
#Please use ].
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
#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.
|target=Talk:Intelligent design/Archive index
|}
|mask =Talk:Intelligent design/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
{| class="wikitable" width="300px" cellpadding="3" align="right"
}}
|-
!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)

::"Intelligent Design" or better simply "design of some sort", would be a logical probable theory to know how to make acceptable to the Scientific method. I have the semantics and definitions for this ! But I do not defend religion as such. And there is a lot of junk science, published as a fact or science, and also there are a lot of junk religious books ! User: GeorgeFThomson (] (]) 05:19, 24 January 2008 (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).

(Ultimate Boeing 747): Neither of these ''outcomes'' are neccessary
First and most important an intellignet designer- given that today we talk about thngs like cloning and AI etc- only needs to be light years ahead of us in technology; I don't see how
said designer needs to be supernatural- unless of course you "believe" the designer is some God.
Second, This is not a first cause argument. One does not need to establish a chain of being( We do not need to know Einstein's father and mother to understand relativity) to develop a theory that there is design in nature; ''however'', proponents of ID are stuck with the burden of proof here, whether the appearance of design in nature is real or only apparent. ~Spiker_22

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)

:: 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)

:::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)

: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)

--------
==Artificiality Detection==

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)

: ''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.)''

::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)

::: Please ]. This isn't a fight. ] (]) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:: '''It boils down to the issue of whether artificiality can be detected without knowing something about the author'''. I don't think the issue has been definitively answered, and thus would like to find some "official" counter-arguments to those presented. It is true that detection is easier if you know more about the author, but it may not be a prerequisite. Plus, identification of a pattern may be merely the first exploration step. If ID experts found say interesting patterns or photos hidden in DNA, it may not be definitive proof, but could open the door for further exploration. I don't see it much different than SETI looking for Dyson Spheres. (Although I think most current ID proponents are biased, that does not necessarily mean all ID exploration is "not science". Even zealots can make useful discoveries.) As far as the arguments on my ID website (NOT creationism because its not tied to supernatural) are concerned, I believe them to be rational and sound. Perhaps we can take that debate somewhere else. The SETI comparison is an interesting one. --] (]) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::As far as I know, the issue of detecting artificiality "without knowing something about the author" ''only'' comes up when the "author" is supernatural. Therefore it has generally not been considered a fruitful avenue for scientific enquiry. ]s are something that humanity might build if it had the technology, so looking for them is looking for "people like us with more advanced technology", so we ''are'' making assumptions about the potential authors. And zealots only make "useful discoveries" if they actually ''try'', by doing actual research -- not by going on the Religious Right lecture circuit as ID advocates tend to do. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

==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 the 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 American 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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}}

: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)

:::Yes indeed the anon poster is confused. It is not necessary to believe in Intelligent Design to believe in a personal God. And the proponents of Intelligent Design claim it is not necessary to believe in God to accept Intelligent Design. A case of apples and oranges. --] (]) 08:47, 15 January 2008 (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.
: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)
]
].--] (]) 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?

]. Enough said.--] (]) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (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)
:: not less than 10%, but not much more, as proven by <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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)
::::Theistic evolution is not evolution by natural selection. It is intelligent design that does not involve special creation, and according to many scientists, including Dawkins, it's not a scientific belief. ID is not, contrary to the ridiculously biased statements in this article, the same as special creation. ] (]) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Get a clue. Theistic evolution IS an acceptance of evolution via mutation and natural selection, combined with some sort of belief in a deity, who is presumed to have instigated (and possibly influenced) the process. It is not ''intended'' to be a scientific theory. ID ''does'' purport to be "scientific", but is not. It is therefore pseudoscience. --] (]) 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Not only are you uncivil, you are wrong. Read the poll being cited: the question that correlates to theistic evolution reads: "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation". That's not the deistic watchmaker you're proposing. Read the poll before you tell people to "get a clue", and maybe you won't get busted out like this again. ] (]) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::What part of my phrase "possibly influenced the process" did you not understand? ''Some'' TE advocates believe in a God who merely started the process, whereas ''others'' assume various degrees of divine intervention along the way. But the key point is that TE is ''not intended to be a scientific theory'' (as ID purports to be), and doesn't try to deny the "creative power" of mutations and natural selection (as ID advocates frequently do). TE advocates generally agree that ID is pseudoscience. --] (]) 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course it's intended to be a scientific theory! It's a scientific theory of origins! If I say: God used evolution to create us, that's a hypothesis. And it's probably the hypothesis best supported by the available evidence. ] (]) 11:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: Er, no. See ], or read stuff by say ]. Theistic evolution is generally explicitly not intended to be a scientific hypothesis. Most common versions combines what is a hypothesis (evolution) with certain essentially theological propositions that the proponents agree are non-scientific. Indeed, the proponents of ID have repeatedly attacked theistic evolution and stated that it is in opposition to ID. For example ] has said that "As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism" and "Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution." (these are both from an article written by Demsbki "What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design"). ] (]) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

: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)
::This sounds pretty collaborative: "We're right, and since people keep coming in and challenging our biased article that we protect, we should just have a writeup somewhere that we can point them to, so we don't have to defend the bias anymore". ] (]) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hence "]". Stay in School kids.--] (]) 09:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I hear that ] is looking for new editors. May I suggest that you venture over there Gus? You may find it more to your liking. ] (]) 11:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::personal attack ] (]) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I also heard somewhere that wikipedia was supposed to be free from bias, and not allow personal attacks? But, hey, guys, keep on believing that the fact that 10% of the population support a view means that it should completely dominate articles of which it isn't even the subject. ] (]) 11:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Once again: this is ''not a fact'' (BTW, population of which country? Not mine!). And even if it ''was'' a fact: popular opinion isn't what distinguishes pseudoscience from actual science. --] (]) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: It is a fact that ] (]) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify things. People who subscribe to theistic evolution believe that evolution and God co-exist and there is no dispute between the two. They believe God acted through evolution. Theistic evolution is the dominant view in the US, among the public and the science community (although not necessarily among the Christians worldwide, where other interpretations might be more common). Many of the editors you are arguing fervently against here on this page probably fall into the ''theistic evolution'' camp.

Intelligent design is a sneaky way to skirt US law; otherwise it would not be required. Intelligent design was purposely constructed to help creationists break the law. It is a bankrupt dishonest lying cheating idea to help break the law. Nice idea. From the Wedge Document, the purpose is to produce some sort of theocracy in the US; a Christian Taliban, essentially.

Scientists do not think intelligent design is science. And now a US federal court has ruled that intelligent design is not science. Of course, after that decision, intelligent design supporters threatened to kill the judge. Nice people. However, I would expect nothing less.--] (]) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What possible definition of the word "scientist" is there that includes those that think that ID is science? Phillip Johnson isn't a scientist, he's someone who's made a living arguing whichever position he's paid to argue.

And it's rather hypocritical for Fill to accuse the article of engaging fallacious reasoning. He clearly has no idea how to construct a valid argument; his argument seems to consist of nothing other than:
1. My opponents haven't proven me wrong, so that proves that I'm right
2. I've presented a bunch of statistics, so that proves my position, even though the statistics are regarding issues completely different from my claims (such as discussing how many people believe in God, as if that is the same thing as how many think that ID is science.)] (]) 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:...Uh, did you mean "Gus" rather than "Fill" there? --] (]) 10:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::Whoops. The original comment wasn't signed, and I got confused as to who wrote it.] (]) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== Stealth image deletion at ] ==

The picture of ] at his article appears to have been deleted within the last month, without any notification on that article's talkpage. The only reason I found out was because a bot came around to comment out the image's code. Nor can I find, through various searches, any indication of when/why/how it was deleted (and thus cannot tell if the process was valid or not). Anybody who's interested and who has a better understanding of where/how to look might wish to look into things, I've done all that I can. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:The image was deleted because of a bad fair use justification:
{{quotation|01:14, 16 January 2008 {{user|East718}} deleted "Image:Stephen Meyer.web.jpg" ‎ (CSD I7: Bad justification given for fair use and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago)}}

:Hope this helps. <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table</font><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners</font><sup>]·]·]</sup> 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yup, I found out the same thing. It probably doesn't help that a great deal of images used for these articles were uploaded by ] who hasn't edited in well over a year. Going through his talk page you can see a veritable treasure trove of images that are being deleted without anyone contesting them. Alot of these images were used, I gather, for these types of articles. Hmmm.... ] (]) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::It might be an idea for a few people to add ] to their watchlist, to alert us to future deletions. I've done so myself. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 10:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== Where is the finalism? ==

I am a bit surprised by the present page completely ignoring the finalist/] aspect of the ID concept. As ] in this discussion page (albeit a bit in ] way, I admit it) the fundamental difference between WHY and HOW questions are an easy and additional element that allows anyone to distinguish what is a scientific question from what is not: science is never about finalist questions. The mere evocation of ] in the origin of everything implies an automatic acceptation of the ], otherwise it shouldn't be called ''intelligent design'' but rather ''dumb design'' (and not ''random design'', because that is precisely what the ID concept is opposed to, dumbness being very far from randomness, which is impossible to achieve perfectly under a finalist objective). I would love to complete in such way the actual page, which I otherwise find quite good if not excellent, but I feel that I am not the person with the best references to do it. What is your opinion about this matter? Thank you -- ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:]--] (]) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, ]. As nice as this is, I am sure if you looked in ] and some of the references there, you might find that this has been addressed to death in philosophical circles. --] (]) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== Closed systems/entropy ==

In regard to this paragraph:
:''Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design. This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles. The second law applies to closed systems only. If this argument were true, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. However, like evolution, the growth of living things does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, because living things are not closed systems-- they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.''
It would probably be appropriate to add a further explanation (with citations) of what the offsetting net increase in entropy comes from in order to allow genetic information increase. In other words "Living things can grow because their decrease in entropy is more than offset by by the increase of entropy on their food and environment; groups of living organisms can evolve (gain usable genetic information) because the increase in complexity in genomes (decrease of entropy) is offset by __________." I honestly don't know what scientists have proposed as the offset factor - any ideas? ]<sup>]</sup><sub><font color="330000">'''''] and ]!'''''</font></sub> 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is a huge topic and one we do not have room for necessarily. Why not start a stub in a sandbox and slowly try to grow an article on ]?--] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that it is a huge topic. As you are aware, I understand the proposed process of evolution and how most of the laws that govern it are supposed to work; the only reason I'm against it is that I just don't think it happens. But I have absolutely no idea where the entropy offset is supposed to come from. I still think it would be good to have an expert on the topic add just one or two sentences here explaining how the entropy offset might work for evolution as opposed to just giving a rather disconnected example. ]<sup>]</sup><sub><font color="330000">'''''] and ]!'''''</font></sub> 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::What is the process for creating a stub in a sandbox? Should it be ] sandbox? Should it be set up as a ] of this Talk page or a ] of the article itself? Is there a template for a stub-in-progress-sitting-in-a-subpage-sandbox page? ]<sup>]</sup><sub><font color="330000">'''''] and ]!'''''</font></sub> 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is actually a very easy to understand by analogy. Imagine the universe is a casino. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that with every chemical reaction, you lose some energy; in the casino, this means that you can't win and you can't break even - the house wins every time.
:Now, we (the earth) are a small time player - not much money (energy). Standing next to the earth is the Sun, a very, very big player, with lots of money (energy). The Sun is throwing around all sorts of chips (energy), and a few of these happen to land in Earth's pile. So even though the earth is losing money to the casino, it's gaining money from a much bigger loser (the sun). ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::I understand the law of entropy even without analogy. ''In thermodynamics, matter goes to the lowest energy.'' If you have the right understanding of thermodynamics, matter, lowest, and energy, then that makes perfect sense. What I do not understand (and what the article is very unclear on) is where the entropy offset for increase of usable information in a genetic pool of a group of organisms comes from. ]<sup>]</sup><sub><font color="330000">'''''] and ]!'''''</font></sub> 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Your question has no basis in science. You have misapplied the 2nd law of therodynamics to information theory. See ] (]) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Technically, it's not "my" claim, it's the claim of proponents like Granville Sewell. I'm trying to improve the article, not start a discussion about the validity of evolution. If, as the Talk.Origins page states, concepts of thermodynamic entropy are entirely distinct and inapplicable to evolution, then the article should say so. At least instead of:
:::::''"This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles. The second law applies to closed systems only. If this argument were true, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. However, like evolution, the growth of living things does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, because living things are not closed systems-- they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.''''
::::Again, I'm not certain as to exactly how this area of evolutionary biology is commonly delineated, so I'm asking someone with a bit more expertise to explain it, since the present configuration of the article is obviously inaccurate or at least misleading. ]<sup>]</sup><sub><font color="330000">'''''] and ]!'''''</font></sub> 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::There are . The paragraph in this article speaks to the energy implications of the 2nd law, which is what Granville Sewell objects to (in particular: ''In these simple examples, I assumed nothing but heat conduction or diffusion was going on'' - ). These would be CF001.1 through CF001.5 in the talkorigins list. Your objection, on the other hand, falls into CF005 - objections based on misapplication to information theory. These are two different beasts. ] (]) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) What that paragraph DOES do, however, is to state one side of a controversy as fact, which ]. I'd normally suggest rephrasing in terms of "Scientist n states that..."; except that our current source for it is to an author, identified only by name and email address, on the talk.origins archive, which doesn't really seem to fit Misplaced Pages's ] for 'reliable third-party published sources'. Can anyone provide a better source such that this view can be better attributed? ] (]) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:It states it as a fact because it is a fact. Objections based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics have absolutely no basis in reality. And yes, talk.origins is a reliable source. ] (]) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:: By which you meant that "there is no serious dispute" about it? I'm afraid that, at least to me, Granville Sewell's comments seem to represent a dispute. ] (]) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No, I'm saying he's a crank. I'm sure if you look hard enough, there are people who dispute gravity too. Our gravity article doesn't give voice to them, and this article will not give voice to such a dispute either. ] (]) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: How do you square this with ]? 'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."' ] (]) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Very easily: ''NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.'' -- ] ] (]) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Indeed - or as the summary puts it, "fairly, proportionately and without bias." Is it not expressing a bias to present one of the various viewpoints as Misplaced Pages's own view, or as fact? Certainly views must be represented ''proportionately''; the article about gravity will as you say probably not mention at any length those who dispute it, nor will the article about evolution mention this criticism in any depth. But this is not those articles; this is specifically the article about intelligent design, a minority position which disputes evolution; as such, it should mention these minority views, and when it does it must do so fairly and without bias. NPOV seems clear that this means that Misplaced Pages should not, in describing a dispute, assert one opinion (which in this case means "a matter which is subject to dispute"), however well-supported that opinion is. ] (]) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Reread what I wrote: ''NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a '''reliable source''''' - Granville Sewell's publications (on the DI's website) are not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. 0 reliable sources = 0 mentions in this article. ] (]) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Only one of the sources cited is to the DI website, for what it's worth; and even personal websites are acceptable sources for verification of the views of the publisher. If the views of the Discovery Institute on this topic are non-notable, then this article might as well be deleted, as that represents the majority of the adherents of the position that this article is about.
:::::::: I wouldn't particularly have a problem with 0 mentions in the article, but that's not the current situation. The current situation is of a controversy represented, but with one side (represented by two sources, one online and one in print) presented as an opinion, and the other side (represented by one online source) presented as fact or as Misplaced Pages's opinion. That's not my understanding of how a Neutral Point of View presentation works. I think that most people (especially if we included Dawkins' view, as helpfully suggested by Dave Souza) would agree with the opinion currently expressed when presented with the evidence; but as a matter of controversy we should still present both sides neutrally. ] (]) 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Oops, I've just realised that the two sources listed are in fact the same one, once on the DI website and once on the American Spectator website - I'd assumed they were separate articles on the same topic, but they actually are identical. I wonder why it's listed twice. I'll merge them. ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TSP, and Standonbible, if you are so sure you are correct, why does Prigogine have a Nobel Prize? --] (]) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:Skimming Granville Sewell's article, he's hanging it on the mistaken idea that entropy = disorder which is briefly and correctly dismissed in CF001.1 and which is dealt with in more detail in {{cite web |url=http://www.entropysite.com/cracked_crutch.html |title=Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions |accessdate=|format= |work=}}. The term "disorder" used in the 1880s to visualise molecular energy is outdated, but continues to confuse thermodynamics students. Molecular "disorder" has nothing to do with the "order" perceived by Sewell in life systems. .. ], ] 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:: That's cool - find a source that makes that criticism, and we should include it. Filll, you seem to be mistaking my personal views for NPOV. As far as I can see I have made no statements about my own beliefs, which should be irrelevant to this discussion. I am not saying that I believe that Sewell is correct; I am saying that NPOV requires us to detail the criticisms of him, and who made them, that readers may find out for themselves how solid the scientific consensus against him is; not just to state as fact that he is incorrect. For me this is the core of WP:NPOV; do you think I've misinterpreted? ] (]) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::''That's cool - find a source that makes that criticism, and we should include it'' - he did. In fact, he found two. ] (]) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yes, you're right. What I thought needed sourcing (sorry, I wasn't very clear) was that "he's hanging it on the mistaken idea that entropy = disorder", and is therefore subject to those criticisms; but actually, on a second read of Sewell's own writing that's pretty explicit in his own writing, so he's laid himself wide open to those criticisms. ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:CF001.1 makes that criticism, as does the source given in the article in more complex terms. A slightly simpler and more entertaining dismissal of intelligent design misuse of "information entropy" is given by ], who describes Shannon entropy, and notes that bacteria have much less information capacity than the human genome, which in turn has significantly less than the crested newt. .. ], ] 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt give a plugged nickel for your personal views. However, I get tired of people who bring up nonsense objections, but never do any real work. So start a sandbox article on this topic as I suggested. And start reading and researching. Your completed article should have a minimum of 150-200 peer-reviewed references in it, and maybe a good 20 or 30 flaky creationist religious tracts. You might want to learn how to typeset mathematics, because it should include a good measure of the mathematics of entropy, and statistical mechanics, and information theory etc.

And if you do this, I can promise you, you will contribute in a useful way to Misplaced Pages instead of this sort of ridiculous thread, and you will also learn something.--] (]) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:As Raul indicates, this is a standard creationist claim and we must present it in the context of the mainstream response, but as a specifically ID claim it's barely notable. Should it be included at all in this article? ... ], ] 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is already covered in ] & ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further on this, could somebody explain to me how Sewell's comments on 2LoT relates to ID's take on Fine-tuned Universe? I was going to put one/both of the above links in the section's 'see also', but then saw that neither of them relate to FTU (as they rather relate to Sewell's comments). <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:Offsetting factors are labelled "food, oxygen, sunlight". Misplaced Pages should not treat readers like morons. Honestly, if people are unable to comprehend that organisms are not closed systems, an article on intelligent design is not the place to explain it to them. Hrafn correctly points to ] or ]--] (]) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

==Footnote 24==

Not sure if there are any like this one, but footnote # 24 which is supposed to document what Philip Johnson advocates in his book, Darwin On Trial refers to an article by his critic Eugenie Scott. Shouldn't the note show where Johnson makes this claim in the book or other works of his own? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I believe that is the NCSE explaining what the changes advocated by Johnson, in his book, would have entailed for science. Johnson never explictly stated this fact, but the changes he was advocating were aimed at accomplishing that goal. ] (]) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is an underlying theme of Johnson's books rather than a specific claim. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::In accordance with ], analysis of the primary source (Johnson's writings) is based on a reliable secondary source, Scott's critique. ... ], ] 09:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

==Arguments from Ignorance or God of the Gaps==
{{hat|reason=Increasingly off-topic thread}}
The section Arguments from ignorance states:
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view.

To be more neutral and in line with Wiki standards this section should be called Lack of Evidence? or something of that variety. Further the idea that lack of evidence for a given phenomnea "is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view." seems in itself erroneous. Lack of evidence or more specigfically the inability of a given theory to ''explain'' something means that other explanations and theories can be tried. The only question, then is whether those explanations can meet specific scientific criteria. As with a jigsaw puzzle the question is does the piece or ''explanation'' fit not does
a given explanation get thrown out simply because it falls within some preconceived category. IF religious motives were a valid reason for discounting an explanation, then you would have to throw out many early scientific discoveries. Finally, if the lack of evidence or better yet lack of an ''explanation'' leaves the door open to other explanations then the the claim, offered below, "This article is about Intelligent design, not objections to evolution" is itself erroneous.
] (]) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

:The ] (''argumentum ad ignorantiam'') is a well known and well documented logical fallacy. As such, it is quite appropriate to give it as the title of a section that deals with that particular fallacy. The appropriate response to a situation where an argument from ignorance might arise is ''not'' to try other explanations and ''hypotheses'' ('''not''' "theories" -- see ]), but to find more evidence that may confirm/disconfirm the existing theory. This is ''particularly'' true where that evidence already exists, but where the 'arguer from ignorance' is simply ignorant of it (as is often the case with ID's arguments from ignorance). And please, '''add new sections at the ''BOTTOM'' of talkpages!''' <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The ] (''argumentum ad ignorantiam'') is a well known and well documented logical fallacy."
Agreed! Yet my question here is precisley whether ID advocates are taking a lack of evidence for one view as proof of the correctness of their view or whether they percieve the absence of evidence as justification for trying another explanation.
To be sure, you write that "The appropriate response to a situation where an argument from ignorance
might arise is ''not'' to try other explanations and ''hypotheses''....,but to find more evidence that
may confirm/disconfirm the existing theory."

Lets go back to my analogy of a jigsaw puzzle for a minute: In piecing together my puzzle, I try to put in piece Y. It does not fit. Here I have two options. I can try another piece or I can, if I understand your argument correctly, make sure I did not try to put it in upside down or backwards. If my understanding of what you're saying is correct then the question is why is one option more appropriate than the other? ] (]) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think you are misapplying the 'jigsaw analogy'. You have a half-completed jigsaw puzzle of a well-known scene with some areas, including a prominent landmark, not filled in, and no more pieces left in the box. You have two choices: (1) assume that it's a completely different scene, based on the fact that the landmark isn't there or (2) look under the couch for the remaining pieces. The latter option is the ''sensible'' one, the former option is to make an argument from ignorance. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks hrafn, for taking the time to respond. It may indeed be that ID proponents are looking under the couch, if you will;
yet proponents of ID might argue that their ideas do not so much change the picture so much as better explain certain details in that picture. As I understand the theory, ID does not say evolution did not happen, but rather that while evolution explains
alot, there are certain phenomena better explained by reference to a designer ( To be sure I have my own criticisms of ID.
The use of politics rather than Science to advance their agenda speaks volumes. 2.) Even if one can develop a cohesive scientific argument in favor of ID, it does nothing for Christianity: Existence and even proof of design in nature says
nothing about the identity, morality or even mortality of said designer. Having said that the response from the scientific community is and has been terrible. Seems to be primarily kneejerk reactions rather than scientific analysis. Further, in so far as the Arguemnt from ignorance goes, I do not beleive that ID proponents view the alledged missing pieces as proof that there analysis is correct, but I do believe that they view the the ''alleged'' absence of evidence as an opening to offer there own evidence; thus strictly speaking they are not committing the fallacy in question. Spiker_22 ] (]) 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)] (]) 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I notice Stanford university is hosting a debate Atheism vs. Theism & the Scientific Evidence
for Intelligent Design With, one of my personal favorites, Christopher Hitchens Vs someone named, Jay Richards.
I am hoping it ends up on youtube for those of us who do not have the leisure time to attend. Should be great stuff! ] (]) 06:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Among the many logical fallacies that intelligent design supporters in particular, or creationists in general fall into is the use of the "argument from ignorance". This is a well-known argument and has been knownw for centuries, by precisely this name, as noted by Hrafn. It fails in this case for a variety of reasons, such as the promotion of a false dichotomy, and only being useful in gaps in our knowledge which constantly shrink as more is understood, as well as being associated with just plain misinterpretations or misunderstandings. Nothing wrong with this title or this discussion in this article--] (]) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

::"Argumenting from ignorance" or " argumenting ignoring the complexity of the problem", is more like what most do, when it comes to issues of origins, be it Intelligent Design or Evolutionists ! But "ID" has an important point of "Design", that does not have to be supernatural or religious, or of a God, persee ! ! ! User: GeorgeFThomson. (] (]) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
:::Wrong on all counts.
::::Falsehood: ''"Argumenting from ignorance" or " argumenting ignoring the complexity of the problem", is more like what most do, when it comes to issues of origins, be it Intelligent Design or Evolutionists''
:::::Fact: Scientists support evolution using evidence gathered from fossils, from phsyiology of living animals, from molecular genetics, from paleontology and the geology of surrounding rock strata, from carbon dating, from in-vivo lab experiments involving bacteria and viruses, and much, much more. Creationists do not. All creationism requires disregarding evidence. In its more extreme form - young earth creationism - you pretty much have to find some reason or another to disregard all of modern science.
::::Falsehood: ''But "ID" has an important point of "Design", that does not have to be supernatural or religious, or of a God, persee''
:::::ID's central dogma - the only one that distinguishes it from St. Augustine's teleological argument - is that *something* designed life (winkwink), as opposed to god. And, of course, it makes no effort to identify that something, except when DI people happen to put their foots in their mouths and reveal their true religious motives. It's not a proper scientific theory it's not testable, it's not falsifiable, it doesn't explain the evidence better than the existing theory, and it has a huge gaping hole in it that none of its proponents care to try to answer (because their honest answer, "God did it", would defeat the purpose of trying to duck under court rulings taking religion out of the science class) ] (]) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: That was the original conclusion of the teleological argument, as devised by Aristotle (rather than Augustine). ] (]) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no.--] (]) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== In Specified Complexity section ==

"The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community." I can't see anything in the Times article that says specified complexity is strongly disputed. I thought for the most part considered scientifically and mathematically unsound and a non-issue in the scientific community? ] (]) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be in that article, although there are some references to its unsoundness but not in those words. I am not sure those words are meant as a direct quote. Do you doubt the truth of those words? --] (]) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that the current reference doesn't support the statement so a better citation is needed, and that "totally discredited" (or similar) might be a more accurate phrasing than "strongly disputed" -- as the latter implies active ongoing argument, rather than a settled issue. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I read through the times article and couldn't find anything that vaguely mentions that the validity of specified complexity (SC) is being even discussed by the scientific community, much less "strongly disputed". For the most part SC as a conjecture is mathematically unsound and as ] said above "totally discredited". I say we correct this. ] (]) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::I've altered the phrasing to state "The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been widely discredited by the scientific and mathematical communities." & inserted the three citations used in the lead of ] to support a similar statement as sources. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Origin of ID movement ==
Under Origins, Barbara etc. show a number of ID related events from 1984 - 1986. e.g.:
--------------
Barbara Forrest describes the intelligent design movement as beginning in 1984 when Jon A. Buell's religious organization the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) published The Mystery of Life's Origin by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton. In March 1986 Stephen C. Meyer's review described it as using information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent. In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design. At the Sources of Information Content in DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism, and the term intelligent design came up.
---------------
Consequently, there are a number of statements that the ID movement began in 1987 that need to be corrected.
* 1) In the intro:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.
* 2) In the overview:
The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion.
* 3)
The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.
----------------
Propose the first of these read:
* 1) Intelligent design was discussed alongside Charles Darwin's publications, and publications by Horrigan(1979), Hoyle (1981), Thaxton (1984), Thorson (1985) and Meyer (1986). The term Intelligent Design came to prominence after the US Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard 1987 ruling on teaching creation science alongside evolution.
Reference: ] (]) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'd prefer something like "Although the phrase 'intelligent design' had existed before ... the modern movement for intelligent design can be traced as a response to the events leading up to and following Edwards v. Aguilard " --] (]) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'd support wording along these lines. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)]

:::] is mixing up the idea presented in ID with the introduction of the term itself. It's fair to say that the whole concept and indeed the movement was there in its essentials from the early 1980s, the name was introduced after Aguilard as a substitute for "creation science". Thus:
::*""Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state." could be accurately put as
::*""Intelligent design" was named in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.",
:::or more informatively stated as
::*"] was rebranded as "intelligent design" in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.. ... ], ] 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Answers Research Journal ==
{{hat|reason=Off-topic, if you want to discuss this journal go to ] or ]}}
It's A NEW CREATION, the very first volume appeared in January 2008: the very long-awaited ]!

Type ''answers'' + ''research'' + ''journal'' in your favorite search engine and you will find it, ''a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework'' .

It's not a joke, but it's extremely fun to read!

However, even the less competent prophet of the Universe could easily predict with a lot of confidence that this new creature will soon be generating a lot of lines in Misplaced Pages, especially around the page dealing with the intelligent design belief. So: let's be prepared! ] (]) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:Maybe. There are already a lot of similar "journals".--] (]) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Please give some examples. AFAIK, this is the first one pretending to be peer reviewed and it is obvious that the intentions are to create a "scientific" journal to support ID. If indeed there are already a lot of journals having the same pretentions, then OK, definitely not worth mentioning it in the page about ID. ] (]) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:can I mention not-a-forum. Is this relevant to this article? It's pure YEC isn't it, not ID?
:ARJ has had mentions in Nature and New Scientist, so may be worthy of its own article?--] (]) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Well, if you read the ''Proceedings of the Microbe Forum'' that is mentioned in the homepage of their website you wil find a lot of YEC, indeed. But when dealing with the subject of microbial evolution for example, there is (inevitably) a lot of ID involved. I though it was worthy to be mentioned (but just mentioned, nothing more) in the page about ID, and of having its own dedicated article. This one is unlikely to be written by me as I unfortunately don't have enough time these days (and I can't foresee any improvement anytime soon). ] (]) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Peer review ==
{{hat|reason=Off-topic, if you want to discuss this journal go to ] or ]}}
Although I totally accept ]'s decision to declare the above ''Answers Research Journal'' discussion as having turned off-topic and be banned from further progression on this page, I still insist by saying that a few of you are totally missing the point.

Have a look at the actual ] to which this discussion page is directly implicated. The second sentence of the first paragraph clearly states that ''to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal''. Well, that might have been true until last year, but since January 2008 the ''intelligent design movement'' has not only managed to have a few papers published in a ''peer-reviewed scientific journal'', it has even also created its own ''scientific journal'' to do so, a fact which has not been so swiftly ignored by ] and ], as ] pointed out in the skipped previous discussion. And this very real fact is right now: in February 2008, just plainly and totally ignored in the page about ID to which this very own talk page is dedicated, notably and precisely with respect to that ]. Have a nice weekend. ] (]) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:No Sophos II, the discussion did not ''turn'' off-topic, it was off-topic ''from the start''. ARJ is YEC not ID, so discussion of it has no place here. As to your next point ARJ is neither ID nor a "peer-reviewed scientific journal" (as any peer-review is not performed by the scientific community, but merely by fellow YEC 'Creation Scientists'), so is in no way a counterexample to the statement in the article. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 02:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I agree with your first point because I simply gave up this subject (see ]) and even if I continue to insist because I have read what is published in ARJ: that is clearly a vehicle of intelligent design propaganda. For example, the first sentence of the ''Proceedings of the Microbe Forum'' is the explicit statement "''For many years the roles of microbes as part of God’s '''wonderful design''' have been neglected''". A complete article about ID should not deliberately ignore the existence of such a vehicle, but I am completely fed up and I give up. However, concerning the second point, I regularly publish and review scientific papers in my field of expertise and therefore I know a bit how the peer reviewing process works. Contrary to what you state there isn't such a thing as a ''scientific community that decides who is entitled'' to create a journal and to contribute to the peer reviewing process of its articles and who is not. Moreover, people involved in ARJ claim to have an academic legitimacy to do research, and there is no reason to doubt that they have such an academic background. As such, they would also have the legitimacy to claim to be part of a ''scientific community who decides what is a scientific journal or not''. That is my opinion after having read some of their literature, but of course, I also doubt that ARJ will one day be indexed in databases such as ] or ] (just to cite the two that I am most familiar with) and I seriously doubt that its ] will one day raise very significantly above zero, but I don't think either of these two criteria are strictly required for the qualification. Thus, for your objection to be acceptable a better definition of what constitutes a peer-reviewed scientific journal and a convincing explanation of why ARJ does not comply with those criteria would be very welcome. I may have missed something somewhere though, and if that was the case I would be the most grateful to you if you could point out where to find that crucial piece of information. --] (]) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
:::In terms of intelligent design articles, the first crucial piece of information is a reliable secondary source stating that ARJ is publishing intelligent design papers. Your perception that a reference to "part of God’s '''wonderful design'''" qualifies is ] on your part, and so inadmissible. As it happens, the open reference to God is clearly out of line with the ID approach. Similarly, it's not up to you to evaluate ARJ, a reliable secondary source with impeccable scientific credentials is required so that the opinion can be ]. . . ], ] 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:From the "Answers (in Genesis) Research Journal":

:<blockquote><i>"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), <b>this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework</b>."</i></blockquote>

:Key is that AIG is <i>only</i> publishing articles that are from a bibical perspective, not a scientific one. Now, Sophos II, pull the other one (and claim you're being persecuted by the other editors just to make it that much funnier! Thanks. ] (]) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:And what that means, Sophos II, is that our creationist friends at AIG are going to exclude any papers that conflict with the bible. THAT is not science nor is it peer review. That's is called a racket, dear boy. A sham, a disgrace to scientific inquiry. It's also called anti-science, or pseudoscience if you will. ] (]) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Clearly, ] is at odds with other creationist organizations like the ] because they are competing for funds. This is not about God or spreading the word or anything, it is about money, and Answers in Genesis will do anything to win. After all, Answers in Genesis is in a viscious lawsuit with ] and has walked away from mediation. Answers in Genesis hasl even accused the wife of Carl Wieland of practicing witchcraft and engaging in necrophilia!!! Now someone who would make a charge like that in a lawsuit definitely is a "good christian" right? There have been numerous articles in AiG publications and on its website about how intelligent design is wrong. And I can find similar statements from ] publications in their own "research" journals about design going back decades, long before the intelligent design movement. Mention of this journal belongs clearly in the article on AiG if anywhere. --] (]) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks all of you for your answers, I am having a better picture now. Just one thing to set the record straight: contrary to what Dave souza believes, I don't want to evaluate ARJ. I am just arguing against the idea that this should completely be ignored from the Intelligent Design page for one reason which I don't want to argue anymore <b>and</b> because "it's not a scientific journal as there is somewhere an obscure community that has decided so". Of course ARJ is not scientific, but can someone tell objectively why? (yes, I know, they won't let you publish anything that is against their scope, but don't all journals do that as well?) Moreover, a "reliable secondary source with impeccable scientific credentials" that mentions ARJ is required. Of course, that is just an essential but completely ordinary requirement for every line of every article written in Misplaced Pages. Well, I don't know about the quality of the following source, but it should be fairly acceptable, in my humble opinion:

::<blockquote><i>"The organization that last year opened a US$27-million creation museum in Kentucky has started its own 'peer-reviewed' <b>scientific research journal</b>."</i></blockquote>

::<blockquote><b>Source:</b> Nature 451, 382-383 (23 January 2008) doi:10.1038/451382b</blockquote>

:I rest my case, have a nice weekend. --] (]) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


You are missing the point. This 'peer-reviewed' (as Nature phrased it) "scientific research journal" has '''nothing''' to do with intelligent design.

It is from a competing movement and organization and viewpoint in the creationism spectrum. And it belongs in that article on AiG. Ok?

This is nothing new. The ] has at least one "peer-reviewed" scientific Research journal. So does ] and ] and several others. So what? This should go in the appropriate article, which is not here. I am astounded that you are not quie understanding this. AiG HATES intelligent design, because it takes money out of their pockets. Get it?--] (]) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Yes, chill down, you don't need to be so aggressive! I have dropped the ID argument a while ago, you should follow a bit the discussions before instinctively raising your testosterone above the level of cordiality. -- ] (]) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


== Shorten the SD ==
Sophos II, if you dropped the "intelligent design" part, what are you doing contributing to this page? --] (]) 16:57, 1 February 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)
:::At the moment I am just answering you, but I am on my way home and that will be the end of it. -- ] (]) 17:05, 1 February 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.
::"I rest my case" um, Sophos II, you don't have a case. AIG excludes anything that conflicts with the bible. That is not science not matter how many of their bibical/anti-science peers review it. Your quote from Nature does not change that fact. And please don't get your panties in a bunch, what you're trying to do here is obvious to anyone. ] (]) 16:55, 1 February 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)
:::And what am I trying to do? Trying to get answers from you about what defines a scientific journal, as that was one of the arguments for not talking about ARJ in the ID page (for Fill, yes, there was also that other argument, please do not bring it back). So far nobody has come with a clear and objective definition. The "case" was just about that "reliable secondary source with impeccable scientific credentials", nothing else. And this whole discussion is now completely off-topic. -- ] (]) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


:] Can you put the existing SD alongside something proposed ? I am doubtful you will make headway for ], but a definite comparison might at least get a focus back to about being shorter. Cheers ] (]) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No offense but this discussion has ''always'' been offtopic, as you have been told here repeatedly. '''IT DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE'''. This page is about intelligent design, not other topics. Is that more clear?
: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
Nevertheless, I will humor you. To be a peer-reveiewd scientific journal, the journal must be about science, right? Well about 10 court decisions including a couple of supreme court decisions have been that this material in this journal is ''not'' science. Also, the vast majority of scientists (see ]) do not feel it is science either. So the judicial and scientific communities do not feel it is science, so it is not science. No matter what tongue in cheek sarcastic news notice you find in the news section in Nature. Get it?
: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)
Also to be peer-reviewed, it must really be reviewed by peers in a scientific discipline, and typically those peers are scientists who disagree with the main thesis of the article. Do you think that scientists that think creationism is nonsense or pseudoscience think that these articles will be worthy of publication? I think not. Until you can show that, it is not peer-reviewed. Sorry.--] (]) 17:12, 1 February 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-->
:I completely agree with you. Are you happy now? Another day, with the above arguments, you will explain why the journal called ''Homeopathy'' (and a few other similars) is to be considered a peer reviewed, scientific one, ok? --] (]) 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::::{{tq|While you admit that ID is pseudoscience}}
I am not happy. I am trying to educate you about the world a little bit so you can understand and make more rational statements.
:::::::::::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? ==
And who said that the journal ''Homeopathy'' is a peer-reviewed scientific journal?--] (]) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
:Here: http://www.harcourt-international.com/journals/homp/ --] (]) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Sir Fred Hoyle, staunch lifelong atheist - "hard" atheist -in his Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, January 12th, 1982, had this to say:
I am afraid you seem to be confused on several points:
“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)
*There is no mention that this is a peer-reviewed science journal on that page
*This journal will clearly include plenty of articles debunking homeopathy. Will any creationist journal publish articles debunking creationism?
*There have been no court decisions as far as I know that homeopathy is not science
*There are no surveys or official statements about homeopathy's status as a science, or if there are, they are not prominent. I would love to find some however.
*Just because a publisher announces a journal does not mean much.


So it is not a parallel situation. Sorry.--] (]) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) : Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. You could also take a look at ]. --] (]) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::See ] and ]--] (]) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Also see ]. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::And ] and ]. Your own thinking, as any other user's, isn't worth shit here. --] (]) 08:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


::I don't see a proposed edit in IP, but the FAQ does not include Hoyle since the article does not. Seems reasonable to discuss if Hoyle *should* be mentioned as a precursor in this article or at ]. The article does mention Paley which is far distant past and not as direct a link nor related to the ID concepts expressed in this article. I easily found reasonable cites in the history of ID that 'the term Intelligent design appears to have been coined from ', and a prominent criticism referring to specified complexity as a '' (about the probability of a tornado assembling a Concorde) -- so having a mention of the precursor and wikilink to ] seems reasonable. But ] use of probability common in scientific studies (although commonly problematic) is more the see-also wikilink than ] since presenting details of method and calculation is not properly termed "incredulity". So -- mention Hoyle here, in SC, or not at all ???? Cheers ] (]) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
:Points 3 and 4 are accurate and there is nothing to say. Point 1: this was just a link to the journal, not to "a page that says". If you really want one of those we can choose another journal of the same vein: http://homeopathyusa.org/journal.html. There are quite a few of these journals, especially around the medical field, which some people say is "part science, part art, and that's why". The art part in that context is a matter of beliefs, so it's just like a religion. Point 2: you are clearly talking without even having seen a table of contents or read a few abstacts. If you are interested, this journal is indexed in several databases such as ]. Point 5: publications in the two journals that I have pointed out are sometimes used as references in paper appearing in much "more scientific" journals. You may want to believe that the situation between these faiths (homeopathy and christianity) is not similar at all, but you are not entirely right. -- ] (]) 18:27, 1 February 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)


== Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence? ==
:Sophos II rested his case, so could either of you answer for me why we're discussing <i>Homeopathy</i> on the talk page of an article about intelligent design? Why are we still discussing this peer-review nonsense with someone who doesn't get it? Since when is it our responsibility to educate uneducated people on the talk page? Sophos is clearly wanted/wanting to portray the bibical AIG journal as something that is peer-reviewed and he still doesn't get why that's a sham. Perhaps you two could take this to Sophos II's talk page. ] (]) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|The irony has already peaked with the initial comment and been explained with the response. Risking further irony levels would be reckless and might result in injuries as hapless Wikipedians hurt their ribs laughing at this complaint. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I have to wonder if the people writing this have a hidden agenda. ID proponents have never asserted who the designer is--it could be an Alien for all we know. The introductory sentence is very clearly biased and should be rewritten to be historically neutral. Intelligent design proper is a (pseudo)scientific theory that attempts to demonstrate that certain biological systems can be more adequately explained by theories of design. It is false to say that the theory is meant to prove God's existence--that is the philosophical argument from design. While I doubt the editors here are intellectually honest enough to change this, it is the truth. This article serves as proof as to why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source for unbiased information. ] (]) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:] did not do a very good job of hiding ''their'' agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See ] for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". ] (]) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Intelligent Design and the Law==
He was encouraged 2 or 3 times to take this someplace else. At some point, the option is to just remove all discussion and comments summarily from this page and place them on his talk page, for example. I am ready to do that now if he responds again. The reason for meeting his comments firmly is to not encourage the "camel's nose under the tent". On some articles, where an inch is given, a mile is taken. And this is one of those articles. But dont worry I am ready to either archive this or dump it on his talk page if he responds.--] (]) 18:24, 1 February 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)
:: For me, this discussion is now over. --] (]) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
:::AI bias checker? Sounds awful. ] (]) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:::Some of what I got for lead-text: ''The text primarily presents ID from a critical standpoint. It does not include direct quotes or detailed explanations from ID proponents about their views. ... The text dedicates significant space to legal battles and political associations of ID proponents. This focus may overshadow the actual scientific arguments and counter-arguments related to ID. ... Lack of historical context for design arguments: While the text mentions that ID is a form of creationism, it doesn't provide a broader historical context for design arguments in philosophy and theology. This omission may lead readers to view ID as a purely modern phenomenon... The text mentions the Discovery Institute, describing it as a "Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States" that is associated with the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. This association with an authoritative-sounding organization may lead some readers to attribute greater accuracy or credibility to the Intelligent Design argument, despite the text clearly stating that it lacks empirical support and is not considered science. The authority bias could cause readers to overvalue the opinions of the Discovery Institute simply because it is presented as a think tank, potentially overlooking the scientific consensus against Intelligent Design.'' ] (]) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: "simply because it is presented as a think tank" There are numerous ]s, and most of them serve as ] organizations for their pet causes. Why would the reader assume that their views are reliable? ] (]) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Many readers may not realize that an AI amounts to a ] engine, prone to hallucination. Many may not even recognize that they are reading AI output. ] (]) 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It does offer an easy way to get some outside views, something a bit more than the punctuation check of , also seen in and others. Cheers ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Unlikely. LLMs just imitate what humans write. --] (]) 09:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I work with (and develop) deep learning algorithms, and I can confirm that they're not going to provide an 'outside view'. There's no guarantee they'll even provide an internally consistent view. They're not 'sometimes silly minds' the way a lot of people think about them. They're basically like parrots. They just repeat what they've heard in a way that sounds pleasing to them, with no consideration of what it means. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 9 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Featured articleIntelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
December 14, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

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

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

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Intelligent design (ID).

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? A1: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and Phillip E. Johnson, one of the founders of the ID movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science (see "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). However, this perspective is not representative of most reliable sources on the subject.

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Abrahamic god.

In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".

Taken together, the Kitzmiller ruling, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, make it clear—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the Wedge Document. Q2: Should ID be characterized as science? A2: The majority of scientists state that ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed, the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment. Q3: Should the article cite any papers about ID? A3: According to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, papers that support ID should be used as primary sources to explain the nature of the concept.

The article as it stands does not cite papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Behe himself admitted this under cross examination, during the Kitzmiller hearings, and this has been the finding of scientists and critics who have investigated this claim. In fact, the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.

Broadly speaking, the articles on the Discovery Institute list all fail for any of four reasons:

  1. The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
  2. The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
  3. The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
  4. The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID
If you wish to dispute the claim that ID has no support in peer-reviewed publications, then you will need to produce a reliable source that attests to the publication of at least one paper clearly supportive of ID that underwent rigorous peer-review in a journal on a relevant field. Q4: Is this article unfairly biased against ID? A4: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present ID from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also include the views of ID proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not only criticized, particularly in an article devoted to those views, such as this one. Q5: Is the Discovery Institute a reliable source? A5: The Discovery Institute is a reliable primary source about its views on ID, though it should not be used as an independent secondary source.

The core mission of the Discovery Institute is to promote intelligent design. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. In light of this, the Discovery Institute cannot be used as a reference for anything but their beliefs, membership and statements. Questionable sources, according to the sourcing policy, WP:V, are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references
  1. ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
  2. "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
  3. Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
  4. Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
    "embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.
  5. "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April 2005.
  6. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
  7. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
  8. "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  9. Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
  10. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical
  11. "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  12. See also Sternberg peer review controversy.
  13. Wilkins, John (9 November 2013), "The origin of "intelligent design" in the 18th and 19th centuries", Evolving Thoughts (blog)
  14. Matzke, Nick (2006), "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case", Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1–2): 37–44
  15. "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (NCSE). 2005-04-01. Retrieved 29 August 2013.

Archiving icon
Archives

Philosophy sources

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


Shorten the SD

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience? Creationism?

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

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

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

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

Intelligent design as an argument for Gods existence?

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

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

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

cdesign proponentsists did not do a very good job of hiding their agenda, trying to mask the teaching of creationism in US public schools behind a facade of "intelligent design". See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for how a US federal court dealt with this "breathtaking inanity". Just plain Bill (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intelligent Design and the Law

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

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