Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:08, 12 August 2007

	Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Creationism FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

• (2002-2003)
• (2003)
• (Jan-Sep 2004, 53kb) - Are oppositions/criticisms of ID relevant?
• (Aug-Oct 2004, 46kb) - Is ID theory falsifiable?
• (Sep-Nov 2004, 42kb) - Overwhelming majority: POV? What does "scientific" mean?
• (Nov-Dec 2004)
• (Dec 2004-early Jan 2005)
• (Jan-April 2005)
• (April-May 2005)
• (Early - Mid June 2005) - Structured debate; the Pryamid analogy; Article Splits)
• Archives 11, 12, 13
• (Mid-August/Mid-Sept 2005) - ID as creationism; ID proponent's religious agenda; ID as scientific hypothesis
• (Mid-Sept/Early-Oct 2005) - Computer simulations & irreducible complexity, Criticisms of criticism, Footnote misnumbering, NPOV
• (Mid-Oct 2005)
• (Mid to late-Oct 2005) - Mainly involving users from uncommondescent.com and admins
• (Late Oct to early Nov 2005)
• (early to mid Nov 2005)
• (Mid Nov 2005) Tisthammer's and ant's objections
• (Nov 2005) Enormous bulk of text
• (30 Nov - 3 Dec 2005) various proposals, peer review
• (Early Dec 2005) - Mostly chatter concerning the current pool of editors
• (Mid Dec 2005) - Whether intelligent design is to be upper case or lower case
• (Late Dec 2005) Two major re-orgs and the Kitzmiller decision
• Marshills NPOV objections
• Reintroduction of Vast discussion
• Archives 27, 28, 29
• July 2006
• August 2006
• DI warning, DI and leading proponents again
• First archive of 2007
• January 22, 2007
• Jan – early Feb 2007
• Feb 9 - Mar 30, 2007
• - April 19, 2007
• Initial work towards a consensus lead in April 2007.
• April 19-April 26, 2007
• April - early May 2007, including work on lead.
• May 2007 unproductive discussions
• Archive 41. Reference formatting and other minor issues.
• 24 May - 8 July 2007
• 08 August 2007

Points that have already been discussed

The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again:

1. Is ID a theory?

   Fact and Theory

   Does ID really qualify as a Theory?

2. Is ID/evolution falsifiable?

   Falsification

   Falsifiability

   ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable, etc.

3. Is the article too littered with critique, as opposed to, for example, the evolution article?

   Criticism that the Intelligent design page does not give citations to support ID opponents' generalizations

   What ID's Opponents Say; is it really relevant?

   Bias?

   Various arguments to subvert criticism

   Critics claim ...

   Anti-ID bias

   Apparent partial violation NPOV policy

   Why are there criticizms

   Critics of ID vs. Proponents

4. Isn't ID no more debatable than evolution?

   Argument Zone

   The debatability of ID and evolution

5. Isn't ID actually creationism by definition, as it posits a creator?

   ID in relation to Bible-based creationism

   What makes ID different than creationism

   Moving ID out of the "creationism" catagory

   Shouldn't this page be merged with creationism?

   ID not Creationism?

6. Are all ID proponents really theists?

   ID proponents who are not theists

   A possible atheist/agnostic intelligent design advocate?

7. Are there any peer-reviewed papers about ID?

   Scientific peer review

   Peer-reviewed stuff of ID (netcody)

   Yqbd's peer-review arguments

8. Is ID really not science?

   ...who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community...

   Meaning of "scientific"

   Why sacrifice truth

   Rejection of ID by the scientific community section redundant

   Intelligent design is Theology, not Science

   Philosophy in the introduction

   Why ID is not a theory

   Bad philosophy of science (ID is allegedly not empirically testable, falsifiable etc.)

   The "fundamental assumption" of ID

   Peer-reviewed articles

   Figured out the problem

9. Is ID really not internally consistent?;

   Distingushing Philosophical ID (TE) from the DI's Pseudo-Scientific ID

   The many names of ID?

   Removed section by User:Tznkai

   Pre- & post- Kitzmiller, proponents seek to redefine ID

   Defining ID

   Figured out the problem

   "Intelligent evolution"

   ID on the O'Reilly Factor

10. Is the article too long?

    Article Size

    Notes

    The Article Is Too Long

11. Does the article contain original research that inaccurately represents minority views?

    Inadequate representation of the minority View

    The "fundamental assumption" of ID

12. Is the intelligent designer necessarily irreducibly complex? Is a designer needed for irreducibly complex objects?

    Irreducibly complex intelligent designer

    Settling Tisthammerw's points, one at a time

    The "fundamental assumption" of ID

    Irreducibly complex

    Irreducible complexity of elementary particles

    Repeated objections and ignoring of consensus

    Suggested compromise

    Resolution to Wade's & Ant's objections (hopefully)

13. Discussion regarding the Introduction:

    Intro (Rare instance of unanimity)

    Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests)

14. Is this article is unlike others on Misplaced Pages?

    Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule

    Call for new editors

    Archives 22, 23, 24

15. Is this article NPOV?

    NPOV

    Archive 25

16. Are terms such as 'scientific community' or 'neocreationist' vague concepts?

    Support among scientists

    "Neocreationist" social, not scientific, observation

    Archive 26

17. How should Darwin's impact be described?

    Pre-Darwinian Ripostes\

18. Peer Review and ID

    Peer review?

    Lack of peer review

    Peer Review: Reviewed

19. Discovery Institute and leading ID proponents

    Are all leading ID proponents affiliated with Discovery Institute?

    Archive 32

20. Why is intelligent design lower case, not upper case?

    Renaming Intelligent design as Intelligent Design

21. Is the article trying to equate ID with Christian Creationism and the Discovery Institute too much?

    The article discusses the formulation disseminated by the Discovery Institute affiliates

"Claim"

The word "claim" is listed as one of the WP:Words to avoid. I don't think you can start the article with it. What is wrong with the word "concept". That is what ID seems to be, a philosophical concept that, as the article says, goes back to Plato. Steve Dufour 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA appears to only seek the avoidance of "claim" as a verb, not as a noun. Additionally, it is only a "part of the Manual of Style", not a hard and fast rule. The problem with "concept" is that it gives no indication of how controversial and controverted ID is, thus white-washing it. ID is not a well-formed or legitimate "concept", it is a baseless and frequently-equivocated "claim". Hrafn42 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case it probably should have a shorter article. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

concept- 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.

2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

2 easily fits. --Xiahou 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So you tell me to see the talk page, which I do. I read it. I look up both words in a dictionary. Wiki has a rule that you interpert for one usage of it. Also you feel the word should show controversy (aka pov). I want to add a word that is netural that doesn't show pro or con just says its an idea, aka a concept. Taking no sides. Your opinion of ID doesn't belong on wiki. Its your POV. My opinion doesn't belong on wiki its pov. But the word Concept using the definitions provided are netural not saying its a fact or not just an idea. So tell me again how my netural addition would be wrong for wiki and npov? --Xiahou 02:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ID lacks the consistency or coherence to be considered a concept. You might also like to read WP:UNDUE. ID is a claim made for purely political ends. End of story. ornis (t) 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

So... you say ID is an "IDEA" but you want to describe it as a "concept" - and you accuse others of having a POV. Hmmm. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that the lead has described ID as a claim for at least two years now, in which time the article has undergone massive revision, expansion, copyediting, discussion and two FA reviews, both passed. Clearly the consensus is that ID is a claim. ornis (t) 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

read the definitons ] what are we arguing about I don't want pov. the editor who changed it admits he wants the word to show controversy. Idea is netural. click the or here
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
2. a thought, conception, or notion: That is an excellent idea.
3. an impression: He gave me a general idea of how he plans to run the department.
4. an opinion, view, or belief: His ideas on raising children are certainly strange.
5. a plan of action; an intention: the idea of becoming an engineer.
6. a groundless supposition; fantasy.
7. Philosophy. a. a concept developed by the mind.
b. a conception of what is desirable or ought to be; ideal.
c. (initial capital letter) Platonism. Also called form. an archetype or pattern of which the individual objects in any natural class are imperfect copies and from which they derive their being.
d. Kantianism. idea of pure reason.

8. Music. a theme, phrase, or figure.
9. Obsolete. a. a likeness.
b. a mental image.
6 covers those who don't and 7 covers the middle pro con ground.

on the issue of concenus for claim. That line of logic doesn't click. By saying that you could apply that at any time to any part at your will to keep it as is. So far including myself we have 2 editors who have changed it from claim and the topic here is less than 24hr old. As the[REDACTED] page on concensus says it can change. Here iam trying to add a netural word rather than one that by an editors own statment is to push for controversy while in the same statement saying they don't believe it. While I am trying to make the article start out neutral and let the reader make their opinion which is what the NPOV page says even reading your undue weight part supports that. --Xiahou 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you (ConfuciusOrnis) revert again without discussion then place a 3rr on my talk page (which I gladly added to yours, don't quite know the point of shooting your own foot there) I am here suggesting someting neutral even compromises of other words that have a npov tone to let the reader decide and you just up and undo it without more discussion or any compromise towards concensus all the while touting your personal feelings on the issue which have no relevancy on the article, nor should they. Notice not once i have said this, how I feel about the article personally. I am trying to follow wiki rules and procedures. I've discussed this shown other choices and been bluntly rv'd with no explination. Please follow your standards and wiki rules and give me the same courtesy.--Xiahou 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am here to agree with ornis. The word claim is perfectly appropriate in this article, in this context, and as near as I can tell, the consensus states that it stays.--Filll 03:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Xiahou, you seem to be implying that it is somehow a violation of wiki guidelines or principles to portray ID as controversial. Yet the name of one of the DI's major campaigns is "teach the controversy". This is a controversial topic. When controversy exists around a subject, it is accurate and neutral to describe that in the article. It would be more misleading to portray ID as something non-controversial, or even a topic which has long-standing academic respect. That is why the editors with experience of this article react so unfavorably to suggestions that ID is "a philosophical concept that... goes back to Plato". Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When they say "teach the controversy", I believe they mean controversies about the Theory of Evolution. "ntelligent design theorists, by and large, do not support the mandating of intelligent design in public schools." Have you read, The Myths Surrounding Intelligent Design at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3275 ??? --Yqbd 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Teach the Controversy" .... dave souza, talk 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A while ago I suggested: "Intelligent design is the speculation that 'certain features of the universe...'" Your initial reaction might be that "speculation" sounds biased, but think about it for a moment. What exactly makes ID more than a speculation? Unless you can present evidence which would push ID past the speculation stage, which by the way would shake the foundation of modern biology (it could happen in principle), then I suggest that we call a spade a spade. Xerxesnine 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more like calling a spade an ostrich. A speculation is by definition subject to change should evidence to the contrary arise. ID like all other forms of creationism, takes the existence of a creator as an article of faith and is most definitely not subject to change. It's a claim, a political tactic, nothing more. ornis (t) 12:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my meaning. To me, "speculation" connotes less authority than "claim". But to you the reverse is true? I also don't see your point about changing/unchanging definitions as particularly relevant. We just use the given definition of ID and say that's a speculation. Xerxesnine 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with authority. A speculation is a guess made in the absence of sufficient evidence to form a hypothesis. This doesn't apply here because there's ample evidence, it just contradicts ID... and yet ID is still held to be true as an article of faith... but they've shorn it of overt religion to make it look sciencey, so what you are left with is a couple of vague claims, about complexity and design. ornis (t) 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I only said "authority" in the context of the connotation of the words "claim" and "speculation". I could have used other words, like "powerful" or "strong" or whatever. You appear to be arguing against a point that I'm not making. I'll ask again, Do you believe the word "speculation" sounds stronger, or more powerful, or more assertive (or more "authoritative") than the word "claim"? I think "claim" sounds stronger, which is the reason I suggested using "speculation" instead. Xerxesnine 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ornis, but in the given context, "speculation" would appear less neutral. A speculation is something that is made in absence of data, but the claims or conjectures ID is making are made in spite of the evidence. Reinis 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it's inaccurate, that's all. Arguments about how "strong", "powerful", "forceful" or "well-adapted to survive in a sub-arctic environment" either term is, are frankly irrelevant. ornis (t) 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Thanks for clarifying. Xerxesnine 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> I don't think any of the alternatives suggested above reflect the 'pushiness' of ID. It is not "thrown up for discussion" like a speculation, it is not "submitted to testing" like a hypothesis, it is not "refined" like a concept. It is shoved brutally forward like a bulldozer with little or no regard for honesty, accuracy or consistency. Therefore it needs a noun that reflects that 'pushiness' -- 'claim', 'contention' or 'assertion' would seem best, but 'proposition' might also be acceptable. Hrafn42 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just brainstorming (c/o m-w.com) --- credo, credence, creed, doctrine, gospel, ideology, philosophy, belief, conviction, tenet, theology, axiom, precept, principle, hope, insistence, opinion, notion, sentiment, view, faith, perception, attitude, assumption, presumption, presupposition, concept, conception, idea, thought, position, stand, surmise, suggestion, outlook, perspective, point of view, slant, standpoint, viewpoint. Xerxesnine 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the words "proposition" and "assertion" were discussed at several points before in this context; "concept" had been used in the first sentence for at least a year until earlier in 2007, I think. So what we ended up with is "claim". Some people obviously thought words like "concept" and "proposition" are too nondescript in light of, for instance, the legal manipulations involved of ID and how it flew in the face of virtually the entire scientific and science education communities and a federal court decision where the judge essentially said "ohh, pllleeease!, this ain't science, it's religion!", and felt compelled to note the deceptions he encountered from the ID camp in the trial (though Behe spoke truthfully). I personally don't happen to agree that a word like 'claim' is necessary, and think any of the above would work in its place, 'contention', 'assertion' , 'proposition', even 'concept' or 'premise' and probably a couple others that Xerxesnine pointed out immediately above. But, having said that, 'claim' is OK too, IMO. It can be interpreted neutrally, and also can be interpreted as implying something more forceful than a mere 'proposition', 'concept' or 'premise'. In this regard 'claim' has more in common with 'contention' and 'assertion'. ... Kenosis 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> This version was the outcome of a lot of discussion and work, and received a significant degree of approval. However, the discussion was reopened again, and after an immense amount of argument which can be found in the archives for the months after that point, the term "claim" was reintroduced as part of a re-write and expansion of the lead. The earlier version is cited from s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 24 of 139 "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God", "Concept" had difficulties because the "concept" of a designer applies to all forms of theistic and deistic religion, including theistic evolution which has no problems with evolutionary science. Page 28 of 139 notes that "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition", but the consensus seemed to be that this was not as good a word as "claim". .... dave souza, talk 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the use of the weasel word 'claim' also. I propose that the first sentence contains a little more reality by saying:

Intelligent design is a form of creationism that has been obfuscated by the notion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Pasado 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Denied. Reinis 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Very accurate, but it has NPOV problems.

