Talk:Irreducible complexity: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:16, 16 October 2007 editFilll (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →ID is not Science: a← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:22, 16 October 2007 edit undoFilll (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →ID is not Science: aNext edit →
Line 336:		Line 336:

	==ID is not Science==		==ID is not Science==
	Removed trolling discussion to talk page of lead instigator as per his wishes.--] 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)		Removed trolling discussion to talk page of lead instigator as per his wishes.--] 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Further 'stated examples' ==		== Further 'stated examples' ==

Revision as of 20:22, 16 October 2007

Creationism B‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irreducible complexity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid.

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Irreducible complexity. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Irreducible complexity or promote Irreducible complexity please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic.

Archives

/Archive 01 — March 2002 to January 2006
/Archive 02 — January 2006 to August 2006
/Archive 03 — August 2006 to April 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design creationism"

I've placed brackets (and a ?) on 'creationism' in the statement "intelligent design " in this article because, even though I'm aware of how much a problem I.D. is for Scientismists (that is Sceintific Fundamentalists), I.D. in-and-of-itself is NOT creationism and neither should it be PURPOSELY expounded as such. Some supporters of I.D. may in fact have creationist leanings but that does not mean all do, nor does it mean that they automatically must assume {stereotypically implied by opponents} that they believe the "intelligence" is a deity of whatever theological conceptualized sort. Indeed this was not a very OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED description of the idea of Irreducible Complexity. --Carlon 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The place to argue whether ID is creationism is at Talk:Intelligent design. As far as this article is concerned, the source quoted immediately after the phrase 'intelligent design creationism' uses that phrase to describe the ID campaign. ~~I'll edit the article to make that a little more clear.~~ Another editor already reverted that change; obviously I'm not the only one who thinks it problematic. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the place to argue the point of view isn't on article talk pages, though the question of the wording is appropriately discussed here. The reliable secondary source cited is clear that ID is indeed creationism, and we should not give undue weight to the religiously motivated legalistic denials of its proponents which are essentially primary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very strange to claim that you have a "reliable secondary source" in a policy position paper of an advocacy organization. Also, your remark simply dismissing the statements made by intelligent design advocates for having religious convictions is itself an NPOV violation. They do not define intelligent design that way. It seems that most ID advocates are theistic (which does not in and of itself imply that they are religious...religion and theism are two different things, although they can be related), but simply showing this doesn't prove dishonesty or some sort of illegitimate "bias", any more than pointing out that opponents of ID most often have a materialist worldview. 200.56.182.195 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

There is a dispute over whether fair use applies to the image on this page. Please join the debate at Image talk:Darwinsblackbox.jpg#Use of this image in Irreducible complexity. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious Violation of NPOV

User banned.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
I would like to say that, in general, this article constitutes a serious violation of NPOV. Two salient examples of this can be found at the beginning of the article. The first is "intelligent design creationism", a term that directly contradicts the definition given to "intelligent design" by its advocates. The citation cannot prove that the term is correct because it is a matter of definition...no peer-reviewed paper or other form of "authority" can determine the meaning of a word as it is used by another. If the advocates of intelligent design define the term in a certain way, that definition must be accepted. A second salient example is the unbalanced presentation of the arguments for ID with regard to the bacterial flagellum, which also appears near the beginning of the piece. ID advocates have answered the criticisms placed here, but they are presented as if no answer has been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, no doubt ID proponents object to the term being identified for what it is, but their view is in the extreme minority in the field they make their claim, the scientific community is the majority view there. And the scientific community says ID is creationism. As does the courts, educators, etc. Please take the time to read WP:UNDUE. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) A) You are acting in what seems to be a very biased and partisan way. You claim the "scientific community" says that ID is creationism, but no source is provided excepta public policy paper, which has nothing to do with a "scientific consensus". B) A term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term. The opponents of an idea can't change its meaning and then attack it based on their altered definition. ID, according to its advocates, does not assume the existence of God, even though it is certainly compatible with such a belief, and such a belief may be the motive for promoting ID. You need to answer these objections according to Misplaced Pages policy. MatthewHoffman 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It's interesting to watch someone who presumes enough knowledge on a subject to decide to edit an encyclopedia article would not know that the scientific community, in general, understands that "intelligent design" is creationism in a new guise. Would you also presume to tell us that you possess no bias, as well? We can, of course, produce significant commentary from accredited and respected members of the scientific community that would certainly satisfy any objective observer, and you would, no doubt, dismiss that commentary as "biased," while never addressing or acknowledging the obvious religious bias of ID advocates. I would add that it's not correct to claim that "a term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term." The English language, being what it is, provides myriad examples of terminology etymology that is determined far more objectively and, over time, objective evaluation will expose the true nature of many original terms. While ID advocates, being the political creatures that they are, often try to distance themselves from God, I've debated a few of them over the years and have yet to get any one of them to answer a simple challenge, and that is to deny the existence of God or to provide detailed explanations for the responses and rebuttals of the scientific community. I also find it interesting that such a new editor seems to presume to know so much about Misplaced Pages policies. Are you enjoying your trip to the Creation Museum? - Nascentatheist 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Wow! To admit such bigotry is brave! You challenge ID supporters to deny God. I'm glad you're unbiased. Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I don't suppose it would do any good to ask someone posting from an IP address about bravery, but the issue is not one of bravery but to establish the bias of ID people. If ID doesn't require the intervention of God, such a denial would be easy by at least one of them. It's never happened. Do you understand why that's relevant? Can you explain why such a question represents bigotry? Is it bigotry to challenge an ID person in such a way? - Nascentatheist 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) You are engaging in multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy. You are attempting to turn this forum into a debate about ID's merits, and attacking me personally. I refuse to return fire and dishonor myself. The only topic of discussion here is whether or not it is a violation of NPOV to use a public policy paper by opponents of ID to prove the definition of the term. My question is: why haven't you, or anyone else, responded to the citations I gave of Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and even an article by Slate that ran in NPR and was based on interviews with scientists on both sides of the controversy? The non-responses to my points, personal attacks, accusations against me, etc, are all the sign of systematic abuse of this Misplaced Pages entry. Simply answer my points and avoid personal attacks and debate over ID, because we are not here to debate it. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC) It is well established that over 99.9% of the relevant scientific disciplines reject intelligent design (see level of support for evolution). This is about as close to "unanimous consensus" as the scientific community gets. Even the originators of the term make references to God and religion when addressing their base and in fundraising operations. There are multiple references to this by the originators of the term in print. There is copious other evidence to support this. It was also the finding of a US federal court that this is true. These have been answered over and over and over in Misplaced Pages. If another reference or two is necessary here, that is a trivial matter and can easily be addressed if it is needed.--Filll 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Your first paragraph responds to nothing I wrote. I have written nothing about people rejecting or accepting ID. So that is a red herring and doesn't belong on the page. How people use ID arguments when they fundraise doesn't affect the definition of the word. I already acknowledged that people may use ID to show the consistency of their theistic beliefs with the natural sciences. That is not the issue. The issue is, how is the word defined by its users? ID is strictly limited to arguing that there is evidence of design in biological systems, and its opponents are constantly trying to claim that this is the same as creationism, but that is part of the debate. You are injecting one side of the debate into the article, which violates NPOV. If you wish to create a subheading with information about both sides of the controversy, that would be appropriate. But citing a public policy paper by a partisan organization opposed to ID is almost a dictionary definition of NPOV rule violation. Also, the issue I raised earlier about both sides not being included (such as responses by ID advocates to arguments regarding the flagellum, has not received a response. MatthewHoffman 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I would beg to differ. I believe that I answered your points A) and B) above. I described how the scientific community feels and why this is stated in the way that it is. Perhaps you might want to try to read it again if you did not understand. The originator's definition of the term is of course included in the article on intelligent design, as appropriate. However, this is a minority viewpoint, and because of WP:UNDUE, the views of the mainstream scientific community must be given the dominant weighting. This was confirmed by federal judicial rulings. If you want to spend a few million dollars and get this federal judicial ruling reversed, then there might be a WP:RS and WP:V source that could be included in the article stating something different. Those are the rules of WP. You do not seem to understand WP:NPOV and I would suggest you review this policy carefully. As for the flagellum, I would rely on those more knowledgable than me in this topic, and so I will defer to them. Thanks. --Filll 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Is it just me, or would anyone else scoff at the idea that a federal court is the last say on the issue? Do issues go beyond legality as decided by lawyers fortunate enough to become federal judges? Judges are no smarter than you or I. Why defer to them to make our decisions? Were judges right when slavery was decided Constitutional? Or were they right when they reversed themselves? Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC) If things were that simple, yes, we should scoff at the idea. Things are not that simple. - Nascentatheist 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC) You can keep claiming to have answered my points, but you didn't. I never said anything about any scientific consensus on the truth or falsehood of ID, and any reader of this page can verify that by just looking at the text. A single federal court judge who believes that teaching ID would be tantamount to teaching creationism is not proof that that is what its advocates mean when they use the word, and it certainly proves no consensus. And you have not responded to my point that a public policy paper cannot be used as some sort of neutral, scientific source. That is very obviously an abuse of NPOV. You are the one who does not seem to understand NPOV. I suggest that you reread the material yourself. I am not going to let this go. It seems very obvious that you and FeloniousMonk are using the page to advance your own point of view, and not to explain both sides of this controversy. This violates Misplaced Pages policy. I simply want an accurate description of the controversy presented, with both sides. MatthewHoffman 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Please note that NPOV is not SPOV (sympathetic point of view) - we're not going to apologize, for example, for stating up front that Albert Fish is known for being a serial killer and cannibal, and we're not going to try to "balance" that with "positive" information about him, because he simply isn't notable for anything positive. Please read WP:NPOV carefully, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Or that he killed people, but described it as culling instead. You know to confuse the populace, much like the Intelligent Design folk. OrangeMarlin 21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Matthew, you are "not going to let this go," and then you want to presume to lecture experienced users and administrators about Misplaced Pages policy? Help me out, here: Your first edit occurred on September 15th and your entire purpose seems to be to address this specific article, using a style (and arrogance, especially when trying to declare that opposing viewpoints violate WP:NPOV while refusing to acknowledge his own biases). These traits are common to a banned user] who, coincidentally enough, recently told his "devotional" readers of a trip to North Carolina (from which there was a recent vandalism of the Misplaced Pages user page associated with me) along with a sojourn to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Yes, my suspicions are raised but now that I've voiced them, I have to ask another question. Where, exactly, is the violation of policy? The information being presented is factual and, though you may not much care for it, as much as ID advocates have tried to distance themselves from what is commonly understood as "creationism," the movement is clearly an evolution, if you'll excuse the expression, of the creationism that we saw so loudly proclaimed in the 1980s and 90s. That movement was defeated in the courts (it never stood a chance in the sciences, which is why advocates never tried to engage in debate there), and those of us familiar with the movements even as they started with George McReady Price understand that the evolution of creationism into ID has followed a logical set of steps that are affirmed by the commentary of many of those same advocates. If you want sources in which scientists and philosophers of science put together a coherent argument linking creationism and ID, there are quite a few that can be provided, such as: Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52(2), 65. Brauer, M.J., Forrest, B., and Gey, S.G. (2005). Is it science yet: Intelligent design creationism and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly 83(1), 1. Scott, E.C. (2000). The Creation/Evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education See this link. Coyne, J. (2001). Creationism by stealth. Nature 410, 745. Scott, E.C. and Branch, G. "Intelligent Design" not accepted by most scientists. Reports of the National Center for Science education See this link. Raff, R.A. (2001). The creationist abuse of evo-devo. Evolution and Development 3(6), 373. Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., and Sober, E. (1999). How not to detect design - Critical notice: William A. Demski, The Design Inference. Philosophy of Science 66(3), 472. I can do this all day. Reputable sources from within the scientific community overwhelmingly see ID as an evolved creationism or some form of creationism adapted to the modern day and designed to circumvent previous legal decisions barring the teaching of creationism as it was previously labeled. ID is the cynical attempt of creation "science" advocates to get around those previous sanctions and get religion in the public schools. Complaints that invoke dictionary definitions are simply disingenuous. Dictionaries are histories of word usage, not the final arbiters of how a word or combination of words must be used. But that history does provide some insight. The American Heritage Dictionary defines intelligent design as "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." Of course, this is what creationists have been trying to pass off as "science" for decades, with the associated attempt to distance themselves from the Bible, even if that tactic failed because of the clumsiness of advocates such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Creation "science" also asserts that "physical and biological systems...result from purposeful design by an intelligent being." Complaints that we must adhere to the definitions provided by advocates are also disingenuous. While it sounds very reasonable, on the surface, to allow persons to define themselves, there is good cause for caution in many cases. The official name of the country of Cuba is the Republic of Cuba. By our understanding of what constitutes a "republic," does Cuba qualify. When East Germany was calling itself a "democratic republic," would we say that this was a fair representation of their system of government? We can certainly consider how ID advocates wish to present themselves or, perhaps, how they may see themselves; but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to objective scrutiny and that others won't see through obvious rhetorical or political spin. ID advocates want to distance themselves not because they are not creationists. Most of them are creationists. They want to distance themselves because creation "science" is a losing cause, as proven many times over. The scientific community has rightly identified ID as a form of creationism, obviously evolved from previous incarnations. The literature is consistent and the conclusion is valid. Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed. - Nascentatheist 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Your personal attacks and accusations against me are more abuse of this forum, and very clear evidence that the editors and administrators involved in this article are trying to use it to push their agenda. This is not the place to engage in that. I am not any banned user. In fact, unlike you sir, I am here under my real name. Are you? Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Misplaced Pages. Also, I have every right to begin editing wherever I wish. Anyone can edit a Misplaced Pages article, and the very modest edit I tried to do was very very legitimate. Your responses are a complete failure, and in fact back up what I was saying. You even admit that the American Heritage Dictionary also gives the same definition of ID given by the Columbia Encyclopedia and Merriam-Webster. Slate magazine and NPR, which are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, also have a story in which they clearly state that ID is not creationism. Even creationist websites acknowledge that creationism is more than ID, because the designer in creationism is explicitly identified with God in creationism. Creationists have always been somewhat critical of ID, another fact that is without controversy and can easily be verified by reference to the many creationist websites on the internet. So we have multiple references now from both sides showing ID is not creationism: Merriam-Webster (the most authoritative American English dictionary), the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and a Slate/NPR article that references Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education (see an earlier response I wrote below with all of the URLs). All of this proves that the definition is indeed a matter of controversy. Your citations look pretty on paper, but have no quotes. What do they actually say? Do they say that irreducible complexity arguments have a historical association with the creationist movement? Do they say that ID type arguments are used by creationists? All of that would be true, but that is not the question. The question is: is ID a theory specifically about God, or a theory that is very compatible with creationist arguments" You claim "Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed." Stand by what you said... do you therefore claim that Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Enclyclopedia, National Public Radio, and Slate are all politically biased sources that are "cynically exploiting a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public?" Please answer my points directly, without personal attacks. Please adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue to attack me personally and bring up issues that are not related to the topic, you will only prove that you are guilty of what you have falsely accused me of: an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to further your own personal agenda. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC) <undent>We can include a large number of citations, which I suppose we might be induced to do. Is this what we will be forced to do?--Filll 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It would seem to me that using "consensus" in this manner -- that is, "the majority say that's the definition, so it doesn't matter how its adherents actually define it" -- would be akin to saying that "since the majority of Americans are pro-life, then the definition of "pro-choice" in public policy papers by partisan organizations opposed to abortion (that it is actually "pro-abortion" or "pro-death") must be the correct definition." No, the correct way to define a term, especially in a truly encyclopedic article, is to define it as its adherents -- and, for goodness' sake, its creators -- define it. And clearly, beyond dispute, ID adherents specify within their definition of ID that it is not creationism. The only way someone can claim that calling it "intelligent design creationism" is not NPOV is by being blinded by their obvoius (to everyone else but them) POV. MH is correct here. --profg 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply that: a declaration. Like most of the other claims made by the ID movement, it is easily contradicted by the facts. The only people who deny ID's creationist nature are its proponents. On the other hand, scientists, historians and philosophers of science ((not just Forrest, but Numbers, Ruse, Pennock, and many others) who have studied ID have clearly stated that it is creationist. The Judge in the Dover trial ruled that ID is creationist. Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts. All rules and ideas are constantly being tested. Prior to modern physics, Newtonian physics was "law," but it was later discovered that Newtonian physics was only an approximation, although it was a VERY good approximation. And as far as the idea of concensus? Can 99.9% of scientists be wrong? You betcha. It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that "anyone who understands science knows there are no facts." Science is loaded with facts. Facts are usually represented by the data with which we deal when engaged in experimentation and observation. Yes, rules and ideas are tested. Theories are tested. They are all tested against the data - the facts as we have gathered them. It's a fact that people don't rocket off into space when they jump up from a trampoline. Theories about gravity serve to explain that fact. It's a fact that organic life on this planet is interrelated and evolved over billions of years. The various theories of evolution explains that fact. - Nascentatheist 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Simply repeating talking points isn't the way to write an encycopaedic article. The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply a talking point, which is unsubstantiated by any facts. In fact, when Pandas was written, the phrase creation science" was simply replaced with "intelligent design" and "creation scientists" with "design proponents" - most famously, creating the hybrid "cdesign proponentsists". You write an encyclopaedia article by relying on secondary sources, ideally the word of scholars who are experts in the field. Forrest is one of the foremost experts on ID, as is Pennock. You do not write an encyclopaedia article by simply repeating talking points put out by the organisation in question. That assertion is just silly. Guettarda 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I would submit to you that there are two errors in your contentions. The first, and most fundamental, is that the definition of a word is a matter of "science" (by which you mean the natural sciences). All of the scientific research on earth cannot create a definition, because a definition is decided socially by those who use a word. The phrase "intelligent design" could mean what we mean in English by the word "coffee table" if common usage so determined it. In the United States, the most authoritative source on the meanings of words is without a doubt, the Merriam-Webster line of dictionaries. Merriam-Webster is the oldest dictionary company in the US, and is actually credited with determining the particularly American spellings of certain words, such as "center" instead of "centre". It defines "intelligent design", "creationism" and "creation science" as follows: http://m-w.com/dictionary/Intelligent%20Design Main Entry: intelligent design Function: noun the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m Function: noun a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scientific%20creationism Main Entry: scientific creationism Function: noun a doctrine holding that the biblical account of creation is supported by scientific evidence As you can see, creationism and intelligent design have two different definitions. Intelligent Design is a theory that some sort of intelligence determined the design of some life forms. Creationism agrees with Intelligent Design but goes further and asserts that the designing intelligence, the creator, was God, and usually the God of the Bible. The Columbia Encyclopedia agrees, explicitly stating that the two are different: http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/inteldesgn.html The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. intelligent design theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. An individual scientist who is opposed to ID may give good reasons for his position of opposition, but he cannot simply determine what his opponent means by a word. He is not a linguist, who determines definitions of words, either. Slate Magazine, after interviewing scientists who are opposed and others who are in favor of intelligent design determined that that creationism and ID are different. This article was also run on National Public Radio as an audio piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/). I have not seen any text quoted from the federal judge who ruled on the school board case, but he is a single federal judge making a ruling that applied to a specific legal case. He is not a linguist who can determine the socially accepted meaning of a term, nor the meaning attached to the term by those who originate and promote it. I want to note that some who are opposing me on this are using the forum to attack ID proponents (saying that practically everything they say is false, etc), comments that are not appropriate. Other comments about people murdering others, etc, have no place here...but the admins are not removing the comments. It seems that there is an air of confidence among the obviously anti-ID people here that the rules simply don't apply to them, or will always be conveniently interpreted in their favor...is that correct? I am waiting for a rational, clear, and direct response to the evidence and arguments I have placed above, without editorial comments about ID itself, which is not appropriate for this page. Matthew C. Hoffman 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC) You're in the wrong place. Yahoo forums is --> thataway. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Are you really going to force me to put a bunch of peer-reviewed references that prove this? And every other single statement in here?--Filll 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC) That would be the idea of wiki: A bunch of people gather their knowledge together. Is it really so difficult to place references to material? Isn't that the idea of wiki? If it's oped, what good is it? --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.21 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC) You do understand the difference between an "oped" piece and a position paper that is sanctioned by professionals in the appropriate fields or issued from either a single professional organization or a group of them, don't you? - Nascentatheist 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Nah, just ignore him. He obviously doesn't understand what he's talking about. Guettarda 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) So you will just "ignore" Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the American Heritage Dictionary, National Public Radio, and Slate, all of which contradict you? Do you think they all have a sinister agenda to promote ID? I really hope that the level of discourse on this talk page improves... --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Well, sure. Dictionaries are very bad sources for encyclopaedia articles. And one columnist on Slate/NPR doesn't trump academic experts on the subject and court rulings. But mostly I was saying to ignore you - if you can't be bothered to click on the link and read the intelligent design article (which answers your question), why should anyone waste time trying to explain to you what you can't be bothered to read for yourself. Anyway, the issue should be dealt with at Talk:Intelligent design, not here. Guettarda 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User banned.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

I would like to say that, in general, this article constitutes a serious violation of NPOV. Two salient examples of this can be found at the beginning of the article. The first is "intelligent design creationism", a term that directly contradicts the definition given to "intelligent design" by its advocates. The citation cannot prove that the term is correct because it is a matter of definition...no peer-reviewed paper or other form of "authority" can determine the meaning of a word as it is used by another. If the advocates of intelligent design define the term in a certain way, that definition must be accepted.

A second salient example is the unbalanced presentation of the arguments for ID with regard to the bacterial flagellum, which also appears near the beginning of the piece. ID advocates have answered the criticisms placed here, but they are presented as if no answer has been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt ID proponents object to the term being identified for what it is, but their view is in the extreme minority in the field they make their claim, the scientific community is the majority view there. And the scientific community says ID is creationism. As does the courts, educators, etc. Please take the time to read WP:UNDUE. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A) You are acting in what seems to be a very biased and partisan way. You claim the "scientific community" says that ID is creationism, but no source is provided excepta public policy paper, which has nothing to do with a "scientific consensus". B) A term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term. The opponents of an idea can't change its meaning and then attack it based on their altered definition. ID, according to its advocates, does not assume the existence of God, even though it is certainly compatible with such a belief, and such a belief may be the motive for promoting ID. You need to answer these objections according to Misplaced Pages policy. MatthewHoffman 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to watch someone who presumes enough knowledge on a subject to decide to edit an encyclopedia article would not know that the scientific community, in general, understands that "intelligent design" is creationism in a new guise. Would you also presume to tell us that you possess no bias, as well? We can, of course, produce significant commentary from accredited and respected members of the scientific community that would certainly satisfy any objective observer, and you would, no doubt, dismiss that commentary as "biased," while never addressing or acknowledging the obvious religious bias of ID advocates. I would add that it's not correct to claim that "a term's definition must be understood according to the originators of the term." The English language, being what it is, provides myriad examples of terminology etymology that is determined far more objectively and, over time, objective evaluation will expose the true nature of many original terms. While ID advocates, being the political creatures that they are, often try to distance themselves from God, I've debated a few of them over the years and have yet to get any one of them to answer a simple challenge, and that is to deny the existence of God or to provide detailed explanations for the responses and rebuttals of the scientific community. I also find it interesting that such a new editor seems to presume to know so much about Misplaced Pages policies. Are you enjoying your trip to the Creation Museum? - Nascentatheist 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! To admit such bigotry is brave! You challenge ID supporters to deny God. I'm glad you're unbiased. Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it would do any good to ask someone posting from an IP address about bravery, but the issue is not one of bravery but to establish the bias of ID people. If ID doesn't require the intervention of God, such a denial would be easy by at least one of them. It's never happened. Do you understand why that's relevant? Can you explain why such a question represents bigotry? Is it bigotry to challenge an ID person in such a way? - Nascentatheist 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are engaging in multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy. You are attempting to turn this forum into a debate about ID's merits, and attacking me personally. I refuse to return fire and dishonor myself. The only topic of discussion here is whether or not it is a violation of NPOV to use a public policy paper by opponents of ID to prove the definition of the term. My question is: why haven't you, or anyone else, responded to the citations I gave of Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and even an article by Slate that ran in NPR and was based on interviews with scientists on both sides of the controversy?

The non-responses to my points, personal attacks, accusations against me, etc, are all the sign of systematic abuse of this Misplaced Pages entry. Simply answer my points and avoid personal attacks and debate over ID, because we are not here to debate it. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is well established that over 99.9% of the relevant scientific disciplines reject intelligent design (see level of support for evolution). This is about as close to "unanimous consensus" as the scientific community gets.

Even the originators of the term make references to God and religion when addressing their base and in fundraising operations. There are multiple references to this by the originators of the term in print. There is copious other evidence to support this. It was also the finding of a US federal court that this is true. These have been answered over and over and over in Misplaced Pages. If another reference or two is necessary here, that is a trivial matter and can easily be addressed if it is needed.--Filll 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first paragraph responds to nothing I wrote. I have written nothing about people rejecting or accepting ID. So that is a red herring and doesn't belong on the page.

How people use ID arguments when they fundraise doesn't affect the definition of the word. I already acknowledged that people may use ID to show the consistency of their theistic beliefs with the natural sciences. That is not the issue. The issue is, how is the word defined by its users? ID is strictly limited to arguing that there is evidence of design in biological systems, and its opponents are constantly trying to claim that this is the same as creationism, but that is part of the debate. You are injecting one side of the debate into the article, which violates NPOV.

If you wish to create a subheading with information about both sides of the controversy, that would be appropriate. But citing a public policy paper by a partisan organization opposed to ID is almost a dictionary definition of NPOV rule violation.

Also, the issue I raised earlier about both sides not being included (such as responses by ID advocates to arguments regarding the flagellum, has not received a response. MatthewHoffman 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewHoffman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. I believe that I answered your points A) and B) above. I described how the scientific community feels and why this is stated in the way that it is. Perhaps you might want to try to read it again if you did not understand. The originator's definition of the term is of course included in the article on intelligent design, as appropriate. However, this is a minority viewpoint, and because of WP:UNDUE, the views of the mainstream scientific community must be given the dominant weighting. This was confirmed by federal judicial rulings. If you want to spend a few million dollars and get this federal judicial ruling reversed, then there might be a WP:RS and WP:V source that could be included in the article stating something different. Those are the rules of WP. You do not seem to understand WP:NPOV and I would suggest you review this policy carefully. As for the flagellum, I would rely on those more knowledgable than me in this topic, and so I will defer to them. Thanks. --Filll 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or would anyone else scoff at the idea that a federal court is the last say on the issue? Do issues go beyond legality as decided by lawyers fortunate enough to become federal judges? Judges are no smarter than you or I. Why defer to them to make our decisions? Were judges right when slavery was decided Constitutional? Or were they right when they reversed themselves? Unsigne 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If things were that simple, yes, we should scoff at the idea. Things are not that simple. - Nascentatheist 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can keep claiming to have answered my points, but you didn't. I never said anything about any scientific consensus on the truth or falsehood of ID, and any reader of this page can verify that by just looking at the text. A single federal court judge who believes that teaching ID would be tantamount to teaching creationism is not proof that that is what its advocates mean when they use the word, and it certainly proves no consensus. And you have not responded to my point that a public policy paper cannot be used as some sort of neutral, scientific source. That is very obviously an abuse of NPOV. You are the one who does not seem to understand NPOV. I suggest that you reread the material yourself.

I am not going to let this go. It seems very obvious that you and FeloniousMonk are using the page to advance your own point of view, and not to explain both sides of this controversy. This violates Misplaced Pages policy. I simply want an accurate description of the controversy presented, with both sides. MatthewHoffman 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that NPOV is not SPOV (sympathetic point of view) - we're not going to apologize, for example, for stating up front that Albert Fish is known for being a serial killer and cannibal, and we're not going to try to "balance" that with "positive" information about him, because he simply isn't notable for anything positive. Please read WP:NPOV carefully, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Or that he killed people, but described it as culling instead. You know to confuse the populace, much like the Intelligent Design folk. OrangeMarlin 21:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you are "not going to let this go," and then you want to presume to lecture experienced users and administrators about Misplaced Pages policy? Help me out, here: Your first edit occurred on September 15th and your entire purpose seems to be to address this specific article, using a style (and arrogance, especially when trying to declare that opposing viewpoints violate WP:NPOV while refusing to acknowledge his own biases). These traits are common to a banned user] who, coincidentally enough, recently told his "devotional" readers of a trip to North Carolina (from which there was a recent vandalism of the Misplaced Pages user page associated with me) along with a sojourn to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Yes, my suspicions are raised but now that I've voiced them, I have to ask another question. Where, exactly, is the violation of policy? The information being presented is factual and, though you may not much care for it, as much as ID advocates have tried to distance themselves from what is commonly understood as "creationism," the movement is clearly an evolution, if you'll excuse the expression, of the creationism that we saw so loudly proclaimed in the 1980s and 90s. That movement was defeated in the courts (it never stood a chance in the sciences, which is why advocates never tried to engage in debate there), and those of us familiar with the movements even as they started with George McReady Price understand that the evolution of creationism into ID has followed a logical set of steps that are affirmed by the commentary of many of those same advocates. If you want sources in which scientists and philosophers of science put together a coherent argument linking creationism and ID, there are quite a few that can be provided, such as:

Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52(2), 65.
Brauer, M.J., Forrest, B., and Gey, S.G. (2005). Is it science yet: Intelligent design creationism and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly 83(1), 1.
Scott, E.C. (2000). The Creation/Evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education See this link.
Coyne, J. (2001). Creationism by stealth. Nature 410, 745.
Scott, E.C. and Branch, G. "Intelligent Design" not accepted by most scientists. Reports of the National Center for Science education See this link.
Raff, R.A. (2001). The creationist abuse of evo-devo. Evolution and Development 3(6), 373.
Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., and Sober, E. (1999). How not to detect design - Critical notice: William A. Demski, The Design Inference. Philosophy of Science 66(3), 472.

I can do this all day. Reputable sources from within the scientific community overwhelmingly see ID as an evolved creationism or some form of creationism adapted to the modern day and designed to circumvent previous legal decisions barring the teaching of creationism as it was previously labeled. ID is the cynical attempt of creation "science" advocates to get around those previous sanctions and get religion in the public schools.

Complaints that invoke dictionary definitions are simply disingenuous. Dictionaries are histories of word usage, not the final arbiters of how a word or combination of words must be used. But that history does provide some insight. The American Heritage Dictionary defines intelligent design as "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." Of course, this is what creationists have been trying to pass off as "science" for decades, with the associated attempt to distance themselves from the Bible, even if that tactic failed because of the clumsiness of advocates such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Creation "science" also asserts that "physical and biological systems...result from purposeful design by an intelligent being."

Complaints that we must adhere to the definitions provided by advocates are also disingenuous. While it sounds very reasonable, on the surface, to allow persons to define themselves, there is good cause for caution in many cases. The official name of the country of Cuba is the Republic of Cuba. By our understanding of what constitutes a "republic," does Cuba qualify. When East Germany was calling itself a "democratic republic," would we say that this was a fair representation of their system of government? We can certainly consider how ID advocates wish to present themselves or, perhaps, how they may see themselves; but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to objective scrutiny and that others won't see through obvious rhetorical or political spin. ID advocates want to distance themselves not because they are not creationists. Most of them are creationists. They want to distance themselves because creation "science" is a losing cause, as proven many times over.

The scientific community has rightly identified ID as a form of creationism, obviously evolved from previous incarnations. The literature is consistent and the conclusion is valid. Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed. - Nascentatheist 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and accusations against me are more abuse of this forum, and very clear evidence that the editors and administrators involved in this article are trying to use it to push their agenda. This is not the place to engage in that. I am not any banned user. In fact, unlike you sir, I am here under my real name. Are you? Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Misplaced Pages. Also, I have every right to begin editing wherever I wish. Anyone can edit a Misplaced Pages article, and the very modest edit I tried to do was very very legitimate.

Your responses are a complete failure, and in fact back up what I was saying. You even admit that the American Heritage Dictionary also gives the same definition of ID given by the Columbia Encyclopedia and Merriam-Webster. Slate magazine and NPR, which are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, also have a story in which they clearly state that ID is not creationism. Even creationist websites acknowledge that creationism is more than ID, because the designer in creationism is explicitly identified with God in creationism. Creationists have always been somewhat critical of ID, another fact that is without controversy and can easily be verified by reference to the many creationist websites on the internet.

So we have multiple references now from both sides showing ID is not creationism: Merriam-Webster (the most authoritative American English dictionary), the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Encyclopedia, and a Slate/NPR article that references Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education (see an earlier response I wrote below with all of the URLs).

All of this proves that the definition is indeed a matter of controversy. Your citations look pretty on paper, but have no quotes. What do they actually say? Do they say that irreducible complexity arguments have a historical association with the creationist movement? Do they say that ID type arguments are used by creationists? All of that would be true, but that is not the question. The question is: is ID a theory specifically about God, or a theory that is very compatible with creationist arguments"

You claim "Attempts to distance from creationism are rhetoric and politically based, in an attempt to cynically exploit a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public. Perpetuating that tactic in Misplaced Pages is being rightly opposed." Stand by what you said... do you therefore claim that Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Columbia Enclyclopedia, National Public Radio, and Slate are all politically biased sources that are "cynically exploiting a general misunderstanding and lack of attention by the general public?"

Please answer my points directly, without personal attacks. Please adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue to attack me personally and bring up issues that are not related to the topic, you will only prove that you are guilty of what you have falsely accused me of: an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to further your own personal agenda. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>We can include a large number of citations, which I suppose we might be induced to do. Is this what we will be forced to do?--Filll 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that using "consensus" in this manner -- that is, "the majority say that's the definition, so it doesn't matter how its adherents actually define it" -- would be akin to saying that "since the majority of Americans are pro-life, then the definition of "pro-choice" in public policy papers by partisan organizations opposed to abortion (that it is actually "pro-abortion" or "pro-death") must be the correct definition."

No, the correct way to define a term, especially in a truly encyclopedic article, is to define it as its adherents -- and, for goodness' sake, its creators -- define it. And clearly, beyond dispute, ID adherents specify within their definition of ID that it is not creationism.

The only way someone can claim that calling it "intelligent design creationism" is not NPOV is by being blinded by their obvoius (to everyone else but them) POV. MH is correct here. --profg 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply that: a declaration. Like most of the other claims made by the ID movement, it is easily contradicted by the facts. The only people who deny ID's creationist nature are its proponents. On the other hand, scientists, historians and philosophers of science ((not just Forrest, but Numbers, Ruse, Pennock, and many others) who have studied ID have clearly stated that it is creationist. The Judge in the Dover trial ruled that ID is creationist.

Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts. All rules and ideas are constantly being tested. Prior to modern physics, Newtonian physics was "law," but it was later discovered that Newtonian physics was only an approximation, although it was a VERY good approximation. And as far as the idea of concensus? Can 99.9% of scientists be wrong? You betcha.

It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that "anyone who understands science knows there are no facts." Science is loaded with facts. Facts are usually represented by the data with which we deal when engaged in experimentation and observation. Yes, rules and ideas are tested. Theories are tested. They are all tested against the data - the facts as we have gathered them. It's a fact that people don't rocket off into space when they jump up from a trampoline. Theories about gravity serve to explain that fact. It's a fact that organic life on this planet is interrelated and evolved over billions of years. The various theories of evolution explains that fact. - Nascentatheist 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply repeating talking points isn't the way to write an encycopaedic article. The declaration that ID is not creationist is simply a talking point, which is unsubstantiated by any facts. In fact, when Pandas was written, the phrase creation science" was simply replaced with "intelligent design" and "creation scientists" with "design proponents" - most famously, creating the hybrid "cdesign proponentsists".

You write an encyclopaedia article by relying on secondary sources, ideally the word of scholars who are experts in the field. Forrest is one of the foremost experts on ID, as is Pennock. You do not write an encyclopaedia article by simply repeating talking points put out by the organisation in question. That assertion is just silly. Guettarda 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would submit to you that there are two errors in your contentions. The first, and most fundamental, is that the definition of a word is a matter of "science" (by which you mean the natural sciences). All of the scientific research on earth cannot create a definition, because a definition is decided socially by those who use a word. The phrase "intelligent design" could mean what we mean in English by the word "coffee table" if common usage so determined it.

In the United States, the most authoritative source on the meanings of words is without a doubt, the Merriam-Webster line of dictionaries. Merriam-Webster is the oldest dictionary company in the US, and is actually credited with determining the particularly American spellings of certain words, such as "center" instead of "centre". It defines "intelligent design", "creationism" and "creation science" as follows:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/Intelligent%20Design Main Entry: intelligent design Function: noun

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

http://m-w.com/dictionary/creationism Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m Function: noun

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scientific%20creationism Main Entry: scientific creationism Function: noun

a doctrine holding that the biblical account of creation is supported by scientific evidence

As you can see, creationism and intelligent design have two different definitions. Intelligent Design is a theory that some sort of intelligence determined the design of some life forms. Creationism agrees with Intelligent Design but goes further and asserts that the designing intelligence, the creator, was God, and usually the God of the Bible.

The Columbia Encyclopedia agrees, explicitly stating that the two are different:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/inteldesgn.html The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

intelligent design

theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree.

An individual scientist who is opposed to ID may give good reasons for his position of opposition, but he cannot simply determine what his opponent means by a word. He is not a linguist, who determines definitions of words, either.

Slate Magazine, after interviewing scientists who are opposed and others who are in favor of intelligent design determined that that creationism and ID are different. This article was also run on National Public Radio as an audio piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/).

I have not seen any text quoted from the federal judge who ruled on the school board case, but he is a single federal judge making a ruling that applied to a specific legal case. He is not a linguist who can determine the socially accepted meaning of a term, nor the meaning attached to the term by those who originate and promote it.

I want to note that some who are opposing me on this are using the forum to attack ID proponents (saying that practically everything they say is false, etc), comments that are not appropriate. Other comments about people murdering others, etc, have no place here...but the admins are not removing the comments. It seems that there is an air of confidence among the obviously anti-ID people here that the rules simply don't apply to them, or will always be conveniently interpreted in their favor...is that correct?

I am waiting for a rational, clear, and direct response to the evidence and arguments I have placed above, without editorial comments about ID itself, which is not appropriate for this page.

Matthew C. Hoffman 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. Yahoo forums is --> thataway. KillerChihuahua 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you really going to force me to put a bunch of peer-reviewed references that prove this? And every other single statement in here?--Filll 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be the idea of wiki: A bunch of people gather their knowledge together. Is it really so difficult to place references to material? Isn't that the idea of wiki? If it's oped, what good is it? --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.21 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You do understand the difference between an "oped" piece and a position paper that is sanctioned by professionals in the appropriate fields or issued from either a single professional organization or a group of them, don't you? - Nascentatheist 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just ignore him. He obviously doesn't understand what he's talking about. Guettarda 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you will just "ignore" Merriam-Webster, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the American Heritage Dictionary, National Public Radio, and Slate, all of which contradict you? Do you think they all have a sinister agenda to promote ID? I really hope that the level of discourse on this talk page improves... --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. Dictionaries are very bad sources for encyclopaedia articles. And one columnist on Slate/NPR doesn't trump academic experts on the subject and court rulings. But mostly I was saying to ignore you - if you can't be bothered to click on the link and read the intelligent design article (which answers your question), why should anyone waste time trying to explain to you what you can't be bothered to read for yourself. Anyway, the issue should be dealt with at Talk:Intelligent design, not here. Guettarda 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New discussion on NPOV

It doesn't matter someone's scientific knowledge to see that this is biased, you can tell by the structure of the page. How come in examples, we have criticism? To me, at least, the examples portion seems that it says "ID says this, but it is 'wrong' because..." Criticisms should be in a separate paragraph or a separate page, and should allow the reader to see the two opposing views in equal light. 63.3.5.130 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See the following:

An equal light is inappropriate. .. dave souza, talk 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to quote these articles to defend yourself, rather than just pouring out citations like anyone can do. I suggest that you read the Misplaced Pages entry on "systematic bias", because this talk page shows that in abundance. If the editors use the Talk page to engage in personal attacks, and to defend a certain position on the ID issue, that is itself evidence of bias and abuse of Misplaced Pages. This talk page, as I have pointed out in previous entries, is filled with such material. --Matthew C. Hoffman 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked Matthew C. Hoffmann for 72 hours, due to his rather extreme refusal to assume good faith. Hopefully, this will let him calm down. However, he probably will have other things to say about this, so it's probably best not to take his silence as acceptance. Adam Cuerden 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After discussion, we agreed he was a bit too knowledgeable of Misplaced Pages policy to be a newbie, so upped it to the indef block his behaviour deserved. Adam Cuerden 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead to this article is... not very good. Admittedly, I'm a bit out of it today, but I find it difficult to follow the lead, and am fairly knowledgeable on irreducible complexity, which isn't a good sign for those who don't know it. The major problem seems to be a lack of any coherent logical structure - the presentation of facts doesn't seem to fall into any sensible order, and the language is, well, as pompous and annoying to read as Behe himself. Which isn't a good thing, as anyone who read his Kitzmiller testimony will agree. Adam Cuerden 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design creationism

I'm sorry to flog what I'm sure we would all like to be a dead horse, but judging from recent reverts there still seems to be a debate to be had on the use of the term 'intelligent design creationism' vs simple 'intelligent design'. It's probably better to examine the issues over here on the talk page rather than keeping swapping back and forth on the page itself.

Can someone explain why they feel it is important to keep the term as 'intelligent design creationism' rather than simply 'intelligent design'?

My perspective is from coming most recently from the ETA page. The ETA are a terrorist group; almost everyone agrees that. The UN says so, the US government says so, the EU says so, the Spanish government says so. And yet, still, we don't start off with "The ETA is a terrorist group" - and we have a specific guideline not to do so (WP:TERRORIST). Why? Because the group itself denies the description, and a small group of people agree with them. We explain who considers the ETA terrorist and why, and the intelligent reader will be left in little doubt that the ETA are terrorists; but they discover this by reading the neutral, unvarnished facts, not by having the view presented to them as fact.

In my view, this is the radical message of WP:NPOV. Even when practically everyone agrees with something (that the ETA is terrorist, that intelligent design is creationism), we still don't endorse that side in the debate. We make it absolutely clear that the vast majority of people consider the ETA terrorist, and ID to be creationism; but we don't say "the ETA is a terrorist group", nor, I think, should we say "intelligent design creationism".

To head off a few debates to start with:

I am aware of WP:UNDUE, but I don't think it's relevant; it applies entirely to how detailed a description is given of a particular view, not how fairly it is presented. ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" (my emphasis).
Yes, there is a source applied to the term; but equally, a thousand reliable sources could be provided calling the ETA 'terrorist'. We still characterise that debate, we don't engage in it.
This is a debate to be had here, not at intelligent design, because the statement only exists here. That (featured) page leaves the intelligent reader in no doubt that intelligent design is creationism; but it does this by fairly presenting the evidence, not by making a bald statement that 'intelligent design is creationism'; only on this page is that view stated as fact, rather than described in terms of the (overwhelming) support it has.

This seems like a stupid tiny thing to have an argument over; but can someone explain why it is important to use the controversial term 'intelligent design creationism' rather than the non-controversial 'intelligent design'? Applying the same judgement, do you feel that we should freely call groups like the ETA 'terrorist'? TSP 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy already answers this, WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions. The intelligent design article already notes that ID is de facto a form of creationism in it's intro despite the claims of its advocates it's not. Considering the Making Necessary Assumptions clause of WP:NPOV, there's no reason why this article should simply repeat the fact. Odd nature 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To start with the most obvious question: why is the controversial phrase "intelligent design creationism" so superior to the non-controversial phrase "intelligent design" to make it necessary to make that assumption? TSP 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it removes the intentional ambiguity employed by ID proponents to mislead the public, that's why. Odd nature 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, our aim here as encyclopedia writers has to be to present the information fairly for readers to evaluate; not to protect them from views of we don't like.

I agree that the NPOVFAQ's making necessary assumptions section is probably the strongest argument that it might be OK to keep this; but still, I think that that document is clear on the strict boundaries of these rare necessary reductions in NPOV. In the section after the one you quote, it says "Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers...." It seems to me that at the moment, by using this phrase, taking a stand on the issue is what this article is doing.

The intelligent design article does an excellent job of rubbishing ID simply by presenting the facts; but it does it without once (at least in the form in which it became a featured article, or the later form in which it survived a featured article review) taking a bald position with a phrase like "intelligent design creationism".

I would be absolutely fine with something like "It is one of several arguments intended to support intelligent design, which is considered by the majority of the mainstream scientific community to be a form of creationism(source)." I just don't see why the bald statement of an opinion (even an almost universally-held one) as fact is in any way necessary. I've suggested two ways in which this POV statement could be easily avoided (using 'intelligent design' alone, or saying 'considered by...'), which I think removes any plausible recourse to the part of the FAQ allowing non-presentation of alternative viewpoints where necessary. TSP 23:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I was more than a little put off by the comments made in the edit summaries during this latest edit war and was supportive of the reverts. I was interpreting the change as attempted whitewashing. But TSP's arguments above are reasoned and compelling.
Since the argument started, I've found some examples of the phrase 'intelligent design creationism' (for example, here) but it's less common and, from what I can tell, always used for substantially the same meaning as the phrase 'intelligent design' without the modifier. After thinking about TSP's comments for a while, I am inclined to agree that calling it ID is sufficient. The fact that ID has been determined to be creationism is not obscured by choosing the shorter phrase. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a very simple reason for saying "intelligent design creationism" in the lead: brevity. The term "intelligent design" - primarily software (e.g., Intelligent design (software engineering)), but also in a process engineering context. Thus, using the term IDC allows for greater brevity. They alternative would be to dedicate a sentence to saying "IDC" in more words. As for Rossami's link - he has linked to one of the major collected works on the subject, edited by one of the leading scholars who studies IDC. In other words - a great example. Guettarda 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Brevity is good; but I'm not convinced it's a good enough reason to breach one of Misplaced Pages's three core policies, when we could achieve the same clarity with just a few words more ("intelligent design, which is considered by the majority of the mainstream scientific community to be a form of creationism"). TSP 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course intelligent design is creationism. It isn't "mainstream scientific community", it's also historians, philosophers, theologians and a court verdict; it's everyone who has any expertise on the subject except the proponents. And the reason for that is well established - ID was created (by by replacing words "creation science" and "creation scientists" with "intelligent design" and "design proponents" into Pandas...famously creating the hybrid "cdesign proponentsists") to make use of Scalia's loophole in the Edwards case. There is solid evidence that IDC is creationism. We don't add weasel words in the face of overwhelming evidence. Guettarda 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the support; but I can't agree with you on Misplaced Pages's policies. WP:NPOV says:

All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

It also says (about the core trio of WP:NPOV, WP:NOC and WP:V)

The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

That's how important these policies are. Even if we all consider one side in a debate to be correct - and however disproportionately-sized those sides are - we are still obliged to "represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias". That's non-negotiable. There isn't some cut-off at which we say, "Nearly everyone believes this, we can start ignoring the other opinions now" - particularly not on pages which are devoted to those differing opinions.

Yes, there is WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions; but the example that gives is about how, on a page about a majority view, an opposing minority view need only be mentioned briefly. I think that's qualitatively different from saying that on a page about a minority view, mention of that minority view can be left out in favour of the majority view being stated as fact. TSP 08:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you think then you've fundamentally misunderstood the policy. It doesn't matter what sort of article it is, we still represent the majority view as the majority view, and if a view is held by an extreme minority then we aren't obliged to mention it at all. In this case, since the "ID isn't creationism" claim, is part of the DI's disinformation campaign, we can describe it as a campaign, but since the majority of those qualified to judge, regard it as a lie, we aren't obliged to present it as anything but. And don't keep banging on about this "controversial" rubbish, because really it isn't. Even among it's supporters. The claim was always purely a canard to evade the establishment clause. – ornis ⚙ 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you at the start - absolutely, we still represent the majority view as the majority view. However, after that I think you veer from Misplaced Pages policy. We represent the majority view as the majority view, and minority views as minority views. We do not represent the majority view as absolute truth and minority views as lies. "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." - WP:NPOV. That really doesn't seem ambiguous to me, or to be compatible with "since the majority of those qualified to judge, regard it as a lie, we aren't obliged to present it as anything but". TSP 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just a "majority-minority" issue. ID has been clearly demonstrated to be creationism. After someone is convicted to embezzlement, we don't say "some people in the prosecution team say he's an embezzler", we call it as it is. Failing to do so because he and a couple of his family members insist on his innocence isn't NPOV. The nuances of the issue belong in the intelligent design article. If we represent the subject representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias we say "intelligent design creationism". We don't say "intelligent design, which is considered to be creationism by all experts except those in the employ of the Discovery Institute". There's a clear court ruling and there's a wealth of scholarship on this subject. "Fairly, proportionately and without bias" does not mean "embrace talking points". Guettarda 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After someone is convicted of embezzlement, we say that they have been convicted of embezzlement. See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:American_murderers, where it was agreed to move Category:American murderers to Category:Americans convicted of murder. I don't believe that WP:NPOV stops applying on vastly minority views, nor on views on which there has been a court ruling.

It might be OK to use the phrase 'intelligent design creationism' in an article in which intelligent design was just mentioned in passing, per WP:NPOVFAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions; but excluding a minority view from an article on the minority view is a very different thing to excluding a minority view from an article about that minority view. TSP 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Regardless of your opinion on this phrase, the edit war over it has gone on more than long enough. I've temporarily protected the page until the dispute can be resolved here. I wish this step were unnecessary but the back-and-forth sniping in edit comments continues despite the attempt to open a discussion here. It's a short block and if discussion here picks up, I hope that we can remove it early. (And yes, I applied the protection even though I just commented on the dispute above. Note that it's locked in the version I oppose (however mildly) and that it is the last stable version.) Rossami (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not supposed to protect an article you've got a stake in, which you're comment above shows you do. That was a really shady move. I wonder what other admins will have to say of it? Odd nature 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the debate over protection is moot because I hit the wrong button and unprotected the page (despite it already being unprotected - I love the WikiMedia software...). Regardless, it served it's purpose and drove debate here instead of the rather pointless edit war that had been going on before. Rossami (talk)

My opinion is that it appears improper, and leaves the intro without the statement of the majority scientific opinion required to avoid giving undue weight to the ID position. Rather than fix the article in one or other of the disputed positions, I propose that as an altenative the following sentence should be inserted after the first mention of intelligent design:

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, but is repackaged creationism.

Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005..
• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
• Conclusion of Ruling

This is an interim insertion until the debate is resolved. I'll give a while for discussion before inserting it. .. dave souza, talk 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be better. I'd tend to avoid "unequivocal" as being potentially read as "unanimous", which it isn't (quite) - technically Behe is a professor, so part of the 'scientific community'- especially when the source given only cites "most members"; and 'repackaged' seems an oddly descriptive term to ascribe as the opinion of an entire community. My suggestion, as above, would simply be "which is considered by the majority of the mainstream scientific community to be a form of creationism" (with the same sources) - vast majority or similar if you like. TSP 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading the wrong source - KvD has 'overwhelming majority', it's Harvard Science Review that has 'most members'. I'd still prefer some wording that is less easily interpreted as 'absolutely every scientist thinks this', when that isn't quite the case. TSP 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine. Keep in mind that the National Institutes of Health says that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" and that the Dover ruling stated explicitly that every major scientific professional organization has issued policy statements rejecting ID. We need to avoid implying that there is more support for ID within the scientific community that a fraction of a percent or two. Odd nature 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In a spirit of compromise I've implemented the proposal with the wording revised to "The consensus in the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, but is creationism." Trust all are content. .. dave souza, talk 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable and sourced. Perfect. Odd nature 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It isn't "the scientific community" alone - it's historians and philosophers of science who specialise in creationism and intelligent design who say so (Forrest, Numbers, Pennock, etc.), it's theologians like Haught...and it's a legal ruling. The language Dave has suggested misses the point - every expert on the subject who isn't on the DI's payroll (even Steve Fuller, who testified for the defense at the Dover trial) considers it creationism. It isn't about the scientific community, it's about the community of knowledge as a whole. Guettarda 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the change either, per Guettarda's points. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, this was intended as an interim insertion until the debate is resolved, apologies for rushing it. The point that ID isn't science is as stated, the point that it's creationism has been solidly established by theologians, historians and philosphers as Guettarda rigntly says and that isn't properly reflected in my phrasing. Probably the best answer is to call it "ID creationism" with an explanatory footnote giving citations from appropriate sources. ... dave souza, talk 07:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. I think the current draft is neutral (though a bit odd, in that it mentions that most mainstream scientists say that ID isn't science, without mentioning that its proponents say it is science). The phrase "intelligent design creationism", however, seems to move it from a (vastly majority) view, to a fact; which I don't think is compatible with NPOV. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". TSP 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the proponents of ID don't say that it's science - they say that the definition of science unfairly excludes them. But that's just a red herring. The point isn't to turn this article into a POV fork - the place to discuss how ID is portrayed isn't here, it's in the intelligent design article. The point is to qualify what ID is, briefly, in the article lead. The options are

(a) say "intelligent design creationism", which is what it said originally, and which is accurate and in keeping with NPOV (or maybe say something along the lines of "intelligent design creationism<ref>The Discovery Institute denies that it is creationist, despite a wealth of scholarship and a court ruling</ref>"

(b) spend a paragraph explaining what ID is, which would break the lead.

Perhaps a footnote would be appropriate. Guettarda 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science." - Michael Behe, Whether Intelligent Design is Science.

I just don't think that NPOV is served by using terms that say that we believe one view, then noting as a footnote that other views - the ones that this article is about - exist. In articles about the majority view, perhaps. In articles about the minority view, I think that NPOV requires a more neutral treatment. NPOV is a radical and unfamiliar concept, but it is one of Misplaced Pages's core concepts and I think that it means what it says. TSP 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>"As science, ID is an argument against the orthodox Darwinian claim that mindless forces—such as variation, inheritance, natural selection, and time—can account for the principal features of the biological world." -- John Angus Campbell. "Science, however, does not consist of "arguments against" anything. People who claim to have a scientific theory must actually do scientific work and produce original, empirical data; but at an October 2002 ID conference, CSC fellow William Dembski, ID's leading intellectual, admitted that while ID has made cultural inroads, it enjoys no scientific success." -- Barbara Forrest (both from article on Darwinism, Design and Public Education). I would also claim that what Behe does in no way resembles "an unrestricted search for the truth" -- what it is a search for rationalisations for a pre-determined position. It is apologetics, not science. Hrafn_Stalk 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly placed the following further up in the discussion. This appears a better place for it. Despite the fact that ID is almost universally used to support the idea of creationism (i.e. that the universe was created by the Christian God), it could have other implications completely separate and, in fact, antagonistic to creationism. All ID says is that the universe (and biological systems in particular) appears to be designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be God, but it could also be an ancient race of aliens seeding the universe with the building blocks of life, as in some of the panspermia arguments. As such, I don't think it's fair to use ID and creationism synonymously even though ID proponents primarily use ID as a supporting pillar for their creationist beliefs. ID could also be used to support beliefs not compatible with creationism. FusionKnight 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

However, we have multiple WP:RS for this, so do you have a WP:RS for your claims?--Filll 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical aside on the nature of wikipedia

That leads me to ask a question I've been wondering about Wiki for awhile. Forgive me if this question is naive or has already been addressed in Wiki policy, but it's an honest question. We all agree that facts in Wiki must be properly sourced and verifiable through reliable 3rd parties, as you suggested. However, when a statement in question appears to be a logical fallacy (regardless of the cited opinions about the statement) is that sufficient grounds for an edit, or do we have to find a reliable sources that says it's a logical fallacy? In this case, our statement or conjecture is that Intelligent Design = Creationism. There are certainly people who believe that this statement is true (factual) and those who believe that it is false. However, the legitimacy of the statement can be evaluated in a purely logical manner (i.e. not in relation to opinions about the truth of the statement but rather the logical integrity of the statement itself). It would seem to me that to (logically) prove that ID=Creationism you would have to show that nothing about ID nor its any of its implications conflicts with Creationism. Since I was able to come up with a contradiction (I'm sure others could come up with others)the statement is shown to be weak. Does this really require sourcing, or is this a matter of simple logical observation? Not to beat a dead horse, but if a wiki article on Mimes used the labels Apples and Oranges synonymously when talking about commonly used props, it wouldn't matter if there were a million verifiable sources from expert mimes who also used the terms synonymously, the assertion that Apples=Oranges is obviously logically false, and wouldn't require any source to say as such. Thoughts? FusionKnight 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You've hit upon one of the most difficult points for the project to manage. On the one hand, patently obvious statements (like "the sky is blue") do not require sourcing as a matter of wikipedia policy. On the other hand, it's extraordinarily difficult to draw a bright line about what is and is not "patently obvious". We generally navigate around the problem by remembering that encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources - we synopsize what others have already said about a topic. Where there is controversy, we write about the controversy rather than becoming embroiled in it. We do our best to strictly adhere to the WP:NPOV policy and present the controversy in proportion to the people advocating it.
To take a slightly silly (and not completely true) example, if we had been writing Misplaced Pages back in Galileo's day, our policies would have required us to describe the sun as circling the earth because the majority of informed and educated people believed and said that at the time. Our coverage of the theory that the earth cirles the sun would have been limited and would have been qualified as a "fringe theory". Regardless of our personal opinions, as encyclopedians we are supposed to fairly represent the views of others.
In this particular case, you believe that you have demonstrated a simple, purely logical statement. And I might even agree with you. Neither of our opinions matter, though. If the majority of informed and educated people with credentials in fruit believe that Apples = Oranges, all we can do is say so - and point (in appropriate proportion) to the minority who disagree. Rossami (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying this type of edit would come under the NOR policy about original synthesis of published material. Since nobody else has published that Apples≠Oranges because of Reason X, I can't correct the logical error in a wiki article? FusionKnight 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's another good way to say it. Rossami (talk)

Just as you can gratuitously assert with no evidence or citations that ID!=creationism, I can gratuitously assert that ID=creationism. However, I can also produce 6 references, which I have done, which include:

A peer-reviewed article in Harvard Science Review
a report from the AAAS
A Federal court judge ruling
2 other peer-reviewed journal articles
A book on creationism published by the Harvard University Press by a world expert in creationism

I could get more. Can you even get one of a comparable weight? It does not count if the Discovery Institute or some bible apologetics publication claim that creationism!= intelligent design. Get me something peer-reviewed from the National Academy of Sciences or from Nature or Science magazine. --Filll 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa! I'm trying to make some contributions in good faith. I know this has been pretty hotly debated, but I'm neither a flamer nor a troll. I'm just pointing out that in the world outside Misplaced Pages logic is considered internally consistent and requires no supporting opinions or truths. The logic of a statement can be evaluated independently of it's truth value.

That being said, I will check around for some sources that demonstrate that ID may be the same as IDC in some cases, but not universally; that in other cases the two can be diametrically opposed. FusionKnight 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you like. Misplaced Pages follows certain rules, similar to those of other encyclopediae and academia. And intelligent design in the learned world is widely considered to be creationism for a large number of reasons. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc...However you are free to personally think whatever you like. And WP will follow its rules. Otherwise, it would be quickly turned into a religious tract. You are free to go and push your views at conservapedia or any number of other wikis that might be more amenable to your values and beliefs:

--Filll 00:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's just a quick link (Check out the "ALIENS AMONG US" section 2/3rds the way down) that demonstrates that I am not the first to state that intelligent design could refer to a non-deity designer. I know this source probably isn't reliable enough to prove my point, but I think it at least demonstrates that it is plausible. I'll keep looking for something a little more professional. Perhaps Crick's paper on Panspermia might have a relevant quote? FusionKnight 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ID is not Science

Removed trolling discussion to talk page of lead instigator here as per his wishes.--Filll 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Further 'stated examples'

I noticed that the article currently only includes three of the "stated examples" (the blood clotting cascade,the eye and bacterial flagellum), so I took a look at Darwin's Black Box to see what the others were:

cilium
gated and vesicular transport within the cell
the immune system (I seem to remember that it is actually the adaptive immune system that Behe considered to be IC)

Are we in a position to expand the article to cover any of these? Also does Behe actually consider the eye to be IC? This article is rather vague on this point, and the Darwin's Black Box doesn't list it as an example of IC. Hrafn_Stalk 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Intelligent design article irreducibly complex?

If not, then doesn't it make sense to make that article shorter and put more of its contents onto subsidiary pages or specialized articles? Just pointing that out. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These things evolve always. Articles fork and so on. And other subsiduary articles propagate.--Filll 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: