Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 1 June 2005

Intelligent design/Archive 23 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

• /Archive1 (2002-2003)
• /Archive2 (2003)
• /Archive3 (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?)
• /Falsification (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb - Is ID theory falsifiable?)
• /Archive4 (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?)
• /Scientific supernaturalism? (Nov 2004 - POV problems with claiming space for the supernatural within science)
• /Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2004)
• /Archive6 (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
• Talk:Intelligent design/archive7 (Jan 2005)

Methodology

Advocates of ID propose a methodology of addressing this dispute. They say to start with the observed facts, and then try to make sense of them. If you see giant statues, think "sculptor". If you see orderly rows of scratches on the Rosetta Stone, think "dead language". Faced with what they call "Irreducible complexity", they hypothesize a designer.

(I think we all agree that the above is a fair statement of ID's purpose and methods. If not, the following is premature.)

ID is such a big deal for its opponents for several reasons:

• it looks like a patently underhanded way of sneaking Creationism into the public school curriculum
• it does not qualify as a bona fide "hypothesis" (a) because there's no way to falsify it; (b) because supernatural causes are "off limits", i.e., science should only study the natural world
• it undermines advocacy for atheism

I have yet to be convinced that Misplaced Pages covers the latter three bullet points adequately in ANY article. So like it or not, I think we'll have to re-hash here a lot of the stuff that was supposedly "covered in much greater detail, accuracy, and npov style on the Creation and evolution in public education page."

ID is just different enough from mainstream creationism that it demands (or at least hopes for!) different treatment. It wants to be a "third player" in the game.

Formerly, the battle was a "one thing or another" issue. Shall we teach our children that God created us 6,000 years ago? Or that we and apes descended from a common ancestor (without God's help)? Recall that still around half of Americans accept the Biblical account given in Genesis as fact. (And I'm not sure how many are willing to accept the fossil record.)

So, it's not as simple as "we already did this for Creationism vs. Evolution". I'm afraid we're going to have to do it all over again for ID. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As noted in your explanation of the ID method for addressing the debate and evidence, the methods both sides use to address evidence are markedly different:

The Scientific Method:

Evidence and phenomena found in reality comprise the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Intelligent Design Method:

The evidence leads to only one conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

Because of this, for the Intelligent Design argument the conclusion will always precede the premise, making it a logical fallacy. This too needs to addressed in the article.

I've read most of the canon for both sides of the ID debate, and this is the first I've heard of your point "ID is such a big deal for its opponents...(because)it undermines advocacy for atheism." With one or two exceptions, I've yet to see many scientists engaging in the advocacy of atheism or atheism used as justification for denying ID proponents their claims. I'm not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened, but I am saying that it's a) unlikely in that is a non sequitur to their goals, and b) ID proponents are predisposed to make such claims, which means we need to be very skeptical, even more so than usual in such cases. If you can provide sufficient evidence, then we are obligated to include the assertion, of course. But given everything I've read, evidence for claiming an atheist advocacy conspiracy against Intelligent Design pervading science or even mainstream society is pretty weak.--FeloniousMonk 19:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monk,

1. I think you may be confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". When I started studying so-called "creation science" in 1988 I immediately dismissed it as an attempt to do just what you say ID does: it has picked its preconceived conclusion and is interested only in finding supporting evidence. This is even worse than pseudoscience: it's dogmatism. The little I've learned in the last 5 years about ID appears different to me: an attempt to state creationism's premise as a genuine hypothesis - to be accepted or rejected on an equal basis with evolution by natural selection, i.e., judged by the same rules of evidence.
2. There is considerable evidence that atheistic beliefs inform (or motivate) at least some advocates of naturalistic evolution. I'll dig this up in due course and we can discuss its relevence to the ID article then. Surely we know already that belief in God and Creation is a significant motive for ID proponents. That is, it's a big deal for THEM at least. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". My original point was that intelligent design, as does any other supernatural intervention that attempts to account for the origin of life or species, weights it's assumptions. Intelligent design's conclusion --that life did not arise randomly and is the result of intervention-- is implicit in it's premise --that life's complexity is evidence of design-- and so is just begging the question. Intelligent design settles on this conclusion without ever accounting for origin of the designer, which it hints may be of natural origin while at the same time excluding at least our life arising by natural random means. This is a contradiction; one cannot rule out complex life arising by natural means while asserting the deus ex machina that brought forth life may indeed by naturalistic.

I agree that there's no doubt many evolutionist's influenced by their atheism. But I'm very skeptical of any claims that atheism informs or motivates actual science. Deism/theism or absence of either is a non sequitur in science.--FeloniousMonk 20:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of you. Starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence for it (called "dogmatism" above, but I'd rather call it narrowmindedness) doesn't do much harm as long as there are others who start from another conclusion. Narrowmindedness causes you to concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion and neglecting evidence against it. As long as there are scientists who start from another opinion, they will find the evidence against yours, and no harm is done. To the contrary - since you concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion, you will find evidence you wouldn't find if you spread your attention farther apart. So, narrowmindedness actually furthers science.

Dogmatism, in my opinion, is something more: claiming that your brand of narrowmindedness should be compulsory. This is a mark of pseudoscience. If the dogmatic rule is widely accepted, it hurts science and truth, since everybody will look in the same direction. But: this only regards conclusions, not methods. Not using invalid methods and arguments should be compulsory. --Hob Gadling 10:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction Hob has made between what we might call "constructive narrow-mindedness" and the "pseudo-scientific" compulsory sort. If I understand him correctly, he and I agree that there is no harm in trying to prove one's point; looking for proof is actually good. And I think we also agree that the mark of pseudoscience is the refusal to consider contrary evidence.

I personally consider "creation science" to be pseudoscientific -- not because they are trying to prove God made man, but because they deliberately refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to see an even-handed evaluation of (1) the theory of evolution, (2) intelligent design and (3) creationism, which explains the methodology of each theory's supporters and critics in terms of their willingness to consider contrary evidence. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

this is all excellent thinking -- thanks for articulating such a great idea, Hob. I like the idea of drawing the distinction out on the page too, with the proviso that we maintain npov with respect to creationists -- certainly some of them are dogmatic and just out to prove their religion ... but i'd like to think some of us are persuaded by the evidence (however skewed our view of the evidence may be). also, we could point out that while evolutionists think ID is "stealth creationism," most dogmatic creationists criticize ID for not being dogmatic enough:). quotes or summaries of all the appropriate povs would make for an excellent subsection, i think. Ungtss 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By explicitly outlining the various methodological distinctions of the participants in the debate, then we will also be bringing up their logic and reasoning for adhering to their respective methodologies, and hence that logic's validity. Considering the shaky ground some the logic stands on, I'm concerned that this may be become an area and source of constant contention for some.

As for Hob's point that starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it doing no harm, that may be true for some things, but not for science. And since science is what intelligent design is trying to be part of, the distinction between those who adhere to valid scientific method and those who start from preconceived, rigid conclusions and then cherry pick the evidence is a valid point to make in the article. --FeloniousMonk 20:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man! I didn't say that "starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it" does no harm, but "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" does no harm. --Hob Gadling 14:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, neither one is harmless. There's a reason that "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" is not part of the scientific method. Further reading as to why can be found at confirmation bias.--FeloniousMonk 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the scientific method starts with a conclusion by definition. "Hypothesis: this is true." "Test: if the hypothesis were true, and i did this, then this would happen." "Conclusion: hypothesis confirmed or rejected." there's nothing unscientific looking for a bunch of different ways to test your hypothesis, or evidence to support it. if there were, then the search for the "missing links" would be unscientific, too. the only problem appears, as hob said, when you ignore all contrary evidence, or lie about your own. Piltdown man, for instance. Ungtss 23:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's very naïve to assume that confirmation bias can be avoided by trying to be neutral. It's a weakness inherent in all humans, and it can be avoided by using the scientific method, e.g. double blind studies. Science is always a community thing: one person alone can't do science. Others are needed to look over his work and point out the mistakes. Creationists make lots of mistakes, some of them very basic, and they keep making them after being corrected (with exceptions). That's why creationism isn't science. The preconceived notions of the creationists involved may be the deeper reason for the mistakes as well as the clinging to them, but since one can't look inside people, this can't be used as an argument. --Hob Gadling 13:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

The articles has really improved over the last few days. I've just made a range of changes to the first half of the article, which I think make the article more readable, and a little more balanced. I plan on making some similar changes to the second half later on. If there's any problems, please leave specific criticisms here, and I'll be happy to discuss them. --Brendanfox 06:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

conjecture.

npov requires that articles describe ideas without implying either that they are valid or invalid. the word "conjecture" is defined as a conclusion based on "incomplete evidence and guesswork." . ID asserts that there is positive evidence FOR ID. The word "conjecture" therefore minimizes ID to "guesswork." Using the word "Idea" (as i did before Stirling reverted commenting only that 'Conjecture is better') avoids this problem without losing any information. Stirling, why is 'conjecture' more npov? Ungtss 18:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"hypotheses", "beliefs","theories". Whichever is picked it should be plural since ID is not monolithic, especially since fine-tuned universe is discussed here and it is completely orthogonal to any evolution issues.--Silverback 19:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the status of ID as being scientific at all is an issue, NPOV requires that we not assert language which prejudices the matter. Stirling Newberry 19:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's why i think "Idea" (or "Ideas" as Mr. Silverback prefers) is a happy middle ground between "theory" and "conjecture." eh? Ungtss 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The biggest stumbling block for Misplaced Pages describing ID is the dispute in the non-Misplaced Pages "outside world" over whether ID is really a legitimate scientific hypothesis, or not. Since this dispute is significant (and is even causing friction at Misplaced Pages), I suggest we take a step back and describe the dispute fairly.

Let the article label ID as an "idea". All Misplaced Pages editors agree that it is an idea; we're just not agreed on what sort of idea it is.

May I suggest this wording?

• Intelligent Design is an idea about how life came into being on the earth, particularly human beings.

I would further suggest that we describe in the article much of the external wrangling over whether ID is:

• a valid hypothesis, but unproven (i.e, still MIGHT be true)
• a valid hypothesis, but clearly NOT true
• not a valid hypothesis
  • because conjectures about non-physical (i.e., supernatural) causes are off-limits
  • because there's no way to disprove it (see falsifiability)

Note that some of these positions may be in conflict. For example, it can't both be (a) a valid hypothesis which is clearly not true and (b) not a valid hypothesis because there's no way to disprove it.

I would prefer for the article to avoid taking sides in this dispute. Let's just summarize the views of the main proponents and opponents of ID, as expressed in books, articles, public speeches, etc. Okay? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's not "an idea". It's a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united only in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution. However, it is not untrue to call it a cultural movement. I agree with Silverback here -- if you are including "The fine-tuned universe" argument in with ID -- an idea that is held by such ardent Darwinists as Robert Wright, it is inaccurate to call it a single idea. --Goethean 17:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seems we've got a semantic issue here. "Intelligent Design" is simply the idea (singular) that there is evidence that natural things were intelligently designed. Under this umbrella, we've got a NUMBER of ideas, including IC, SC, fine-tuned universe, etc ... ID is like an umbrella, no? Ungtss 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article splits

As G. describes it, ID sounds more like a movement. I'm comfortable with that. I myself belong to a "movement", and its name can be either a theology or a church as well:

• Unification movement - the movement, which includes:
  • Unificationism - its teachings, and
  • Unification Church - the official organization of believers

If we're still agreed that ID theories and the ID movement should be described in a single article, then how can we incorporate the Goethean insight?

1. Move the article to intelligent design movement and begin it with The intelligent design movement is a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution.

This raises a closely related question:

• How is ID related to creationism?
  • ID is a branch of creationism
  • ID in utterly unrelated to creationism
  • ID is "stealth creationism": theology dressed up in a cheap polyester suit, trying to look scientific and all...

Let's keep working on this, we're making progress! --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for moving the article to "ID movement". There are so many varieties of ID that all three of your prongs are true. Some versions of ID, like the thought of Neo-Hegelians which is accurately characterized by the phrase "a universe fine-tuned for evolution", are not related to scientific creationism. But Behe and Johnson are accurately characterized as making room for "stealth creationism". And most or many of the people who call themselves IDers are actually creationists. Additionally, this would nullify the cntroversy of whether it is a conjecture, idea, hypothesis, theory, umbrella, raincoat, etc. --Goethean 19:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i vote we split the page ID and ID movement -- ideas in the first, political / social stuff in the second. Ungtss 20:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could spin off "intelligent design movement" as a separate article, but one linked to at the top of the main one. I submit it be referenced something like this: "This article concerns the idea of intelligent design, a variant of the Argument from Design often referred to by supporters of the Intelligent Design Movement. --RBeschizza 01:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how one separate ID from the ID movement, it is difficult to understand the former without the latter. A more natural divide would be between fine tuned universe and the rest of ID, since the former is orthogonal to evolution.--Silverback 06:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of this requires us to KEEP the two article forever separate. Often it facilitates the writing process if one or two parts are split off TEMPORARILY as sidebare articles. A few weeks later, it then becomes obvious that either:

1. They can and should be integrated; or,
2. They can and should remain as separate articles

In the case of Augusto Pinochet, the stumbling block was how to describe America's involvement in the 1973 coup. After the sidebar came into being, several writers who had been watching (timidly?) from the sidelines came in and quickly completed the Chile series. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

excellent thinking. shall we give it a shot? Ungtss 21:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we do, let's mention that the intelligent design movement:

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis
  • and thus worthy of consideration in U.S. public school biology textbooks as an "alternative theory" to naturalistic conceptions of evolution
• has been in conflict (political and legal) with its opponents
• consists chiefly (?) of Creationists
• attempts to portray itself as distinct from "creation science", and yet
• is considered a form of "stealth creationism" by many opponents

Does that sum it up well enough? Note that I'm asking both sides, fan and foe. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis, yet to date has offered no alternative to natural selection or divine fiat as a mechanism for the origin of species --Goethean 16:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• all sounds good to me, ed:). Ungtss 16:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Ungtss: thanks. To Goethean, I think that is essentially correct. Alhough ID wimps out on characterizing the designer as supernatural, it certainly doesn't rule that out (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Perhaps that's why the "stealth creationism" label sticks so well.

The ID movement apparently want divine fiat (as you put it) taken off the sidelines and put back into the game, insisting that sources of causation other than automatic functioning of natural law be considered. They want to use (or highjack?) the argument used by ancient historians: the Easter Island statues, the monoliths at Stonehenge, and the Rosetta Stone could not credibly have been caused by anything other than an intelligent being having a purpose. Why not "mechanisms" such as flagella? (Note that I'm not saying Misplaced Pages should endorse this argment! Only that we should provide a fair summary of what their argument is - along with any significant rejoinders from opponents.) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not endorse anything, that's what NPOV is about. -sconzey

removed NPOV banner

69.134.50.153 did not follow-up here on the talk page.--Silverback 10:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that the NPOV banner on the "ID as 'Stealth Creationism'" section should be removed as well. The section does not make any assertions as to whether this type of criticism is accurate, simply that it exists. Given that it's an established fact tht many ID opponents do view ID as "stealth creationism", I see nothing non-neutral about the section. On the contrary, my opinion is that for an article on this subject to be both neutral and comprehensive, the arguments of both sides must be clearly stated. Redxiv 06:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, despite being a staunch creationist and ID supporter. I see nothing wrong with Misplaced Pages reporting that opponents portray ID as stealth creationism. It's the same as US Senate Democrats portraying President Bush as "attacking" Sen. Reid via proxy. Misplaced Pages is not endorsing the POV, merely reporting that its advocates hold it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

absolutely. facts are facts. Ungtss 20:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Improability as impossibility

Contrary to Ungtss's reversion assertion - Dembski argues explicitly that improbability below a certain threshold represents proof of design:

" Confronted with this second scenario we are obligated to infer that here is a world-class archer, one whose shots cannot legitimately be explained by luck, but rather must be explained by the archer’s skill and mastery. Skill and mastery are of course instances of design." Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat that since Ungtss does not seem to be reading the POV he is pushing:

cannot legitimately be explained by luck

I will again protest Ungtss' participation on this page, since he is here solely to push a POV, and he cannot be relied upon to even be a knowledgeable about that POV. Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

so speaketh the source of all light and reason on the page, the one who has been acknowledged by all, evolutionist and creationist alike, as truly objective in all things intelligent design.

i don't believe that what dembski's saying and what you are saying are the same thing. he says "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" -- again -- technically possible by luck, but so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it happened that way. this contrasts with your revision, which sets a strawman -- extremely unlikely, therefore impossible. so let's say what dembski's saying, shall we? i will edit the page to reflect dembski's views, rather than your views or my views of dembski's views. (so speaketh "the mad hound of creationism", dedicated only to spreading his lies and forcing people to believe things so he can drag them into the pits of the demon religion!!! YAAAARGH!) Ungtss 16:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

guys, this isn't the place for a flame war. Try private emails. Ungtss, I can understand your frustration. For random passers-by, Ungtss's assertions re: himself & Stirling are correct. Stirling earlier called for outside adjudication of what was (is?) growing into a flame+revert war on the talk pages and edit summaries. Community sentiment decided against Stirling. (Check the history and look over the edit summaries.) Ungtss has until now been relatively restrained.

As for the issue of what Dembski does or does not say, I must admit that I'm ignorant of the particular passage in question, but the section quoted by Stirling and Ungtss's interpretation of it are typical ID arguments. The "cannot legitimately by explained by luck" rationale is often used in science, and is in itself reasonable. Indeed, the threshold probabilities ID supporters typically toss around are many orders of magnitude below the typical physics thresholds for "something weird's going on." (That is, ID uses numbers which are tighter on the face of things.) My problem is not with that aspect of their argument, but rather how they estimate the probabilities for abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc. I think their statistical calculations of physical / chemical processes are specious. I haven't seen the arguments in detail, but the little I have seen makes me intensely skeptical... That being said, the "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" should go with Dembski's / Ungtss's interpretation. (If anyone takes my rambling on statistics \& physics out of context, I'll be most upset.) SMesser 18:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i apologize for my lack of restraint. i'm intrigued by your concerns over the statistical methodologies -- would you be willing to clarify them further in the article? Ungtss 19:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, happy now. Briefly, my concerns are that the layman-level reports of the calculations seem to ignore initial conditions and chemical pathways, both of which are very important to most physical / chemical estimates of probability / efficiency. Amino acids and complex hydrocarbons have been observed in interstellar dust clouds, where we do not expect life to exist, and ice-cores and other records suggest that early Earth history had an atmosphere similar to modern Titan's, and the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that given time and randomized input energy can cause such a chemical mix to change into one featuring a larger variety of highly complex chemicals. The impression I get is that the calculations (quasi-)forbidding abiogenesis are supposed to be path-independent, but without seeing the actual math, I can't say for sure. (There is some question of whether or not I'll be a valid judge even with the appropriate papers in front of me - I'm a plasma physicist, not a biochemist, so modern papers on biochemistry should be over my head.) An actual path-independent approach seems like it should use quantum mechanics, Feynman diagrams, and more computing power than is currently available to the planet. But again, I haven't seen the technical arguments, so maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can provide a reference?SMesser 14:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just glanced back at the article, and it looks like the subject may've been the apparently fine-tuned universe, rather than abiogenesis, as I'd assumed. I have similar objections to the assertion that the universe is fine-tuned. Proving that it is would seem to require a detailed theory of everything, as well as an agreed-upon definition for what constitutes life. Both of these things are lacking in modern science, and the ToE should be worth a Nobel Prize if Dembski has found it. There are several contenders, but they're rediculously hard to test experimentally. Note in particular that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics remains an open question. Disproving it may be necessary to show that the universe as we see it is fine-tuned, rather than just an example of the weaker forms of the anthropic principle in action. Again, I haven't seen the technical calculations, so a categorical denial of Dembski's arguments is beyond me, but I find the lay-level assertions highly suspect. Do you know of any references? SMesser 15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, i think i can safely categorically agree with your assessment. ID has by no means reached the status of "proof." all the requirements you note for such a "proof" are indeed lacking. And certainly many ID types have gotten a little ahead of themselves, and argued that things are proven when they're not. However, I think what they DO provide is a basis for an intriguing and entirely legitimate line of research, and grounds for at least some semblance of belief in a positive designer, and disbelief in evolution.

As to the ToE (which certainly WOULD gain ID some credibility:) -- what do you think of the Spinning ring model for subatomic particles -- i.e. protons + electrons -- some creationists are arguing that it's a ToE, but i don't know enough about physics to properly evaluate their claims -- is this junk science? Ungtss 15:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In one word, Yes. Its stuff I (as an engineering student) can expirementally disprove. Also, I'm not really sure that it is at all relevent to this article.TheAT 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

definitely not relevent to this article ... i was just wondering if someone might have some insight into WHY it's wrong? if not here, at my talkpage, if you're interested at all:). thanks:). Ungtss 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with Ungtss on the progress of ID. I don't think they've provided sufficient evidence to merit much consideration in professional biological circles. Evolution has provided a theoretical framework for enormous advances in genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Backing away from it requires large amounts of pressing evidence and a theory which explains everything covered by evolution as well as a large chunk of the outlier points. The biological community doesn't seem to think such evidence is pressing, and ID doesn't seem to have much predictive power. (This last point is a common problem when the naturalistic / materialistic assumptions of modern science are dropped.) If you want detailed answers by a biologist, look up Graft. He's easy enough to get along with, but solidly in the evolution camp. As for my own views, I'm bothered by ID's ties to young-earth creationists, claims by some in the ID community that naturalistic abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the sociopolitical goals outlined in the leaked from the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. Similarly, I'm unsatisfied by urgings from the ID community to teach evolution's "weaknesses" in public schools. Most of what the ID community cites as weaknesses are not viewed as such by contemporary biologists, and the weaknesses of quantum mechanics, general realtivity, and electromagnetics are not taught, since the details are beyond what most high-school students can grasp. (There's a quip I've heard running around physics labs: "Why is it all the easy questions have been answered?")

As for the physics article you linked to, it's very bad. I'll try to be brief, but to answer their points in order: 1)There are deep questions about the mutual resolution of general relativity with quantum mechanics, but the article oversimplifies them. String theory is one proposed resolution of the conflict. It and a few competitors are being seriously considered by physicists, but the mathematics necessary for the theory are extremely complex, and experimental tests stretch modern technology. Simple tests have been done, and string theory passes these without trouble. More sophisticated tests are gradually coming within our reach, such as the search for the Higgs boson, but full-bore experiments to test predictions about the gray area between gravity (a theory about big things) and quantum mechanics (a theory about small things) is likely to be beyond our capabilities for a few decades at least. 2) The article includes the line "Our approach integrates a deformable physical model with its self-field." That's not revolutionary, or even informative. Every theory of gravity or quantum currently available does that. 3) The article says Maxwell's electromagnetic theory led to computers, among other things. Yes, but only in conjunction with quantum mechanics. Transistors use quantum effects. 4) The "Principle of Unity" section is reasonable, although there are some slight oversimplifications. 5) The article calls Einstein's description of space as a physical entity a bad idea and derides his assumption that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. The two ideas are linked, and have been tested numerous times via the Cavendish torsion bar experiment and modern analogues, observations of Mercury's orbit, deflections of starlight by solar gravity, and the operation of the GPS satellites. 6) The article says quantum theory assumes fundamental discreteness. This isn't right. Quantum particles are distributed probabilistic wave functions. 7) The article also says "In Einstein's Relativity, space is passive; but in Quantum Theory, space and Nature are actively creating and controlling" various processes. The distincition between active and passive forces / particles isn't normally made in physics. If something exists, it has effects on other objects. Moreover, Einstein's spacetime pushes objects around (that's gravity), so it seems misleading to call it passive. 8) "The Discrete and the Continuous" is misleading, oversimplified, and wrong. Resolving quantum with gravity is expected to be difficult - possibly beyond human comprehension, but not fundamentally impossible. 9) The article next uses its fallacious conflation of quantum mechanics with point particles to say quantum is incompatible with a host of observed phenomena. The actual quantum theory is compatible with all of the items listed, but a detailed accounting of the mathematics involved requires a graduate course in physics, (a course which I've taken, by the way.) 10) Halfway through the article, the author introduces a miniature wire loop as a model for an electron. The model has numerous problems, since it doesn't provide a good explanation for observed tunnelling, quantum teleportation, or the observed successes of relativity. I could go on (I only made it halway through), but... that's more than enough for rambling on talk::inteligent designSMesser 17:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:). Ungtss 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that scientists arguing against ID "point out that Behe has backed off from examples of irreducible complexity." is true. This is inconsistent with the scientific method as science is not based on authority. The arguement would carry as much weight as arguing that Gallileo backed off his claims. While it is significant that Behe backed off some of the claims, it should be mentioned as an aside and not as real evidence cited by scientists in arguments against ID. --64.230.175.140

Wait a second. If Behe previously had examples that he claimed showed the improbability of evolution through natural forces, and now he no longer holds these examples up, and he no longer points to any counter-examples that render naturalistic evolution improbable, this seems to me to be a relevant point. --Goethean 16:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a cited instance of Behe actually backing off a claim without providing a counterclaim. This would certainly be more persuasive and encyclopedic, as well as settling the reader's suspicion that this is just another groundless personal research assertion with no relation to reality. Ungtss 17:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on the No Personal Research policy, I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of this sentence find a source to back it up. There are articles in newspapers complaining about inaccurate personal research on wikipedia. Let's not condone it. Back that sentence up with some facts, please. Ungtss 12:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Behe presented evidence that his examples were incorrect it is worth being mentioned, but if he simply backed off saying that he no longer believes his claims to be true then this is not evidence against the claims in scientific terms as the merits of the claims do not rest with Behe's personal beliefs.

Yes indeed:). It is mere ad hominem, and certainly of no scientific interest. However, this instance of ad hominem is in good company, as much of the rest of the article is ad hominem. Were the writers of this article interested in article QUALITY, the sentence would certainly go on that basis. However, given that article quality is not of interest to many editors, I suggest simply that the sentence is unadulterated personal research, therefore in direct violation of articulated[REDACTED] policy, and should be backed up with facts, or deleted. Ungtss 17:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Behe explicitly rejecting the "ICness" of any of his previous examples. There are some that he doesn't mention very much anymore, but this doesn't mean he's changed his mind about them. However, if he did explicitly reject some previous examples, then I do think it would be relevant. Not because Behe is an authority, but because the IC argument requires that IC, once identified, be an absolute barrier to evolution. If new discoveries can render previously idenfied examples of IC no longer opperative, then this puts the argument on very shaky grounds. There's no reason to believe then that all examples of IC will not suffer the same fate. (Personally, this is how I see things, but for now I think the statement should be removed, since I know of no evidence for it.) --Theyeti 21:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

How come this talk page is almost entirely reduplicated? — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, what brought me here was the article's assertion that the Center is funded at the rate of $1.5 per year, which is surely an error. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove these three comments when the relevant problems are fixed. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to deal with the duplication on this page. Please restore any lost material -- ciphergoth 16:49, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Reversion of revision by 66.91.89.127

I've reverted four revisions by User:66.91.89.127. These changes don't seem to be an effort to make the article more informative, but simply to replace neutral language with inflammatory. It's disingenuous to say that ID "seeks to answer": ID is precisely the position that the answer to that question is "yes". -- ciphergoth 13:42, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

No, ID seeks to answer these questions, and provides some evidence that what it proposes is true. It no more prejudges the issue than anti-creationist scientists do when they say "the answer to the creation of life must exclude any supernatural entity". DJ Clayworth 14:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole section "Intelligent Design as Stealth Creationism" is just some guy's idea of why he doesn't like ID. It's just listing reasons why he thinks it's wrong, without any idea if these are generally agreed or whether the arguments are rebuttable. It needs serious work or prefereably removal, since it is really someone trying to carry out the debate under the pretence of writing an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this section because it is clearly untrue.

As with religious creationism. ID is open to the criticism "what designed the designer?", since a designer capable of creating irrducible complexity must also, by ID's own arguments, be irreducibly complex. Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this appears to create a logical paradox whics is fatal to the ID argument unless an uncaused causer, that is to say, God, is invoked, in which case ID reduces to religious creationism. Once this is done, ID ceases to be a falsifiable theory, and therefore loses its ability claim to be a scientific theory.

It is clearly untrue because there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity. In fact evolution proponents cliam this all the time. Computers (obviously irreducibly complex) have been designed by humans (which they claim are not). I re-iterate my point. Just because you think you have a good argument as to why ID is wrong does not give you the right to put it in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is valid criticism of ID. You don't have the right to remove valid criticism just because it could reveal a fundamental fallacy in ID.

Regarding "there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity": -- Your position, that irreducible complexity can arise from something that is not itself irreducibly complex, is suicidal. That is why ID advocates tend to view the Designer as irreducibly complex: it is easier to defend the "first cause" arguments criticised in the passage you removed than it is to defend a non-irreducibly complex Designer.

Obviously you have not the slightest idea of what 'irreducably complex' means. Hint: Computers are not. The statement is correct; that is a serious flaw (one of many) with 'intelligent design.' Re-added.The Rev of Bru

New article

Please see the following article:

I would add it to the references, but I'm not sure that it belongs. There is a great deal of information in the article that is not well-included in this article. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

huge pile of nothing

What the hell is up with this article? It is way too long. It's a lot of fluff to give verbal substance to something that has no substance of its own. Intelligent Design can be described in a couple of paragraphs. The scientific community's point of view against ID can be presented in a couple of paragraphs. This article has exploded into a pile of nothing in order to dance around any and all hard facts. Time to scrap it and start over. FuelWagon 22:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the following was inserted by anon:

- (full text was inserted below following it's move here) - 68.206.248.140

We need to trim this article. Not write a book.--ghost 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

These comments refer the main Misplaced Pages article titled, "Intelligent Design".

The analogy involving the pyramids of Egypt is misleading in that it does not accurately characterize the theory of Intelligent Design. The analogy is redrawn at the close of this comment. The paragraph that contains that analogy should be edited to read as follows (additions in italics):

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described Intelligent Design as pseudoscience. Critics call Intelligent Design an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an attempt to force public schools to teach creationism in schools. Most advocates of Intelligent Design do not support their theory with appeals to religious dogma. That there are theists (see theism) who believe God created the universe has no more bearing on the theory of Intelligent Design than the fact that there are atheists (see atheism) who believe that there is no God has on the theory of Evolution. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are based on present day observations. Likewise, the fact that some want to teach creationism is schools is not relevant to an examination of the principles of the theory of Intelligent Design. Neither should the theory of Evolution be banned from schools because some atheists claim Evolution proves that there is no God.

Defenders of Evolution say the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation. Advocates of Intelligent Design do not dispute the observable and repeatable facts, but note that all such findings to date have been made with respect to changes within a species. The occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population which occur at or below the species level is known as microevolution. There is only speculation that cumulative changes have or can cause a species to morph into a new species. See macroevolution. Evolutionist themselves disagree about the exact mechanism of macroevolution.

Evolutionists also contend that Intelligent Design argues for something that is neither repeatable, nor observable, and therefore violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability which says "Any theory that is not falsifiable is said to be unscientific". Advocates of Intelligent Design apply the same criticism to the theory of macroevolution. Both theories attempt to describe the causes of observations of present day effects. The causes obviously happened in the past and can only be presumed since actual events that happened in the past cannot be observed or repeated. Assumptions must be made; the idea that "the present is the key to the past" is such an assumption. Both theories attempt to answer the question: "How did Life--as it is observed in it's many present forms--come to exist?"

Critics of ID say it is equivalent to the argument "We don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens (an intelligent designer) must have helped.". Science would simply say "we don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids", list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, and leave it at that until new information became available. By creating this outside explanation, Intelligent Design violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that has a simpler and scientifically supported explanation not involving outside help.

Advocates of ID say this analogy is misleading. To accurately characterize ID, the analogy should read as follows: Two scientists, one of whom holds the theory of Evolution, the other the theory of Inteligent Design, discover the pyramids. But, for purposes of the analogy, neither scientist has knowledge of ancient or modern Egyptian culture. Both scientists observe that the pyramids have complexity. The evolutionist attempts to explain the pyramids as something that occurs as the result of natural forces that are observed to occur in the present: unique but accidental geology modified by wind, flood, lightening and erosion over long periods of time. The adherent of Intelligent Design observes that the pyramids have characteristics that are consistent with phenomina that are known to have been designed and engineered by intelligent agents, for example skyscrapers, art and 3-D mathematical images. The Intelligent Design scientist does NOT automatically ascribe the design to "aliens".

You are correct. ID does not AUTOMATICALLY ascribe the design to aliens from another planet. It sits on a convenient place where it says an intelligent designer must have done it, but doesn't go quite so far as to put the "intelligent designer" into any specific form. The advantage is that it avoids the "little green men" version that would get ID laughed out of existence, and it avoids using the word "God" which would reveal its true intent to recast religion into some perveted form of "science". FuelWagon 06:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The critic who originally wrote the main article about Intelligent Design has unfortunately "spun" the facts as well as the pyramids analogy to reinforce belief in evolution and to weaken arguments for Intelligent Design. What he/she has done is to disregard the many published facts about the Intelligent Design theory in an effort to discredit the theory. He/she goes so far as to attribute views to the scientists holding the theory that they do not espouse. Such misrepresentation is unprofessional, unwarranted and injurious to the public debate about a valid issue, namely "How did Life on earth arise?"

The rest of the article should be read in light of the clear bias of the writer.--68.206.248.140

Thanks for moving your suggested rewrite of the intro to the talk page. I'd like to point out three items that have nothing to do with your content. 1) Personal attacks vs. the previous author(s) of an article are prohibited in the article. Period. You're joining the author(s) by editing, and they're not allowed to go after you in the article either. 2) The article stands at 18pgs. This is way too much. Adding opinion detail doesn't help. If you're not going to help, don't hit the 'edit' button, no matter how pretty it looks. 3) This is/was the intro, if you insist on keeping these details in the body, move them elsewhere. Then provide a point-counterpoint. Please refer to NPOV for suggestions on how to do this.--ghost 20:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, the critic who wrote the bit about the pyramids was me. And I wrote it in the "criticism" section of the intro. If you notice, the first paragraph defines ID, the second paragraph defends it, and the third paragraph gives the criticism of ID. So, it would seem to me that the NPOV approach would be to allow both sides to make their best case and leave it to the reader to decide. However, whoever wrote thea original "criticism" section of the intro was obviously strongly pro-ID, or someone who was pro-ID watered it down to the point that the criticism had turned it into a strawman. It was laughable. I was also the person who said this article is WAY too long, and I wrote the intro criticism such that someone could read only the intro, and get the meat of the criticism against ID. I still think its too long, but I'll suffice to write the intro so readers don't need to read further. FuelWagon 22:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I added italics to clarify the differences I have with the original writer. I admit I do not understand Misplaced Pages's protocol. I doubt that any first time reader will understand it. I do not believe it is fair to expect young researchers to understand Misplaced Pages's protocol and/or to detect the bias on their own. Either the bias should be removed from the intro or the paragraphs should be clearly labeled Pro and Con. In any case, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, the pyramid analogy should be removed altogether since it is clearly inaccurate. Not yet a[REDACTED] registered user: G. Jennings, Houston, TX. 13 May 2005.

The "aliens built the pyramids" line of logic is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the intelligent designer argument. Both logically assert that something outside the realm of what is known to human science (aliens/ID) created something on earth (pyramids/life). The only difference is that the aliens/pyriamids argument names a specific example of an intelligent designer who created the pyramids rather than leaving it completely undefined the way ID/life does. The thing is that the aliens/pyramids shows the logical fallacy of ID/Life without all the mumbo jumbo associated with trying to explain "burden of proof", falsifiability, and a number of other logical concepts. People can read the "aliens built the pyramids" and immediately GET that its exactly what ID is doing, explaining something on Earth via something that is completely outside human and scientific knowledge. FuelWagon 06:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary.... No need to shout "EXACT EQUIVALENCE". Evolution itself asserts a mechanism "outside the realm of what is known to human science", a lightening bolt in the primeval soup. ID recognizes the characteristics of design in living orgnisms and says, "in every instance where human science notes these characteristics in a thing, the thing is known to have been designed by intelligence." For example, Misplaced Pages is a system that displays characteristics of design; likewise the mechanism of human blood clotting is a system that works perfectly to accomplish a specific task. No scientist would look at[REDACTED] and postulate its existence to random events over a long period of time. Recognition of Design is something that is within the scope of human and scientific knowledge. Not yet a[REDACTED] registered user: G. Jennings, Houston, TX. 14 May 2005.

Evolution is not something that cannot be observed. Natural selection can be observed in laboratories and in the field. Humans have themselves created numerous new species. The question is whether the evolutionary process can create certain complex structures, like blood clotting. This equivalent to asking if the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. Ultramarine 23:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Evolution itself asserts a mechanism outside the realm of what is known to human science, a lightening bolt in the primeval soup." Chuckle. So. Lightning bolts are outside the realm of science? I think they've been observed repeatedly, measured, quantified, and catagorized. Is there some metaphysics to lightning bolts that I missed? Lightning gods, perhaps? Same goes for "primeval soup", which would be simple molecules of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Is there something about this chemistry that is outside the realm of science? Don't they generally teach organic chemistry in college as a science requisite? I'm pretty sure it isn't listed in with the "religious studies" classes or besides the "defense against the Dark arts" courses. FuelWagon 02:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess FuelWagon disagrees with my edit, but my reasons for moving the pyramid analogy were:

1. Yes, the intro seems a bit long.
2. The pyramid analogy seems more like an elaboration, not a concise summary. I thought an explanation like that would do better in an appropriate section rather than nested with a bunch of small, bullet-point style summaries.
3. Starting off the article with a controversial analogy like that seemed needlessly inflamatory. I'm by no means an Intelligent Design supporter, but even I thought it was a bit over the top in that position.
4. I don't see any "weakening" of the intro. On the contrary, it seemed to flow better and say the same thing.

As it stands, we seem to have two copies of the same analogy now. I obviously lean toward removing the one in the intro, but I won't make the edit myself since it's obvious that at least one person seems to strongly disagree with me. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:25, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

This was my take on the criticism of ID paragraph in the intro: the concepts of "repeatability and observability" are put into real world examples with the list about mutations, genetic drift, etc. The example of how repeatability and observability fail to apply to ID is given in how the "designer" is neither observable nor repeatable. This then defines the term "falsifiability" by giving the definition first and then putting a name to it. The concept of occam's razor is first defined by the real world example of aliens/pyramids. Then the scientific approach is given by explaining science would say "we don't know how they did it, but this is what we do know". Finally, with all of this context given, the definition is complete and it is given the name "occam's razor". if you take out the alien/pyramid example, you remove the real world example that puts occam's razor into real world context. If you take out the real world example, you have to take out the "what science would say", and if you take both of those out, you have absolutely no real world context, and must define "occam's razor" with a mumble jumble of vocabulary. I attempted to shorten the criticism paragraph in the intro. Some folks took out the alien/pyramid bit and attempted to explain occam's razor with complicated vocabulary, which was just as long but much more complicated to read. My problem is that I think the entire article is way too long, and rather than take a machete to the whole thing and tick everyone off, I wanted to get the core criticism in one paragraph in the intro in as simple language as possible. as it is now, I think it sums up the criticism of ID fairly succinctly. If length is really an issue, start cutting the rest of the article. FuelWagon 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"controversial analogy like that seemed needlessly inflamatory" Sorry, missed this the first time. Yeah, it's a controversial analogy. But so is the accusation that ID violates Occam's Razor. It's just that aliens/pyramids is a real world example of Occam's Razor being violated, and by itself, the term "Occam's Razor" simply goes over people's heads. If people "got" Occam's Razor, then being told you're violating it would be a controversial assertion. In the end, this controversial analogy, this violation of Occam's Razor, is a fair representation of the critic's point of view of ID. ID supporters won't like it, but then emperical scientists won't like ID. the point of[REDACTED] is to not avoid controversy at the expense of losing honesty in the article or watering down the truth. FuelWagon 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Losing honesty? Watering down? I don't want to remove the analogy! I don't even want to edit the analogy. I just want to move it to a better place. As it stands there are two copies of the analogy in the article, and it seems like there are three choices: 1) Leave the article sounding strange, redundant and highly antagonistic. 2) Remove the analogy from the Argument from Ignorance section, weakening it significantly. 3) Remove the analogy from the intro, greatly improving the section's flow, attitude/hostility, readability and length. I understand what you're trying to do putting an example prior to Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, the attempt at parallelism fails because (unlike the falsifiability bit which is succint, simple, and a single complete sentence) the Occam's Razor section is wordy, needlessly detailed for an intro and spread out across several sentences which breaks the continuity of the paragraph. The "needlessly detailed" point is particularly important because by introducing this level of criticism into the introduction, the article gains an axe-grinding feel to it. I'm not asking if the analogy is a fair representation; remember, I included it in the new section! I'm simply saying it's inappropriate and awkward there. I don't think anyone could fail to understand Occam's Razor from the simple, plain English explanation given after the word, but if they did they could always just click the link. Even if that's a problem, I tend to think that the problems with the intro as it stands outweigh it. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:41, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd use the phrase "axe grinding". It might qualify for "brutal honesty". If the problem is the "needlessly detailed" part, then lemme see if I can come up with a less detailed version. gimme a few hours to chew on it. FuelWagon 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried a rewrite. I split it into two paragraphs. first paragraph is the list of criticism against ID. Second paragraph uses the example of aliens/pyramids to show how those criticisms apply. It also clarifies that science doesn't rule out an intelligent designer, just that it makes no claim about its existence. Perhaps that will clarify that there is no "axe grinding" going on. An intelligent designer may exist, but science cannot state that as fact. But science is not anti-god. Science might be anti-rain-god and use meteorology to explain weather patterns. But science does not rule out anything, it only rules "in" what it knows. It's the best I can do right now. If that don't work, then I'll just revert to the way it was before. What say you, Oompa? keep it or kick it? Is it an improvement or did I make it worse? FuelWagon 21:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

After reading the first of those two paragraphs, a reader supporting ID but who doesn't understand the distinction between "science" and "truth" might assume that the paragraph means "ID is false." The impression we want them to gain is that the paragraph says "ID is outside the realm of science" or somesuch. Would it be useful to tack on another sentence to that effect, along the lines of "However, this does not mean that ID is false—only that it is not within the scope of science."? One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 23:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

the only problem with that is that proponents of ID have packaged it as a science so that it can be taught in schools without violating separation of church and state. That is the basis for their argument: that it qualifies as science. But the only way to do that is to redefine science so as to not require observability, repeatability, falsifiability, and to allow breaking Occam's Razor. If you do that, then ID qualifies, but you've completely destroyed the definition of science to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. FuelWagon 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm. Well, I'm not proposing to call it science—I'm saying that it isn't science (although perhaps the wording I used doesn't convey that as well as I would have liked). Since the paragraph already says that much, I didn't figure that a reiterration would hurt anything. Actually, all I meant to add was that we're not making any assertion about the truth or falsity of the issue. There is an unfortunate tendency for some people, when they hear "that's not science", to think they heard "that's not true". (This is a reflection on the common but mistaken notion that scientists believe everything not 'science' to be false.) Anyway, I don't object to not including such a sentence, and it's not strictly on-topic. I only offered it as a way to assuage some gut protests. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 00:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That is something that could go in a criticism section. FuelWagon 02:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure the into is the appropriate place, but your recent edit sounds a lot better, FuelWagon. Still not sure what to do about the two versions of the analogy, but I guess I'll leave it. I've used up my complaint quota for the next week or so I think. I like your commented out section, by the way. :) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:23, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

One epistemology out of many

Like some have mentioned, the debate between ID and naturalism is mostly one of methodology, and anyone who has ever taken a day of philosophy knows that first principles cannot be falsified. Naturalism restricts its methodology to one that tries to find things in naturalistic terms and deems that only that is truth. You can't infer the epistemological validity of naturalism merely from its premises, and the tautology naturalism = science, science = naturalism really doesn't have any foundational weight to it. Naturalism is a *particular* theory of knowledge that when combined with the 'randomness' principle, is pretty darn unfalsifiable. If anything 'happens', then it is due to natural causes and no matter how outrageous it is, we just think about all the places in the world where it *didn't* happen. Then it's not so strange or unbelievable no matter how it affects our experience. Sure, things within the scope of the methodology can be tested, but one cannot challenge its domain nor the theory itself.

Personally, I am an agnostic when it comes to I.D. versus natural evolution, I am not a scientist so I do not know, but I do know a thing or two about the philosophy of science and the general period of history called 'the enlightenment' and I have to say that most scientists are just completely ignorant about the philosophy of their own discipline and don't understand where the methodological debates start and stop. They simply believe dogmatically in the science = naturalism tautology and due to the history of science (always percieved as the secular enlightenment battling the religious aristotelian world) an actually experienced history of science vs. religion has resulted in alot of sadly closed minds.Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a scientist. I am also a bit of a philosopher. My take on the skepticism of science is that it fits very nicely with the the philosophy of Taoism or "the way" of the universe. One of the most relevant quotes from Tao de Ching is "that which can be named is not the Tao", which to me reads like a recipe for the perfect division between human knowledge/science and human spirituality. Science does not rule out spirituality, but science is all about what humans can know, and the spirituality of the universe is not something that science will ever say anything about. So, if you want to call ID a philosophy or a spiritual understanding of how life started on earth, that's fine by me. But I refuse to allow the definitions of science and spirituality to be blurred and confused so that someone can get their pet philosophy taught in schools as if it were science. FuelWagon 14:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems like a understandable way of looking at it. But still, it is basically the case of a dominant majority trying to 'define out' other disciplines. I don't know if anyone here does International Relations but some of the methodological debates go like this and I think it is a good parallel to the I.D. vs Natural Evolution debate.

Traditional international relations is based on the understanding that it is great powers (i.e., big countries) that determine everything in the international system. Local forces can only have agency when they are used by great powers.

Now, there are other methodologies that try to study the 'international' too. Instead though, they reject the idea of the primacy of great powers, and try to explain things in other terms like local/global flows and immigration, etc.

The newcomers claim that I.R. doesn't actually explain how the world really works because there are too many assumptions packed into the positivist methodology, and in fact it just goes on supporting a kind of knowledge that only suits the strong.

The traditional I.R. proponents claim that whatever doesn't deal with states and statesmen isn't I.R., it should know its place and get back to literary criticism or what not.

The real issue is, both claim to describe something that is at one level the same ("the international") but at another level completely different. The one who wins is the one that can claim that their interpretation is the real one and the other one is if not completely invalid, not what it claims to be.

So I.D. and Natural Evolution both claim to be the same thing (science) but what methodology and epistemology that entails, and effectively what science is, is being disputed.

The thing I find so frusturating about this debate is that both sides are so rigid and inflexible. You have the traditionalists pretending the heyday of the enlightenment is still with us, and you have the I.D.'s acting like it's plainly obvious that darwinism is invalid to anyone with a brain. As a non-scientist, as someone who cannot actually weigh the evidence without reading an incredibly biased piece of pop-science, I find it incredibly irritating.Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, you seem to be misconstruing what science is. Science isn't a "dominant majority" that excludes all other interpretations. Science is a minimilist approach: start out knowing nothing, assume very little, and see what you can know from there. Science does not exclude spirituality. It does have as one of its primary assumptions the notion that the world follows certain rules and that those rules don't change. This is diametrically opposed to folks who believe in an active god reaching into human lives and altering reality, creating Adam from dust, Eve from a rib, flooding the planet, parting the red sea, bringing a plaque of locusts, frogs, and then killing the first born of every family. These beliefs are unscientific, and on that basis, science will not budge. Science does not believe the gods make it rain. Science must at its foundation assume that the world-rules are consistent, that god does not play dice with the universe at this level. If that rule falls, then there is no difference between science and the mythology of the day. But if you take that assumption as true, that does not rule out spirituality, a belief in God, Plato's unmoved mover, or the Tao of the universe. It just means that science will hit a point where it says "we don't know but we refuse to jump to any conclusions or submit to mythology". The Earth is not 6,000 years old. Science refuses to budge on this. But Science does not rule out that which is not in its domain, and God and Spirituality are outside the domain of science. FuelWagon 13:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please sign your comments by putting four tilde symbols after it. FuelWagon 13:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

But the methodology decides what can be known, and the methodology is determined a-priori... What I am saying is is it is a particular theory of knowledge that determines what be be counted as true knowledge to draw conclusions off of. "Science" doesn't just take every random bit of information out there and compiles it all into a theory, it sorts and defines in/defines out valid and invalid data. Science is informed inductively by data, I'm with you there, but the validity of the methodology/epistemology itself cannot be inductively verified, you have to start with a first principle like 'the only true knowledge humans can possess is that recieved by the five senses' (Empiricism)

If you think that the methodology/epistemology itself can be proven inductively, then I'd really like to see how... The closest to a proof that you can get is pragmatism, which basically says that if something is knowledge, then it works, it is powerful. I.e., St. Teresa of Avilla loses out to Mr. Nobel because dynamite blows things up and prayers don't. By the way, I found this website that has alot of pros and cons. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're still misconstruing science here: "it is a particular theory of knowledge that determines what be be counted as true". Science doesn't deal with "truth" in the philosophical sense or in the spiritual sense. When you are present to the Tao (or God or Buddha), you a present to Truth. Science is about human knowledge and that is different from "Truth". One of the main differences is that Truth is an internal process, knowing god, being one with the way, achieving enlightenment. Knowledge as produced by science is public or external or practical or whatever you want to call it. If by "powerful" you mean "able to affect others", then yes, that is the difference between knowledge and truth. You cannot force someone into Satori. You can build a nuclear weapon and vaporize them. Science will tell you how to build that bomb, but not whether it is "right" to use it. This is the definition of science, and it is unmovable. It acknowledges the difference between knowledge and truth, between objective and subjective. It requires repeatability and observability. It assumes the universe operates under the influence of an unchanging Tao. And it attempts to understand how that Tao shows up in the objective universe. Science makes no claims about truth or god or the experience of love. That definition gives a certain set of results that are defined as "scientific knowledge", and some of the basic assumptions cannot be proven (such that there shall be no god messing with the rules of the universe). But the philisophical alternative is to logically argue yourself into a corner, knowing nothing with certainty, leaving the experience of subjectivity and objective world as possible illusions and knowing only that you exist in some form. But solipsism just doesn't cut it for me. If only you exist, then you won't mind if I, a mere illusion, adhere to objective science, if you know what I mean. Are we really stuck in Plato's Cave or some version of The Matrix? maybe. But so what? Until we can become aware and distinguish what is shadow and what is "real", this is the world we have to go on. It is from this world of illusion that we've pulled ourselves up to where we are now. Perhaps someone will eventually notice the fire and the figures casting shadows. Until then, science only says what it knows about those shadows. The truth that we're in Plato's Cave is only something you can know in your mind. Escape from the Matrix is only available once you become aware in your mind that the matrix exists. Truth is in your mind. FuelWagon 23:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So you're basically saying 'science' doesn't use an epistemology, but it is about human knowledge. My whole point is that what can count as human knowledge is what the question of epistemology deals with. I'm not referring to truth that humans can't know about, matrixes or anything regarding something you might find in Heidegger or Laozi. I'm referring to good old fasioned eurocentric concepts of truth, as in, what can humans know about.

I think you're dodging an answer. I say that the epistemology called empiricism is at least questionable because it itself is not empirically viable. You can't prove that empiricism is true by looking at the objects that it allows to count as knowledge, it has to be an a-priori principle. Is this true or false? What say you? Anyone else have an answer? 82.34.219.61 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, if someone says "truth" and "philosophy" in the same sentence, I hear "Truth", as in absolute. As far as I can see, you're talking about "Truth". I've dodged no question, I just might have not answered it in your vocabulary. Yes, empericism has certain assumptions which cannot be verified by empericism. But those assumptions are known up front. that the world-rules are constant is a basic assumption that cannot be proven inside empericism. It has to be taken as an assumption. I don't have a problem with that. If the assumption is that the world-rules CAN change, because god intervenes now and then, then how many angels fits on the head of a pin becomes a legitimate scientific question, and I won't stand for that to be called science.

I'm not exactly sure where you're trying to take this conversation. I know of no approach to knowledge which is absolutely true. If there were, much of philosophy would disappear. Attempting to find absolute truth often leads people to the path of solipsism (I exist) or total skepticism (I know only that I can know nothing). Neither of which are views I can subscribe to. I need more than what absolute human knowledge can currently give, so I'm willing to make a few basic assumptions and run with it from there. The way I see it, this is a vast improvement over the previous approach of making a LOT of assumptions and running with THAT. Does it answer everything? no. But from an incremental point of view, meteorology is a hell of a lot better than praying to the Rain Gods. FuelWagon 14:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I just realized something. When you compare the epistomologies used by empirical science versus "intelligent design", what you have are two epistomologies that are identical except for the assumption added by ID. ID claims it is "science" which means it must rely on assumptions, and therefore cannot be shown to be true with absolute certainty. The assumption added by ID is that the world rules of the universe are constant and unchanging, EXCEPT when God intervenes from time to time. So, comparing those two epistimologies side by side, it would seem clear to me that as far as "knowing" is concerned, science has a better chance than ID does of knowing teh truth. FuelWagon 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• shrug* Well I guess we're just arguing cross purposes then. But yeah, actually you are right in one respect, theistic epistemologies don't make claims to absolute knowledge, that's why Descartes was able to make mechanism (sort of like the intellectual precursor to empiricism/naturalism) what it is today, because it could beat the kind of open ended questions that theistic epistemologies by definition had to leave open- so, by claiming to be a "perfect philosophy" (i.e., complete) materialism does actually offer more obstensible truth because it clearly defines what can be known and works well within its sphere. But of course going back to the original point, it's horribly complicated and involves alot of a-priori assumptions. Without foundations (i.e., knock down drag-out reasons for any given epistemology being true apparent to anyone), then it's all a matter of who has the interpretive power. I only got six hours of sleep last night so this might not be too clear. 82.34.219.61 13:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"it's horribly complicated and involves alot of a-priori assumptions." Well, "horribly" and "alot" are subjective, and you have a right to your opinion. My opinion is that there is really only one fundamental assumption in science: that the world-rules of the universe are unchanging. From that, you get scientific requirements for repeatability/observability, falsifiability, and even Occam's Razor. But other than differing on the percieved level of complexity of that approach, we agree on everything else. FuelWagon 13:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

flawed design section should stay on topic

Re: this edit. In the section Ideas regarding the intelligent designer we have a short list of general, high-level flaws in design. The intention of this section is not to be a detailed list of inefficient designs found in nature. Reverting change. --Air 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rescued deleted material

The first and most important principle of Intelligent Design is that science at the end of the 20th century saw itself as being methodologically materialistic (or naturalistic) as opposed to methodologically empiricalistic. And as a result of being methodologically materialistic, biologists embraced macro-evolution as the explanation for the existence and diversity of life because an explanation that infers intelligence is not permitted by this paradigm.

ID theorists observe that forensic and archeological science, on the other hand, is methodologically empirical, and allow for explanations that include intelligence. Forensic science by determining whether or not a particular death is an accident or a murder, and archeology by determining whether or not a specific hunk of clay was an artifact or not. Since the study of biological origins is historical, ID theorists suggest that the issue should likewise be treated empirically, since we are like detectives coming upon the scene after the supposed crime occured. Our task, then, is to determine whether or not there was an intelligence behind all this, not only to try to find the best naturalistic explanation assuming there was no intelligence.

Intelligent design makes no presumptions about who or what did the designing. It simply asks whether we can empirically determine if a particular thing was designed or not. In terms of religion, ID favors none. The designer of the first cell could just as easily be Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Jehovah, a pantheistic God, an intelligent extra-terrestrial, or Plato's demiurge. The only question ID seeks to answer is whether there was a designer or not.

Specifically, ID theorists are investigating the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Irreducibly complex structures are ones that seem improbable to evolve and therefore are highly probable to have been created by an intelligent designer or designers. ID theories of irreducibly complexity have been criticised of taking Darwinism too narrowly because it assumes that natural selection would work directly (or linearly).

Rescued. Agree with removal as POV and aditional verbage, but it still Must Be Discussed.--Tznkai 00:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's relevant... but that's because I wrote it. The idea came straight from Dembski's latest book (The Design Revolution) where he spends a good chunk on defining what ID is and what it is not. I would like to see the article rewritten with more input from this book (since he is arguably the conceptual leader of ID) and as I mentioned below I think it is only fair to spend the bulk of the article presenting what ID is according to the ID theorists, and relegating the (significant and definitely article-worthy) controversy to a section at the end with the appropriate links. The evolution article is presented as what evolution is to the evolutionists with the controversy minimized and buried at the bottom. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

David Bergan 05:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?

I won't hide the fact that I'm on the ID side, but I assure you that I am only trying to make the article fair. Take a look at the evolution article and you'll find that the criticisms of evolution are very consise and all the way at the bottom of the page. I like the layout of that page... it seems like an appropriate encyclopedia article.

However, the ID article is laden with critiques. You only get to the third paragraph of the introduction before you engage hostility. I would think that someone who wants to read an article on ID (or any topic) would want to hear its position all the way through before hearing that it is a pseudoscience and that it is criticized from all possible angles. That's significant information, for sure, but shouldn't it all be contained in the controversy section? I mean, it would be laughable to read the evolution page and find in the 3rd paragraph Behe's idea of irreducible complexity. I'm not asking to remove criticisms. I just think that it's the spirit of an encyclopedia article to conatin criticism in one consise section and put it at the bottom.

David Bergan 17:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think from the point of view of defining what ID is and is not, putting in emerical science's take on ID clearly helps define ID. And an entire article of ID proponents calling ID a science, with a follow-up section by emperical scientists saying "no, it isn't" seems like burying important information. FuelWagon 19:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough... but a full paragraph in the intro? I mean, we're not just saying that there is little support in the scientific community, we're bringing in Occam's razor and teaching them 6 vocab words about modern evolution theory. How about a two-sentence paragraph that says something like, "Intelligent Design theory has only gained marginal acceptance in scientific circles. See Section X for further details about its criticisms." Something along those lines would be honest and fair, and in keeping with the spirit of an encyclopedia article... actually explaining the title concept before attacking it.

David Bergan 05:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The current level of detail in the intro is appropriate. The terms it introduces are essential to understanding the reason why scientists are so uniform and adamant in their rejection of ID (e.g., a recent issue of the ultra-prestigious journal Nature dedicated to ID ). Because rejection of ID is the consensus scientific (and scholarly) viewpoint, it is essential to explain this in the intro. --Rikurzhen 07:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right that ID is certainly the minority position among scientists. (So was Darwin's research at his time...) But count the sentences. If anyone wanted to know what ID is, they read our intro and find that we have 3 sentences that (sort of) explain what ID is, and then we have 8 that criticize it. I don't care what the topic is, no one knows a subject well enough to evaluate counter-arguments after only 3 sentences of explanation. Show me 3 other articles that aren't related to the evolution controversy where the title concept is thoroughly criticized (and ridiculed) before it is even adequately explained.

Moreover, those three sentences aren't even very accurate. ID is an attempt to establish a branch of science that determines whether or not things we observe in nature are caused by intelligence rather than by natural laws or random chance. It is an application of ID when forensic scientists try to determine whether a housefire was caused by accident (law or chance) or by arson (intelligence). But the reader doesn't get any of this out of the intro.

David Bergan 15:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your above point is simply wrong. ID is not about creating a meta-branch of science involved in determining whether any action or event anywhere was caused by intelligent or intentional action. Arson investigation is not an application of ID. ID is concerned with the creation and development of life and animal species (especially humans) and by extension the creation and development of the universe, galaxy, solar systems and planets. Claiming that forensics is an example of ID theory is disingenuous at best. Soundguy99 16:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bergan makes some good points, and your slightly wordier version of "No, it's not" is not really a rebuttal, even if you think it is. Pollinator 17:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, to build an analogy to ID, you'd claim that from the evidence for a buring building that aliens or God started the fire. --Rikurzhen 17:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the fourth paragraph in the intro should be removed. It is a counter-argument, not an introduction to the subject. That said, I pretty much disagree with Bergan on every other point, including his assumption that ID should be treated as if it were a fresh-faced scientific hypothesis rather than a transparently socio-political strategy. --goethean ॐ 16:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

treating ID "as if it were a fresh-faced scientific hypothesis" is not a possible alternative; it has been closely examined by the scientific community and those findings have been made public; moveover, ID isn't fresh at all, it's a very old hypothesis with slightly some arguments. --Rikurzhen 17:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

However, I agree that, while the arguments should certainly not be "buried down at the bottom", they needn't be as lengthly as they are in this introduction. Introductions aren't about arguing one side or the other — they're for introducing the subject. The fact that ID isn't accepted by the scientific community should certainly be discussed in the intro, but two long paragraphs making arguments against ID aren't needed. — Asbestos | Talk 17:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I made those recent "anon" (user 68) changes to the intro. I recognize that the intro section is under discussion and I haven't been looking at this article for a while, but I hope you all will consider my revision nonetheless; it ain't perfect, but I think it clearly improves on the existing version, addresses the concerns expressed here, and removes redundency. I am disappointed to see that it was reverted in minutes, before anyone got a chance to look at it. BTfromLA 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your condensation was good, and replaced it. Also, the article is now at the stylistic standard of not having a second "introduction" (the one above the table of contents, without a heading, is all that is needed). However, making sweeping changes under an anon IP is a sure-fire way to get reverted, so you shouldn't have been suprised... — Asbestos | Talk 17:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I support this change also --goethean ॐ 17:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As an evolutionary biologist, I view ID's growing popularity as somewhat alarming. After all, it's amazing that such a groundless and hollow theory could gain such potestas, just like it was similarly alarming to me that so many people believed the equally hollow claims of the Bush administration regarding Iraq/WMD. But I don't think this is sufficient reason for putting strong claims in place in the article, or justifying article structure, and I worry that that sort of passion gets in the way. That said, we should treat ID the same way we treat Bush WMD claims - that is, give a fair description, but be clear, unequivocal and prominent about why they are wrong. There's no need to allow relativity of facts here. What's important is not that it isn't accepted by the scientific community (cf. Bush claims weren't accepted by the international community), but that it is not a sound scientific theory. This should be clearly understood by all readers of the article. Graft 17:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA's changes go far beyond what I think is being discussed here. They completely delete the pyramid analogy, which is very instructive/understandable and needs to be kept (somewhere prominently) as it describes why the scientific community finds that ID is not an sound scientific theory. It presents the ID debate as a series of ad hominem attacks, which is not the key quality. Move those changes to the talk page for debate and restore the previous article content. --Rikurzhen 17:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The pyramid analogy is contentious and its main purpose seems to be to ridicule the claims of ID. It is inappropriate to the intro. --goethean ॐ 17:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Because you and others don't like the analogy, or find it unfair to ID, doesn't make it inappropriate for the intro. A controversial topic will tend to have a controversial intro. I'm a scientist (in the field of genetics; i.e. I know evolution) and in my opinion the analogy is apt and informative. It is elicits in others exactly what I and other scientists think of when we consider ID. If there was anything I would want to put into the intro, it would be the that the NAS (group of elite scientists) has spoken out against ID for reasons x,y,z and that their reasoning can be understood by the pyramid analogy. --Rikurzhen 18:11, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I am not a scientist and I will happily defer to you on the details of evolutionary theory. I am a writer, however, and I think you've lost track of the structure of the article. ( I also think it inappropriate of you to do a wholesale revert of my edit after multiple editors had found it meritorious.) The substance of the various arguments belong in the main body of the article, not the introduction. If you are going to offer a refutation of the claims, you'll first need to offer an elaborate description of those claims, and at that point you've completely abandoned the idea of a concise introduction, and quite possibly lost your reader. The edit you rejected makes it clear that ID's claims are not respected by most scientists and also makes it clear that a political and religious agenda is attached to the ID movement—I don't think you can argue that it promotes a pro-ID POV. It briefly introduces the central claims and controversies that attend to ID, with more detailed discussions below. That's what an introduction should do, right? BTfromLA 21:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the analogy is unfair, nor do I think that noting the movement's criticisms is inappropriate. However, the current introduction is not an introduction, it's a thesis. It is specifically set out to prove a point. This, though, isn't the purpose of an introduction. BTfromLA's introduction indicates in no uncertain terms that the movement has no approval from the scientific community. However, it doesn't spend two paragraphs describing the arguments in detail - that is saved for the article's body.

I hadn't realized before that the changes deleted the pyramid analogy. You say that it needs to be kept. That's fine: find an appropriate place for it. The introduction isn't an appropriate place.

I also think that unilateral revertion is not an appropriate way of dealing with the argument, given that at least three editors are supporting the new introduction, while you are the only one who has raised an objection.

— Asbestos | Talk 21:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of restoring most of the deleted material (including the pyramids analogy) to the section describing the Scientific rejection of ID. I think the Pyramid part retains an NPOV tone: the way to get around that might be to find the same or a similar analogy from a prominent scientist or science writer, so that Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be the author of the analogy. There's been plenty written about ID, so that probably isn't a such tall order--I'd bet that Richard Dawkins, for example, has probably authored several pithy analogies along those lines. BTfromLA 22:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A number of points --Rikurzhen 22:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

1. wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia. the opinions of the authors do not matter, so much as the opinions of all the people in the world. it wouldn't matter if every[REDACTED] editor were pro-ID, the NPOV policy would require that the POV of mainstream science, central to this article, be described in their its own terms, prominently.
2. nonetheless, I count at least three authors that seem to support a prominent place for the scientists argument about science, not politics, in the article. this is because scientist are experts about science, and not politics, and so the POV of mainstream science should most prominently reflect matters of science and not politics. BTfromLA's intro sounds like a description of the mainstream science POV from a pro-ID position, which is why I oppose it
3. I'm offering my opinion, having just seen this intro, that the pyramid analogy is an excellent didactic tool; it is a near perfect analogy from the POV of a scientist -- it is so apt it deserves a prominent place
4. I don't think a didactic tool, like a novel analogy, constitues original research; otherwise Misplaced Pages would have to consisit only of quotations and references. As a picture is worth a thousand words, so too this analogy explains a lot in a little space.
5. I am voting that the space reserved in the intro for the POV of mainstream science include the two paragraphs more or less as I had found them

Can you be more specific about the pro-ID position that you detect in the current edit? BTfromLA 23:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The emphasis on questions of bias/goals rather than science casts the debate in terms favored by pro-ID people. That's fine when describing pro-ID POVs, but not good when describing anti-ID POVs. It makes it sound like the main arugments scientists have against ID involve name-calling. This may be a tactic they have resorted to, but it is not their primary or fundamental response. --Rikurzhen 23:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

In case that's not clear. The claims from scientists of bias come after ID advocates adhere to their position despite public refutation of the science. So to highlight discourse on bias makes it seem as if scientists are concerned with politics rathher than science. --Rikurzhen 23:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the intro sounds remotely pro-ID, and I think the ID movement is as ridiculous as it comes (just to state my own POV). I can't see how you find the focus of the intro to be on bias/goals. The focus is on 1) What ID argues, 2) Criticism of ID, 3) A brief discussion on the politics of ID.

All three of these are important. Clearly, a discussion on the politics of ID is relevent, because ID was pushed mainly as a means of getting creationism around politics and the courts. If it weren't for politics and the courts, ID wouldn't be being pushed, creationism would.

What you keep wanting to add are arguments, not statements of position. These, as we keep saying, aren't the purpose of an introduction. If you think the intro has a pro-ID bent, by all means make it neutral. But don't do it by adding arguments.

You seem not to like the fact that ID arguments get a chance to be stated before the scientific ones. Well of course. In a debate, the party that states a claim must go first: you can't argue against something that hasn't been stated. The scientific arguments relevent to this discussion are those against ID, that is, arguments criticizing ID claims, and so obviously have to go after the ID claims.

For the record, I think this article has little to fear from looking too pro-ID. A rough copy-and-paste into my text program finds about 3,800 words writing about the scientific arguments, and only about 1,200 words written about the ID arguments. — Asbestos | Talk 23:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to respond to Rikurzhen's first objection while you two were elaborating your arguments--I added a line in the intro and moved a couple of things around, but now I'm doubting that I really understood the objection. Overall, I agree with Asbestos's assessment of the situation. The discussion of politics is essential to the topic; ID has at least as much to do with politics and philosophy as it does with science. BTfromLA 00:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos and BTfromLA seem to be saying that arguments should be restricted to the body of the article. In general I would agree, but the nature of this topic is that it is essentially a debate -- its all arguments. So an intro without some arguments seems impossible (I would claim that the current intro has arguments anyway). Thus, it seems to me that the intro should summarize the fundamental position of each side (and very briefly their primary reason for taking that position). My reason for this is the view that the intro should suffice for a person who doesn't want to read any more than the intro. So as a compromise, perhaps there needs to be at least one statement/argument each about science and politics in the intro for both POVs. --Rikurzhen 00:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

crimeny. I don't have time to read all this. Someone can condense it for me if I missed something important. Whoever decided to turn the introduction criticism of ID into a strawman needs to knock it off. The scientific community's criticism of ID needs to be represented with its strongest argument as succienctly as possible, not with it's weakest argument, rambling on and on in incoherent sentences. I noticed that someone rewrote the first two paragraphs and fleshed out ID's position and I support that. ID should be presented with its strongest case as well, as succienctly as possible. But if you're supportive of ID, then I have a hard time taking your edits of the ID-Criticism section to be anything other than an attempt to weaken criticism and/or sweep it under the carpet. FuelWagon 04:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like FuelWagon and I agree. I think the reintegrated intro is even better than what we started with. It should stay at this level of detail and in this form. --Rikurzhen 07:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Various arguments to subvert criticism

cause I can't keep up, and because they seem to pop up repeatedly in various places, I thought I'd attempt to boil down the various attempts to subvert criticism of ID so they could be addressed one by one, and hopefully, once and for all.

The intro is too long

The argument begins "the article is too long" or "the intro is too long", and concludes "so I'm just going to whittle down the introduction." Sometimes followed up by "the cricism is still in the body."

However, the article is massive. four paragraphs for the intro is not that long for an article of this size. If you want to cut down on article size, start somewhere else.

Should not put "criticism" in intro

The argument basically states that criticism should be reserved for the body of the article, and that the intro should be nothing but pro-ID summary.

However,[REDACTED] is not an advocacy site, it's an informational site. To give readers a complete description of what ID is and is not, both points of view need be presented. To write an intro that is all "ID, hooray!" and bury empirical science's criticism at the bottom of a 65k article creates a biased article and is a disservice to readers. Criticism of ID helps define what ID is and is not. keeping criticism out of intro is being vague in exchange for pro-ID advocacy.

ID is about science, not politics

The argument states something to the effect of "ID is about how life began on earth" and concludes "Criticism of ID for teaching creationism in school is political and doesn't belong in the article".

This is naive. It is also another way of pro-ID folks to define valid criticism of ID to be "off limits" for reasons of being "off topic". The political motivations of pro-ID folks is one of the main criticisms by empirical scientists. Since this criticism represents a major argument by one point of view, it should be represented in the article that way.

These unsigned claims are evidently by Fuelwagon. They have no credibility whatsoever—Fuelwagon has declared that he (or she) can't be bothered to read the talk page discussions, but for some reason has decided to inflict his (or her) hallucinations about what those discussions are like on the rest of us. So far as I can tell, nobody here has made any argument that remotely conforms to the nonsense above (e.g., "the intro should be nothing but pro-ID summary," "bury empirical science's criticism at the bottom of a 65k article"). This is childish, totally disrespectful of the other editors here, and not worthy of a serious response. BTfromLA 16:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, if you have the time to write a comment that requires three subheadings, you could at least show the rest of us the respect to read what's already been posted. As BTfromLA notes, your comments are nonsensical, and are basically attacking strawmen.

To start by labeling my own POV, as as anti-ID as they come, have already written one article on an evolutionary process, and am currently writing a dissertation on the use of various evolutionary techniques in artificial intelligence. So to imply, as you do that people who disagree with you are doing so to "subvert criticism" is clearly absurd. I have no idea where BTfromLA's POV comes from; It doesn't much matter.

Next, if you had bothered to show us the respect to read the discussion, you would have found that none of the three positions you label the rest of us as having make any sense at all. "The intro is too long". I read not a single person saying that above. "Should not put "criticism" in intro". Again, can you point out who says this? The alternative intro clearly describes who is criticising ID and why. "ID is about science, not politics". Here your cursory skim through seem to have gotten things backwards. In response to (what I that was) Rikurzhen saying that politics should not be talked about, I replied: "Clearly, a discussion on the politics of ID is relevant, because ID was pushed mainly as a means of getting creationism around politics and the courts. If it weren't for politics and the courts, ID wouldn't be being pushed, creationism would." So suggesting that those who disagree with you believe that "Criticism of ID for teaching creationism in school is political and doesn't belong in the article" is obviously completely backwards.

When you have bothered to read what the rest of us wrote, perhaps we wouldn't have to spend time explaining why you appear to be attacking nothing but strawmen.

— Asbestos | Talk 19:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, one massive talk-page block (the one labeled "Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?" if you're having trouble following my meaning) is worthless. The same arguments get brought up in differernt places and get re-argued, and re-hashed. So, it's a waste of my time to respond one large block of text with multiple threads, multiple forks, many different topics, and the same arguments scattered throughout, and then have it brought up again in some other sub-thread or some other fork. I notice that someone started a section that attempts to deal with the debate by paragraph, and consider that to support the idea that I'm not the only one who sees having every debate contained in a monolithic block to be a problem.

Secondly, you said:

"The intro is too long". I read not a single person saying that above. "Should not put "criticism" in intro". Again, can you point out who says this?

You're kidding me, right? Did you completely miss the section titled "Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?" That pretty much says criticism shouldn't be in the intro, and that it is too long. Read a few of the posts there, if you want more. FuelWagon 14:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design/Archive 23 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

• /Archive1 (2002-2003)
• /Archive2 (2003)
• /Archive3 (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?)
• /Falsification (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb - Is ID theory falsifiable?)
• /Archive4 (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?)
• /Scientific supernaturalism? (Nov 2004 - POV problems with claiming space for the supernatural within science)
• /Archive5 (Nov-Dec 2004)
• /Archive6 (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
• Talk:Intelligent design/archive7 (Jan 2005)

Methodology

Advocates of ID propose a methodology of addressing this dispute. They say to start with the observed facts, and then try to make sense of them. If you see giant statues, think "sculptor". If you see orderly rows of scratches on the Rosetta Stone, think "dead language". Faced with what they call "Irreducible complexity", they hypothesize a designer.

(I think we all agree that the above is a fair statement of ID's purpose and methods. If not, the following is premature.)

ID is such a big deal for its opponents for several reasons:

• it looks like a patently underhanded way of sneaking Creationism into the public school curriculum
• it does not qualify as a bona fide "hypothesis" (a) because there's no way to falsify it; (b) because supernatural causes are "off limits", i.e., science should only study the natural world
• it undermines advocacy for atheism

I have yet to be convinced that Misplaced Pages covers the latter three bullet points adequately in ANY article. So like it or not, I think we'll have to re-hash here a lot of the stuff that was supposedly "covered in much greater detail, accuracy, and npov style on the Creation and evolution in public education page."

ID is just different enough from mainstream creationism that it demands (or at least hopes for!) different treatment. It wants to be a "third player" in the game.

Formerly, the battle was a "one thing or another" issue. Shall we teach our children that God created us 6,000 years ago? Or that we and apes descended from a common ancestor (without God's help)? Recall that still around half of Americans accept the Biblical account given in Genesis as fact. (And I'm not sure how many are willing to accept the fossil record.)

So, it's not as simple as "we already did this for Creationism vs. Evolution". I'm afraid we're going to have to do it all over again for ID. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As noted in your explanation of the ID method for addressing the debate and evidence, the methods both sides use to address evidence are markedly different:

The Scientific Method:

Evidence and phenomena found in reality comprise the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Intelligent Design Method:

The evidence leads to only one conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

Because of this, for the Intelligent Design argument the conclusion will always precede the premise, making it a logical fallacy. This too needs to addressed in the article.

I've read most of the canon for both sides of the ID debate, and this is the first I've heard of your point "ID is such a big deal for its opponents...(because)it undermines advocacy for atheism." With one or two exceptions, I've yet to see many scientists engaging in the advocacy of atheism or atheism used as justification for denying ID proponents their claims. I'm not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened, but I am saying that it's a) unlikely in that is a non sequitur to their goals, and b) ID proponents are predisposed to make such claims, which means we need to be very skeptical, even more so than usual in such cases. If you can provide sufficient evidence, then we are obligated to include the assertion, of course. But given everything I've read, evidence for claiming an atheist advocacy conspiracy against Intelligent Design pervading science or even mainstream society is pretty weak.--FeloniousMonk 19:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monk,

1. I think you may be confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". When I started studying so-called "creation science" in 1988 I immediately dismissed it as an attempt to do just what you say ID does: it has picked its preconceived conclusion and is interested only in finding supporting evidence. This is even worse than pseudoscience: it's dogmatism. The little I've learned in the last 5 years about ID appears different to me: an attempt to state creationism's premise as a genuine hypothesis - to be accepted or rejected on an equal basis with evolution by natural selection, i.e., judged by the same rules of evidence.
2. There is considerable evidence that atheistic beliefs inform (or motivate) at least some advocates of naturalistic evolution. I'll dig this up in due course and we can discuss its relevence to the ID article then. Surely we know already that belief in God and Creation is a significant motive for ID proponents. That is, it's a big deal for THEM at least. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design". My original point was that intelligent design, as does any other supernatural intervention that attempts to account for the origin of life or species, weights it's assumptions. Intelligent design's conclusion --that life did not arise randomly and is the result of intervention-- is implicit in it's premise --that life's complexity is evidence of design-- and so is just begging the question. Intelligent design settles on this conclusion without ever accounting for origin of the designer, which it hints may be of natural origin while at the same time excluding at least our life arising by natural random means. This is a contradiction; one cannot rule out complex life arising by natural means while asserting the deus ex machina that brought forth life may indeed by naturalistic.

I agree that there's no doubt many evolutionist's influenced by their atheism. But I'm very skeptical of any claims that atheism informs or motivates actual science. Deism/theism or absence of either is a non sequitur in science.--FeloniousMonk 20:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of you. Starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence for it (called "dogmatism" above, but I'd rather call it narrowmindedness) doesn't do much harm as long as there are others who start from another conclusion. Narrowmindedness causes you to concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion and neglecting evidence against it. As long as there are scientists who start from another opinion, they will find the evidence against yours, and no harm is done. To the contrary - since you concentrate on evidence in favor of your opinion, you will find evidence you wouldn't find if you spread your attention farther apart. So, narrowmindedness actually furthers science.

Dogmatism, in my opinion, is something more: claiming that your brand of narrowmindedness should be compulsory. This is a mark of pseudoscience. If the dogmatic rule is widely accepted, it hurts science and truth, since everybody will look in the same direction. But: this only regards conclusions, not methods. Not using invalid methods and arguments should be compulsory. --Hob Gadling 10:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the distinction Hob has made between what we might call "constructive narrow-mindedness" and the "pseudo-scientific" compulsory sort. If I understand him correctly, he and I agree that there is no harm in trying to prove one's point; looking for proof is actually good. And I think we also agree that the mark of pseudoscience is the refusal to consider contrary evidence.

I personally consider "creation science" to be pseudoscientific -- not because they are trying to prove God made man, but because they deliberately refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to see an even-handed evaluation of (1) the theory of evolution, (2) intelligent design and (3) creationism, which explains the methodology of each theory's supporters and critics in terms of their willingness to consider contrary evidence. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

this is all excellent thinking -- thanks for articulating such a great idea, Hob. I like the idea of drawing the distinction out on the page too, with the proviso that we maintain npov with respect to creationists -- certainly some of them are dogmatic and just out to prove their religion ... but i'd like to think some of us are persuaded by the evidence (however skewed our view of the evidence may be). also, we could point out that while evolutionists think ID is "stealth creationism," most dogmatic creationists criticize ID for not being dogmatic enough:). quotes or summaries of all the appropriate povs would make for an excellent subsection, i think. Ungtss 16:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By explicitly outlining the various methodological distinctions of the participants in the debate, then we will also be bringing up their logic and reasoning for adhering to their respective methodologies, and hence that logic's validity. Considering the shaky ground some the logic stands on, I'm concerned that this may be become an area and source of constant contention for some.

As for Hob's point that starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it doing no harm, that may be true for some things, but not for science. And since science is what intelligent design is trying to be part of, the distinction between those who adhere to valid scientific method and those who start from preconceived, rigid conclusions and then cherry pick the evidence is a valid point to make in the article. --FeloniousMonk 20:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man! I didn't say that "starting from a conclusion and accepting only evidence that supports it" does no harm, but "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" does no harm. --Hob Gadling 14:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, neither one is harmless. There's a reason that "starting from a conclusion and trying to find evidence that supports it" is not part of the scientific method. Further reading as to why can be found at confirmation bias.--FeloniousMonk 21:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the scientific method starts with a conclusion by definition. "Hypothesis: this is true." "Test: if the hypothesis were true, and i did this, then this would happen." "Conclusion: hypothesis confirmed or rejected." there's nothing unscientific looking for a bunch of different ways to test your hypothesis, or evidence to support it. if there were, then the search for the "missing links" would be unscientific, too. the only problem appears, as hob said, when you ignore all contrary evidence, or lie about your own. Piltdown man, for instance. Ungtss 23:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's very naïve to assume that confirmation bias can be avoided by trying to be neutral. It's a weakness inherent in all humans, and it can be avoided by using the scientific method, e.g. double blind studies. Science is always a community thing: one person alone can't do science. Others are needed to look over his work and point out the mistakes. Creationists make lots of mistakes, some of them very basic, and they keep making them after being corrected (with exceptions). That's why creationism isn't science. The preconceived notions of the creationists involved may be the deeper reason for the mistakes as well as the clinging to them, but since one can't look inside people, this can't be used as an argument. --Hob Gadling 13:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes

The articles has really improved over the last few days. I've just made a range of changes to the first half of the article, which I think make the article more readable, and a little more balanced. I plan on making some similar changes to the second half later on. If there's any problems, please leave specific criticisms here, and I'll be happy to discuss them. --Brendanfox 06:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

conjecture.

npov requires that articles describe ideas without implying either that they are valid or invalid. the word "conjecture" is defined as a conclusion based on "incomplete evidence and guesswork." . ID asserts that there is positive evidence FOR ID. The word "conjecture" therefore minimizes ID to "guesswork." Using the word "Idea" (as i did before Stirling reverted commenting only that 'Conjecture is better') avoids this problem without losing any information. Stirling, why is 'conjecture' more npov? Ungtss 18:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"hypotheses", "beliefs","theories". Whichever is picked it should be plural since ID is not monolithic, especially since fine-tuned universe is discussed here and it is completely orthogonal to any evolution issues.--Silverback 19:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since the status of ID as being scientific at all is an issue, NPOV requires that we not assert language which prejudices the matter. Stirling Newberry 19:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's why i think "Idea" (or "Ideas" as Mr. Silverback prefers) is a happy middle ground between "theory" and "conjecture." eh? Ungtss 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The biggest stumbling block for Misplaced Pages describing ID is the dispute in the non-Misplaced Pages "outside world" over whether ID is really a legitimate scientific hypothesis, or not. Since this dispute is significant (and is even causing friction at Misplaced Pages), I suggest we take a step back and describe the dispute fairly.

Let the article label ID as an "idea". All Misplaced Pages editors agree that it is an idea; we're just not agreed on what sort of idea it is.

May I suggest this wording?

• Intelligent Design is an idea about how life came into being on the earth, particularly human beings.

I would further suggest that we describe in the article much of the external wrangling over whether ID is:

• a valid hypothesis, but unproven (i.e, still MIGHT be true)
• a valid hypothesis, but clearly NOT true
• not a valid hypothesis
  • because conjectures about non-physical (i.e., supernatural) causes are off-limits
  • because there's no way to disprove it (see falsifiability)

Note that some of these positions may be in conflict. For example, it can't both be (a) a valid hypothesis which is clearly not true and (b) not a valid hypothesis because there's no way to disprove it.

I would prefer for the article to avoid taking sides in this dispute. Let's just summarize the views of the main proponents and opponents of ID, as expressed in books, articles, public speeches, etc. Okay? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's not "an idea". It's a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united only in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution. However, it is not untrue to call it a cultural movement. I agree with Silverback here -- if you are including "The fine-tuned universe" argument in with ID -- an idea that is held by such ardent Darwinists as Robert Wright, it is inaccurate to call it a single idea. --Goethean 17:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seems we've got a semantic issue here. "Intelligent Design" is simply the idea (singular) that there is evidence that natural things were intelligently designed. Under this umbrella, we've got a NUMBER of ideas, including IC, SC, fine-tuned universe, etc ... ID is like an umbrella, no? Ungtss 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article splits

As G. describes it, ID sounds more like a movement. I'm comfortable with that. I myself belong to a "movement", and its name can be either a theology or a church as well:

• Unification movement - the movement, which includes:
  • Unificationism - its teachings, and
  • Unification Church - the official organization of believers

If we're still agreed that ID theories and the ID movement should be described in a single article, then how can we incorporate the Goethean insight?

1. Move the article to intelligent design movement and begin it with The intelligent design movement is a collection of diverse -- indeed, opposing -- viewpoints, attitudes, stances, and arguments, all united in their opposition to purely naturalistic evolution.

This raises a closely related question:

• How is ID related to creationism?
  • ID is a branch of creationism
  • ID in utterly unrelated to creationism
  • ID is "stealth creationism": theology dressed up in a cheap polyester suit, trying to look scientific and all...

Let's keep working on this, we're making progress! --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for moving the article to "ID movement". There are so many varieties of ID that all three of your prongs are true. Some versions of ID, like the thought of Neo-Hegelians which is accurately characterized by the phrase "a universe fine-tuned for evolution", are not related to scientific creationism. But Behe and Johnson are accurately characterized as making room for "stealth creationism". And most or many of the people who call themselves IDers are actually creationists. Additionally, this would nullify the cntroversy of whether it is a conjecture, idea, hypothesis, theory, umbrella, raincoat, etc. --Goethean 19:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i vote we split the page ID and ID movement -- ideas in the first, political / social stuff in the second. Ungtss 20:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could spin off "intelligent design movement" as a separate article, but one linked to at the top of the main one. I submit it be referenced something like this: "This article concerns the idea of intelligent design, a variant of the Argument from Design often referred to by supporters of the Intelligent Design Movement. --RBeschizza 01:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how one separate ID from the ID movement, it is difficult to understand the former without the latter. A more natural divide would be between fine tuned universe and the rest of ID, since the former is orthogonal to evolution.--Silverback 06:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of this requires us to KEEP the two article forever separate. Often it facilitates the writing process if one or two parts are split off TEMPORARILY as sidebare articles. A few weeks later, it then becomes obvious that either:

1. They can and should be integrated; or,
2. They can and should remain as separate articles

In the case of Augusto Pinochet, the stumbling block was how to describe America's involvement in the 1973 coup. After the sidebar came into being, several writers who had been watching (timidly?) from the sidelines came in and quickly completed the Chile series. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

excellent thinking. shall we give it a shot? Ungtss 21:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we do, let's mention that the intelligent design movement:

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis
  • and thus worthy of consideration in U.S. public school biology textbooks as an "alternative theory" to naturalistic conceptions of evolution
• has been in conflict (political and legal) with its opponents
• consists chiefly (?) of Creationists
• attempts to portray itself as distinct from "creation science", and yet
• is considered a form of "stealth creationism" by many opponents

Does that sum it up well enough? Note that I'm asking both sides, fan and foe. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• has been promoting the view that "Intelligent Design" is a viable scientific hypothesis, yet to date has offered no alternative to natural selection or divine fiat as a mechanism for the origin of species --Goethean 16:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• all sounds good to me, ed:). Ungtss 16:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Ungtss: thanks. To Goethean, I think that is essentially correct. Alhough ID wimps out on characterizing the designer as supernatural, it certainly doesn't rule that out (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Perhaps that's why the "stealth creationism" label sticks so well.

The ID movement apparently want divine fiat (as you put it) taken off the sidelines and put back into the game, insisting that sources of causation other than automatic functioning of natural law be considered. They want to use (or highjack?) the argument used by ancient historians: the Easter Island statues, the monoliths at Stonehenge, and the Rosetta Stone could not credibly have been caused by anything other than an intelligent being having a purpose. Why not "mechanisms" such as flagella? (Note that I'm not saying Misplaced Pages should endorse this argment! Only that we should provide a fair summary of what their argument is - along with any significant rejoinders from opponents.) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not endorse anything, that's what NPOV is about. -sconzey

removed NPOV banner

69.134.50.153 did not follow-up here on the talk page.--Silverback 10:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that the NPOV banner on the "ID as 'Stealth Creationism'" section should be removed as well. The section does not make any assertions as to whether this type of criticism is accurate, simply that it exists. Given that it's an established fact tht many ID opponents do view ID as "stealth creationism", I see nothing non-neutral about the section. On the contrary, my opinion is that for an article on this subject to be both neutral and comprehensive, the arguments of both sides must be clearly stated. Redxiv 06:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, despite being a staunch creationist and ID supporter. I see nothing wrong with Misplaced Pages reporting that opponents portray ID as stealth creationism. It's the same as US Senate Democrats portraying President Bush as "attacking" Sen. Reid via proxy. Misplaced Pages is not endorsing the POV, merely reporting that its advocates hold it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

absolutely. facts are facts. Ungtss 20:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Improability as impossibility

Contrary to Ungtss's reversion assertion - Dembski argues explicitly that improbability below a certain threshold represents proof of design:

" Confronted with this second scenario we are obligated to infer that here is a world-class archer, one whose shots cannot legitimately be explained by luck, but rather must be explained by the archer’s skill and mastery. Skill and mastery are of course instances of design." Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat that since Ungtss does not seem to be reading the POV he is pushing:

cannot legitimately be explained by luck

I will again protest Ungtss' participation on this page, since he is here solely to push a POV, and he cannot be relied upon to even be a knowledgeable about that POV. Stirling Newberry 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

so speaketh the source of all light and reason on the page, the one who has been acknowledged by all, evolutionist and creationist alike, as truly objective in all things intelligent design.

i don't believe that what dembski's saying and what you are saying are the same thing. he says "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" -- again -- technically possible by luck, but so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it happened that way. this contrasts with your revision, which sets a strawman -- extremely unlikely, therefore impossible. so let's say what dembski's saying, shall we? i will edit the page to reflect dembski's views, rather than your views or my views of dembski's views. (so speaketh "the mad hound of creationism", dedicated only to spreading his lies and forcing people to believe things so he can drag them into the pits of the demon religion!!! YAAAARGH!) Ungtss 16:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

guys, this isn't the place for a flame war. Try private emails. Ungtss, I can understand your frustration. For random passers-by, Ungtss's assertions re: himself & Stirling are correct. Stirling earlier called for outside adjudication of what was (is?) growing into a flame+revert war on the talk pages and edit summaries. Community sentiment decided against Stirling. (Check the history and look over the edit summaries.) Ungtss has until now been relatively restrained.

As for the issue of what Dembski does or does not say, I must admit that I'm ignorant of the particular passage in question, but the section quoted by Stirling and Ungtss's interpretation of it are typical ID arguments. The "cannot legitimately by explained by luck" rationale is often used in science, and is in itself reasonable. Indeed, the threshold probabilities ID supporters typically toss around are many orders of magnitude below the typical physics thresholds for "something weird's going on." (That is, ID uses numbers which are tighter on the face of things.) My problem is not with that aspect of their argument, but rather how they estimate the probabilities for abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc. I think their statistical calculations of physical / chemical processes are specious. I haven't seen the arguments in detail, but the little I have seen makes me intensely skeptical... That being said, the "cannot legitimately be explained by luck" should go with Dembski's / Ungtss's interpretation. (If anyone takes my rambling on statistics \& physics out of context, I'll be most upset.) SMesser 18:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i apologize for my lack of restraint. i'm intrigued by your concerns over the statistical methodologies -- would you be willing to clarify them further in the article? Ungtss 19:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

okay, happy now. Briefly, my concerns are that the layman-level reports of the calculations seem to ignore initial conditions and chemical pathways, both of which are very important to most physical / chemical estimates of probability / efficiency. Amino acids and complex hydrocarbons have been observed in interstellar dust clouds, where we do not expect life to exist, and ice-cores and other records suggest that early Earth history had an atmosphere similar to modern Titan's, and the Miller-Urey experiment suggests that given time and randomized input energy can cause such a chemical mix to change into one featuring a larger variety of highly complex chemicals. The impression I get is that the calculations (quasi-)forbidding abiogenesis are supposed to be path-independent, but without seeing the actual math, I can't say for sure. (There is some question of whether or not I'll be a valid judge even with the appropriate papers in front of me - I'm a plasma physicist, not a biochemist, so modern papers on biochemistry should be over my head.) An actual path-independent approach seems like it should use quantum mechanics, Feynman diagrams, and more computing power than is currently available to the planet. But again, I haven't seen the technical arguments, so maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can provide a reference?SMesser 14:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just glanced back at the article, and it looks like the subject may've been the apparently fine-tuned universe, rather than abiogenesis, as I'd assumed. I have similar objections to the assertion that the universe is fine-tuned. Proving that it is would seem to require a detailed theory of everything, as well as an agreed-upon definition for what constitutes life. Both of these things are lacking in modern science, and the ToE should be worth a Nobel Prize if Dembski has found it. There are several contenders, but they're rediculously hard to test experimentally. Note in particular that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics remains an open question. Disproving it may be necessary to show that the universe as we see it is fine-tuned, rather than just an example of the weaker forms of the anthropic principle in action. Again, I haven't seen the technical calculations, so a categorical denial of Dembski's arguments is beyond me, but I find the lay-level assertions highly suspect. Do you know of any references? SMesser 15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, i think i can safely categorically agree with your assessment. ID has by no means reached the status of "proof." all the requirements you note for such a "proof" are indeed lacking. And certainly many ID types have gotten a little ahead of themselves, and argued that things are proven when they're not. However, I think what they DO provide is a basis for an intriguing and entirely legitimate line of research, and grounds for at least some semblance of belief in a positive designer, and disbelief in evolution.

As to the ToE (which certainly WOULD gain ID some credibility:) -- what do you think of the Spinning ring model for subatomic particles -- i.e. protons + electrons -- some creationists are arguing that it's a ToE, but i don't know enough about physics to properly evaluate their claims -- is this junk science? Ungtss 15:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In one word, Yes. Its stuff I (as an engineering student) can expirementally disprove. Also, I'm not really sure that it is at all relevent to this article.TheAT 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

definitely not relevent to this article ... i was just wondering if someone might have some insight into WHY it's wrong? if not here, at my talkpage, if you're interested at all:). thanks:). Ungtss 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with Ungtss on the progress of ID. I don't think they've provided sufficient evidence to merit much consideration in professional biological circles. Evolution has provided a theoretical framework for enormous advances in genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology. Backing away from it requires large amounts of pressing evidence and a theory which explains everything covered by evolution as well as a large chunk of the outlier points. The biological community doesn't seem to think such evidence is pressing, and ID doesn't seem to have much predictive power. (This last point is a common problem when the naturalistic / materialistic assumptions of modern science are dropped.) If you want detailed answers by a biologist, look up Graft. He's easy enough to get along with, but solidly in the evolution camp. As for my own views, I'm bothered by ID's ties to young-earth creationists, claims by some in the ID community that naturalistic abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the sociopolitical goals outlined in the leaked from the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. Similarly, I'm unsatisfied by urgings from the ID community to teach evolution's "weaknesses" in public schools. Most of what the ID community cites as weaknesses are not viewed as such by contemporary biologists, and the weaknesses of quantum mechanics, general realtivity, and electromagnetics are not taught, since the details are beyond what most high-school students can grasp. (There's a quip I've heard running around physics labs: "Why is it all the easy questions have been answered?")

As for the physics article you linked to, it's very bad. I'll try to be brief, but to answer their points in order: 1)There are deep questions about the mutual resolution of general relativity with quantum mechanics, but the article oversimplifies them. String theory is one proposed resolution of the conflict. It and a few competitors are being seriously considered by physicists, but the mathematics necessary for the theory are extremely complex, and experimental tests stretch modern technology. Simple tests have been done, and string theory passes these without trouble. More sophisticated tests are gradually coming within our reach, such as the search for the Higgs boson, but full-bore experiments to test predictions about the gray area between gravity (a theory about big things) and quantum mechanics (a theory about small things) is likely to be beyond our capabilities for a few decades at least. 2) The article includes the line "Our approach integrates a deformable physical model with its self-field." That's not revolutionary, or even informative. Every theory of gravity or quantum currently available does that. 3) The article says Maxwell's electromagnetic theory led to computers, among other things. Yes, but only in conjunction with quantum mechanics. Transistors use quantum effects. 4) The "Principle of Unity" section is reasonable, although there are some slight oversimplifications. 5) The article calls Einstein's description of space as a physical entity a bad idea and derides his assumption that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. The two ideas are linked, and have been tested numerous times via the Cavendish torsion bar experiment and modern analogues, observations of Mercury's orbit, deflections of starlight by solar gravity, and the operation of the GPS satellites. 6) The article says quantum theory assumes fundamental discreteness. This isn't right. Quantum particles are distributed probabilistic wave functions. 7) The article also says "In Einstein's Relativity, space is passive; but in Quantum Theory, space and Nature are actively creating and controlling" various processes. The distincition between active and passive forces / particles isn't normally made in physics. If something exists, it has effects on other objects. Moreover, Einstein's spacetime pushes objects around (that's gravity), so it seems misleading to call it passive. 8) "The Discrete and the Continuous" is misleading, oversimplified, and wrong. Resolving quantum with gravity is expected to be difficult - possibly beyond human comprehension, but not fundamentally impossible. 9) The article next uses its fallacious conflation of quantum mechanics with point particles to say quantum is incompatible with a host of observed phenomena. The actual quantum theory is compatible with all of the items listed, but a detailed accounting of the mathematics involved requires a graduate course in physics, (a course which I've taken, by the way.) 10) Halfway through the article, the author introduces a miniature wire loop as a model for an electron. The model has numerous problems, since it doesn't provide a good explanation for observed tunnelling, quantum teleportation, or the observed successes of relativity. I could go on (I only made it halway through), but... that's more than enough for rambling on talk::inteligent designSMesser 17:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:). Ungtss 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that scientists arguing against ID "point out that Behe has backed off from examples of irreducible complexity." is true. This is inconsistent with the scientific method as science is not based on authority. The arguement would carry as much weight as arguing that Gallileo backed off his claims. While it is significant that Behe backed off some of the claims, it should be mentioned as an aside and not as real evidence cited by scientists in arguments against ID. --64.230.175.140

Wait a second. If Behe previously had examples that he claimed showed the improbability of evolution through natural forces, and now he no longer holds these examples up, and he no longer points to any counter-examples that render naturalistic evolution improbable, this seems to me to be a relevant point. --Goethean 16:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a cited instance of Behe actually backing off a claim without providing a counterclaim. This would certainly be more persuasive and encyclopedic, as well as settling the reader's suspicion that this is just another groundless personal research assertion with no relation to reality. Ungtss 17:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on the No Personal Research policy, I strongly suggest that one of the proponents of this sentence find a source to back it up. There are articles in newspapers complaining about inaccurate personal research on wikipedia. Let's not condone it. Back that sentence up with some facts, please. Ungtss 12:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If Behe presented evidence that his examples were incorrect it is worth being mentioned, but if he simply backed off saying that he no longer believes his claims to be true then this is not evidence against the claims in scientific terms as the merits of the claims do not rest with Behe's personal beliefs.

Yes indeed:). It is mere ad hominem, and certainly of no scientific interest. However, this instance of ad hominem is in good company, as much of the rest of the article is ad hominem. Were the writers of this article interested in article QUALITY, the sentence would certainly go on that basis. However, given that article quality is not of interest to many editors, I suggest simply that the sentence is unadulterated personal research, therefore in direct violation of articulated[REDACTED] policy, and should be backed up with facts, or deleted. Ungtss 17:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Behe explicitly rejecting the "ICness" of any of his previous examples. There are some that he doesn't mention very much anymore, but this doesn't mean he's changed his mind about them. However, if he did explicitly reject some previous examples, then I do think it would be relevant. Not because Behe is an authority, but because the IC argument requires that IC, once identified, be an absolute barrier to evolution. If new discoveries can render previously idenfied examples of IC no longer opperative, then this puts the argument on very shaky grounds. There's no reason to believe then that all examples of IC will not suffer the same fate. (Personally, this is how I see things, but for now I think the statement should be removed, since I know of no evidence for it.) --Theyeti 21:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

How come this talk page is almost entirely reduplicated? — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, what brought me here was the article's assertion that the Center is funded at the rate of $1.5 per year, which is surely an error. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove these three comments when the relevant problems are fixed. — B.Bryant 14:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to deal with the duplication on this page. Please restore any lost material -- ciphergoth 16:49, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Reversion of revision by 66.91.89.127

I've reverted four revisions by User:66.91.89.127. These changes don't seem to be an effort to make the article more informative, but simply to replace neutral language with inflammatory. It's disingenuous to say that ID "seeks to answer": ID is precisely the position that the answer to that question is "yes". -- ciphergoth 13:42, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

No, ID seeks to answer these questions, and provides some evidence that what it proposes is true. It no more prejudges the issue than anti-creationist scientists do when they say "the answer to the creation of life must exclude any supernatural entity". DJ Clayworth 14:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole section "Intelligent Design as Stealth Creationism" is just some guy's idea of why he doesn't like ID. It's just listing reasons why he thinks it's wrong, without any idea if these are generally agreed or whether the arguments are rebuttable. It needs serious work or prefereably removal, since it is really someone trying to carry out the debate under the pretence of writing an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this section because it is clearly untrue.

As with religious creationism. ID is open to the criticism "what designed the designer?", since a designer capable of creating irrducible complexity must also, by ID's own arguments, be irreducibly complex. Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this appears to create a logical paradox whics is fatal to the ID argument unless an uncaused causer, that is to say, God, is invoked, in which case ID reduces to religious creationism. Once this is done, ID ceases to be a falsifiable theory, and therefore loses its ability claim to be a scientific theory.

It is clearly untrue because there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity. In fact evolution proponents cliam this all the time. Computers (obviously irreducibly complex) have been designed by humans (which they claim are not). I re-iterate my point. Just because you think you have a good argument as to why ID is wrong does not give you the right to put it in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is valid criticism of ID. You don't have the right to remove valid criticism just because it could reveal a fundamental fallacy in ID.

Regarding "there is no a priori reason why an irreducibly complex system cannot have been designed by a non-irreducibly complex entity": -- Your position, that irreducible complexity can arise from something that is not itself irreducibly complex, is suicidal. That is why ID advocates tend to view the Designer as irreducibly complex: it is easier to defend the "first cause" arguments criticised in the passage you removed than it is to defend a non-irreducibly complex Designer.

Obviously you have not the slightest idea of what 'irreducably complex' means. Hint: Computers are not. The statement is correct; that is a serious flaw (one of many) with 'intelligent design.' Re-added.The Rev of Bru

New article

Please see the following article:

I would add it to the references, but I'm not sure that it belongs. There is a great deal of information in the article that is not well-included in this article. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

huge pile of nothing

What the hell is up with this article? It is way too long. It's a lot of fluff to give verbal substance to something that has no substance of its own. Intelligent Design can be described in a couple of paragraphs. The scientific community's point of view against ID can be presented in a couple of paragraphs. This article has exploded into a pile of nothing in order to dance around any and all hard facts. Time to scrap it and start over. FuelWagon 22:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the following was inserted by anon:

- (full text was inserted below following it's move here) - 68.206.248.140

We need to trim this article. Not write a book.--ghost 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

These comments refer the main Misplaced Pages article titled, "Intelligent Design".

The analogy involving the pyramids of Egypt is misleading in that it does not accurately characterize the theory of Intelligent Design. The analogy is redrawn at the close of this comment. The paragraph that contains that analogy should be edited to read as follows (additions in italics):

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described Intelligent Design as pseudoscience. Critics call Intelligent Design an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an attempt to force public schools to teach creationism in schools. Most advocates of Intelligent Design do not support their theory with appeals to religious dogma. That there are theists (see theism) who believe God created the universe has no more bearing on the theory of Intelligent Design than the fact that there are atheists (see atheism) who believe that there is no God has on the theory of Evolution. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are based on present day observations. Likewise, the fact that some want to teach creationism is schools is not relevant to an examination of the principles of the theory of Intelligent Design. Neither should the theory of Evolution be banned from schools because some atheists claim Evolution proves that there is no God.

Defenders of Evolution say the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation. Advocates of Intelligent Design do not dispute the observable and repeatable facts, but note that all such findings to date have been made with respect to changes within a species. The occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population which occur at or below the species level is known as microevolution. There is only speculation that cumulative changes have or can cause a species to morph into a new species. See macroevolution. Evolutionist themselves disagree about the exact mechanism of macroevolution.

Evolutionists also contend that Intelligent Design argues for something that is neither repeatable, nor observable, and therefore violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability which says "Any theory that is not falsifiable is said to be unscientific". Advocates of Intelligent Design apply the same criticism to the theory of macroevolution. Both theories attempt to describe the causes of observations of present day effects. The causes obviously happened in the past and can only be presumed since actual events that happened in the past cannot be observed or repeated. Assumptions must be made; the idea that "the present is the key to the past" is such an assumption. Both theories attempt to answer the question: "How did Life--as it is observed in it's many present forms--come to exist?"

Critics of ID say it is equivalent to the argument "We don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens (an intelligent designer) must have helped.". Science would simply say "we don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids", list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, and leave it at that until new information became available. By creating this outside explanation, Intelligent Design violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that has a simpler and scientifically supported explanation not involving outside help.

Advocates of ID say this analogy is misleading. To accurately characterize ID, the analogy should read as follows: Two scientists, one of whom holds the theory of Evolution, the other the theory of Inteligent Design, discover the pyramids. But, for purposes of the analogy, neither scientist has knowledge of ancient or modern Egyptian culture. Both scientists observe that the pyramids have complexity. The evolutionist attempts to explain the pyramids as something that occurs as the result of natural forces that are observed to occur in the present: unique but accidental geology modified by wind, flood, lightening and erosion over long periods of time. The adherent of Intelligent Design observes that the pyramids have characteristics that are consistent with phenomina that are known to have been designed and engineered by intelligent agents, for example skyscrapers, art and 3-D mathematical images. The Intelligent Design scientist does NOT automatically ascribe the design to "aliens".

You are correct. ID does not AUTOMATICALLY ascribe the design to aliens from another planet. It sits on a convenient place where it says an intelligent designer must have done it, but doesn't go quite so far as to put the "intelligent designer" into any specific form. The advantage is that it avoids the "little green men" version that would get ID laughed out of existence, and it avoids using the word "God" which would reveal its true intent to recast religion into some perveted form of "science". FuelWagon 06:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The critic who originally wrote the main article about Intelligent Design has unfortunately "spun" the facts as well as the pyramids analogy to reinforce belief in evolution and to weaken arguments for Intelligent Design. What he/she has done is to disregard the many published facts about the Intelligent Design theory in an effort to discredit the theory. He/she goes so far as to attribute views to the scientists holding the theory that they do not espouse. Such misrepresentation is unprofessional, unwarranted and injurious to the public debate about a valid issue, namely "How did Life on earth arise?"

The rest of the article should be read in light of the clear bias of the writer.--68.206.248.140

Thanks for moving your suggested rewrite of the intro to the talk page. I'd like to point out three items that have nothing to do with your content. 1) Personal attacks vs. the previous author(s) of an article are prohibited in the article. Period. You're joining the author(s) by editing, and they're not allowed to go after you in the article either. 2) The article stands at 18pgs. This is way too much. Adding opinion detail doesn't help. If you're not going to help, don't hit the 'edit' button, no matter how pretty it looks. 3) This is/was the intro, if you insist on keeping these details in the body, move them elsewhere. Then provide a point-counterpoint. Please refer to NPOV for suggestions on how to do this.--ghost 20:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, the critic who wrote the bit about the pyramids was me. And I wrote it in the "criticism" section of the intro. If you notice, the first paragraph defines ID, the second paragraph defends it, and the third paragraph gives the criticism of ID. So, it would seem to me that the NPOV approach would be to allow both sides to make their best case and leave it to the reader to decide. However, whoever wrote thea original "criticism" section of the intro was obviously strongly pro-ID, or someone who was pro-ID watered it down to the point that the criticism had turned it into a strawman. It was laughable. I was also the person who said this article is WAY too long, and I wrote the intro criticism such that someone could read only the intro, and get the meat of the criticism against ID. I still think its too long, but I'll suffice to write the intro so readers don't need to read further. FuelWagon 22:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I added italics to clarify the differences I have with the original writer. I admit I do not understand Misplaced Pages's protocol. I doubt that any first time reader will understand it. I do not believe it is fair to expect young researchers to understand Misplaced Pages's protocol and/or to detect the bias on their own. Either the bias should be removed from the intro or the paragraphs should be clearly labeled Pro and Con. In any case, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, the pyramid analogy should be removed altogether since it is clearly inaccurate. Not yet a[REDACTED] registered user: G. Jennings, Houston, TX. 13 May 2005.

The "aliens built the pyramids" line of logic is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the intelligent designer argument. Both logically assert that something outside the realm of what is known to human science (aliens/ID) created something on earth (pyramids/life). The only difference is that the aliens/pyriamids argument names a specific example of an intelligent designer who created the pyramids rather than leaving it completely undefined the way ID/life does. The thing is that the aliens/pyramids shows the logical fallacy of ID/Life without all the mumbo jumbo associated with trying to explain "burden of proof", falsifiability, and a number of other logical concepts. People can read the "aliens built the pyramids" and immediately GET that its exactly what ID is doing, explaining something on Earth via something that is completely outside human and scientific knowledge. FuelWagon 06:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary.... No need to shout "EXACT EQUIVALENCE". Evolution itself asserts a mechanism "outside the realm of what is known to human science", a lightening bolt in the primeval soup. ID recognizes the characteristics of design in living orgnisms and says, "in every instance where human science notes these characteristics in a thing, the thing is known to have been designed by intelligence." For example, Misplaced Pages is a system that displays characteristics of design; likewise the mechanism of human blood clotting is a system that works perfectly to accomplish a specific task. No scientist would look at[REDACTED] and postulate its existence to random events over a long period of time. Recognition of Design is something that is within the scope of human and scientific knowledge. Not yet a[REDACTED] registered user: G. Jennings, Houston, TX. 14 May 2005.

Evolution is not something that cannot be observed. Natural selection can be observed in laboratories and in the field. Humans have themselves created numerous new species. The question is whether the evolutionary process can create certain complex structures, like blood clotting. This equivalent to asking if the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. Ultramarine 23:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Evolution itself asserts a mechanism outside the realm of what is known to human science, a lightening bolt in the primeval soup." Chuckle. So. Lightning bolts are outside the realm of science? I think they've been observed repeatedly, measured, quantified, and catagorized. Is there some metaphysics to lightning bolts that I missed? Lightning gods, perhaps? Same goes for "primeval soup", which would be simple molecules of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Is there something about this chemistry that is outside the realm of science? Don't they generally teach organic chemistry in college as a science requisite? I'm pretty sure it isn't listed in with the "religious studies" classes or besides the "defense against the Dark arts" courses. FuelWagon 02:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess FuelWagon disagrees with my edit, but my reasons for moving the pyramid analogy were:

1. Yes, the intro seems a bit long.
2. The pyramid analogy seems more like an elaboration, not a concise summary. I thought an explanation like that would do better in an appropriate section rather than nested with a bunch of small, bullet-point style summaries.
3. Starting off the article with a controversial analogy like that seemed needlessly inflamatory. I'm by no means an Intelligent Design supporter, but even I thought it was a bit over the top in that position.
4. I don't see any "weakening" of the intro. On the contrary, it seemed to flow better and say the same thing.

As it stands, we seem to have two copies of the same analogy now. I obviously lean toward removing the one in the intro, but I won't make the edit myself since it's obvious that at least one person seems to strongly disagree with me. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:25, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

This was my take on the criticism of ID paragraph in the intro: the concepts of "repeatability and observability" are put into real world examples with the list about mutations, genetic drift, etc. The example of how repeatability and observability fail to apply to ID is given in how the "designer" is neither observable nor repeatable. This then defines the term "falsifiability" by giving the definition first and then putting a name to it. The concept of occam's razor is first defined by the real world example of aliens/pyramids. Then the scientific approach is given by explaining science would say "we don't know how they did it, but this is what we do know". Finally, with all of this context given, the definition is complete and it is given the name "occam's razor". if you take out the alien/pyramid example, you remove the real world example that puts occam's razor into real world context. If you take out the real world example, you have to take out the "what science would say", and if you take both of those out, you have absolutely no real world context, and must define "occam's razor" with a mumble jumble of vocabulary. I attempted to shorten the criticism paragraph in the intro. Some folks took out the alien/pyramid bit and attempted to explain occam's razor with complicated vocabulary, which was just as long but much more complicated to read. My problem is that I think the entire article is way too long, and rather than take a machete to the whole thing and tick everyone off, I wanted to get the core criticism in one paragraph in the intro in as simple language as possible. as it is now, I think it sums up the criticism of ID fairly succinctly. If length is really an issue, start cutting the rest of the article. FuelWagon 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"controversial analogy like that seemed needlessly inflamatory" Sorry, missed this the first time. Yeah, it's a controversial analogy. But so is the accusation that ID violates Occam's Razor. It's just that aliens/pyramids is a real world example of Occam's Razor being violated, and by itself, the term "Occam's Razor" simply goes over people's heads. If people "got" Occam's Razor, then being told you're violating it would be a controversial assertion. In the end, this controversial analogy, this violation of Occam's Razor, is a fair representation of the critic's point of view of ID. ID supporters won't like it, but then emperical scientists won't like ID. the point of[REDACTED] is to not avoid controversy at the expense of losing honesty in the article or watering down the truth. FuelWagon 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Losing honesty? Watering down? I don't want to remove the analogy! I don't even want to edit the analogy. I just want to move it to a better place. As it stands there are two copies of the analogy in the article, and it seems like there are three choices: 1) Leave the article sounding strange, redundant and highly antagonistic. 2) Remove the analogy from the Argument from Ignorance section, weakening it significantly. 3) Remove the analogy from the intro, greatly improving the section's flow, attitude/hostility, readability and length. I understand what you're trying to do putting an example prior to Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, the attempt at parallelism fails because (unlike the falsifiability bit which is succint, simple, and a single complete sentence) the Occam's Razor section is wordy, needlessly detailed for an intro and spread out across several sentences which breaks the continuity of the paragraph. The "needlessly detailed" point is particularly important because by introducing this level of criticism into the introduction, the article gains an axe-grinding feel to it. I'm not asking if the analogy is a fair representation; remember, I included it in the new section! I'm simply saying it's inappropriate and awkward there. I don't think anyone could fail to understand Occam's Razor from the simple, plain English explanation given after the word, but if they did they could always just click the link. Even if that's a problem, I tend to think that the problems with the intro as it stands outweigh it. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:41, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd use the phrase "axe grinding". It might qualify for "brutal honesty". If the problem is the "needlessly detailed" part, then lemme see if I can come up with a less detailed version. gimme a few hours to chew on it. FuelWagon 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried a rewrite. I split it into two paragraphs. first paragraph is the list of criticism against ID. Second paragraph uses the example of aliens/pyramids to show how those criticisms apply. It also clarifies that science doesn't rule out an intelligent designer, just that it makes no claim about its existence. Perhaps that will clarify that there is no "axe grinding" going on. An intelligent designer may exist, but science cannot state that as fact. But science is not anti-god. Science might be anti-rain-god and use meteorology to explain weather patterns. But science does not rule out anything, it only rules "in" what it knows. It's the best I can do right now. If that don't work, then I'll just revert to the way it was before. What say you, Oompa? keep it or kick it? Is it an improvement or did I make it worse? FuelWagon 21:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

After reading the first of those two paragraphs, a reader supporting ID but who doesn't understand the distinction between "science" and "truth" might assume that the paragraph means "ID is false." The impression we want them to gain is that the paragraph says "ID is outside the realm of science" or somesuch. Would it be useful to tack on another sentence to that effect, along the lines of "However, this does not mean that ID is false—only that it is not within the scope of science."? One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 23:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

the only problem with that is that proponents of ID have packaged it as a science so that it can be taught in schools without violating separation of church and state. That is the basis for their argument: that it qualifies as science. But the only way to do that is to redefine science so as to not require observability, repeatability, falsifiability, and to allow breaking Occam's Razor. If you do that, then ID qualifies, but you've completely destroyed the definition of science to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. FuelWagon 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm. Well, I'm not proposing to call it science—I'm saying that it isn't science (although perhaps the wording I used doesn't convey that as well as I would have liked). Since the paragraph already says that much, I didn't figure that a reiterration would hurt anything. Actually, all I meant to add was that we're not making any assertion about the truth or falsity of the issue. There is an unfortunate tendency for some people, when they hear "that's not science", to think they heard "that's not true". (This is a reflection on the common but mistaken notion that scientists believe everything not 'science' to be false.) Anyway, I don't object to not including such a sentence, and it's not strictly on-topic. I only offered it as a way to assuage some gut protests. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 00:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That is something that could go in a criticism section. FuelWagon 02:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure the into is the appropriate place, but your recent edit sounds a lot better, FuelWagon. Still not sure what to do about the two versions of the analogy, but I guess I'll leave it. I've used up my complaint quota for the next week or so I think. I like your commented out section, by the way. :) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:23, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

One epistemology out of many

Like some have mentioned, the debate between ID and naturalism is mostly one of methodology, and anyone who has ever taken a day of philosophy knows that first principles cannot be falsified. Naturalism restricts its methodology to one that tries to find things in naturalistic terms and deems that only that is truth. You can't infer the epistemological validity of naturalism merely from its premises, and the tautology naturalism = science, science = naturalism really doesn't have any foundational weight to it. Naturalism is a *particular* theory of knowledge that when combined with the 'randomness' principle, is pretty darn unfalsifiable. If anything 'happens', then it is due to natural causes and no matter how outrageous it is, we just think about all the places in the world where it *didn't* happen. Then it's not so strange or unbelievable no matter how it affects our experience. Sure, things within the scope of the methodology can be tested, but one cannot challenge its domain nor the theory itself.

Personally, I am an agnostic when it comes to I.D. versus natural evolution, I am not a scientist so I do not know, but I do know a thing or two about the philosophy of science and the general period of history called 'the enlightenment' and I have to say that most scientists are just completely ignorant about the philosophy of their own discipline and don't understand where the methodological debates start and stop. They simply believe dogmatically in the science = naturalism tautology and due to the history of science (always percieved as the secular enlightenment battling the religious aristotelian world) an actually experienced history of science vs. religion has resulted in alot of sadly closed minds.Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a scientist. I am also a bit of a philosopher. My take on the skepticism of science is that it fits very nicely with the the philosophy of Taoism or "the way" of the universe. One of the most relevant quotes from Tao de Ching is "that which can be named is not the Tao", which to me reads like a recipe for the perfect division between human knowledge/science and human spirituality. Science does not rule out spirituality, but science is all about what humans can know, and the spirituality of the universe is not something that science will ever say anything about. So, if you want to call ID a philosophy or a spiritual understanding of how life started on earth, that's fine by me. But I refuse to allow the definitions of science and spirituality to be blurred and confused so that someone can get their pet philosophy taught in schools as if it were science. FuelWagon 14:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems like a understandable way of looking at it. But still, it is basically the case of a dominant majority trying to 'define out' other disciplines. I don't know if anyone here does International Relations but some of the methodological debates go like this and I think it is a good parallel to the I.D. vs Natural Evolution debate.

Traditional international relations is based on the understanding that it is great powers (i.e., big countries) that determine everything in the international system. Local forces can only have agency when they are used by great powers.

Now, there are other methodologies that try to study the 'international' too. Instead though, they reject the idea of the primacy of great powers, and try to explain things in other terms like local/global flows and immigration, etc.

The newcomers claim that I.R. doesn't actually explain how the world really works because there are too many assumptions packed into the positivist methodology, and in fact it just goes on supporting a kind of knowledge that only suits the strong.

The traditional I.R. proponents claim that whatever doesn't deal with states and statesmen isn't I.R., it should know its place and get back to literary criticism or what not.

The real issue is, both claim to describe something that is at one level the same ("the international") but at another level completely different. The one who wins is the one that can claim that their interpretation is the real one and the other one is if not completely invalid, not what it claims to be.

So I.D. and Natural Evolution both claim to be the same thing (science) but what methodology and epistemology that entails, and effectively what science is, is being disputed.

The thing I find so frusturating about this debate is that both sides are so rigid and inflexible. You have the traditionalists pretending the heyday of the enlightenment is still with us, and you have the I.D.'s acting like it's plainly obvious that darwinism is invalid to anyone with a brain. As a non-scientist, as someone who cannot actually weigh the evidence without reading an incredibly biased piece of pop-science, I find it incredibly irritating.Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, you seem to be misconstruing what science is. Science isn't a "dominant majority" that excludes all other interpretations. Science is a minimilist approach: start out knowing nothing, assume very little, and see what you can know from there. Science does not exclude spirituality. It does have as one of its primary assumptions the notion that the world follows certain rules and that those rules don't change. This is diametrically opposed to folks who believe in an active god reaching into human lives and altering reality, creating Adam from dust, Eve from a rib, flooding the planet, parting the red sea, bringing a plaque of locusts, frogs, and then killing the first born of every family. These beliefs are unscientific, and on that basis, science will not budge. Science does not believe the gods make it rain. Science must at its foundation assume that the world-rules are consistent, that god does not play dice with the universe at this level. If that rule falls, then there is no difference between science and the mythology of the day. But if you take that assumption as true, that does not rule out spirituality, a belief in God, Plato's unmoved mover, or the Tao of the universe. It just means that science will hit a point where it says "we don't know but we refuse to jump to any conclusions or submit to mythology". The Earth is not 6,000 years old. Science refuses to budge on this. But Science does not rule out that which is not in its domain, and God and Spirituality are outside the domain of science. FuelWagon 13:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please sign your comments by putting four tilde symbols after it. FuelWagon 13:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

But the methodology decides what can be known, and the methodology is determined a-priori... What I am saying is is it is a particular theory of knowledge that determines what be be counted as true knowledge to draw conclusions off of. "Science" doesn't just take every random bit of information out there and compiles it all into a theory, it sorts and defines in/defines out valid and invalid data. Science is informed inductively by data, I'm with you there, but the validity of the methodology/epistemology itself cannot be inductively verified, you have to start with a first principle like 'the only true knowledge humans can possess is that recieved by the five senses' (Empiricism)

If you think that the methodology/epistemology itself can be proven inductively, then I'd really like to see how... The closest to a proof that you can get is pragmatism, which basically says that if something is knowledge, then it works, it is powerful. I.e., St. Teresa of Avilla loses out to Mr. Nobel because dynamite blows things up and prayers don't. By the way, I found this website that has alot of pros and cons. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html Trylo 22:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're still misconstruing science here: "it is a particular theory of knowledge that determines what be be counted as true". Science doesn't deal with "truth" in the philosophical sense or in the spiritual sense. When you are present to the Tao (or God or Buddha), you a present to Truth. Science is about human knowledge and that is different from "Truth". One of the main differences is that Truth is an internal process, knowing god, being one with the way, achieving enlightenment. Knowledge as produced by science is public or external or practical or whatever you want to call it. If by "powerful" you mean "able to affect others", then yes, that is the difference between knowledge and truth. You cannot force someone into Satori. You can build a nuclear weapon and vaporize them. Science will tell you how to build that bomb, but not whether it is "right" to use it. This is the definition of science, and it is unmovable. It acknowledges the difference between knowledge and truth, between objective and subjective. It requires repeatability and observability. It assumes the universe operates under the influence of an unchanging Tao. And it attempts to understand how that Tao shows up in the objective universe. Science makes no claims about truth or god or the experience of love. That definition gives a certain set of results that are defined as "scientific knowledge", and some of the basic assumptions cannot be proven (such that there shall be no god messing with the rules of the universe). But the philisophical alternative is to logically argue yourself into a corner, knowing nothing with certainty, leaving the experience of subjectivity and objective world as possible illusions and knowing only that you exist in some form. But solipsism just doesn't cut it for me. If only you exist, then you won't mind if I, a mere illusion, adhere to objective science, if you know what I mean. Are we really stuck in Plato's Cave or some version of The Matrix? maybe. But so what? Until we can become aware and distinguish what is shadow and what is "real", this is the world we have to go on. It is from this world of illusion that we've pulled ourselves up to where we are now. Perhaps someone will eventually notice the fire and the figures casting shadows. Until then, science only says what it knows about those shadows. The truth that we're in Plato's Cave is only something you can know in your mind. Escape from the Matrix is only available once you become aware in your mind that the matrix exists. Truth is in your mind. FuelWagon 23:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So you're basically saying 'science' doesn't use an epistemology, but it is about human knowledge. My whole point is that what can count as human knowledge is what the question of epistemology deals with. I'm not referring to truth that humans can't know about, matrixes or anything regarding something you might find in Heidegger or Laozi. I'm referring to good old fasioned eurocentric concepts of truth, as in, what can humans know about.

I think you're dodging an answer. I say that the epistemology called empiricism is at least questionable because it itself is not empirically viable. You can't prove that empiricism is true by looking at the objects that it allows to count as knowledge, it has to be an a-priori principle. Is this true or false? What say you? Anyone else have an answer? 82.34.219.61 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, if someone says "truth" and "philosophy" in the same sentence, I hear "Truth", as in absolute. As far as I can see, you're talking about "Truth". I've dodged no question, I just might have not answered it in your vocabulary. Yes, empericism has certain assumptions which cannot be verified by empericism. But those assumptions are known up front. that the world-rules are constant is a basic assumption that cannot be proven inside empericism. It has to be taken as an assumption. I don't have a problem with that. If the assumption is that the world-rules CAN change, because god intervenes now and then, then how many angels fits on the head of a pin becomes a legitimate scientific question, and I won't stand for that to be called science.

I'm not exactly sure where you're trying to take this conversation. I know of no approach to knowledge which is absolutely true. If there were, much of philosophy would disappear. Attempting to find absolute truth often leads people to the path of solipsism (I exist) or total skepticism (I know only that I can know nothing). Neither of which are views I can subscribe to. I need more than what absolute human knowledge can currently give, so I'm willing to make a few basic assumptions and run with it from there. The way I see it, this is a vast improvement over the previous approach of making a LOT of assumptions and running with THAT. Does it answer everything? no. But from an incremental point of view, meteorology is a hell of a lot better than praying to the Rain Gods. FuelWagon 14:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I just realized something. When you compare the epistomologies used by empirical science versus "intelligent design", what you have are two epistomologies that are identical except for the assumption added by ID. ID claims it is "science" which means it must rely on assumptions, and therefore cannot be shown to be true with absolute certainty. The assumption added by ID is that the world rules of the universe are constant and unchanging, EXCEPT when God intervenes from time to time. So, comparing those two epistimologies side by side, it would seem clear to me that as far as "knowing" is concerned, science has a better chance than ID does of knowing teh truth. FuelWagon 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• shrug* Well I guess we're just arguing cross purposes then. But yeah, actually you are right in one respect, theistic epistemologies don't make claims to absolute knowledge, that's why Descartes was able to make mechanism (sort of like the intellectual precursor to empiricism/naturalism) what it is today, because it could beat the kind of open ended questions that theistic epistemologies by definition had to leave open- so, by claiming to be a "perfect philosophy" (i.e., complete) materialism does actually offer more obstensible truth because it clearly defines what can be known and works well within its sphere. But of course going back to the original point, it's horribly complicated and involves alot of a-priori assumptions. Without foundations (i.e., knock down drag-out reasons for any given epistemology being true apparent to anyone), then it's all a matter of who has the interpretive power. I only got six hours of sleep last night so this might not be too clear. 82.34.219.61 13:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"it's horribly complicated and involves alot of a-priori assumptions." Well, "horribly" and "alot" are subjective, and you have a right to your opinion. My opinion is that there is really only one fundamental assumption in science: that the world-rules of the universe are unchanging. From that, you get scientific requirements for repeatability/observability, falsifiability, and even Occam's Razor. But other than differing on the percieved level of complexity of that approach, we agree on everything else. FuelWagon 13:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

flawed design section should stay on topic

Re: this edit. In the section Ideas regarding the intelligent designer we have a short list of general, high-level flaws in design. The intention of this section is not to be a detailed list of inefficient designs found in nature. Reverting change. --Air 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Rescued deleted material

The first and most important principle of Intelligent Design is that science at the end of the 20th century saw itself as being methodologically materialistic (or naturalistic) as opposed to methodologically empiricalistic. And as a result of being methodologically materialistic, biologists embraced macro-evolution as the explanation for the existence and diversity of life because an explanation that infers intelligence is not permitted by this paradigm.

ID theorists observe that forensic and archeological science, on the other hand, is methodologically empirical, and allow for explanations that include intelligence. Forensic science by determining whether or not a particular death is an accident or a murder, and archeology by determining whether or not a specific hunk of clay was an artifact or not. Since the study of biological origins is historical, ID theorists suggest that the issue should likewise be treated empirically, since we are like detectives coming upon the scene after the supposed crime occured. Our task, then, is to determine whether or not there was an intelligence behind all this, not only to try to find the best naturalistic explanation assuming there was no intelligence.

Intelligent design makes no presumptions about who or what did the designing. It simply asks whether we can empirically determine if a particular thing was designed or not. In terms of religion, ID favors none. The designer of the first cell could just as easily be Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Jehovah, a pantheistic God, an intelligent extra-terrestrial, or Plato's demiurge. The only question ID seeks to answer is whether there was a designer or not.

Specifically, ID theorists are investigating the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Irreducibly complex structures are ones that seem improbable to evolve and therefore are highly probable to have been created by an intelligent designer or designers. ID theories of irreducibly complexity have been criticised of taking Darwinism too narrowly because it assumes that natural selection would work directly (or linearly).

Rescued. Agree with removal as POV and aditional verbage, but it still Must Be Discussed.--Tznkai 00:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's relevant... but that's because I wrote it. The idea came straight from Dembski's latest book (The Design Revolution) where he spends a good chunk on defining what ID is and what it is not. I would like to see the article rewritten with more input from this book (since he is arguably the conceptual leader of ID) and as I mentioned below I think it is only fair to spend the bulk of the article presenting what ID is according to the ID theorists, and relegating the (significant and definitely article-worthy) controversy to a section at the end with the appropriate links. The evolution article is presented as what evolution is to the evolutionists with the controversy minimized and buried at the bottom. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

David Bergan 05:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?

I won't hide the fact that I'm on the ID side, but I assure you that I am only trying to make the article fair. Take a look at the evolution article and you'll find that the criticisms of evolution are very consise and all the way at the bottom of the page. I like the layout of that page... it seems like an appropriate encyclopedia article.

However, the ID article is laden with critiques. You only get to the third paragraph of the introduction before you engage hostility. I would think that someone who wants to read an article on ID (or any topic) would want to hear its position all the way through before hearing that it is a pseudoscience and that it is criticized from all possible angles. That's significant information, for sure, but shouldn't it all be contained in the controversy section? I mean, it would be laughable to read the evolution page and find in the 3rd paragraph Behe's idea of irreducible complexity. I'm not asking to remove criticisms. I just think that it's the spirit of an encyclopedia article to conatin criticism in one consise section and put it at the bottom.

David Bergan 17:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think from the point of view of defining what ID is and is not, putting in emerical science's take on ID clearly helps define ID. And an entire article of ID proponents calling ID a science, with a follow-up section by emperical scientists saying "no, it isn't" seems like burying important information. FuelWagon 19:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough... but a full paragraph in the intro? I mean, we're not just saying that there is little support in the scientific community, we're bringing in Occam's razor and teaching them 6 vocab words about modern evolution theory. How about a two-sentence paragraph that says something like, "Intelligent Design theory has only gained marginal acceptance in scientific circles. See Section X for further details about its criticisms." Something along those lines would be honest and fair, and in keeping with the spirit of an encyclopedia article... actually explaining the title concept before attacking it.

David Bergan 05:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The current level of detail in the intro is appropriate. The terms it introduces are essential to understanding the reason why scientists are so uniform and adamant in their rejection of ID (e.g., a recent issue of the ultra-prestigious journal Nature dedicated to ID ). Because rejection of ID is the consensus scientific (and scholarly) viewpoint, it is essential to explain this in the intro. --Rikurzhen 07:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right that ID is certainly the minority position among scientists. (So was Darwin's research at his time...) But count the sentences. If anyone wanted to know what ID is, they read our intro and find that we have 3 sentences that (sort of) explain what ID is, and then we have 8 that criticize it. I don't care what the topic is, no one knows a subject well enough to evaluate counter-arguments after only 3 sentences of explanation. Show me 3 other articles that aren't related to the evolution controversy where the title concept is thoroughly criticized (and ridiculed) before it is even adequately explained.

Moreover, those three sentences aren't even very accurate. ID is an attempt to establish a branch of science that determines whether or not things we observe in nature are caused by intelligence rather than by natural laws or random chance. It is an application of ID when forensic scientists try to determine whether a housefire was caused by accident (law or chance) or by arson (intelligence). But the reader doesn't get any of this out of the intro.

David Bergan 15:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your above point is simply wrong. ID is not about creating a meta-branch of science involved in determining whether any action or event anywhere was caused by intelligent or intentional action. Arson investigation is not an application of ID. ID is concerned with the creation and development of life and animal species (especially humans) and by extension the creation and development of the universe, galaxy, solar systems and planets. Claiming that forensics is an example of ID theory is disingenuous at best. Soundguy99 16:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bergan makes some good points, and your slightly wordier version of "No, it's not" is not really a rebuttal, even if you think it is. Pollinator 17:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, to build an analogy to ID, you'd claim that from the evidence for a buring building that aliens or God started the fire. --Rikurzhen 17:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the fourth paragraph in the intro should be removed. It is a counter-argument, not an introduction to the subject. That said, I pretty much disagree with Bergan on every other point, including his assumption that ID should be treated as if it were a fresh-faced scientific hypothesis rather than a transparently socio-political strategy. --goethean ॐ 16:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

treating ID "as if it were a fresh-faced scientific hypothesis" is not a possible alternative; it has been closely examined by the scientific community and those findings have been made public; moveover, ID isn't fresh at all, it's a very old hypothesis with slightly some arguments. --Rikurzhen 17:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

However, I agree that, while the arguments should certainly not be "buried down at the bottom", they needn't be as lengthly as they are in this introduction. Introductions aren't about arguing one side or the other — they're for introducing the subject. The fact that ID isn't accepted by the scientific community should certainly be discussed in the intro, but two long paragraphs making arguments against ID aren't needed. — Asbestos | Talk 17:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I made those recent "anon" (user 68) changes to the intro. I recognize that the intro section is under discussion and I haven't been looking at this article for a while, but I hope you all will consider my revision nonetheless; it ain't perfect, but I think it clearly improves on the existing version, addresses the concerns expressed here, and removes redundency. I am disappointed to see that it was reverted in minutes, before anyone got a chance to look at it. BTfromLA 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your condensation was good, and replaced it. Also, the article is now at the stylistic standard of not having a second "introduction" (the one above the table of contents, without a heading, is all that is needed). However, making sweeping changes under an anon IP is a sure-fire way to get reverted, so you shouldn't have been suprised... — Asbestos | Talk 17:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I support this change also --goethean ॐ 17:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As an evolutionary biologist, I view ID's growing popularity as somewhat alarming. After all, it's amazing that such a groundless and hollow theory could gain such potestas, just like it was similarly alarming to me that so many people believed the equally hollow claims of the Bush administration regarding Iraq/WMD. But I don't think this is sufficient reason for putting strong claims in place in the article, or justifying article structure, and I worry that that sort of passion gets in the way. That said, we should treat ID the same way we treat Bush WMD claims - that is, give a fair description, but be clear, unequivocal and prominent about why they are wrong. There's no need to allow relativity of facts here. What's important is not that it isn't accepted by the scientific community (cf. Bush claims weren't accepted by the international community), but that it is not a sound scientific theory. This should be clearly understood by all readers of the article. Graft 17:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA's changes go far beyond what I think is being discussed here. They completely delete the pyramid analogy, which is very instructive/understandable and needs to be kept (somewhere prominently) as it describes why the scientific community finds that ID is not an sound scientific theory. It presents the ID debate as a series of ad hominem attacks, which is not the key quality. Move those changes to the talk page for debate and restore the previous article content. --Rikurzhen 17:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The pyramid analogy is contentious and its main purpose seems to be to ridicule the claims of ID. It is inappropriate to the intro. --goethean ॐ 17:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Because you and others don't like the analogy, or find it unfair to ID, doesn't make it inappropriate for the intro. A controversial topic will tend to have a controversial intro. I'm a scientist (in the field of genetics; i.e. I know evolution) and in my opinion the analogy is apt and informative. It is elicits in others exactly what I and other scientists think of when we consider ID. If there was anything I would want to put into the intro, it would be the that the NAS (group of elite scientists) has spoken out against ID for reasons x,y,z and that their reasoning can be understood by the pyramid analogy. --Rikurzhen 18:11, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I am not a scientist and I will happily defer to you on the details of evolutionary theory. I am a writer, however, and I think you've lost track of the structure of the article. ( I also think it inappropriate of you to do a wholesale revert of my edit after multiple editors had found it meritorious.) The substance of the various arguments belong in the main body of the article, not the introduction. If you are going to offer a refutation of the claims, you'll first need to offer an elaborate description of those claims, and at that point you've completely abandoned the idea of a concise introduction, and quite possibly lost your reader. The edit you rejected makes it clear that ID's claims are not respected by most scientists and also makes it clear that a political and religious agenda is attached to the ID movement—I don't think you can argue that it promotes a pro-ID POV. It briefly introduces the central claims and controversies that attend to ID, with more detailed discussions below. That's what an introduction should do, right? BTfromLA 21:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the analogy is unfair, nor do I think that noting the movement's criticisms is inappropriate. However, the current introduction is not an introduction, it's a thesis. It is specifically set out to prove a point. This, though, isn't the purpose of an introduction. BTfromLA's introduction indicates in no uncertain terms that the movement has no approval from the scientific community. However, it doesn't spend two paragraphs describing the arguments in detail - that is saved for the article's body.

I hadn't realized before that the changes deleted the pyramid analogy. You say that it needs to be kept. That's fine: find an appropriate place for it. The introduction isn't an appropriate place.

I also think that unilateral revertion is not an appropriate way of dealing with the argument, given that at least three editors are supporting the new introduction, while you are the only one who has raised an objection.

— Asbestos | Talk 21:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of restoring most of the deleted material (including the pyramids analogy) to the section describing the Scientific rejection of ID. I think the Pyramid part retains an NPOV tone: the way to get around that might be to find the same or a similar analogy from a prominent scientist or science writer, so that Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be the author of the analogy. There's been plenty written about ID, so that probably isn't a such tall order--I'd bet that Richard Dawkins, for example, has probably authored several pithy analogies along those lines. BTfromLA 22:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A number of points --Rikurzhen 22:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

1. wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia. the opinions of the authors do not matter, so much as the opinions of all the people in the world. it wouldn't matter if every[REDACTED] editor were pro-ID, the NPOV policy would require that the POV of mainstream science, central to this article, be described in their its own terms, prominently.
2. nonetheless, I count at least three authors that seem to support a prominent place for the scientists argument about science, not politics, in the article. this is because scientist are experts about science, and not politics, and so the POV of mainstream science should most prominently reflect matters of science and not politics. BTfromLA's intro sounds like a description of the mainstream science POV from a pro-ID position, which is why I oppose it
3. I'm offering my opinion, having just seen this intro, that the pyramid analogy is an excellent didactic tool; it is a near perfect analogy from the POV of a scientist -- it is so apt it deserves a prominent place
4. I don't think a didactic tool, like a novel analogy, constitues original research; otherwise Misplaced Pages would have to consisit only of quotations and references. As a picture is worth a thousand words, so too this analogy explains a lot in a little space.
5. I am voting that the space reserved in the intro for the POV of mainstream science include the two paragraphs more or less as I had found them

Can you be more specific about the pro-ID position that you detect in the current edit? BTfromLA 23:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The emphasis on questions of bias/goals rather than science casts the debate in terms favored by pro-ID people. That's fine when describing pro-ID POVs, but not good when describing anti-ID POVs. It makes it sound like the main arugments scientists have against ID involve name-calling. This may be a tactic they have resorted to, but it is not their primary or fundamental response. --Rikurzhen 23:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

In case that's not clear. The claims from scientists of bias come after ID advocates adhere to their position despite public refutation of the science. So to highlight discourse on bias makes it seem as if scientists are concerned with politics rathher than science. --Rikurzhen 23:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the intro sounds remotely pro-ID, and I think the ID movement is as ridiculous as it comes (just to state my own POV). I can't see how you find the focus of the intro to be on bias/goals. The focus is on 1) What ID argues, 2) Criticism of ID, 3) A brief discussion on the politics of ID.

All three of these are important. Clearly, a discussion on the politics of ID is relevent, because ID was pushed mainly as a means of getting creationism around politics and the courts. If it weren't for politics and the courts, ID wouldn't be being pushed, creationism would.

What you keep wanting to add are arguments, not statements of position. These, as we keep saying, aren't the purpose of an introduction. If you think the intro has a pro-ID bent, by all means make it neutral. But don't do it by adding arguments.

You seem not to like the fact that ID arguments get a chance to be stated before the scientific ones. Well of course. In a debate, the party that states a claim must go first: you can't argue against something that hasn't been stated. The scientific arguments relevent to this discussion are those against ID, that is, arguments criticizing ID claims, and so obviously have to go after the ID claims.

For the record, I think this article has little to fear from looking too pro-ID. A rough copy-and-paste into my text program finds about 3,800 words writing about the scientific arguments, and only about 1,200 words written about the ID arguments. — Asbestos | Talk 23:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to respond to Rikurzhen's first objection while you two were elaborating your arguments--I added a line in the intro and moved a couple of things around, but now I'm doubting that I really understood the objection. Overall, I agree with Asbestos's assessment of the situation. The discussion of politics is essential to the topic; ID has at least as much to do with politics and philosophy as it does with science. BTfromLA 00:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos and BTfromLA seem to be saying that arguments should be restricted to the body of the article. In general I would agree, but the nature of this topic is that it is essentially a debate -- its all arguments. So an intro without some arguments seems impossible (I would claim that the current intro has arguments anyway). Thus, it seems to me that the intro should summarize the fundamental position of each side (and very briefly their primary reason for taking that position). My reason for this is the view that the intro should suffice for a person who doesn't want to read any more than the intro. So as a compromise, perhaps there needs to be at least one statement/argument each about science and politics in the intro for both POVs. --Rikurzhen 00:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

crimeny. I don't have time to read all this. Someone can condense it for me if I missed something important. Whoever decided to turn the introduction criticism of ID into a strawman needs to knock it off. The scientific community's criticism of ID needs to be represented with its strongest argument as succienctly as possible, not with it's weakest argument, rambling on and on in incoherent sentences. I noticed that someone rewrote the first two paragraphs and fleshed out ID's position and I support that. ID should be presented with its strongest case as well, as succienctly as possible. But if you're supportive of ID, then I have a hard time taking your edits of the ID-Criticism section to be anything other than an attempt to weaken criticism and/or sweep it under the carpet. FuelWagon 04:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like FuelWagon and I agree. I think the reintegrated intro is even better than what we started with. It should stay at this level of detail and in this form. --Rikurzhen 07:42, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Various arguments to subvert criticism

cause I can't keep up, and because they seem to pop up repeatedly in various places, I thought I'd attempt to boil down the various attempts to subvert criticism of ID so they could be addressed one by one, and hopefully, once and for all.

The intro is too long

The argument begins "the article is too long" or "the intro is too long", and concludes "so I'm just going to whittle down the introduction." Sometimes followed up by "the cricism is still in the body."

However, the article is massive. four paragraphs for the intro is not that long for an article of this size. If you want to cut down on article size, start somewhere else.

Should not put "criticism" in intro

The argument basically states that criticism should be reserved for the body of the article, and that the intro should be nothing but pro-ID summary.

However,[REDACTED] is not an advocacy site, it's an informational site. To give readers a complete description of what ID is and is not, both points of view need be presented. To write an intro that is all "ID, hooray!" and bury empirical science's criticism at the bottom of a 65k article creates a biased article and is a disservice to readers. Criticism of ID helps define what ID is and is not. keeping criticism out of intro is being vague in exchange for pro-ID advocacy.

ID is about science, not politics

The argument states something to the effect of "ID is about how life began on earth" and concludes "Criticism of ID for teaching creationism in school is political and doesn't belong in the article".

This is naive. It is also another way of pro-ID folks to define valid criticism of ID to be "off limits" for reasons of being "off topic". The political motivations of pro-ID folks is one of the main criticisms by empirical scientists. Since this criticism represents a major argument by one point of view, it should be represented in the article that way.

These unsigned claims are evidently by Fuelwagon. They have no credibility whatsoever—Fuelwagon has declared that he (or she) can't be bothered to read the talk page discussions, but for some reason has decided to inflict his (or her) hallucinations about what those discussions are like on the rest of us. So far as I can tell, nobody here has made any argument that remotely conforms to the nonsense above (e.g., "the intro should be nothing but pro-ID summary," "bury empirical science's criticism at the bottom of a 65k article"). This is childish, totally disrespectful of the other editors here, and not worthy of a serious response. BTfromLA 16:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, if you have the time to write a comment that requires three subheadings, you could at least show the rest of us the respect to read what's already been posted. As BTfromLA notes, your comments are nonsensical, and are basically attacking strawmen.

To start by labeling my own POV, as as anti-ID as they come, have already written one article on an evolutionary process, and am currently writing a dissertation on the use of various evolutionary techniques in artificial intelligence. So to imply, as you do that people who disagree with you are doing so to "subvert criticism" is clearly absurd. I have no idea where BTfromLA's POV comes from; It doesn't much matter.

Next, if you had bothered to show us the respect to read the discussion, you would have found that none of the three positions you label the rest of us as having make any sense at all. "The intro is too long". I read not a single person saying that above. "Should not put "criticism" in intro". Again, can you point out who says this? The alternative intro clearly describes who is criticising ID and why. "ID is about science, not politics". Here your cursory skim through seem to have gotten things backwards. In response to (what I that was) Rikurzhen saying that politics should not be talked about, I replied: "Clearly, a discussion on the politics of ID is relevant, because ID was pushed mainly as a means of getting creationism around politics and the courts. If it weren't for politics and the courts, ID wouldn't be being pushed, creationism would." So suggesting that those who disagree with you believe that "Criticism of ID for teaching creationism in school is political and doesn't belong in the article" is obviously completely backwards.

When you have bothered to read what the rest of us wrote, perhaps we wouldn't have to spend time explaining why you appear to be attacking nothing but strawmen.

— Asbestos | Talk 19:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, one massive talk-page block (the one labeled "Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?" if you're having trouble following my meaning) is worthless. The same arguments get brought up in differernt places and get re-argued, and re-hashed. So, it's a waste of my time to respond one large block of text with multiple threads, multiple forks, many different topics, and the same arguments scattered throughout, and then have it brought up again in some other sub-thread or some other fork. I notice that someone started a section that attempts to deal with the debate by paragraph, and consider that to support the idea that I'm not the only one who sees having every debate contained in a monolithic block to be a problem.

Secondly, you said:

"The intro is too long". I read not a single person saying that above. "Should not put "criticism" in intro". Again, can you point out who says this?

You're kidding me, right? Did you completely miss the section titled "Are lengthy criticisms in the intro fair?" That pretty much says criticism shouldn't be in the intro, and that it is too long. Read a few of the posts there, if you want more. FuelWagon 14:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Structured debate - Version 1

The current intro seems to be a combination of competeting versions. This is a useful place from which to debate our concerns. Here is the current intro text broken down by paragraph. Comment or propose alternatives in the appropriate section below. --Rikurzhen 19:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikurzhen: this is a potentially productive format for this discussion. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I've identified two sentences below that I think we can afford to cut, one in paragraph 3 ("Critics call ID...) and one in paragraph 5 (The one about Paley). OK if I go ahead and delete them from the current draft? BTfromLA 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a note about Paragraph 3 below. At this stage we probably need someone or a couple someones to try to incorporate some of the comments below. It maybe easiest to do that on the talk page first. --Rikurzhen 23:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

I think this is a solid, concise intro paragraph. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Decent. Although, not all ID adherents argue irreducible complexity. A large number of non-Christian ID advocates instead point to complexity as akin to the "Builder's" signature. Ref: Masons Therefore, Some ID adherents believe that...--ghost 03:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Are these truly advocates of ID in the sense we are talking about here, or another breed of "scientific" creationist? ID is quite specific--I've never heard of a Masonic connection, but I'm happy to be further educated. So far as I know, there are three arguments closely identified with ID: the philosophical, anti-materialist one (Johnson--that's what got the whole movement rolling, far as I can tell); irreducible complexity (Behe) and specified complexity (Dembski). "Irreducible Complexity" seems to be the one most universally cited in the ID-related literature I've seen. Are there ID adherants (in the strong sense--let's say Discovery Institute folks--) who reject irreducible complexity? BTfromLA 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting something different. That there is a silent majority of non-Discovery Instutute ID believers in the "soft" or philosophical sense. The Masonic connection goes back to the foundations of the Order. "...to be a Freemason, one must: ...(2) believe in a Supreme Being, or, in some jurisdictions, a Creative Principle (unless joining a jurisdiction with no religious requirement, as in the Continental tradition)..."

There's no reason why we should allow the Discovery Inst. folks to frame the debate about ID solely in their terms. Which is my major issue with the article as it stands, since it later degenerates into point/counterpoint of Discovery Inst. issues. Why can't we take a higher, multi-cultural approach?--ghost 13:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Because ID is a specific, recent, organized movement; it is directly related to, and in large part the product of the efforts of Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute. What you call a "higher" approach seems to me a diluted one, as if an article on the Frankfurt school focused on Marxism in general, or the Bauhaus only spoke broadly about trends in modernist design. It's true that ID fits in some broader categories as well-- such as creationism or "scientific creationism"--or, as you may be suggesting, it could be discussed in terms of a historical line of thought that sees complexity or apparent design as the mark of a supreme creator. But it seems to me that this article should focus on this particular movement and the context in which it has appeared; it should describe the goals, strategies and arguments of the movement, many of which have to do with socio-political ideology, not arguments within science. (Don't get me wrong--I agree that there is currently much repetitive and digressive stuff in the article that ought to be cut, including some of the Discovery Institute parts.) BTfromLA 15:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers: the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington. Claimed by its proponents to expose the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Scientific naturalism, the ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

This paragraph seems pretty good. I think it is critical to bring up the Center for Science and Culture early in the article: "ID" did not emerge from within science, it is an outgrowth of ideological movement, and that should be indicated right away. This paragraph at least begins that process. I think it may be more accurate to replace "Scientific naturalism" (which links to "Methodological naturalism") with "Naturalism," a broader philosophy that extends beyond the practice of science. ~~

The first two sentences don't read smoothly. Is the Discovery Institute ref needed at this point? It's explored ad nauseum later in the article. And the previous user has a point. Thus: "The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US."--ghost 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think ghost's edit improves those sentences. BTfromLA 04:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience. According to those organizations, the "scientific" claims of ID fail to meet the most basic requirements of science; for example, ID lacks a theoretical basis from which testable hypotheses can be derived and it offers no research program.Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist political action organizations to that end. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable, violating the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that has a simpler and scientifically supported explanation not involving outside help.

I think this paragraph could use a topic sentence--an earlier version said something like "ID has found little support among scientists." This paragraph is crucial, too--introducing the fact that ID's scientific claims are rejected by the bulk of scientists as not being scientific at all. But I there's stuff in here that can stand to be cut: the whole sentence beginning "Critics call ID..." for a start. I think it needs rephrasing to minimize pov, too, making sure to assume the journalistic position of disinterestedly reporting on the varing claims and arguments, rather than making those arguments directly. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is terribly problematic. It starts off by introducing the NAS and NCSE as ID nay-sayers; any further nay-saying in the paragraph is instantly ascribed (in the reader's mind) to these contrarian parties. Furthermore, they aren't introduced as authorities, merely "those organizations". Specific facts (e.g. ID has no research program) become mere flak. Thus framed, the rest of the paragraph dissolves into an easily-dismissed diatribe by a partisan group.

I'd like to say what's written in the second half first - it is, after all, accurate and true (if crudely written), and transposing the order will improve the impact and meaning of the first half of the paragraph. Yes? Graft 01:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I don't know the NCSE that well, but it might also help to point out that the NAS is arguably the most prestegious organization of US scientists. So a NAS opinion could be said to represent the view of eminent scientists. --Rikurzhen 04:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the order of paragraph 3. there are two main criticisms in that paragraph (ID is stealth creationism. ID is pseudoscience.) Rather than having some "pseudoscience" criticism, then go into "stealth creationism", then finish up with more "pseudoscience" criticism, I put all teh pseudoscience criticism together at the end. FuelWagon

Good Job, Fuel. Unfortunately the thread on the usage of "pseudoscience" got lost in the shuffle. Let's switch to "not scientific(with pseudoscience link)" and follow with one of the links below. Also the new Occam's Razor sentence would be less POV if it read: "ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help."--ghost 03:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

ghost, I put those two mods in. FuelWagon 15:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it, are we able to document the NAS using the term "pseudoscience" about ID in some official declaration, as we imply in paragraph 2? BTfromLA 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There's lots of good stuff in the recent Nature issue "Correspondence" section. Jerry Coyne, et al. Graft 16:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The phrases we're looking for are "mainstream scientists" or "scientific consensus". A quick Google search finds that NAS has called intelligent design "creationism". Which is universally called psuedoscience. Some useful links --Rikurzhen 16:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Calling ID "creationism" isn't the same as calling it "pseudoscience," and we should be really scrupulous about such details if we want a credible article. If they don't use the word "psuedoscience," we shouldn't attribute it to them. Also, who is speaking when the NAS speaks? (Is it their president, or an unsigned editorial, or a resolution passed by a committee, or what?) There is also recent article in the New Yorker by H. Allen Orr that might include some usable nuggets.

It looks like it varies from statement to statement: sometimes the President, and sometimes a committee. The term pseudoscience may have been dropped by the NCSE. But ... creationism/pseudoscience ... a summary of the NAS descriptions oF ID could be straightforwardly summed up as pseudoscience. They would have likely avoided the term because of philosophical problems with defining it, but it is a good summary term/link. --Rikurzhen 17:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

So the sentence could become --Rikurzhen 17:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The mainstream opinion of scientists, represented in statements from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education, is that ID is creationism and pseudoscience.

The NCSE is definitely a partisan group dedicated to opposing Christian efforts to destroy evolution education, and is not on par with the NAS. Also, I'd be surprised if even a single member of the Academy publicly endorsed ID. Graft 18:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like neither group uses the term "pseudoscience". This term is difficult when examined philosophically, and so they seem to prefer less loaded terms like "not science". We should preserve the link even if we substitute not science. --Rikurzhen 19:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. They certainly use the words "not science" in their Science and Creationism report, and our pseudoscience article defines the term as applying to anything which calls itself science but isn't. Anyway, anything that makes it clear that the scientific community rejects, in the strongest possible terms, the idea that ID is a science, should be fine. — Asbestos | Talk 20:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

re: the sentence starting "Critics call" ... could probably be merged somewhere else; a second mention of the Discovery Institute is redundant, but Teach the Controversy should be mentioned somewhere. --Rikurzhen 23:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I really think that sentence should go. I disagree about needing"Teach the Controversy" the intro: so long as we mention that there is a movement to bring ID into school curricula, the details of that movement's agenda and it's particular strategies surely can wait for the body of the article. The rest of that sentence is a mess (nobody wants to "recast religious dogma as pseudoscience," they want to portray it as science), and all of the details in it are better presented elsewhere in the draft (including the "stealth creationism" bit in paragraph 5), though the order of presentation needs work. BTfromLA 04:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's actually the link to Teach the Controversy that seems important to me because there is a lot about the issue in that article. So having (at least the link) in the intro gives that otherwise obscurely named (but very relevant) article a chance of being found. --Rikurzhen 05:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 4

From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." Currently, alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on. This sort of argument is known as the argument by lack of imagination or the argument from ignorance, a type of logical fallacy.

I think that, as written, this paragraph violates NPOV (although the analogy is a useful one). It also seems like a bit much for the intro--surely, ID proponents would claim that their charges have been misrepresented in the anaology, and a lengthy back-and-forth of claims and counter-claims would be called for. That belongs in the body of the article, not the intro. If paragraph 3 doesn't sufficiently introduce the scientific objections to ID, perhaps a very concise addition, preferably based on a cited, verifiable source, could be added there. But I think we have to hold brevity as a value, especially in the intro. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is the paragraph the least needs to be in the intro, and is the one that turns the intro from a summary outlining different views into a full-out attack. The other paragraphs are fine, though the two above and below this could stand to be re-written (especially since the one above doesn't even make it clear that it's the entire scientific community who are against ID, not just the two organizations noted), but this paragraph departs from being introductory. If this goes, the rest is a matter of details.— Asbestos | Talk 20:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I understand why you would be inclined to arrive at those conclusions, but I think they are not warranted. I think this paragraph could be shortened and incorporated into paragraph 3, but I am inclined to retain the analogy (at the very least) in the intro. I don't think the analogy intrinsically violates NPOV -- note that clause "From the point of view of empirical science" clearly assigns the statement to a group. That a person of the pro-ID POV would argue against the analogy is merely a reflection of the debate that exists in the world. We cannot hide from a debate that exists in reality; the job of the encyclopedia is to put it all out there. Along those lines, I don't think that the inclusion of an analogy in the intro should be characterized as going "into a full-out attack". The article/editors should not be attacking anything: in the intro or the body. Rather, if an attack exists in the real world, then it is our job to describe it. I also don't think that merely having an analogy in the intro is unacceptable. It is not merely one argument of many, but rather an attempt to summarize one POV in terms that are easy to understand. If a informative and helpful analogy can be crafted to summarize the POV of pro-ID people, then it too should be placed in the intro. I think it's best to be as instrutive as possible -- use our most informative, easy to understand material -- in the intro space, which is all that many people will read. --Rikurzhen 22:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Empirical science says ID violates observability, repeatability, falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and is an argument from ignorance. This is their point of view. The example simply puts that point of view into a real world example. Empirical science thinks of ID exactly the same way it thinks of alien invtervention building the pyramids. So it is a fair example to represent empirical science's point of view. FuelWagon 15:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is this idea that empirical science "says" things, or that empirical science has a "point of view". Empirical science doesn't say or think anything, scientists do. I think if we can first clear up this point, we can make this less POV. — Asbestos | Talk 15:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. Where practical, we need to cite specific sources, for the sake of accuracy, verifyiability, and NPOV. Anybody have good, pithy quotes from Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Eugenie Scott, or some other recognizable spokesperson for science that might do the work that needs doing here? (I seem to recall Dawkins using the phrase "argument from personal incredulity" to describe the ID position--I'm still not convinced that belongs in the intro, but it might be a nice addition somewhere). While I'm at it, are we able to document the NAS using the term "pseudoscience" about ID in some official declaration, as we imply in paragraph 2? BTfromLA 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Curious. I would have recommended that we avoid quotations in the intro unless they go right to the point. Because both sides are so long winded, it will probably be hard to find anything from a report. Additionally, citing a "partisan," as Graft calls the NCSE above, may not be the best way to represent the views of the scientific community. It's a difficult call. --Rikurzhen 18:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

While direct quotations often make for more vivid journalism, I agree about avoiding quotations in the intro if they slow things down. But by the same token, we don't want to over-generalize, or to make unsubstantiated attributions. So, yes, it's tricky, and the call needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. Broadly, I think the intro should clearly state the basic nature of the ID claims and of the controversy that surrounds them, as concisely as possible. Nothing else. Agreeing on that minimum is easier said than done, of course. Speaking of pithy quotes, here's an exerpt from an LA Times opinion piece by Michael Shermer: Shermer's quote from Dembski ("a strictly scientific theory"), as well as part of his own response, ("ID theory is not science") might have a place in this article:

For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution": "Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need not even be a deity.

But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses. --BTfromLA 22:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's instead present this as an example of the debate. Then it becomes a statement about a fact. Better still, tack it onto the end of FuelWagons' revised paragraph 3. Thus: "...ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that may have (my edit) a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. For example: (italic)We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids.(/italic) Some ID proponents argue that this lack of an explanation points to intervention by a divine or alien entity. The scientific community would simply state this lack of an explanation and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found."--ghost 04:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Something like that would be fine (i.e., merging it into paragraph 3). But the pyramid analogy is actually more than just an example of Occam's razor. --Rikurzhen 05:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 5

ID arguments are cast in entirely secular terms, without appeals to religious authority nor any explicit claim about the identity of the "Intelligent Designer(s)." Thus, ID advocates distinguish ID from overtly religious creationism. Critics maintain that the attempt to cast ID as purely secular is disingenuous, since many leading ID advocates believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, and they promote ID as a form of religious apologetics. Some characterize ID as a rehash of claims that have been thoroughly refuted in the past, such as William Paley's 19th century argument for the existence of God, known as the "argument from design." Critics have thus labeled ID "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to reintroduce religious ideas into the scientific realm and the public schools. ID advocates, in turn, accuse their critics of refusing to honestly consider evidence that threatens the scientific community's dogmatically held assumptions. Thus, the subject of Intelligent Design is deeply embedded in political controversies, with charges of bias and bad faith being made on all sides.

This paragraph has some critical material, though I think the order is garbled. It might actually make sense to merge some of first sentences with paragraph 2, since that talks about the movement and its strategies. The sentence about Paley can be cut (and included in the body text). I think the part after "Critics have thus..." is a pretty solid finish for the intro. BTfromLA 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

stealth creationism criticism is already presented in paragraph 3, so that part is redundant. The accusation that science holds dogmatic assumptions could go into paragraph 1 or 2 (if it isn't already there), since it represents the point of view of ID supporters. FuelWagon 15:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, please don't make large unilateral changes (such as cutting one of these paragraphs entirely, which you did) while this discussion is active, particularly when there is no hint of a consensus (or any support whatever) for your desired changes. BTfromLA 16:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. You can make large unilateral changes by inserting an entire paragraph into the intro, with the comment that you "dont endorse" your own changes, but once you put it in there, I have to get concensus before I can change anything??? This is total crap. Paragraph 5 is REDUNDANT. It talks about "stealth creationism" (which is handled in paragraph 3) and it presents the ID pov that empirical science is "dogmatic" (which belongs in paragraph 1 or 2). I can only guess that you're fluffing the intro up in order to argue that something you don't like will have to be taken out. FuelWagon 02:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon: I have no hidden agenda--my preferences are stated above. I thought my motive for the edit you complain about was clear to all; hoping to bypass more frustrating reversion wars, I restored all of the sentences that any currently active editor seemed to be in favor of--including parts I think should go--so that we could most fruitfully edit the intro as a group. Rikurzhen took the step of isolating the various paragraphs for comment here, which I think was a good idea. Every editor but you seems civil and interested in jointly arriving at an improved, mutually agreeable version of the intro. We actually seem to be making progress. Why you want to subvert this process with vandalism and childish accusations is beyond me. BTfromLA 03:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

BT: I'll back Fuel on this one. What he lacks in people skills, he makes for as an editor. That's why I asked him to come to this article. There was NO request to freeze changes to the intro until you unilaterally enforced one. And you've reverted what I consider to be mostly good work, without mirroring it here. I imagine Fuel doesn't see the point in doing work twice, where you want to build concensus. You're both right. Go to your corners and let's move on to round two. *ding ding*--ghost 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This paragraph is redundant (and possibly contibutes to a POV tone) when viewed against the rest of the intro and the body of the article.--ghost 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Version 2

We have a lot of suggestions above. Here is the version that FB and ghost seem to like. --Rikurzhen 04:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add in the obvious changes from above. Comment below each paragraph. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Some ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

"Some ID adherents" is safe, but maybe unnecessary. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID advocates among its fellows or officers. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. The ID movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution (athough ID in and of itself does not oppose evolution), and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

They would oppose philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, but I think they are actually arguing against methodological naturalism more directly. --Rikurzhen 04:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma as pseudoscience in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist political action organizations to that end. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as not science. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable, violating the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help.

the "recast religious dogma as pseudoscience" is not clear to me. --Rikurzhen 05:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, sentence 2 could read: "...have described ID as ].(insert link here)"--ghost 05:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The following was suggested by 66.114.66.87:

"...the scientific requirement of falsifiability. However, ID advocates counter that intelligent design, as a general concept, is observable in nature: by observing what human "intelligent designers" have produced over the years, we can form some concept of what it means for something to be the product of an intelligent mind. This criterion, they allege, can then serve as a reasonable basis for recognizing design that is not of human origin.

From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." This sort of claim is an argument from ignorance. Currently, alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on. + ID is often accused of violating another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor. The criticism here is that ID, by postulating a designer, invokes an unnecessary and superfluous hypothesis to describe data that are equally well accounted for without recourse to such a hypothesis. From this point of view, ID is similar..."

From the point of view of empirical science, ID is similar to the claim "we don't know how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids, therefore aliens must have helped." This sort of claim is an argument from ignorance. Alien construction is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. Science would simply say "we don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids" and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, which leaves space for the possibility of alien intervention if empirical evidence were found later on.

Moved my comments on 3, 4 & 5 here. I suggest we drop paragraph 5, as it's redundant, and blend 3 & 4 as follows:

"...ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor, creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help. For example: We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. Some ID proponents argue that this lack of an explanation points to intervention by a divine or alien entity. The scientific community would simply state this lack of an explanation and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found." --ghost 05:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you'd like to do is fine with me. I was just having a hard time seeing the big picture amoongst all the comments. But note my comment about the analogy. --Rikurzhen 05:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another Version of the Intro

For what it's worth... --BTfromLA 07:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID advocates argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Many ID adherents believe that there exist instances of "irreducible complexity": fundamental biological forms that cannot have evolved from simpler forms. Therefore, they argue, it is highly probable that these building blocks of life were deliberately designed by some intelligent entity.

The Intelligent Design movement, which began in the mid-1990s, is closely associated with the Center for Science and Culture, an organization that counts most of the leading ID proponents among its fellows or officers. Their advocates argue that ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. This movement has attracted considerable press attention and pockets of public support, especially among conservative Christians in the US. These supporters embrace ID as an alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and many advocate that ID should be offered alongside the standard scientific models in public school curricula.

ID has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. For example, the National Academy of Sciences, which includes more than one hundred and ninety Nobel Prize winners among its members, flatly states that ID is not science. According to science historian Michael Shermer, “The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including scientists who are Christians, do not use when they do science because it offers nothing in the way of testable hypotheses.” Scientists contrast ID with the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by observable and repeatable facts, such as the processes of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and speciation. Since an "Intelligent Designer" is neither observable nor testable, ID theory does not meet the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Critics also charge ID with violating the principal of Occam's Razor, another cornerstone of the scientific method, by creating a superfluous entity (the designer) to explain phenomena that may have simpler and scientifically supportable explanations.

Critics of the ID movement, including those who speak for the National Center for Science Education, have labeled ID "stealth creationism," a veiled attempt to reintroduce religious ideas into the scientific realm and the public schools. But many ID proponents insist that Intelligent Design is, as mathematician William Dembski puts it, “ a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments.” Critics counter that the attempt to cast ID as purely secular is disingenuous, since many leading ID advocates believe that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, and ID has been widely promoted as a form of religious apologetics. ID advocates, in turn, accuse their critics of refusing to honestly consider evidence that threatens the scientific community's dogmatically held assumptions. Thus, the subject of Intelligent Design remains deeply embedded in political controversies and charges of bias and bad faith.

We seem to be in pretty close agreement on paragraphs 1 & 2. Good, let's move on. I feel strongly that, if we're going to include quotes in the intro, they must be followed by links to the sources. I see you dropped paragraph 4 in favor of a rework of 5 (which is much better than it was). If we're going to keep it (I still feel it's redundant, but the new version is less so), let's spruce it up with Wiki links to things like creationism, secular, God of the Bible and dogma. Also, you didn't address my suggestion that the (former) paragraph 4 be reworked as an example of the debate. I believe the pyramid analogy has merit as it illustrates both approaches to a well known mystery. What are your thoughts, and where would it work best? Prior to the closing sentence?--ghost 14:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes should have links--the Shermer and Dembski quotes are here --another editor found the NAS "not science" claim above, I'm hoping they can provide a link to that. Adding wikilinks is fine, of course. If the pyramids must come in, they could best be grafted onto the end of paragrah 3, as you suggested. But I don't think that analogy is needed in the intro; as it stands, I think the version tips toward an anti-ID POV, because it offers (primarily in paragraph 3) a much more detailed refutation of the claims than a description of the claims. The pyramids analogy will only add to that disproportionate weighting, and it isn't even directly addressing ID. I think it's important to keep in mind the goal of this intro; it should introduce the subject of ID, which inevitably means it needs to introduce the controversies surrounding ID. This is not the same as supplying a primer of scientific reasoning. There is no problem if some relevant aspects and details are omitted--that is the nature of an intro. What we want to avoid are omissions that mislead. I don't think the above version is misleading about the nature of the scientific objections to the ID claims, do you? By the way, I think the last paragraph above summarizes the larger controversy, so I read it as a useful conclusion and bridge to the rest of the article, not as redundant. Without such a paragraph, the intro reads almost as "ID makes a bunch of claims; science has shown those claims are a bunch of crap. The end." I hope others will weigh in on that question. BTfromLA 16:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know, the aliens-build-pyramids example is gone. Why am I not surprised? Maybe, because I said BTfromLA put in paragraph 5 so he could cut out paragraph 4 later? Somehow, "I told you so", isn't quite strong enough phrase here. BT, what is your problem here? The argument that "aliens built the pyramids" fits every violation of empirical science that "god put life on earth" violates. It is a completely fair example. And it also puts all this scientific mumbo jumbo into a real world example. The only reason ID has gotten as far as it has is because it hides behind mumbo jumbo. Unless there is something about the aliens-built-pyramids argument that is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT from "god/alien-intelligence put life on earth" from a "violation of empirical science" point of view, then its a legitimate example and deserves to stay:

Does Aliens-Built-Pyramids or God-Built-LifeOnEarth satisfy the following empirical requirements?

Repeatability? no

Observability? no

Occam's razor? no

falsifiability? no

Are both arguments from ignorance? yes

Therefore it is a completely fair example as to the empirical science violations. FuelWagon 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, you evidently lack reading comprehension skills as well as the most basic principals of civility. At no point did I say that the analogy was unfair, only that it seemed unnecessary in the intro. Unnecessary. Think Occam's razor. BTfromLA 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

BT, I think the example is necessary. It puts all the scientific criticism into a real world example. Otherwise its mumbo-jumbo versus mumbo-jumbo. And ID gets traction by hiding in the mumbo jumbo. Put it into a real world example and everyone sees how un-scientific ID really is. And as an aside, if you want to claim the high road and civility, then you shouldn't lower yourself to insulting my reading comprehension skills in the same sentence. FuelWagon 20:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, I think BT's argueing that an example of any type is not appropriate in the intro. So let's invert the thought. Is the Pyramid (or any other) arguement/example more appropriate elsewhere in the article? I think not. Although I had reservations about it's initial inclusion, I can't think of a place in the body where such an example would communicate less POV than the intro. Now to tackle the question of if it's appropriate at all...--ghost 21:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah ghost, I get that was his point: no example of any kind in the intro. And I disagree. As a scientist myself, I see a vast difference between the words/vocabulary (stuff like "observability" and "repeatability" and "occam's razor"), and the reality of it all. I think it extremely important that all this mumbo jumbo be put into a real world example or the debate will appear to be nothing more than arguing vocabulary. IT IS NOT. We're not talking about the definition of science in some boring, hypothetical, university setting. We're talking about whether or not the idea that aliens helped the egyptians build the pyramids should be considered a viable scientific assertion or not. For every reason aliens/pyramids should not be considered scientific, so too should ID/life on earth. FuelWagon 21:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

BT, I reviewed one of your eariler statements as to why you felt an analogy should be dropped in favor of the 5th paragraph's point-counterpoint. Without such a paragraph, the intro reads almost as "ID makes a bunch of claims; science has shown those claims are a bunch of crap."--BTfromLA

We need to inform the reader of the controversy, without leading them down one path or the other. The reason I feel an example/analogy is best is that this allows the reader to gauge the debate vs their own worldview. Point-counterpoint is tried & true, but tends to end up as fingerpointing, with one side (usually followed by the other) raising cane about not having equal "airtime". I'm looking for an intro that's, not bullet-proof, but Teflon coated. Your rewrite of Paragraph 5 was a major improvement, but I don't think a pure point-counterpoint approach will stand the winds of Misplaced Pages, while remaining NPOV.--ghost 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pyramid Analogy doesn't fit

Based on my readings of William Dembski, I think the pyramid ditty is a false analogy and therefore an obvious straw man. Let me analyze. Intelligent Design's goal is to reach a statement such as this - The origin and diversity of life are known to be complex in such a way that it is impossible to believe that it came about by either (a) known natural laws or (b) random processes or both. Therefore, given that neither (a) nor (b) explain the existence of life, we are justified in a third explanation (c) life was intelligently designed. (see The Design Revolution pg. 34)

And the only question ID seeks to answer is whether or not life was designed or it wasn't. It pleads total agnosticism on what kind of designer(s) was behind it. "What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer's thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design." (The Design Revolution pg. 33)

The pyramid analogy fails because it juxtaposes one intelligence (the Egyptians) against another (the aliens), rather than juxtaposing natural laws and/or random chance against intelligence. We can fix the analogy by revising that the question is whether the pyramids were intelligently designed, or were the product of sandstorms, volcanoes, meteor crashes, erosion, and floods.

The question ID is concerned with is not "Who designed the pyramids?" but "Are the pyramids designed?" The current form of the analogy is like granting that life is designed, but we're saying that it must be designed by Odin (aliens), because Zeus (the Egyptians) didn't have sufficient life-making technology.

Or use another analogy altogether.

• ID investigates whether or not life was the product of design just like a detective investigates whether or nor a dead person was killed intentionally (by intelligence) or accidently (by natural laws and/or random processes).
• ID's investigation is similar to one who stumbles upon a Lego castle in a desert. Was it made by humans, or was it whipped up by raw minerals and weather patterns?

David Bergan 19:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

you're hiding behind words. A Lego castle in a desert must come from an outside source. There is no other explanation. It cannot happen naturally because it is inorganic and therefore subject to entropy over time. When organic chemistry occurs to the point that it becomes "alive" and therefore overcomes natural entropy, then you can have all sorts of complex things occur. Not a Lego castle in the desert, but a lizard nest in the desert. And you're also redefining science from "finding testable, repeatable, empirical facts" to "suggesting interesting causes" or some other definition that fits the pro-ID point of view. If a man were found dead, forensic scientists would NEVER say he was struck down by some outside intelligence (alien abduction or a lightning bolt from Zeus). The aliens-built-pyramids represents the empirical science point of view of ID. Both aliens-built-pyramids and god-created-life violate every basic scientific rule. FuelWagon 20:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What does "hiding behind words" mean? David Bergan

It means hiding behind logical falacies. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Which fallacy? Just give me the name, that's enough. I have two books on logical fallacies on my desk right now. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to articulate precisely what I read in Dembski's book. And that is that the first cell is like a Lego castle... only much more complex. We find neither information-rich structures in raw nature (think, other planets) nor the polymers that make up Lego plastic. In that way, finding a Lego castle in a desert is like finding the first cell in a desert. David Bergan

You cannot find information-rich structures in raw nature because you're looking in the subset of nature called "raw nature" that has only information-poor structures. This is circular logic and a logical fallacy. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is your logic that is circular. You are taking the case under investigation (Earth and its life) and using that as your example that raw nature produces information-rich structures. Give me an example outside of the case under investigation and show me information-rich structures that we know scientifically arose from ONLY natural laws and randomness. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're starting to really piss me off. To paraphrase you: "We find (no) information-rich structures in raw nature" NO SURPRISE THERE! You've conveniently defined "raw nature" to be anything that is not information rich. If it is information-rich, you rule it out as being "raw nature", and so if you look in the part of nature that is not information rich, you find no information rich nature. It's circular logic. You might as well say "We find no salt water in any fresh-water bodies". Nature contains information-rich stuff like DNA and cells and animals and its all natural and its all information rich. By limiting your search to "raw nature" you conveniently ignore anything that would qualify as information rich. And so it's circular logic. FuelWagon 18:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Give me an example outside of the case under investigation" You really need to read those logic books you have. Logic does not grant credence to an assertion and require anyone disprove it. If YOU assert something to be logically true, the YOU have to provide the proof. And your proof as shown above is circular, and so proves nothing. FuelWagon 18:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give me an example outside of the case under investigation and show me information-rich structures that we know scientifically arose from ONLY natural laws and randomness.--David Bergan Fractals. Go read Choas, by James Gliek (1988). 'Nuff said.--ghost 21:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that the Lego castle "must" come from an outside source? Is it just intuition, or did you come to that conclusion scientifically? David Bergan

If you do not understand Occam's Razor, go learn it. The "lego in the desert" example is a moronic strawman. No scientist would see a lego in the desert and consider that it might have been created by random events in nature. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Namecalling doesn't answer the question. How do you know with scientific certainty that it the Lego was the product of intelligence? This is precisely the question ID wants to answer. The castle could be the product of randomness... and your beloved Occam's Razor should lead you to believe that no intelligence was involved since that is an unnecessary extra factor. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point was simply that the analogy cannot juxtapose one intelligence against another, when ID clearly juxtaposes intelligence against a process of natural law and randomness. David Bergan

You are getting wrapped up in the circumstances of the example. An example, must have different circumstances or it is no longer an example, it is the original. The point of an example is to take different circumstances and show that the same principles apply. The principle being applied here is that the aliens-built-the-pyramids idea violates every scientific principle that the intelligent-designer-created-life-on-earth idea violates. In contrast, your lego-in-the-desert attempts to have similar circumstances at the expense of showing different principles, and as an example, is therefore worthless. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your last 4 sentences, first define for me what is the difference between inside and outside intelligence. Is SETI a scientific project? They are seeking to find radio waves that were caused by intelligent E.T.s (what you would call outside intelligence). Maybe we wouldn't indict them for murder, but if SETI decoded a message from the Andromeda galaxy that said "Surrender to us all your fossil fuels or face extinction" we could certainly indict them for extortion (even if we can't make them sit in our courtroom).--David Bergan 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This is pointless non-sequitor. If you want to debate the validity of SETI, do so on the SETI talk page. The idea of life on other planets has scientific basis because life on earth has scientific basis. The principle of evolution can apply to other planets. So it is scientific to look for life on other planets (whether it is a smart choice economically, is a matter of taxpayer debate). But ID is not scientific, so, once again, you've changed the principles of the argument. FuelWagon 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ever see Contact? How did they know that the radio signal was intelligently designed? Is there a way of distinguishing intelligent radio wave patterns from random ones? That's what ID is investigating... but most specifically in terms of recognizing patterns of design in life. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then put an example of legos-in-the-desert or "Contact" in paragraph 1 or 2 to represent the pro-ID point of view and leave the empirical science example alone. FuelWagon 18:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bergan, I understand you straw man concern. Frankly, I had the same concern the first time I saw the Pryamid analogy. But I've since reached the conclusion that a logical comparison of some type is needed, and is most appropriate in the introduction. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a better comparitive mystery? Fuel already discounted your Lego analogy based on inorganic vs organic. Further, what of the Mars rocks that may show signs of life? If we found naturally occuring polymers in the atmosphere of a gas planet, how woul that impact your Lego example? Choose something else.

Also, I also strongly disagree with your assertion that ID discounts natural processes. The Deists make no such assertion, the Theists and Creationists do. In fact, the Deists rely on natural processes. Arguing this point would support the idea of ID as stealth creationism. Does The Design Revolution contain any analogies similar to the Pyramid analogy? Perhaps there's a middle ground of quoting a logical example which clearly shows the thought process behind each side.--ghost 21:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your comments in LIFO order. I can see how you might be confused. Here's what I'm trying to say. Design theorists aren't discounting natural processes, in one sense. But they are in another. Think of it this way: When Michael Dell makes a computer, he doesn't break any natural laws. He invokes no miracles. But the finished product is of such complexity that you know it was not made by "raw nature" (that is, natural laws and/or random processes alone). There was an intelligence that manipulated nature to get the desired result. Similarly, the design theorist is only interested if intelligence played a role at all in the process of life's origin (and diversification), or if it can be fully explained by known natural laws and randomness. Does that help?

Dembski gives several analogies in his books and all are helpful in different ways. I'm not sure I agree on the limitation of using only organic analogies... it makes the principle much harder to understand because humans (the only intelligence we know a lot about) haven't done a lot of designing per se of organic stuff. I mean it's easy to tell a designed clay pot from an undesigned hunk of clay because we have been doing pottery for thousands of years. We haven't designed ourselves any organic "pots". The only potential candidate I can think of would be dog or horse breeding... or those experiments where they grafted a human ear on the back of a rat. I'll give it more thought and probably log on later tonight or tomorrow. I gotta go because I have an appointment in 5 minutes. David Bergan 21:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You said:

"the design theorist is only interested if intelligence played a role at all in the process of life's origin (and diversification), or if it can be fully explained by known natural laws and randomness."

You are once again redefining science. Science starts from not knowing anything, assuming only that the world-rules are unchanging, and figuring out what it can know/repeat/observe from there. Science is a human endeavor and will always have areas in which it does not fully know everything, and therefore cannot explain something. That something can or cannot be fully explained by science does not mean you now have permission to redefine science. It means that science does not know. But science remains firmly in the principles of observability, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. FuelWagon 22:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Aw, crap. I just realized I'm getting pulled off-topic here. Sorry. This section is whether or not the pyramid example fits. I say it fits because the pyramid example and ID both violate the same scientific principles. FuelWagon 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The pyramid example fits from the point of view of scientists (this fact doesn't seem to be in debate). It may or may not be acceptable to ID advocates; but that they would dislike it is all but expected because they are ID advocates to begin with. Whether the analogy would convince people to disfavor ID is completely irrelevant, because convincing people of things is not the role of Misplaced Pages. --Rikurzhen 00:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, if we're going to look for an alternative analogy, should we consider one that *shudders* teaches the controversy? Better here than it being jammed down my kid's throat at school. But I agree with Rikurzhen that an analogy should inform rather than lead. That's why I want to see if there's one we can quote. However, if we can't find an alternative, I move that we try to balance the Pyramid analogy. In this case, something is better than nothing.--ghost 12:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: "inform rather than lead". I think we're going down the subjective road that leads right into an intractable quaqmire. The point was to put the scientific POV about ID into a real world example. Since any POV statement will be biased, one could always argue that it is "leading". I'm not sure how you can present any example that gives the best case for the scientific point of view that wouldn't be considered biased/leading by someone who is pro-ID. Both sides should present their strongest arguments from THEIR point of view. FuelWagon 14:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FW. Our job is to present both sides as well as they would present themselves, but we have no mandate to hobble one POV in "fairness" to the other (a tempting misinterpretation of NPOV). The reason I agree is that while our job is to "inform rather than lead", if we happen to lead while doing our best job at informing, that's not a bad thing (nor a good thing) just something that may happen. For example: if we were editing an article about white supremacy, and we did a really good job of presenting both sides, it would be okay if at the end of the article the white supremacy movement did not sound appleaing to most readers -- because it is indeed not appealing to most people. Thus, if we do our job ID should sound unappealing from the POV of science, because it is indeed unappealing to scientists. --Rikurzhen 14:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. And my point was that we can avoid the quagmire by evenly presenting both POVs in the analogy. I think my attempt in Version 2was about 80% of the way there. How's this:

For example: We don't know exactly how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. The ID community might argue that this lack of any plausable scientific explanation points to the possibility of intervention by a divine or alien entity. When considered alongside other unexplanable phenomenon, outside intervention becomes the most likely answer. The scientific community would simply state the lack of an explanation, list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, leaving space for the possibility of intervention if empirical evidence were later found. The other phenomenon might be considered non sequitur.--ghost 15:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the response from the ID community would probably just be to argue that the analogy doesn't fit. I just don't know. --Rikurzhen 15:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

ghost, my opinion is that the analogy is totally irrelevant to ID. ID is NOT about saying, "We don't know how this happened, must have been X!" (Where X = God, aliens, or blue gas) ID is about scientifically analyzing things that seem like signs of intelligence to verify whether or not they actually are. A Lego castle is a sign of intelligence, and we check the polymers, estimate the odds of that thing coming about on its own without intelligence and see if our intuition is right. Even Richard Dawkins admits that a living cell seems like it was designed (first page of The Blind Watchmaker). ID is just trying to figure out if our intuition that it was designed is true. David Bergan 15:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a Google search turns up this , supposedly from Of Pandas and People: "cientists from Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniformed sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)." --Rikurzhen 15:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see a couple of ways to go about this. First, we could keep the pyramid analogy in as is and label it the scientists's POV, and then the next sentence could explain how it is a false analogy and completely misrepresents ID. But I don't see the value of propagating misinformation no matter how popular it might be with an elite community. That would only complicate the issue and confuse readers.

The second option would be to use a new analogy. Here's one straight from the first page of chapter one of The Design Revolution by William Dembski. "Think of Mount Rushmore-what about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence. Such features or patterns are signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, are not content to regard such signs as mere intuitions. Rather, they insist on studying them formally, rigorously and scientifically." (pg. 33, The Design Revolution, italics in original)

This analogy does accurately define ID. It points out that design theorists are looking for signs of intelligence. And even though there is a lot of agreement that Mount Rushmore (and Lego castles) shows such signs, there is still plenty of controvery or whether or not life shows signs of intelligence. The real debate isn't over what ID is defined as, but rather over whether or not biological systems have the signs ID is looking for. David Bergan 15:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

That's not even good English. --goethean ॐ 15:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, the only criteria for including the analogy is that it accurately represents the opinion of scientists. There seems to be no doubting that it does. That ID proponents would dislike it is to be expected because scientists and ID proponents disagree about ID; if anything, this reinforces the claim that that analogy represents the views of scientsts. p.s. please re-read the paragraph, it already identifies the analogy as the POV of scientists. NPOV demands a journalist narrative tone. --Rikurzhen 16:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. I'm really not trying to take out the POV of the majority of scientists. But what's at stake here is the definition of Intelligent Design. The pyramid analogy is a skewed definition of ID, because it defines ID as appealing to God because science simply does not know how it could happen otherwise. Rather ID is (as Dembski defines it) investigation into things that are possibly signs of intelligence to verify if indeed they scientifically show such evidence. David Bergan

So, if the pyramid analogy really is the majority opinion of scientists, then that shows that the majority of scientists don't even know what the hell ID is. David Bergan

No, it shows that pro-ID folks don't know what science is and are attempting to redefine it. FuelWagon 18:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) The aliens-built-pyramids example is science's view of ID. If want to present an ID example of science such as lego-in-the-desert, by all means, put it in para 1 or 2. FuelWagon 18:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, we could take an opinion poll of Americans to add a POV to the definition of natural selection. But I think everyone here would agree that the majority of Americans don't have a clue what natural selection is. So what we need is accurate, informed, definitions... not just popular ones. Understand my concern? I'm all for keeping the evolutionists point of view in the article, but evolutionists no more define ID than design theorists define evolution. David Bergan 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. But I think ID is plenty well defined in the first 2 paragraphs. If you think it not clear, change those paragraphs for clarity. If you think pro-ID needs an analogy too, add one. But we can't delete the POV of scientists in order to improve the presentation of the definition of ID. --Rikurzhen 16:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think Dembski's Mount Rushmore analogy is a good explanation of what ID is. I'll add it tomorrow (with the cite) if no one objects. David Bergan 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It might do well to juxtapose the two analogies in the same paragraph and conclude with a sentence about disagreement/controversy. Some of the material from "paragraph 5" (above) might help as well. --Rikurzhen 17:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Argh. Can we just avoid analogies, period? They're argumentative and POV by nature. I don't like this pyramid analogy, and I don't want to "balance" it with another analogy. Screw analogies; let's just say what it is we need to say, plainly and clearly. Graft 17:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --goethean ॐ 17:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the IDists are very good at argument from analogy, and little else. Dunc|☺ 18:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dbergan is simply bogging this down by arguing two mutually exclusive requirements: (1) that he doesn't mind the example presenting the scientific POV and (2) the example should be "balanced". If you "balance" it by his definition, you fail to represent the scientific point of view. And by continually arguing in circles, he has worn some of you down. I refuse to be hornswaggled by someone attempting to beat this into submission. The pyramid example is a fair representation of the scientific view of ID. It violates exactly every scientific principle that ID violates. It represents the scientific point of view. End of story. If Dbergan wishes to put the lego-in-the-desert analagy in paragraph 1 or 2 of the intro, fine. But this is an attempt to weaken the scientific point of view simply because someone is disagreeable to the scientific point of view. This is utter crap. The goal is to present all points of view with their strongest arguments, not weaken all arguments until most wikipedian editors agree. If[REDACTED] must water down the scientific point of view until most of teh ID-supporters are happy enough that they stop complaining, then[REDACTED] is more about feeling good and making everyone happy than reporting the facts and the truth. FuelWagon 17:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enough!

Enough already! The analogy is a fair representation of how science views ID. Both ID and the pyramid example violate the same scientific principles of observability, repeatabilty, falsifiability. Both violate Occam's Razor. Both are arguments from ignorance. This is a fair representation of how science views ID. So, it's a fair example. FuelWagon 18:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is a fair representation of how science views ID.

It's a fair representation of how some scientists may (or may not — no documentation has been provided) view ID. Saying that 'science views x as y' is like saying that philosophy or politics views x as y. It doesn't make sense. --goethean ॐ 18:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing that Misplaced Pages can state nothing unless it is quoted from an outside source, this is irrelevant. FuelWagon 18:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources is a Misplaced Pages guideline. I do not consider it irrelevant. For disputed claims, it is extremely helpful to have a citation so that the issue can either be investigated or resolved. --goethean ॐ 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

another wikipedian guideline is be bold. Does it or does it not violate repeatability, observability, falsifiability, occams razor? Be bold or hide behind the guideline that favors the result you want FuelWagon 19:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Hide"? Don't make me laugh. You can be bold and cite your sources also. You're the one trying to force an obviously inappropriate metaphor into the intro. And that from some perspective the alien metaphor formally resembles ID doesn't make it appropriate. There is such a thing as content also. If you changed the alien metaphor to a purple flying monkey metaphor, or a "my dog Spot" metaphor, or a "my little finger" metaphor, would it be equally appropriate? I think not, because these examples are increasingly absurd. By most standards, religious beliefs are not inherently absurd. Per Misplaced Pages guidelines, the best way for you to keep your metaphor in this article is for you to cite your sources. --goethean ॐ 19:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard Swinburne, an Oxford philosopher, has argued that belief in God does not violate Occam's Razor. So to answer your question, not uncontroversially, no.

But ID isn't talking about God. It claims it isn't creationism, but that it is scientific. And from the purely scientific point of view, ID creates an unnecesary entity to explain something that can be explained by simpler means. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant to whether an intelligent designer is needed to explain life on earth. The common form of Occam's Razor is Do not multiply entities needlessly. And an intelligent designer isn't NEEDED to explain life on earth, and so it violates Occams Razor. FuelWagon 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Dbergan wants to put a lego-in-the-desert analogy in paragraph 2, fine. The pro-ID side should present their strongest point of view and their best argument in the article. But trying to modify the scientific POV analogy to make the pro-ID side happy is never gonna happen. This is turning into arguing whether ID is right or wrong and that'll never get settled on the talk page. The point is that the analogy is a fair example of the scientific point of view. There is no reason to cut it from the article. FuelWagon 18:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That the analogy represents the POV of scientists is uncontested (thus far). Likewise, claims that scientists view ID as pseudoscience or that ID violates Occam's razor are not contested. These are not cited in the intro, nor are any other claims in the intro, because they are tenamount to common knowledge which is easily recognized from primary and secondary sources on the topic. Our short-hand way of describing them in the intro does not violate Misplaced Pages policy; and if it did, writing intros would be impossible. If it did, writing anything but quotations and references would be impossible! Clearly an encyclopedia cannot survive without that miniumum of input from its editors, which gives up the freedom to craft new phrases to describe POVs (so long as they are accurate). This should be the end of the debate. --Rikurzhen 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, I was raised that a good compromise is one nobody likes. Let's do this:

• Stick with Paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 as laid out in Rikurzhen's Version 2.
• Add the links we discussed, and that's your intro. Period.
• Move the analogies (paragraph 4) to their own subsection early in the article.
• Move the point-counterpoint (paragraph 5) to the debate section (4).

Alternatively, chuck 4 & 5 altogether. They're relevant and add value, but it would be worth it to stop this nonsense. I don't like either solution at all. So, maybe one of them works. Thoughts?--ghost 20:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to weigh in here today, but I hope people will also consider the "yet another" version, which I think is a superior intro to the one ghost suggests above, and it avoids the controversial analogies. BTfromLA 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why explication can't be accomplished without the use of analogy. That shouldn't be hard. Merely leaving out the analogy suffices:

From the point of view of empirical science, ID is an argument from ignorance. Although there are many unanswered questions in evolutionary biology (e.g. the details of the evolution of a particular biochemical pathway), the fact that these questions have not been answered (and may not be answerable) due to lack of evidence does not mean that they constitute a disproof of evolutionary theory.

Ah, wait - now it becomes clear why the analogy is helpful. Removing it reveals the fact that we're being argumentative quite clearly. Also, it doesn't seem to me at all that the above claim is TRUE. ID is NOT the same as argument from ignorance. That would go, "We don't know how flagella evolved. Therefore, flagella could not have evolved. Therefore, they must have been designed." ID, on the other hand, argues, "In order for flagella to have evolved, individual flagellar components must have evolved piecemeal. However, each flagellar component is vital, without which flagella cannot function. Therefore, flagella cannot have evolved. Therefore, flagella must have been designed." This seems to me to be a syllogistic fallacyfalse premise, rather than an argument from ignorance. Can we stop trying to write "from the point of view of empirical science"? Graft 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how the argument is posed, doesn't it? As you describe it above, it does indeed contain a false premise (that flagella cannot have been useful in any form prior to the one we see at present). But if you challenge that premise, the argument from ignorance surfaces immediately: "I cannot see how it could have been useful in a prior form, therefore it could not have been useful." Sorry if I'm just muddling things up, I'm not sure how to classify the argument actually. --Yath 21:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point was that we're basically constructing straw-men here, in the end. Graft 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to help us all avoid alot of headache, folks. Yes, Ver 2.0 chucks the analogy(ies). But it also keeps what I've called a "point/counterpoint" format to the intro. That opens the intro to countless rewrites, reverts, vadalisisms and arguements. Move the point/counterpoint to the debate section, and you'll avoid a big chunk of that. I'm not happy with it. I stand behind the belief that an balanced example of both sides approach to the same problem would better inform the reader, while avoiding the pandora's box of point/counterpoint. But, I'd like to see us wrap this intro up and move on. We've got 18 other pages to go. :-)--ghost 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to BT's version, I think it does fairly well at avoiding point/counterpoint. Graft 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the only objection to BT's version is FuelWagon's, because he likes the pyramid analogy. Obviously I don't hold that point of view; I think we should go with BT's version. Graft 21:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree --goethean ॐ 22:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just happened across this quote by an evolutionist against ID: "They've used so much technical jargon that anybody who doesn't know a whole lot of evolutionary biology looks at it and says 'It sounds scientific to me, what's the matter with it?'" says Princehouse. This is exactly why I think an example is important. Pro-ID folks would prefer it all sound like simply arguing vocabulary definitions. FuelWagon 22:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and in case someone thinks "aliens" is too far-fetched for ID, here's another quote: "ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls extraterrestrials as the leading candidate." So, it would seem that "aliens built the pyramids" is not that outlandish of a representation of ID. FuelWagon 22:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a ID proponent says aliens is one possibility: "in The Design Inference, William Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician at Baylor University, proposed that any biological system exhibiting "information" that is both "complex" (highly improbable) and "specified" (serving a particular function) cannot be a product of chance or natural law. The only remaining option is an intelligent designer - whether God or an alien life force. " FuelWagon 22:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another quote that could be used as an alternative to the alien/pyramid analogy: "according to evolutionary theory it is not individual organisms but populations of organisms that evolve. As we have seen previously, it is this mistake that makes some people think that evolution is wrong because we never see dogs changing into cats." FuelWagon 22:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With an Pro-ID expert suggesting that the "designer" might be an extraterrestiral alien, I say the aliens-built-the-pyramids is that much MORE relevant to the debate. The Pro-ID arguments I've run across present preposterous situations like finding a pocket watch under a stone. That is ID's viewpoint of explaining evolution. From empirical science it is preposterous. But it presents ID's POV. likewise, the aliens-built-pyramids analogy is no more farfetched of an analogy, no more farfetched than a watch spontaneously forming under a rock, and no more leading than those examples. And it presents the empirical science view. It actually isn't as outrageous as the watch/rock analogy, because pro-ID folks suggest aliens COULD be the designer. so Aliens-Built-Pyramids is much closer to aliens-created-life than the watch-under-the-rock analogy. The arguments against the pyramid analogy are basically raising the bar for what qualifies as a legitimate analogy for science's POV, while allowing pro-ID analogies that would fail the same test. Hypocricy. FuelWagon 22:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. all the righteous indignation at being asked to pony up to personal bias. Fine, lets all pretend the arguments come from a vacuum, and deal with the shit as it leaks through the pipes bit by bit. whatever. I'll take down the question since it's rattled some folk's sensibilities of good conduct.

ID proponents cite aliens as possible designer

Oh, and in case someone thinks "aliens" is too far-fetched for ID, here's another quote: "ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls extraterrestrials as the leading candidate." So, it would seem that "aliens built the pyramids" is not that outlandish of a representation of ID.

With an Pro-ID expert suggesting that the "designer" might be an extraterrestiral alien, I say the aliens-built-the-pyramids is that much MORE relevant to the debate. The Pro-ID arguments I've run across present preposterous situations like finding a pocket watch under a stone. That is ID's viewpoint of explaining evolution. From empirical science it is preposterous. But it presents ID's POV. likewise, the aliens-built-pyramids analogy is no more farfetched of an analogy, no more farfetched than a watch spontaneously forming under a rock, and no more leading than those examples. And it presents the empirical science view. It actually isn't as outrageous as the watch/rock analogy, because pro-ID folks suggest aliens COULD be the designer. so Aliens-Built-Pyramids is much closer to aliens-created-life than the watch-under-the-rock analogy. The arguments against the pyramid analogy are basically raising the bar for what qualifies as a legitimate analogy for science's POV, while allowing pro-ID analogies that would fail the same test. Hypocricy. FuelWagon 23:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review