Also, "claim" as a noun is not a weasel word; as a verb, on the other hand, it can be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok...restore the consensus noun 'claim'....take out NPOV issue word (which I assume is 'obfuscated') and we have:

Intelligent design is a form of creationism modified by the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

We have many reliable, verifiable cites for the 'Intelligent design is a form of creationism' statement. The big quote is the DI's own words, so that part is their definition. Pasado 17:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals

See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd's_peer-review_arguments for text. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design FAQ?

Does anyone think that a summary of previously raised issues similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ might be useful here, to avoid rehashing old debates? ornis (t) 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice thought but I don't believe it would work. There's already a whole list of links to archive contents, and if people won't click on those, I don't think they would click on FAQ links. I guess I fail the AGF test :-( but that's how I see it. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I was suggesting was basically just a summary of those indexed discussions, signed off on by the major contributors. While I agree with you that most won't read them first I think it's useful when someone turns up and wants to exhume the foetid remains of a long dead horse and give it a kicking, to be able to say in effect, "This has already been discussed, consensus was reached, the summary of that is here: talk:Intelligent Design/FAQ#Is ID Science?". ornis (t) 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already said I liked the idea, e.g.: "Please listen to the following options, as our menu has changed. Para español, marque dos. If your question is "why isn't intelligent design a scientific theory?, press 3", etc., etc. Unfortunately I was notified that WP doesn't do this sort of thing. I should note that a modified form of FAQ-links is already included at the top of this page. Geez, the basics are already included in the article lead. Maybe how about an RSVP FAQ?, like "have you read the article yet?" and if so, "how far have you read?" and "did you check any of the sources?", etc. FAQs? For what? All the responses are already in the lead section of the article, IMO. Always open to new possibilities though. ... Kenosis 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree. Three things were done on evolution that helped. First, the evolution FAQ; I wrote the first version. Second, a well-indexed and easy to use record of past discussions. Third, a baby daughter article, such as Introduction to evolution; I helped with that baby article. Also, removing the misunderstandings and controvery sections from evolution helped, but that option is not available here. Now, evolution really is not been near as unstable as it was 8 months ago. Maybe some combination of these would help this article. It is worth a try.--Filll 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List of peer-reviewed scientific journals

See Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd's_peer-review_arguments for text.--Yqbd 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The judge wrote theory.

As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."

The judge wrote theory. Are there objections to using the word theory now? --Yqbd 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The judge also wrote: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Hrafn42 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then ID is at least a theory, but not a scientific theory according to the judge. --Yqbd 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But if it is not a scientific theory, then it must be merely a theory in "the “colloquial or popular understanding of the term and suggest to the informed, reasonable observer ... only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”" To avoid this confusion, we only use "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word in this article. ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory, so it will not be called a "theory" (see the notes at the start of this talk page & WP:WTA#Theory). This is, I believe, all that needs to be said on this issue. Hrafn42 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"not a scientific theory according to the judge" --Yqbd 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

... and also according to the scientific community, and the science-education community, and the mainstream press, at least in the US. In the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, most just laughed, and "alternative placements" were quickly found for the advocates in each of those three sovereign nations. Turkey remains to be seen. ... Kenosis 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, Hrafn42's quote, "ID, as you have admitted, is not a scientific theory", should be "ID, as the judge wrote, is not a scientific theory". --Yqbd 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

::::So, if the judge says it is a theory then that's a good argument for Yqbd asserting it's a theory, but then when other editors say it is not a scientific theory, they are wrong because the judge ... agrees with them? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This is pointless. User:Yqbd has shown no sign of wanting to discuss improvements to the article, nor of anything other than debating a particular Discovery Institute talking point. That is not the purpose of this Talk page. Further, the debate is being carried out in an argumentative style which is disrupting and provoking other editors. Finally, responses to certain criticisms and challenges are very reminiscient of User:ProtoCat, who was banned as a sock-puppet of VacuousPoet, who in turn was a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo. All in all I don't think talking to this user will achieve anything positive. Sorry to have had two AGF failures in two days, guys, and I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you go about fact checking "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"? --Yqbd 05:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 06:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Would it be a reasonable statement of the consensus of editors of this article that attempts to re-open issues on which a consensus has already been achieved that lack support from either:

1. new evidence from a reliable source; or
2. a relevant policy change,

...will generally be regarded as disruptive editing and may be summarily moved to a subpage or deleted?
If so, I think a statement to this effect in the notes at the start of this talkpage would be a good idea.Hrafn42 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - we have to cut the newbies some slack. An awful lot of people charge in here with bold proposals, edits, or arguments, and still turn out to be surprisingly reasonable when called on it. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest a modification of this statement that would exclude 'legitimate newbies' from being affected but would still allow reasonably prompt diversion of newbie trolls? The reason I'm suggesting that we need such a statement is because we're doing something like this anyway (perfectly legitimately), so it would be a good idea to have it codified (and thus avoiding any appearance of arbitrariness and/or capriciousness). Hrafn42 05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments. I'm concerned that the wording at present leaves no room, for example, for the principle that "consensus can change". It's also a bit, well, growly. I will think on it. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on the flip-side we would want to avoid trolls asking "has the consensus changed yet?" every five minutes. Hrafn42 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the designer

The paragraph just above the heading "Origins of the term" states:

"Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case."

The above statement contains a popular misconception about the identity of the designer. ID leaders have indeed named the designer.

The article's reference #34 above is to Dembski's 1999 Touchstone article in which he says that "intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." When Dembski said that, he was identifying, indeed defining, the designer as not only God but Jesus Christ, to which "Logos" refers in the Gospel of John, as Barbara Forrest points out on pp. 3-4 of her paper http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf.

See also the article's reference #142 at pp. 39-40 of "Is It Science Yet? Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution," at http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf. Note here also that Phillip Johnson also defines ID as requiring God when he defines it as "theistic realism."

So it is clear that it is more than "a personal view of many proponents" that the designer is the Christian God. Pasado 05:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say that certain ID advocates have made a point of avoiding to describe the designer, when such avoiding is (how to put it?) politically convenient. --FOo 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ: What is the Identity of the Designer? --Yqbd 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11

at 85).
...
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it ” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14

(Haught)).

-- Dover Decision Hrafn42 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the explanation for all the criticism again?

What were the reasons for this article having the amount of criticism it has? --Yqbd 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the note entitled "Please read before starting" at the top of this page. Hrafn42 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't see any NPOV problems with the article? --Yqbd 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Hrafn42 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been said over and over again; NPOV doesn't mean that shouldn't be criticizing pseudoscientific ideas like ID. The current view of the scientific community is that ID is pseudoscience, so it's the POV taken by this article. So no, there's no NPOV problems. If, one day, the ID movement produces several articles supporting their view in serious peer-reviewed journals, then we'll have to change the article. But for now they are more interested in convincing the public (in other words people with little understanding of science), so I doupt a major revision of the article will be needed. -PhDP 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To correct Ph comment slightly, the POV of the article is not that ID is pseudoscience, but rather that that view, which is the scientific consensus, is given appropriate weight. JoshuaZ 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for WP:DE?

I see that that a particular editor is ignoring past discussions and the consensus that resulted from each by flogging a dead horse and edit warring, and that it's become disruptive. Having been blocked once already, he shows no sign of letting up. If this continues, we follow the steps set out at WP:DE and seek a topic ban. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. There is only so much that we should put up with. And since it seems to continue, in a disruptive fashion, and the editor in question seems to be unwilling to behave in a noncontentious and nonabrasive fashion, then steps probably need to be taken. To do otherwise is to encourage this kind of behavior, and the page will quickly be engulfed in nonsense and destroyed. This is particularly true given the stated objectives of the DI, and reported efforts at recruiting trolls and POV warriors to attack this article at IDEA clubs etc.--Filll 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would likewise support this. The editor in question has been given ample opportunity to either make a substantive contribution to the discussion, or at very least confine their disruption to a subpage -- they appear interested in doing neither. Hrafn42 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it's three blocks in three days, by different admins, each time due to actions on this article or its talk page. However, we cannot ban a user by consensus. Perhaps a user RFC is the next step. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can completely block a use by consensus, though. Given a single-purpose account like this, there likely wouldn't be a difference. If you want to request this, perhaps make a post at Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard. --Infophile 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Time to archive. FeloniousMonk 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Ec5618 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

I was surprised when I tuned into the article because it was so one sided. Really, assuming that someone has never heard of intelligent design before and they go to Google and type the term in and take the Misplaced Pages link they expect to be told exactly what Intelligent design is and who its major proponents are. Instead you get a full page of various quotes in order to prove that it's not scientific. Okay, we get it; the majority of scientists don't accept it. But can't you readjust the order of the article so that the more interesting portions are at or near the top? 190.43.195.158 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article seems very biased. Now a judge said it was a theory but here they are saying that a theory is not a concept (an idea; often used specifically of philosophical ideas.) And they have said that ID is a philosophical idea so it IS a concept. Seem like they are pushing their agenda here. BarretofWeldon 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When one goes to google and types in "intelligent design" one finds 8 articles that attack intelligent design, one article that is pro-intelligent design, and this one, which has both pro and anti-pieces. And the criticism pieces are quite prominent because it purports to be science, and in science it is viewed as nonsense. To maintain WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the article is written the way it is. Also, WP is the result of consensus of hundreds of individual editors. What you see is what you get.--Filll 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the order of this article. The lead starts out by describing it, and the first two section also serve to describe its claims. Only after that is the criticism section. I really fail to see where you find a problem with the order. --Infophile 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem may be that different readers find different things interesting. It isn't possible to lay out the article so that everyone who reads it can find what they want at the top. Our only hope is to (a) provide a well-laid out contents section to allow people to get to the section/s they want to, and (b) try to provide a well-laid out article, as described by Infophile, ideally using the same sequence of topics that other articles use. To be fair, the "quotes saying it's unscientific" do follow on from the introductory paragraph saying that ID's proponents claim it to be a scientific theory and intend to fundamentally change the principles behind science. After reading that, one can hardly be surprised if wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight indicate that we give prominence to the consensus views of worldwide scientific organisations on the subject. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus References

Looking for archive for "hard-won consensus verion", "modified to avoid".

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

03:45, 9 August 2007 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs) (132,740 bytes) (Undid revision 150112439 by Yqbd (talk) restored hard-won consensus verion, please discuss before changing) (undo)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqbd (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest you start looking at the link entitled "First archive of 2007" and surely it will be somewhere between there and the archive entitled "April - early May 2007, including work on lead." I know, it's a lot of pages - that's what "hard-won" means. Happy hunting! Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Polls "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God."

What's wrong with adding "sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God." to the Polls section?

According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and sixty-four percent view human beings were created directly by God.

If intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist", then there should be no problem with adding the 64%. --Yqbd 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because there is a separate article for Creationism which is also quite large, and the less unnecessary overlap between the two, the better. The phrase in question clearly refers to a creationist belief rather than anything specific to intelligent design. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think intelligent design is not a subset of creationist belief or a distinct set or a partially overlapping set? --Yqbd 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should merge this article into Creationism? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No comment. --Yqbd 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps posts consisting only of rhetorical questions do not tend to contribute much to a discussion. Very well. Since Creationism and Intelligent Design are separate topics with separate articles, we as editors are obliged within reason to clearly distinguish between the two, to reduce the amount of redundant overlapping material in both articles, and to correctly assign material to the most appropriate article. It seems to me that the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is pure creationism, not ID. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ID is partially a subset of pure creationism, so the poll results of the belief that "human beings were created directly by God" is relevant. Only mentioning the 10% is misrepresenting. --Yqbd 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ID is creationism, but creationism is not ID, therefore support for creationism is not support for ID, therefore the level of support for creationism is irrelevant in the ID article. That is about as simply as I can put it. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Human beings were created directly by God" would patially overlap "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".

• People that identify "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "Human beings were created directly by God".
• People that haven't identified "God" as the "powerful force or intelligen being" would choose "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".
• Part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them", but "Human beings were created directly by God" is more specific. --Yqbd 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The poll explicitly identifies "created directly by God" with Creationism, and "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" with Intelligent Design. In other words, the source says that 64% believe in Creationism and 10% believe in Intelligent Design. Attempting to say that the source says anything else is either synthesis or misrepresentation, depending on what is said and why. And attempting to say anything else without reference to a source is original research. Is that simple enough or would you like me to clarify further? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not synthesis and it's not misrepresentation. It's pretty much a direct quote from the source. If anything, you're doing the synthesis by bringing the Misplaced Pages articles, Creationism and Intelligent Design, into this. Do you think it's incorrect to say part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? --Yqbd 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen any Venn diagrams with ID and Creationism? --Yqbd 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive30#Template_placement and the part from &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) where he says, "Additionally, as I explained to you before as ID is a subset of Creationism it (ID) should be the second template." --Yqbd 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Okay, let's take a step back. Let's assume that we can agree that the changes we make to articles should be governed by wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, for example: All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Misplaced Pages is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. If you read either one of the links in the quoted sentence, you will find that we can generally only add statement X to articles if there exists, somewhere in the real world, a reliable source that says statement X. Are we good so far, or did I lose you somewhere? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So far so good... now let's take a look at the source in question. If we scroll down to "TABLE 7:SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION – BY EDUCATION" and then cast our eyes down the column headed "All Adults (n=1,000)" to the last group af figures, entitled "HUMAN EVOLUTION", we see the following:

Belief in evolution 22%

Belief in creationism 64%

Belief in intelligent design 10%

You should also see the same data repeated in Table 8, which is a good sign that it wasn't just a typo or something. But how can we be sure that these figures are the same percentages as those in Table 5, the one just using those long phrases to describe peoples' beliefs? Let's try scrolling back up for a moment to "TABLE 6:EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM" where we can see the following three sentences in the left-hand column:

"Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals."

"Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God."

"Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."

This is solid confirmation that the source associates the phrase "human beings were created directly by God" with creationism, rather than with evolution or intelligent design.

Just to recap: you should be able to see for yourself that what the source actually says is that 64% believe in creationism, 22% in evolution, and 10% in intelligent design. Now, as I mentioned earlier, the guidelines of[REDACTED] pretty much forbid us from stating that the source says anything else. The guidelines also say that we shouldn't state things without using a source to back us up. Still with me? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 02:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Label the percentages however you want. This is very simple. Does part of the 64% also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"? Does part of the 64% also believe and represent supporters of Intelligent Design? --Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's like a poll with 22% saying they don't have a car, 64% saying they have a Toyota, and 10% saying they have a car. You wouldn't only put "10% have cars" in the Polls section of a car article to make people think only "10% have cars". -- Yqbd 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot label the percentages however we want. We have to deal with how the source labelled the percentages. Using the car ownership analogy correctly, Harris conducted a poll in which 64% said they own a car, 10% said they own a Toyota, and 22% said they did not own a car (remember, ID is a subset of creationism, just as Toyota is a subset of car, not the other way around). You seem to be arguing that some of those 64% who identified as car owners are in fact Toyota owners. The problem is that the source does not say that. Therefore, what you are saying is original research and quite unacceptable under wikipedia's principles and guidelines. We cannot say anything that the source does not say. This is, as you say, very simple. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Toyota doesn't just make cars. Not all Toyota's are cars. Toyota also makes trucks, and SUVs. Toyota is not a full subset of cars. Toyota and cars partially overlap each other. --Yqbd 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Then your choice of analogy was rather poorly thought out, because the source does not say that there is any overlap. The source divides respondents into one of four categories, depending on which answer they chose. There is no overlap between those categories; they are mutually exclusive; the four percentages add up to 100%.

Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22

Human beings were created directly by God. 64

Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 10

Not sure/Decline to answer 4

That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't have to say there is overlap. I don't see where the source says there isn't overlap. You said, "ID is a subset of creationism" and now you say that there is no overlap between "Human beings were created directly by God" and "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you say they are mutually exclusive, then you could be implying that all the 64% believe Omphalism and that they do not believe "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." which is what you would call, "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. " --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If we cannot agree on whether there is overlap between the 64% and 10%, you should have no problem adding that 64% polled "Human beings were created directly by God" since that is exactly what the source says and is relevant to the article. It is fair to add the 64% and let the readers decide for themselves. --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake, thought the figure was incorrect, turns out it isn't. There may be other reasons to keep it out, though. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of this issue at Talk:Intelligent design#Self-contradictory polls. Hrafn42 07:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

06:05, 9 August 2007 Hrafn42 (Talk | contribs) (132,730 bytes) (→Polls - This poll also has 46% saying "Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry" -- therefore the results on creation/evolution of humans is contradictory)

So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64% also or do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%? --Yqbd 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording of this poll makes it worthless. About half or more of all scientists that believe in evolution, and half of the general public are creationists by that ridiculous definition. Including me, and Orangemarlin. So it is just plain stupid.--Filll 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, why does the DI want to include the additional fraction? If ID isn't religion, then that fraction shouldn't be that relevant. JoshuaZ 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My impression from dealing with creationists and fundamentalists and biblical literalists over the years is that they will bend their definitions to suit themselves. When they want to look like a large group, they will adopt a very loose definition. When they want to exclude others, they will use another definition.--Filll 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Part of the 64% may believe their religion because of "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" and some of them may not. Either way, part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Does anyone disagree? --Yqbd 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. For example, one could believe that human beings were created directly by God but not believe that humans complexity required that. See for example Omphalism. JoshuaZ 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it's part of the 64% and not all of the 64%. --Yqbd 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, so what? The number that believed that life is "so complex" etc. was 10%. JoshuaZ 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say all of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". I said part of the 64% believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". Therefore, Omphalism has been taken into consideration and the people that believe "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" are 10% + part of the 64% which is more than the 10% that's represented in the Polls section. --Yqbd 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"So do you want the 46% mentioned with the 64%" -- No. The 46% contradicts the 64%, rendering both figures unreliable, so neither figure should be included (which is what I already said in Talk:Intelligent design#Self-contradictory polls, if you could be bothered reading it instead of asking questions that have already been answered). Hrafn42 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now answer the second part, "do you want to declare the poll unreliable and remove the 10%?" --Yqbd 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words what? Even assuming the referenced poll(s) are reasonably repeatable and reliable as to the particular questions asked, and even assuming the way the questions were framed are meaningful in some way that can be carried beyond the next public election cycle, the point is what? That ID is political? Perhaps that the content of biology classes in secondary schools should be determined by polls? Or, what? ... Come to think of it, I withdraw the questions, which were merely rhetorical. ... Kenosis 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If the 64% is unreliable, then the 10% should be affected also. --Yqbd 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The 64% is unreliable because it is directly contradicted by the 46%. The 10% is not directly contradicted, so we have no direct evidence that it is unreliable. Incidentally, the problem is primarily with the people polled agreeing with contradictory viewpoints, rather than with the poll itself. The poll is only at fault to the extent that (with more careful and searching questions) it could have resolved these contradictions. Hrafn42 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to say only a percentage is able to be unreliable by saying only the 64% of the 100% is unreliable, then let's say only 46% of the 64% is unreliable and just add 34.56% to the article. --Yqbd 00:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: That argument demonstrates a profound ignorance of statistics. As I said above (and in Talk:Intelligent design#Self-contradictory polls, why don't you read what I say, before responding) is that both the 64% and the 46% figures are unreliable. Your 34.56% has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER! Hrafn42 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what Sheffield Steel wrote.

That is what the source says. Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable. Clear enough? Sheffield Steel_stalkers 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're "Attempting to say the source says anything else is misrepresentation; attempting to say anything without a source constitutes original research; neither is acceptable." --Yqbd 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No Yqbd. I am merely pointing out the fact that members of the Harris poll's sample are expressing views that are prima facie self-contradictory on this issue. It is your 34.56% that is OR (and meaningless pseudomathematics besides). Hrafn42 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, do you have any objections to adding the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section? --Yqbd 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the 10% not affected and not unreliable? If you say the 64% is unreliable, then more or less than 10% could agree that "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already directly addressed this point in a comment above. Hrafn42 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is partial overlap between the 64% and 10% and that part of the 64% that believe "Human beings were created directly by God" also believes "Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." --Yqbd 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Userfied

Anti-evolution screed moved to User talk:Myles325a. ornis (t) 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

undergirds

"These activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."

What's the reference for there being a "religious worldview that undergirds it"? --Yqbd 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

Do you even bother reading the article? ornis (t) 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there an uncivil reason for asking that? --Yqbd 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We have repeated quotes from the main people in the DI that ID is just religion. We have a court determination that it is just religion. We notice that the DI uses the same discredited arguments that religious creationists use. The textbook for ID was the same textbook used for creationism, with a few edits of a word processor. How much more do you need? --Filll 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the simplest level, the answer to this question is that the reference immediately follows the text in the article, which is fairly unsurprising, since that style is used extensively throughout wikipedia. A higher level answer - a meta-answer, if you will - is that no reference is required, since we are directly quoting a statement by an individual. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory polls

Where a single poll presents levels of support for directly mutually-exclusive positions that exceeds 100% (which has happened with a few cited polls in the recent past), I would suggest that either the percentage for both these positions be presented, or (preferably) neither. Presenting just the percentage for one side violates WP:NPOV, as it creates the (logical but incorrect) presumption that the support for the mutually-exclusive position is, at most, 100% minus the first sides' percentage. Given that the support levels add to greater than 100%, this gives the suggestion that the poll is in some way unreliable, at least on that particular issue (hence my preference for the "neither" option). Hrafn42 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess as to what happened is that the designers of the poll allowed people to choose more than one option, and didn't realize that the options were mutually exclusive. The people reading this also didn't realize this and some chose contradictory options. Just a guess though, we'd have to look for more data on each individual poll. If we can't find more data, we should probably not use that particular poll. If we find out that more than one response was allowed, it might be appropriate to note this. --Infophile 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The polls that I've seen with this problem are Harris and (at the Creation Museum article]) Gallup. The problem appears to be that the poll asks about Creation and Evolution in separate Yes/No/Don't Know (or "Definitely true", "Probably true", etc) questions, and gets inconsistent answers to the two questions. Hrafn42 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A common trick that the DI and its associated organizations plays is to lump theistic evolution in with other forms of creationism and intelligent design in polls when it suits them, to inflate the numbers. I found this out when I was looking at polls that had been performed of Physicians and Surgeons when I was writing the article Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism. The polling organization produced a press release titled "Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design" (HCD Research press release, May 23, 2005) and the DI described it as "New Darwin Dissent List for the 60% of U.S. Doctors Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution: List Involves No Commitment to the Theory of Intelligent Design" (Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, May 4, 2006). So how did they do it? Just by playing with the statistics and lumping categories together, just as is done here. Pure cheating and dishonesty.--Filll 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that the dishonesty that Filll mentions occurs, but the Harris & Gallop polls illustrate a different problem -- we have people (at least 10% of the survey) that are agreeing with both of these statements:

• "Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry."
• "Human beings were created directly by God."

When people give such blatantly contradictory responses to surveys, it's impossible to work out what they think about such issues. Hrafn42 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A poorly designed poll, obviously.--Filll 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So is someone going to add the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section?

Not unless we have a source for the problems no. Nil Einne 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Hrafn42 says there is direct evidence according to the post.

The 64% is unreliable because it is directly contradicted by the 46%. The 10% is not directly contradicted, so we have no direct evidence that it is unreliable. Incidentally, the problem is primarily with the people polled agreeing with contradictory viewpoints, rather than with the poll itself. The poll is only at fault to the extent that (with more careful and searching questions) it could have resolved these contradictions. Hrafn42 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with Hrafn42, then we should add the problems of the 2005 Harris poll like the flaws of Zogby polls in the Polls section. If you don't agree with Hrafn42, then Hrafn42's reason for not adding the 64% in the Polls section is not acceptable. --Yqbd 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that I never stated that the entire poll was unreliable, merely the statistics that expressed directly contradictory opinions whose total exceeded 100%. I am quite happy if wording, narrowly restricted to this point, is included in the Polls section. Hrafn42 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By narrowly restricted to this point, do you mean pointing out the problem with question "WHERE HUMANS COME FROM" "Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be?" --Yqbd 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not -- I expressed what point I was making, perfectly clearly, in my above comment. I have no interest in discussing the matter further with someone who seems focused purely on nit-picking and twisting others' statements and not on substantive discussion. Hrafn42 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you want to add narrowly restricted to this point? --Yqbd 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This just in...did you see this article about how biased we are?

Take a look at--Filll 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog bites man, news a six. Casey Luskin has long competed for the title of most pathetic excuse for an ID-advocate ever. Why the Disco Institute keeps him on staff, I don't know -- a random essay generator could create more convincing propaganda. Maybe they thought his IDEA activities ruined him for any job in the real world, so they had to toss him this bone. Hrafn42 13:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." (Colbert '06) They've been doing this a lot, actually, and this is one of the tamer examples. Michael Egnor once actually compared me to Stalin when I removed an unsourced statement from the Reverse Engineering article. In this case, many of the complaints have been addressed on this talk page ad infinitum, and I wonder if some of the current trolls are taking complaints directly from that article (or its sources). --Infophile 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that some of these trolls either work for the DI, or are members of IDEA, or have been recruited by one or both of these.--Filll 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC)It's like "teach the controversy" in miniature. If you can't convince anyone that ID is even close to science, you send a sock here to kick, scream, edit war and troll till they get indef blocked, then churn out articles exposing the bias of wikipedia, run as it is by a bunch of hell-bound evolutionists, bent on destroying ID at all costs. ornis (t) 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- the trouble is that there's so many potential troll recruiting sites (e.g. blogs, religious right groups, etc, etc) that tracking down the origin of trolls (unless they're dumb enough to give the game away) is virtually impossible. Hrafn42 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, Egnor is in Misplaced Pages? Reinis 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope -- not yet. Hrafn42 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll -- why did you wikify my mention of Casey's name? Do you actually think that this bottom-feeding brain-dead nobody deserves his own article? If we gave him one, his competitors for the title, Davescot & Sal Cordova, would be livid. ;) Hrafn42 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I'm going to dewikify Egnor. I'll leave it up to you for Casey. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say all the trolls here are from the DI; plenty of people believe in creationism or are convinced by ID, and of those, a few are going to be nuts about it on their own. --Infophile 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You caught me. The reason I wikified Casey is that I wanted to know if he had an article and that was an easy way to do it. If he had had one, I was going to go there and do some choice edits :) --Filll 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why the Gods of Misplaced Pages invented the 'Show preview' button -- to allow you to test wikifications without leaving embarrassing traces. But even these Gods aren't capricious enough to allow an article on that idiot. :D Hrafn42 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, sometimes you can be so idiotic you get an article simply due to that fact. --Infophile 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gene is idiotic on a far more grandiose scale than Casey, whose greatest ambition appears to be boot-licker to the Disco boys. Hrafn42 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that this page is for improving the article, not bashing people with whom one disagrees. Also please note that responding to Luskin's criticisms by insulting the man on this page will simply make his criticisms look more justified. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad article. It tries to be fair and balanced in its presentation of what various parties are saying. I recommend that other editors give it a read through, and think about if there are improvements we can make to present this article more fairly and neutrally. Constructive criticism is always worth a careful evaluation. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I posted it. I disagree that this article is biased, but I understand his frustration. On the other hand, we cannot give in either. So...--Filll 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the Christian Post piece mentions a source from Paul Kurtz, but I wasn't able to find any such in the article. Does anyone know what Luksin's talking about? JoshuaZ 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news?

This just in... an article dated May. 09 2007?? We're falling behind here, with all these trolly distractions. There's still no mention on this article of The Edge of Evolution which recently attracted some interesting comments, and we don't seem to have covered Explore Evolution which has been around for ages as Explore Evolution, oops not that one, this one which was mentioned as a forthcoming attraction in March and is now getting reviews. I've been meaning to tackle these points, still a bit bogged down elsewhere so others may wish to get these on the go... dave souza, talk 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. We just are not able to keep up and keep all this family of articles in reasonable shape, add new material and new articles. Many of the daughter articles to this one are in sad shape. I have been rewriting many of the articles on petitions and now am working on rewriting Level of support for evolution. Creation museum is not in great shape. Carl Wieland is a mess. And so on...let's pull up our socks and stop basking in the glory of this defended FA. Fighting trolls is not that productive, to be honest.--Filll 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A short paragraph on Explore Evolution (book) appears in my article Bernard d'Abrera. d'Abrera's company, Hill House Publishing company is apparently the publishing company for Explore Evolution.--Filll 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Explore Evolution isn't for sale on Amazon, or any of the other major online booksellers, so I can't find an ISBN for it. The DI may be avoiding mainstream publicity for it (promoting it purely through friendly outlets like Biola University), to avoid its use getting noticed by First Amendment activists. Hrafn42 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only mention of Explore Evolution from the mainstream media is this brief mention:

As evolutionary science accelerates, however, antievolutionists are pushing back -- and exploiting the questions that recent discoveries have raised. A new high-school textbook from the Discovery Institute, "Explore Evolution," claims to teach students critical thinking but instead uses pseudoscience to attack Darwin's theories. The National Center for Science Education, which tracks trends in schools, has compiled a frightening list of bills and local proposals intended to open the door for creationist teaching in science education. In a survey published in Science magazine last year, 39 percent of American adults flat-out rejected the concept of evolution.

One thing we'll have to consider in both the case of The Edge of Evolution & Explore Evolution is where they fit into the article. The article does not presently have a section specifically on ID books, neither book appears to advance any named ID argument (IC, etc). Hrafn42 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, we will probably have to produce an article just focusing on Books on intelligent design. There are quite a few of them, and quite a few more than we have not covered yet, like "By Design or by Chance?" by ARN associate Denyse O'Leary . Reading a bit of her blog convinces me she is completely biased and does not have a clue about what science is. --Filll 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Denyse O'Leary doesn't have one blog, she has dozens (including a co-authorship of Uncommon Descent). And it's unsurprising that she knows next to nothing about science, her main 'exposure' to it was covering the science beat for a minor Canadian religious rag. She's a religious journo who pretends (rather ineptly) to have half a clue about science. Hrafn42 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing we would need is a rough hierarchy of ID books, from seminal ones (which typically have their own extensive articles already) e.g.: Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, Of Pandas and People, through intermediate ones (which would typically have a stub article) to ones so minor that few have heard of them (By Design or by Chance? would probably fit into this category). Hrafn42 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a List of works on intelligent design -- Guettarda appears to be its main maintainer. Hrafn42

Excellent. I added the three books we mentioned here to the list.--Filll 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For information, there's a red link at Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#The campaigns: "the most recent centered around the new intelligent design textbook, website and slogan "Explore Evolution". " It seems to be the replacement for Pandas, with the innovation that instead of calling creationist arguments ID, it now "seeks to put as many old-time antievolution arguments into the science curriculum as possible, without explicitly mentioning their preferred alternative. This, they hope, will make their text the basis of widespread lawsuit-free K-12 instruction." Exploring Evolution | Who is This For? gives a glimpse of their hopes that teachers and parents will take to it, particularly in states that have required or encouraged teachers (1) to help students "to critically analyze" key aspects of evolutionary theory or (2) to teach both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory... The other one, The Edge of Evolution, is Behe's black box mark 2, and merits a brief mention at the end of the IC section, if only for introducing the exciting news that The Designer has directly produced malaria and AIDS. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need more neutral sources about EE before we can write much about it. JoshuaZ 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. I did contact both the DI and the publisher for information about the book, and they were quite worried that I might be contributing to a review of the book and where it might appear. I didn't tell them of course. I don't need to get into a pissing contest with these guys. Sooner or later the book will be available and we will be able to access professional reviews in WP:V sources.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start on an Explore Evolution Companion. Notice the Quotations section; this is aiming to get complete coverage of all quotes deployed in the book. Over on Panda's Thumb, Paul Nelson mentioned the possibility of looking into the feasibility of perhaps starting an open discussion forum concerning EE on a Discovery Institute server; I had an open forum set up within an hour or two of that. Paul has contributed a few comments himself in that thread. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why they don't complain about Britannica and Encarta being biased too. :) Reinis 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the answers are obvious (1)they cannot interact with the authors and editors on EB and Encarta and (2) there is no possibility that they could anonymously edit EB or Encarta, whereas there is at least the promise of being able to edit WP, if they can get consensus.--Filll 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just checked, The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't flatter ID too. The most critical of these seems to be Encarta, though. ID there is a subhead in Evolution, and the article with the title ID simply redirects to creationism. Reinis 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time even talking about it

So a highly opinionated, religiously-centered, agenda-driven publication says Misplaced Pages is bad because we don't allow their highly opinionated, religiously-centered agenda onto the encyclopedia? What else would you expect people like that to say? DreamGuy 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I think it is a good sign. If they are upset, we are doing a good job, frankly. Because it means they have been unable to push their narrow POV agenda on us, and are frustrated and angry about it.--Filll 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

Both the article and the talk page is filled with a lot of jargon. I don't know what DI or ID means. I guess that ID means intelligent design and DI means the disco institute (like dancing?!) What does that have to do with anything? I think the first paragraph of the article should tell us what intelligent design is without using complicated jargon like telogicalism, which I didn't understand at the time and probably still don't. I didn't go to college. I think the article should be written on a 10th grade level, which is the level appropriate for most people. 190.43.195.158 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"DI" doesn't seem to appear in the article, "teleological argument" is linked to its respective article, and it's not possible to dumb down the language and still provide good coverage with these types of subjects. Reinis 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article covers numerous topics typically addressed at university level, I feel that demanding that it be written at a tenth grade reading level is unreasonable. Hrafn42 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested an elementary version of this article repeatedly, but it has not been met with a positive response. However, dear anon, since I have a pretty good idea of who you are, do not think that if there is ever an elementary version of this article, like Introduction to intelligent design that it will not be written in exactly the same tone as this one. In fact, it might be even more damaging to your pro-ID case since it will lay bear the fact that the DI is nothing but liars and dishonest cheats, and that there is NO, and I mean NO evidence whatsoever that supports ID. But it will just tell it in easy to understand language so more people can get that point, that your entire viewpoint is based on falsehoods and lying. Would you prefer that?--Filll 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt you know who I am, unless you spend a lot of time in Perú and never told me. At any rate, there's no need to get all in a huff about it. I just wanted to point out that I took the first paragraph of your article and put it into the Flesch-Kincaid Readability index and it told me that it was written on a 17th grade level. Now I'm sure you can do better than that. 190.43.195.158 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a feller I met somewhere before. Well g'ol dang!... There y'go--third-grade level. oops, lost my audio... anybody there? hello?.... hello? .... Hmm -- they must'a hung up. ... Kenosis 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) To IP 190.43.195.158: Sorry, your IP address came up as similar in geographic location to someone who was quite disruptive not too long ago, but it now appears you are not the same person. Unfortunately, most of the jargon that drives the readability index up to college level or beyond is invented by the leading proponents of intelligent design. Words like "teleological" and such are terms that describe the type of arguments that are involved, and are needed to explain the topic. I put in the introduction and it came up as grade-level-15 with a readability index of 19. if you take out words like "teleological" and a few others that are not explicitly what the intelligent design proponents have said, the reading level only goes down to 14 and the readability index only goes up to about 21 (as compared to "legalese", which would expect a readability of something like 10). I doubt there is much that can be done here without sacrificing accuracy and completeness. Thank you for the suggestion, just the same. ... Kenosis 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's really only one way of seeing if a project like that would yield useful results -- have a crack at it and see what happens. I know I couldn't do it, but then I'm not you. :) Hrafn42 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How I often start on these sorts of articles is to use the Simple Misplaced Pages article as a starting place. And here it is: . In fact, it is in such sad shape that I suggest it might be valuable to actually clean it up a bit, keeping in mind the Simple Misplaced Pages rules; it has to be written with about 1000 basic English words as a vocabulary. I might start there. Anyone who wants to help is welcome.--Filll 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments to the text and arrived at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of 13 with a readability index of 27. The proposed text is...

Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, which is also known as the argument from design. The argument has been modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute, all believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates say it is a scientific theory. They also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

Scientific consensus is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science. This is because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association has termed it pseudoscience. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and others have concurred. Some have called it junk science.

190.43.195.158 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The second sentence definitely needs "modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer" - as this is what differentiates ID's neo-creationism from traditional creationism.
• I see no reason to drop the "all" from the third sentence -- it is after all monosyllabic, and strengthens the connection between ID & the DI.
• I am however not against shorter sentence length, as long as this doesn't weaken the meaning.

Hrafn42 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to sound wrong, but for the first time ever in these contentious articles, an anonymous editor proposes a change that makes sense. I agree with Hrafn's suggestions, but the the suggested changes sound much better. Now anonymous editor, why don't you get a real name and help on the whole project?  :) OrangeMarlin 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It gets my vote as to the first paragraph, but not for the second proposed paragraph above. The first proposed paragraph I accept, wiith one very important exception, which is that the fourth sentence should read "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, all believe the designer to be God."
.......Anyone care to put wikilinks into a copy of the proposed first two paragraphs so we can see what it might look like after it gets wikified? ... Kenosis 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=150477158

190.43.195.158 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

recommended reading

I would like to recommend to editors working on this article two books, not just to ass to the further reading list but as resources for editors to this article. Both are books by Philip Kitcher: Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith and Abusing Science: the Case Against Creationism. One was reviewed, and the other discussed, in an essay by H. Allen Orr in the most recent issue of The New York Review of Books. Orr is an evolutionary geneticist in the Biology Department of the University of Rochester; he has published in Science and Nature as well as other top peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology, so his credentials as a scientist are impeccable - and he argues that both of these books, while specifically polemics against creationism and ID, are also superb and accessible inroductions to the philosophy of science and evolutionary theory. Kitcher is himself the subjct of a Misplaced Pages article; he is a professor of philosophy (of science) who holds the Dewey Chair at Columbia University, and who has published on both creationism and sociobiology and has also published in a host of peer-reviewed journals. I have to say, I am especially impressed when a pracicing scientist heaps praise on a philosopher of science. Orr emphasizes that in addressing creationists Kitcher is really trying to lay out as clearly as possible the essence of scientific thought and the history of the development of evolutionary theory, as well as the history of creationist thought (including but not limited to ID). I do not have these books, but if any editors here has access to them they might provide us with helpful ideas not just of themes we might want to develop, but of ideas about how better to express certain ideas. I just read the review this week, and it really is an outstanding review, which is why I bring it up now. I would think that even advocates of creationism would want to consult these books - if they are interested in developing arguments to support creationism; a good argument for creationism would be strengthened if it could respond to the argumnts in these books. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out the list I have collected here. Disclaimer: I've contributed to the first two books on the page; of course those are indispensable for the well-read person interested in what "intelligent design" is about. :-) -- Wesley R. Elsberry 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal Requirements for "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"

Regarding the removal of "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals", does everyone agree with Hrafn42's requirements? --Yqbd 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd: none of us particularly care whether these journals on your list are "peer-reviewed scientific journals" or not. For you to demonstrate that there are peer-reviewed articles supportive of ID, you must demonstrate, for each article, the following:

1. That the journal has a credible editorial and peer-review process (this leaves out Rivista di Biologia/Biology)
2. That this process was followed (this leaves out the Meyer article)
3. That the journal is competent for the subject matter of the article (this leaves out Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington for the Meyer article)
4. That the article is genuinely supportive of ID

Come up with competent evidence and arguments on these points, for a specific article, and we will listen to you (though there's an excellent chance that we'll disagree with you). Simply repeat DI propaganda, and you will get ignored. Hrafn42 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any other requirements to show that "articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals"? --Yqbd 04:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Hrafn4's requirements are fair. -PhDP 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Discovery Institute reliable or unreliable?

Once and for all, why is Discovery Institute reliable or unreliable? --Yqbd 04:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The DI's core mission is to push a lie designed to confused people. Their publications typically mix some truth with much fiction. For stating their own position, they can be taken as reliable, but for most other things what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. Raul654 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence for this assertion that "The DI's core mission is to push a lie designed to confused people."? --Yqbd 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence for this assertion that "Their publications typically mix some truth with much fiction."? --Yqbd 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to go to the effort to provide references for the perfectly obvious. DI's core mission is to push intelligent design. Intelligent design is a canard - an deliberately false theory designed to repackage creationism as science. The end purpose is to duck court rulings that eliminated religion from the science classroom, by confusing people into conflating science and religion. As far as lies found in DI publications, they simple fact that they claim as supportive of their position discredited, withdrawn, or totally unrelated articles is fact enough. And I'm sure others more versed in their claims could make a laundry list of falsities found in their publications. Raul654 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the DI, and its individual members, have a record a mile long for misrepresentation, making and repeating unsubstantiated claims, making claims well outside their areas of expertise, and even the occasional outright fabrication. Some of the evidence for this is presented at Discovery Institute#Controversy -- but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Hrafn42 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is a wholly partisan source that has conclusively been shown to be pushing half-truths and outright lies by other, less partisan sources. As such the Discovery Institute is only suitable as a primary source. FeloniousMonk 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Overview - Despite this, proponents believe that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

04:17, 12 August 2007 PhDP (Talk | contribs) m (132,474 bytes) (Undid. Discuss it. Anyway, it's already written in the article that IDists claim they have published in peer-reviewed journals.)

The likes of "No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing." is also written in the article. Why is it allowed in the Overview and why is "Despite this, proponents believe that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals." not allowed in the Overview? --Yqbd 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd, I really don't see the point of the change you're trying to push. The article already explains that IDists think they have published in peer-reviewed journals (in the last part of "Peer review"). The fact that they have not published in a peer-reviewed journal is very important, it's why it is considered pseudoscience, it's in part why ID is considered pseudoscience, it has to be included in the overview. And then, later (in the Peer Review section), we can add info on this -PhDP 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because of WP:UNDUE. Hrafn42 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to deal with the disruption

As I proposed before, and found support for, it's time to follow WP:DE and seek at least a topic ban for Yqbd; his disruption shows no sign of abating despite warnings and a previous block. He's clearly reached the limit of the community's patience at this article with his endless objections that misrepresent and ignore sources and facts and edit warring.

In the meantime I suggest we userfy all the new sections with tendentious objections he's created here. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Please, list examples of your problems and what you think are disruptions. --Yqbd 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference kitzruling_pg87 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24.
   • "...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer," and "...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." In: "Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?". Retrieved 2007-07-19.
3. Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
4. "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God". The Harris Poll #52. Harris Interactive. July 6, 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-13.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• FA-Class Creationism articles
• Top-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles