Talk:Intelligent design - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 17 April 2010 (→Peer review and Sternberg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:27, 17 April 2010 by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) (→Peer review and Sternberg)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Intelligent Design. Please see also the article-specific editing notes below.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The journal has no credible editorial and peer-review process, or the process was not followed
The journal is not competent for the subject matter of the article
The article is not genuinely supportive of ID
The article is published in a partisan ID journal such as PCID

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

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

See also: WP:RS and WP:V Q6: Are all formulations of intelligent design pseudoscience? Was William Paley doing pseudoscience when he argued that natural features should be attributed to "an intelligent and designing Creator"? A6: While the use of the phrase intelligent design in teleological arguments dates back to at least the 1700s, Intelligent Design (ID) as a term of art begins with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People. Intelligent design is classified as pseudoscience because its hypotheses are effectively unfalsifiable. Unlike Thomas Aquinas and Paley, modern ID denies its religious roots and the supernatural nature of its explanations. For an extended discussion about definitions of pseudoscience, including Intelligent Design, see Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University of Chicago, ISBN 978-0-226-05179-6. Notes and references

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

	Article-specific editing notes.
Please read before starting: This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience and related fringe theories NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design 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.
Important pointers for new editors: This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses. Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Please use edit summaries. Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia. To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue. If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point. Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below or use the searchbox below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

Article-specific editing notes.

Please read before starting: This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

NPOV: Pseudoscience and related fringe theories
NPOV: Undue weight
NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Intelligent Design. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of intelligent design or promote intelligent design 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.

Important pointers for new editors:

This article uses scientific terminology, and as such, the use of the word 'theory' to refer to anything outside of a recognised scientific theory is ambiguous. Please use words such as 'concept', 'notion', 'idea', 'assertion'; see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Theories and hypotheses.
Although at times heated, the debates contained here are meant to improve the Intelligent Design article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to make an opinion heard. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject(s) at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said.
Please use edit summaries.
Challenges and proposals to this article's content must be in alignment with Misplaced Pages's core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
- If you make a suggestion that does not align with them, you can expect a pointer to the appropriate policies; giving such a pointer is not a form of rudeness, but meant to help smooth the process of building the encyclopedia.
- To respect your own time and that of others editors, if you receive such a pointer to policy, you should take the time to read and understand the policies before re-raising the issue.
- If you have been pointed to policy, but continue to argue the matter ad nauseum without the benefit of being supported by policy, you should not expect a full response, but rather that your discussions will be archived or userfied. Again, this is not rudeness or incivility; it is out of respect for the time and patience of all the editors participating and in the interest of maintaining a smooth-running encyclopedia:Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines do not allow for raising and re-raising objections to content that is well-aligned with content policy, and there is a specific policy against doing that: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which classifies it as disruptive editing). It's better for everybody if we don't allow things to get to that point.
Please peruse the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the archives box directly below or use the searchbox below, to ensure that you are not rehashing old topics. Old topics resurrected without new evidence are likely to be ignored and archived quickly.

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

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, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Intelligent design is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 9, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
December 14, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

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

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

Einstein's intelligence

This addition appears to be original research, with no established connection to ID, so I've moved it from the article:

Martin Gardner quotes Albert Einstein as saying, "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many tongues.... The child does not understand the languages in which they are written. He notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order which he does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." ref>http://www.jstor.org/pss/185680</ref Einstein, in his 1934 book, The World as I See It, wrote, "But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=JFXWosy8ywYC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=einstein+world+as+i+see+it+utterly+insignificant&source=web&ots=dKeiZyk1OK&sig=hkkIxiuST_h02p7AyhYbWRODIJI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref He concludes a brief essay of the same title thus: "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." ref>http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm</ref

Since Einstein famously thought in terms of Spinoza's god, any relation to ID is tenuous at best, and this appears to be a peacock addition suggesting borrowed greatness out of context. . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity I'm pasting in a dialog with Dave I started on his talk page. I should have started it here.

Hi, Dave. Unfortunately, just as I finished (or almost finished--I was going to change something) editing the Intelligent Design article last night, my internet went down and I was unable to write you a note asking you to check it out. I see you have anyway! I didn't see the article is semi-protected until I was showing the preview.

In any case, I think the Einstein quotes are very relevant to the history of the concept and are no more "peacock additions" than the inclusion of Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Paley, and Browne. He would be the last in a string of great thinkers to have conceived of the idea of a higher intelligence behind the ordered cosmos.

I will come back later today as I really don't have time for this right now but did not want to just leave this hanging. Thank you for moving my contribution here instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, one big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID – there are plenty of references saying that Paley was a predecessor, and as I recall the same applies or should apply to the others. The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence "behind the ordered cosmos", like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence. Thus the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man." A moral religion embodying the ethical imperative, "a development continued in the New Testament", was an immature stage with a fatal flaw: "the anthropomorphic character of the concept of God," easy to grasp by "underdeveloped minds" of the masses while freeing them of responsibility, would disappear in Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" that sheds all anthropomorphic elements. Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion. So, reliable secondary source needed to establish the connection. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, I'm home now and my internet's working. Yay!

"One big problem with Einstein is that we really need a source connecting his concept with modern ID."

But his concept doesn't connect to the modern ID movement. For the most part, the modern ID movement is a thrust to justify the biblical narrative. Einstein would never have done that! Neither would Plato or Cicero if they stumbled across some version of the Tanakh. Aquinas and Paley are more precursors of the current movement. (Not familiar with Browne.) I think Einstein belongs in this chronology of philosophers, and would hope no reader would think Plato or Cicero or Einstein endorsed the present movement.

I understand the "Origins of the concept" part of the article to give the progressive history of the concept itself, apart from the current movement. The next part discusses the origin of the modern-day term and offers a link to a timeline. The timeline begins in 1920, when Einstein was 40, but the events it traces are far removed from any of his ideas or work.

"The other problem is that Einstein didn't conceive of a higher intelligence 'behind the ordered cosmos', like Spinoza he conceived of cosmic order as the intelligence."

Yes, your wording on this is more accurate. Still, he saw design and intelligence and reason, not randomness. I'm perhaps OK with the idea of a randomly fashioned design, like driftwood carved by the sea or the fantastic wind sculptures in the world's deserts.

"Don't think the IDers would be too pleased about that rather deistic notion."

I wasn't trying to please nor to ruffle them...nor anyone else; just adding relevant material.

In sum, I thought and think I had a worthwhile contribution, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing the facts, whether I'm allowed to publish them or not. I do have a little problem with your calling it "original research" since I merely provided germane quotes from a man of science and philosophy.

Now, the other business of reverting my correction of no ID article ever being published in a peer-reviewed journal is a different matter. It's not worth it to me to argue or get a referee about your overriding preference regarding my Einstein quotes, but Meyer absolutely did, by hook or by crook, pull off the coup of getting his ID article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Misplaced Pages has two long and contentious articles on that very deed. I'm astonished you don't see Harper-Collins as mainstream, but no problem--I'll use "The Panda's Thumb" and "Skeptical Enquirer." So that one I'll polish up and restore. Maybe Harper-Collins isn't mainstream cuz they just published Sarah Palin's Going Rogue!! :D Just kidding. (Hey, I know how to spell both rogue and rouge!)

Dave, I always feel hampered by this format where you can't see the twinkle in my eye. Yes, I have some fundamental differences of perspective and consequently of opinion with you, but I'd love to have a friendly visit with you over a glass of Shiraz. Best, Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that in my haste this morning on a borrowed computer I answered on your talk page instead of the article talk page. If you wish, please feel free to move either one so they're on the same page.

Came back when I found it's the National Enquirer but the Skeptical Inquirer. I read neither. Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ==============================End of copy-and-paste

Peer review and Sternberg

So, what I propose to do is change this sentence:

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

A specious argument could be made on what "supporting" means, but that is too nice a distinction. I believe it should be replaced with:

To date, the intelligent design movement has published only one quickly repudiated article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and its review process is a subject of hot debate. http://ncseprojects.org/news/2004/09/more-meyer-00565

It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Actually, I find I've left my flashdrive in my office and am not going to go looking now for the more than half dozen reliable sources I copied for this assertion. So tomorrow I may change it again. Aaarghh! Yopienso (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement noting that the article represented a “significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history” and was “inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” and that it is known that the peer review process was substantially bypassed for this particular paper. My opinion is that we shouldn't really change anything. In any case if we go on and decide to implement some kind of change on those lines then it is my view that we should then explain the publication "controversy" fully per Stephen C. Meyer page.--LexCorp (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The peer review was at best questionable, and this later source describes "the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory". The issue is dealt with in the body of the section, Yopienso apparently wants to move that discussion into the first sentence of the section, giving undue weight to a discredited paper showing a creationist negative argument rather than any positive support for ID. . . dave souza, talk 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to keep a false statement in the article? Yopienso (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What falsehood? The Meyers article neither supports ID as such, and shouldn't have been published according to the journal's policy. In addition, you can't say that something is "subject to hot debate" based on a 5.5-year-old source. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The falsehood that the paper was never published. The fact that the council later issued a repudiating statement doesn't change the fact that it was published. Just because people wish something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I agree that my proposed change should say "provoked hot debate" rather than "is a subject of hot debate." (Perhaps the only place it's still a subject of hot debate is on WP talk pages! LOL)

New suggestion: to avoid the kinds of explanations requested by LexCorp, why not just delete the false statement? Yopienso (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We have the oddity that when ID proponents had the opportunity to present all their "peer reviewed" work at Kitzmiller, they didn't include that one. You seem to be going further than them in claiming that it has any credence. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the article has any credence whatsoever, only that it was, in fact, published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you don't want to get in to all the in's and out's, (I don't!) let's just delete the offending sentence.

Here is what the WP article says about why Stephen C. Meyer did not testify:

This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions – William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This was purportedly because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own attorneys present during deposition, but Discovery Institute director Bruce Chapman later said that he had asked them not to testify (as well as Behe and Minnich, who testified anyway). http://en.wikipedia.org/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Background

We don't really need to extend our discussion into the question Dave has raised. But I do want to provide ample proof that an ID article, albeit much to the chagrin and displeasure of the scientific establishment, was published in a peer-reviewed journal. I am not passing judgment on the merits of the article or of the manner in which it was published. I am unequivocally declaring that it was indeed published, and further, requesting that the statement in this WP article saying otherwise be modified or deleted.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml

http://ncse.com/news/2004/09/bsw-repudiates-meyer-00552

http://ncse.com/news/2004/10/bsw-strengthens-statement-repudiating-meyer-paper-00528

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/mustread/

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk40.html

http://debunkcreationscience.hostse.com/meyer.htm

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=1369

"It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal."
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
Jim Giles
Abstract
Critics of evolution score publishing success
A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism. A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a.html

The Scientist.com likewise reported,

It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.
Read more: Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/38440&id=38440#comments#ixzz0gE5W5Syx (Registration required.)

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephen_C._Meyer#Peer_review_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

Yopienso (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that the article as it stand now is misleading then simply changing

No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.

will suffice. Do you really think the change is absolutely necessary and that the article as it stands now is really misleading the readers? I ask because to me it seems a bit nitpicking and immaterial.--LexCorp (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really think the sentence as it stands now is really misleading the readers.

This article seems on the whole to be quite accurate, complete, fair, and unbiased. (I admit I haven't studied every word of it.) It seems a shame to allow it to be tainted with an untrue assertion.

This, "No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals,..." is not true, except for the nitpicking fact that it is in the plural. The Meyer paper was peer-reviewed. The exact circumstances of the reviewing and the identities of the referees are unknown, but, after the initial alarmed flurry, no one is accusing Sternberg of totally obviating the review process. Some did allege the process was unorthodox. To get all those innuendos and explications into one sentence in an encyclopedia is impossible. The Sternberg peer review controversy article and the Expelled:No intelligence allowed articles track those controversies ad nauseum. Can we just leave them out of this one? The sentence is gratuitous. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is offering any reason why I cannot delete the sentence in question, so I'll go ahead and delete it along with half another such sentence, and change one word in yet another. The report of Meyer's paper being published in the BSW journal is right here in the article, annotated with footnote 193. We don't want the article to contradict itself.

As to why Judge Jones in Kitzmiller concluded no ID paper had ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I can only ascribe that to the foibles of our judicial system. One contributing factor was likely the absence of several Discovery Institute fellows as expert witnesses, and another factor could be how limiting the definition of an "ID paper" may be: Michael Behe is quoted in this article as saying,

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". (My bolding.)

The largest factor, however, is most likely simply the human one: this was one man's conclusion, and while decisive, another person may have decided otherwise. The SCOTUS, too, shows its human foibles in such contradictory rulings as the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 that says, at least in the English translation,

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Not quite 100 years later the court ruled in CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

So we must accept that Judge Jones wrote--or copied--what he did for his own reasons and accept his decision as the official word of the court. Yet at the same time we know that at least one ID paper--the one by Stephen C. Meyer--has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

To summarize:

1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?

2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

I'm assuming there is a consensus that the answer to both questions is "Yes." Yopienso (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. The paper as published and subsequently withdrawn was not properly peer reviewed, and in addtional it's questionable if it actually supported ID. Taking your assertions into account I've modified the rections you edited accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in good faith sought consensus on this page; no one pointed out any errors in my reasoning. I would appreciate your joining the discussion instead of waiting to pounce and change my work as soon as I move forward with my unopposed plan. You have summarily removed or changed my work without any discussion four times this week.

"Misplaced Pages pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Please work together with me. If my assumption (not presumption, as you called it in your edit summary) is incorrect, does that mean you believe Stephen Meyer's paper, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," was not published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington? Surely you do, since it was. Therefore, you must mean you do not want the WP article to reflect that reality. Why not?

Did you intend to cast aspersions on the BSW journal with this sentence?

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal."

It is a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal. Meyer's paper may even have been properly peer-reviewed. If it wasn't, I don't think it's fair to the journal to characterize it as not properly peer-reviewed because of one article out of hundreds. Yopienso (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal presumably is usually properly peer reviewed, but as shown in the Sternberg peer review controversy, in that instance it wasn't, according to the publishers of the journal. Their statement, not mine. The fact remains that it predates a detailed examination in court of claims to peer reviewed publication, and we report the findings of that detailed review. Your speculation as to the reasons for ID proponents not even putting this discredited paper forwards is no more than speculation. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors withdrew the paper, saying it wasn't done right, wasn't in the scope of their journal. Getting published isn't a game that you can win by gaming the system. It's not like a trial where you can get off on a technicality. If the paper should never have been published, it can be withdrawn, sometimes years later like the Wakefield vaccines-cause-autism paper, or some others where it came to light that data was falsified. The role of a journal's editorial board in protecting the integrity of it's "product" doesn't end when the editor signs off on a paper. Guettarda (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written "speculate that to be one of" rather than "ascribe that to."

Please answer my 2 questions. For your convenience, here they are again:

   1) Do we editors agree that the paper was published?
   2) Do we want the article to reflect that reality?

Fact: for a paper to be withdrawn, it first must have been published.

We want both facts that conform with reality and internal consistency in all WP articles. This one briefly and accurately recounts the Meyer episode in the "Peer review" section. I'm asking that the rest of the article conform to the facts there presented.

New suggestion: Change the troublesome sentence to, for example, "No paper on intelligent design currently stands in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or, "No paper on intelligent design has withstood the rigors of a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Or some such.

This would be consistent with the treatment of the withdrawn Wakefield paper here:

"In February 1998, a group led by Andrew Wakefield published a controversial paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet. ... In response to the GMC investigation and findings, the editors of The Lancet announced on February 2, 2010 that they 'fully retract this paper from the published record.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/MMR_vaccine_controversy

I maintain that it is unfair and inaccurate to cast the BSW journal as improperly peer-reviewed:

"The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Another suggestion:You could modify your sentence to work in the notion Judge Jones eloquently expressed here:

"'A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory'."

As far as I have been able to ascertain, that sentence is completely true if we leave out the peer-reviewed publications that are unacceptable to the mainstream scientific community. Which we should.

New question: Do you think it is good policy to promote the statement of one court document against 15 reliable sources? Is this not giving it undue weight?

My goal here is to help improve a good, informative article. Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have just posted this on Dougweller's talk page:

Intelligent Design

I'm sure you're very busy, but would you have time to read through the most recent part of the talk page at the ID page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Intelligent_design The sections to which I've contributed are "Factually Incorrect," "Einstein's intelligence," and "Peer review and Sternberg."
I am now retiring from the scene unless I am asked for further comment. I am disappointed in the responses of LexCorp, Dave souza, and Guettarda. My specific request to you is that you explain to me how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian. Thanks.

Yopienso (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simple - if the DI folks really thought that a paper had been published, they would have said so in the Kitzmiller trial. Instead, Behe said "no". It's not our place to second guess reliable sources, especially when you're talking about statements made under oath by leading people in the DI. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to modifying the language in the peer-review section of the article to the effect that one paper (by Sternberg) was published then withdrawn by the JPBSW due to failure to properly follow the normal peer-review process. But please note that right in the opening paragraph of the "peer review" section it already says: "The intelligent design movement has not published an article in a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal." with two appropriate citations in support of this statement. Having said that, I think LexCorp, Souza and Guettarda all have put forward sound perspectives here. Yopienso, w.r.t. your request to explain "how I could have been and can be a better Wikipedian", I think you have been a good Wikipedian here. Further improvements tend to come with experience, via further good-faith participation and by gaining more familiarity with WP conventions and its editorial policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kenosis, for your response, but it seems you didn't notice that the sentence you quote is the subject of this part of the talk page! I am asking to have it removed and modified. I removed it, and my removal was quickly reverted without discussion or explanation. I have asked twice if editors believe it is true and received two evasive answers. What I was looking for was a "Yes" or "No." What I got was:

"The paper as published and subsequently withdrawn was not properly peer reviewed, and in addtional it's questionable if it actually supported ID. Taking your assertions into account I've modified the rections you edited accordingly. ."

and

It's simple - if the DI folks really thought that a paper had been published, they would have said so in the Kitzmiller trial. Instead, Behe said "no". It's not our place to second guess reliable sources, especially when you're talking about statements made under oath by leading people in the DI.

Regarding the first answer, it admits the paper was published (!! That's all I'm saying.!!); the nature of the peer-review process has not been made available to the public; if it didn't support ID, what's the objection, then? (Although it did not "provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred," it is considered "an ID paper.") As to the second, the editor is second guessing "what the ID folks really thought" without sourcing.
Examining the two footnotes on what I have variously called the false, erroneous, troublesome sentence (not all in one breath!), we find #8 saying just the opposite: "However, in June 2004, a paper by Stephen Meyer advocating ID was published (my bolding) in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (i.e., DC)." The second, #187, uses an altogether acceptable wording: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." There is indeed, as far as I know, a complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory since the PBSW does not support the paper that was, in fact, published in it under controversial circumstances and quickly retracted.
My stance is that every inexactness in an argument weakens it, and since this one is so easily rectified, I see every reason to do so and none to leave it as is.
A third question I asked--if promoting one court document against a full dozen reliable sources plus 3 WP articles is good policy or if it is not in fact giving it undue weight--has gone unanswered.
I would like to see this article as clear, readable, factual, and helpful to the layperson as this one http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm/printable.
My question as to how to proceed as a "good Wikipedian" is whether I should continue to work for integrity and consonance within this article, or whether I should realize there are ideological arguments for preserving the flaw and so leave it be. Yopienso (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the troublesome sentence to make it clearer. It is after all scientific papers that are peer reviewed, not the journals that they are placed in. I hope this will address Yopienso's concerns.--Charles (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed the potential problem with the prior language, as I'm already familiar with the facts. I can readily imagine how someone not yet familiar with the information could draw an incorrect impression from the prior language. (Many diligent attempts were made by my English instructors to teach me to always try to append adjectival clauses directly to the noun to which they refer, but sometimes I miss these things anyway.) This edit renders it more accurately. I trust the brief explanation of the Sternberg controversy in the fourth paragraph of the peer-review section of the article is now adequately consistent with the second sentence of the introductory paragraph of that section? ... Kenosis (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your contributions! And yet, not meaning to carp, we don't know that the paper wasn't peer-reviewed. Sternberg, whose word isn't, unfortunately, unimpeachable, insists it was peer-reviewed. An email from Roy McDiarmid, the president of the BSW, to Hans Sues, confirms that assertion. A poster claiming to be Nick Matzke (and no one challenged the claim) posted the email in the comments section of a Brayton article. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/answering_krauze_and_sternberg_1.php (Both Matzke and Brayton are foes of ID.) The entire exchange of emails is here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1490 Although this is currently online only at a Discovery Institute site, it was previously available on a US government site. Although some editors cite WP:Reliable technicalities on why the site is unreliable, Michael Shermer (anti-ID) seems to believe the emails are genuine. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17/#part2 There seems to be enough doubt about the reviewers that our article should neither assert nor deny that the Meyer paper was properly reviewed. Also, it actually is proper to refer to a journal as "peer-reviewed." Look here http://lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html or google any of a great number of such sites.
Can the sentence be recast as, "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that under controversial circumstances, was quickly repudiated and withdrawn." The only footnote necessary would be #8, although if someone insists on using the same footnote twice and leaving two footnotes on one sentence, I won't object. And, yes, this further refinement would agree with the later narrative. Yopienso (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I already gave my opinion on this issue here. I've no objection to a brief sentence akin to what you propose in the introductory paragraph of Intelligent design#Peer review. Maybe lose the words "and that", which are grammatically incorrect where they're placed, and rework the syntax a bit. But I can only speak here for myself as one editor among many. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal was quickly repudiated and withdrawn due to controversial review procedure and questionable content." (We'll omit "...and pressure from the NCSE." It's there in the emails, though.)Yopienso (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part(s) of my statement you're agreeing to, since you've not only changed the proposed syntax but also significantly changed the language. What I would support, speaking as one editor only, is, for example, a sentence that reads as follows:
"The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, under controversial circumstances, was quickly repudiated and withdrawn."
Or, for another example, which I would agree to support if put within parentheses in the introductory paragraph of the peer-review section, is:
"(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal under controversial circumstances, and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)"
In the second example I've added the words "by the publisher" to hopefully give a sense for what I agreed to support. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I was agreeing with, "Maybe lose the words and that, which are grammatically incorrect where they're placed, and rework the syntax a bit." This sounds good:

"(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal under controversial circumstances, and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)"

Possibly transpose under controversial circumstances to immediately follow was published to indicate it was the publishing and not the journal that suffered "controversial circumstances." Thus, "(One paper advocating intelligent design was published under controversial circumstances in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher.)" Could delete "scientific." Another way: "The lone paper published in a peer-reviewed journal provoked a storm of controversy and was quickly repudiated and withdrawn by the publisher." Or any reasonable wording that acknowledges an ID paper was published but later repudiated. Yopienso (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any comments, Dave souza? Yopienso (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We have just established that peer reviewing applies to scientific papers rather than the journal publishing them. Your latest attempt to reverse this by linking peer review to the journal would be weasel wording, implying that the paper was peer reviewed. There is no evidence that it was peer reviewed in the normal way. The email from Roy McDiarmid is so ambivalent when seen in full that it does not prove anything, except perhaps that some funny business was going on. There is no need for further changes.--Charles (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We did not establish that peer reviewing applies to papers rather than journals. You said so, but you were wrong. I provided a link showing that. Did you click on it? Here's another: "Peer-reviewed journals can be identified by their editorial statements or instructions to authors and in sources such as Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory. In Ulrich's, the graphic: icon that means a journal is refereed icon indicates a "refereed" (peer-reviewed) journal." http://www.knowledgecenter.unr.edu/instruction/help/peer.html

I am absolutely not using weasel words but trying to be as accurate as possible. I do not want to validate the paper, but I do want to acknowledge it was published, for the very simple reason that it was. What McDiarmid's email proves is that the paper was in some sense reviewed, enough to get it "snuck" (to use an ungrammatical weasel word) into a peer-reviewed journal. In wielding Occam's razor, perhaps I've omitted too much, unreasonably hoping the reader would continue down to the Meyer episode that provides more detail. This email, from which I've omitted the last 14 lines of address/phone #'s

From: Roy McDiarmid

To: Hans SUES

Date: 1/28/2005 2:25:52 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information

Hans,

I will check and see if I have an electronic copy of your original message. If I don't I suspect that Carole does. I recall that you sent it to her too, possibly first. I am almost sure that I have a hard copy. I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. (My bolding.) All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire. ROY

unambiguously states that at the time McDiarmid concluded there was not inappropriate behavior vis a vis the review process. After the brouhaha erupted, he would naturally have paused and reflected, especially with the NCSE down his neck. So let us say, "(One paper advocating intelligent design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher under a cloud of controversy regarding the review process. See below.)" Imho, the simplest thing to do, as I have suggested before, is to delete the sentence and let the fourth paragraph tell the story. But if we want to be redundant, let's at least be accurate. I do like the parentheses, which equate with the treatment given the Behe/Snokes paper on p. 88 of Judge Jones conclusions on Kitzmiller v. Dover. (Sorry, I'm having a little trouble with my formatting.) Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version as edited by Charlesdrakew at 22:36, 13 March 2010, is clear and accurate. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. The detail and context is given in the remainder of the paragraph. Simply getting an "off-topic rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations" improperly published in what is normally a peer-reviewed journal dealing with taxonomy, not with whether or not Cambrian lineages required magic intervention, does not in any normal meaning of the word give that edifice the credence normally given to peer-reviewed publications in such a journal. Twisting the situation to claim such status merely promotes a fringe view contrary to WP:WEIGHT. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is better than it was a week ago. Yay! As I said above, my original research and synthesis bring me to the conclusion that something was fishy in the review process, but at WP we insist on verifiability, not truth. So regarding consensus, I'm seeing Dave and Charles have one view while Kenosis and Yopienso have another. As far as agreeing with the scientific community, I'll go with Gishlick, Matzke, and Elsberry over Dave and Charles, with all due respect to the latters' time and effort and good faith. See the section, "A Long Walk Off a Short Peer Review."

"Whether or not editorial discretion was abused in order to enable 'intelligent design' to make a coveted appearance in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is not currently known, and is at any rate not the most important issue." http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

There has been much investigation and speculation since that was written, but I have been unable to find any clear documentation with a later date that proves Sternberg abused the process. Only he and McDiarmid really know, and of the two, Sternberg is untrustworthy and McDiarmid mum. Yopienso (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I kind of brought up this issue before, but it is somewhat interesting to see how it persists. I don't believe that published article was scientific perfection, but I did want to point out that the assertion of the article not being peer-reviewed was questionable. We now have at least one source hostile to intelligent design theory conceding it was peer-reviewed; e.g. this one referring to the article as "a peer-reviewed article in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." The Washington Post notes that the Sternberg "mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review." Then of course there is the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency, which had this to say (as can be verified here):

"They also assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known. "

I doubt this will convince anyone here, given the intransigence I've seen above. After all, one can always say that the independent federal agency, while not an ID organization, was still biased in some way (no doubt one can find someone on the Internet who thinks so); one can also believe that both the "debunking creation science" website and the Washington Post are misinformed (they must be, since we know the article wasn't peer-reviewed, right?). And while The Statement From The Council Of The Biological Society Of Washington says what Sternberg did was not typical and does not say he didn't follow proper peer-reviewed procedure, that won't prevent some people from using some creative interpretation to the contrary. So for the most part I give up on trying to correct the questionable claim in the Misplaced Pages article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Drifting away from FA quality

This article covers a lot of great material and it helpfully summarizes the scientific consensus. But it seems like WP:NPOV is beginning to slip through disregard of WP:UNDUE. Noting in the lead that ID is "not science/pseudoscience/junk science" is totally appropriate, doing so five different times seems like a bit much--more than a bit really. Saying that there is a clear scientific consensus against ID is likewise totally appropriate, saying that the consensus is "unequivocal" seems like slight over-reach, especially considering the statement is connected to a footnote that states that "over 700 scientists" support ID. Also, some of the counter-points in the sections dedicated to the specific ID arguments give the impression that any stick is good enough to beat the theory. There must be better responses to "specified complexity" than Richard Dawkins' amateurish forays into philosophy that were met with chagrin by professional atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel... not to mention the almost gleeful refutations by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. And Victor Stenger, against fine-tuning, really? The issue of fine-tuning's appropriateness on this page aside, given Stenger's marginal standing in the field and open misotheism, why in the world is he the go-to critic here and not someone like Martin Rees or David Malet Armstrong? I'm afraid that the FA quality of this article is in serious jeopardy. Please, regular editors, get the article in shape so it can keep its FA status. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at the FA and FA review (links above on this page) and compares the article then and now, it appears the article was much the same as it is now. No doubt there are some things to be cleaned up, but major issues like the inclusion and basic approach of this section were well scrutinized. The fundamental issue with this section is this: Fine-tuning arguments were among those raised by intelligent design advocates, and as noted in the article it is untestable and scientifically unproductive, being mainly an argument that there's some as-yet-undiscovered (or supernatural) cause of fine-tuning. If you have specific that might constitute an improvement, please put them forward so they can be discussed and considered-- or alternately, there's always permission to start by being bold and see where it goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the past FA approved version of this article and it seems that you're right, the tone and vigor of its denunciation of ID is pretty much the same. I had assumed that, given the difficulty the Christ myth theory is having achieving FA status for POV objections, the ID article must have been more moderate at some point. Silly me. This just makes the "oppose" votes to the CMT's FAC all the more aggravating. I still think, though, that if fine-tuning (FT) is going to be kept as an integral part of this article then the FAQ and tone of the article will have to change. Far better to just cut the FT material and avoid the big hassle. Eugene (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

RE "the tone and vigor of its denunciation of ID is pretty much the same." and "Far better to just cut the FT material and avoid the big hassle.": I think you've made your POV clear. As always, feel free to seek consensus to remove this section by articulating the case for it and letting others weigh in as they may wish to do so. I'll try to keep an open mind to your arguments, though frankly, lacking a new set of reliable sources we haven't already reviewed that are something other than obscure primary-source anthropic-principle arguments, I basically think I've already said my piece here and in the section below. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine-tuning?

I notice that this article clearly indicates that ID is seen as decidedly fringe in the relevant specialties and, according to the FAQ, "does not cite any papers that support ID because no such papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." It seems that, as long as the article focuses on biology, this is completely true. But as the article currently stands, it doesn't just focus on biology, it discusses cosmology too with reference to the "fine-tuning" argument. But if cosmological "ID" is to be considered, then there certainly are a number of articles that discuss these theories approvingly in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Just off the top of my head I can think of a handful from Rodney Holder (e.g. , , ) and a few from William Lane Craig (e.g. ) and I know there are many others.

So it seems like the regular editors here have a choice: either they can exclude cosmology from consideration, keeping the focus clearly on biology and the denial of evolution and thus keep the thundering condemnations, or they can keep the cosmology bit, revise the FAQ, start citing pro fine-tuning sources, and moderate the tone of the article concerning ID fringiness. I think the former option is the better way to go. Eugene (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. your first and second sentence, agreed. As to "But if cosmological "ID" is to be considered," This article is not about the teleological argument per se nor about the anthropic principle, but rather about intelligent design in the only sense it's become a notable topic in modern discourse. We're not in the business of attempting to reframe modern terminology-- ID is a term created specifically to push an alternate theory of evolution to biology students, primarily in the United States. Fine-tuning came into the picture because affiliates of the Discovery Institute such as Plantinga and Craig were concurrently putting forward their own philosophy under the general auspices of ID, bringing such arguments into directly relevant play. "Cosmological ID" appears to be your term. As to the arcane journal articles you've mentioned (apparently not available for full viewing online), I've no inherent objection to considering these sources, but please see WP:NOR, especially WP:PSTS, which deals with the parameters within which consideration of the use of primary-source journal articles must occur in WP. As to Barrow and Tipler (which you link to in parentheses after mentioning Craig), they're notable in the context of the anthropic principle and are already discussed both there and in teleological argument. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I haven't made myself clear. I wasn't trying to coin the phrase "Cosmologial ID", I was attempting to show that arguments for design which appeal to cosmology (as opposed to biology) are meaningfully distinct from ID proper. My point was that this article doesn't indicate that and so gives the impression that teleological interpretations of cosmology are regarded by an "unequivocal consensus" of scientists as silly nonsense. Such an insinuation is both unhelpful and untrue and undermines the legitimacy of this article and Misplaced Pages in general. I'll add some little phrase to the article to correct this but I'm already busy with another time-consumming article so I won't have the chance to "be bold" in any drastic way. (p.s. The link after Craig is to an article by Craig interacting with Barrow and Tipler's work, not an article by Barrow and Tipler themselves.) Eugene (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not a definition

This is not an unbiased definition of intelligent design, rather, it is an attempt to portray intelligent design as having no scientific basis and unapproved by anyone remotely related to science. Talk about using Wikipeida to push one's own view...wow....this is the textbook example of such! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.49.86 (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the FAQs at the top of this page to answer your concerns.--Charles (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Assertion

Re. and the preceding talk page section: There actually is a problem with the article's definition of ID as an "assertion". The problem is, quite simply, that ID is not an assertion. An assertion is an affirmative sentence: Roses are red; violets are blue. "Intelligent design", lacking a verb, cannot be a sentence at all, let alone an assertive one. ID might be a belief, set of beliefs, etc. whereby a given assertion is made or is held to be correct. But a statement of the form, " is the assertion that..." is intrinsically false, because assertions always contain verbs (e.g., the "is" in the line, "Intelligent design is the assertion", which is itself an assertion, albeit an erroneous one). I see nothing wrong with invoking the assertion that the article's definition invokes. But the wording could use a minor tweak so that it doesn't equate a non-assertion to an assertion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"assertion" is many things (see link) and it is used here mainly due to the fact that it is the least contentious term precisely because it encompasses most things.--LexCorp (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1) A substantive point: The "assertion" which defines ID (according to the definitive cited source, the Discovery Institute) is that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
2) This was discussed to death a couple years ago, where, after considering "concept" (which it had been for roughly a couple years prior), "proposition", "belief", "assertion" and several other possibilities, the participants settled on "assertion". Of course I recognize a new consensus can always be sought. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting link, but as far as I can tell, all of its examples of assertions (of various stripes, to be sure) include verbs. In this article, the quoted material in the opening line is indeed an assertion ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained"), but "intelligent design" per se is no more of an assertion than "birthday cake" or "panda bears". ID makes the given assertion; indeed, the opening line, as it now stands, could be restated as, "Intelligent design asserts that...", but it (still) would not define the entity that is making the assertion. Might I suggest modeling the opening line after the (consensus-based) opening of an article about another contentious subject? The astrology article begins as follows: "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies..." So, for this article, how about something like, "Intelligent design is a group of arguments and beliefs which hold that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained...'"? I suggest "arguments and beliefs" (or something to that effect) for neutrality's sake, allowing for ID to run the gamut from the teleological argument on one end of the rationality spectrum (even Elliott Sober defends that line of thought, at least up to a point) to blind faith on the other. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cosmic Latte that intelligent design is not an assertion, but a belief, or even a philosophy or worldview. Note that the examples LexCorp links to include some form of the verb "to be." To still be blandly uncontentious, however,--a noble goal--we could say, "Intelligent design asserts that certain features of the universe..." Yopienso (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Read 6.1 on my link. The benefits in using assertion here is that it is a declaration of belief that could be disingenuously uttered by the person making the assertion. There is plenty of evidence that this is what ID proponents are doing. Yopienso suggestion lacks an actor. It should read as "Intelligent design proponents or followers asserts that certain features of the universe...". And thus the problem is exposed in my view. ID is as shallow as it appears to be. It is a simple assertion (disingenuous or otherwise). No philosophy nor worldview (I will require citation on that). At most it is a propaganda tool within the teach the controversy campaign (I lack citation for this sadly).--LexCorp (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Intelligent design proponents or followers assert that certain features of the universe...": Yes, something like this was tried a long time ago too, but ran into WP:MOS issues, since the standard is to present a straight definition of the topic in the first sentence of the lead. I forgot to mention proposals such as ID is the intellectually dishonest concept that... And ID is a trojan horse which purports to ... And, well, you get the general picture. We got it from all sides of the controversy here. To be sure, this article was challenging to all involved. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The premise that ID is not an assertion because it lacks a verb is surprising to me. As Kenosis point out "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." is the assertion known as Intelligent Design with verb to be and all. Thus an actor uttering that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." or uttering " I assert ID" are making the same assertion.--LexCorp (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, why not just say what it is: "ID is a pseudoscience that asserts...". The definition in the PS article fits perfectly. "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology". It certainly claims to be scientific and especially the latter part of this definition is also confirmed and sourced in the ID article "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in the second paragraph, as it has been for several years now, cited to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure whether the preceding was intended to be serious or sarcastic. Either way, an encyclopedia would not define ID as pseudoscience because there is a substantial number (perhaps even a majority) of people who do not regard it as pseudoscience. And it should not define ID as an assertion, because ID is not an assertion. Yes, it makes an assertion, but if "ID makes the assertion..." is non-MoS, it cannot be substituted with "ID is the assertion...", any more than a line like, "Hamlet makes the assertion that 'to be, or not to be' is 'the question'" could be replaced with, "Hamlet is the assertion that 'to be, or not to be' is 'the question.'" Serious or sarcastic, the question of pseudoscience is irrelevant. I'm not challenging the association of any assertion with ID; I'm not denying that ID makes any particular assertion. All I'm saying is, essentially, that the words "makes" and "is" do not mean the same thing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look we are in a very difficult situation here. The proponents of ID say it is a scientific theory. The scientific community says it is not. Beyond that there is no real definition given by anyone. The solution we have implemented 'til now is for a definition as close as possible to the one promoted by the ID proponents without making the mistake of classifying it as a scientific theory. The result, while not the most elegant in the world, is informative, neutral and stable. Anyone reading the whole lead will leave with a clear sense of what is ID. Isn't that enough?--LexCorp (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the first sentence of the article has been round and round many times, with occasional disagreements about even the very use of the word "is" (I hear several of the WP editors who were then regular participants today reside in padded rooms--myself, IIRC I escaped while the guards were asleep ;-) The website of the Discovery Institute's CRC, which the editors here took as self-definitive, says:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This article, for a long time now, says:

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

As examples of the quibbles, several have asserted w.r.t. the word "is" that "is the should be changed to ..." to "refers to the that..." It was necessary for other editors to point out that "refers to" is generally taken as synonymous with "is". There were many other examples of this sort of quibbling over language, most of which I can't specifically recall at the moment. But a major discussion revolved around how much of the DI's definition of ID to use in the article. As LexCorp points out, the editors could not properly fall into the trap of having to distinguish for the reader between an informal theory or an armchair theory and a scientific theory. There were already more than enough linguistically delicate twists and turns in this interesting contemporary study of this think-tank driven, religio-political-pseudoscientific "movement", unfortunately with a great deal of "sleight of hand" performed by the principal advocates in attempting to get their preferred creationist "textbook" into the high-school biology classes. So the word "theory" was out, for sure.
....... Another point of discussion several years ago was that "intelligent design" can't "hold" anything. So that was out too. Which leaves us pretty much where we are today, the same place we were in during several previous go-rounds on this issue, which amounted to the following: Simply insert your favorite name of the class of conceptual objects to which ID belongs; e.g. "concept" (as it had been for roughly a couple years), "proposition", "belief", "assertion" or other favorite word. Proposition was criticized as too formal. "Belief" was criticized as being unable to verify what people believed and that one could only take at face value the words actually uttered. "Concept", despite having been there for quite a lengthy period, was criticized for being too vague. A few other words were suggested but each was in turn criticized on various grounds. So we ended up with "assertion". But it still amounts to picking a favorite word for the class of entities to which ID belongs, and "assertion" seemed to have the least objections on an issue that really satisfied no one completely. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was totally serious. And I am aware that the issue might be delicate. However, I was proposing "pseudoscience" for the first sentence because there are obviously problems with the term "assertion". Technically, "pseudoscience" is absolutely correct and a lot more fitting than "assertion". Science is not a democracy where you can vote by majority if something is proven fact or not. Anyway: How can you claim to be a scientific theory without having any support from peer-reviewed scientific publications? To me the current introduction looks massively as if it was the result of some kind of compromise and shying away from the facts just because this might upset some people. Actually the matter is conveniently settled in this page's F.A.Q. So why shy away from putting the fact that it is a pseudoscience in the first sentence? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Janfrie1988: A key feature of pseudoscience is that is masquerades as science. Many (myself included, by the way) would say that ID tends to do this. However, if ID wears such a mask, it is more subtle a mask than that which creation science wears. Also, a significant number of people maintain that ID is science. Some (again, myself included) might find this approach misguided; however, editorial disagreement with the masses is not an encyclopedic excuse for editorial refutation of the masses. (Besides, science is such a diverse morpheme that its role even in the term "creation science", while in a technical sense misleading, is in another sense--the sense in which "science" roughly means "study"--quite correct.) Anyway, I seem to have spotted a relevant discussion within the massive talk page archives for this article. Beyond what I've already said, I don't know how much more I can add; but I would point out that, if the problem with "hold" is that it applies more to ID's adherents than to ID per se, then precisely the same problem plagues "assert". And if ID doesn't precisely "assert" anything, and if it isn't precisely an "assertion", then it's got to do and be something else. As for what it really is or does... well, in a sense this all might be just a "quibble", but it's a quibble whose results are going to stick in readers' minds. I'll be glad to make suggestions if I think of any, but at the very least I'd recommend that alternatives be sought, and that the current wording (i.e., the "assertion" assertion) be taken with a grain of salt. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim that a significant number of people maintain that ID is science and speak of "masses" that we are up against. Well, its far from being that onesided in the public opinion in all countries I know of. And besides: We have to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies. If you can present any reliable source which claims ID to be science the premises of this discussion might change. For the time being the sources are overwhelmingly unanimous about the issue (as far as I have checked, feel free to correct me). Besides: the article already makes the point about ID being a pseudoscience. So, again: Why do we not put it in the first sentence? Are you afraid there is going to be an outcry by ID proponents? Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately Janfrie1988 is quite right. The lead is a compromise and the correct definition is that ID is a modern/novel form of the argument from design. We have plenty of sources stating so. Thus why did we compromised in the first place?. In order to avoid endless pov objections. The article should really start like:

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Intelligent design proponents assert that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

So the question we must consider is quite simple. Do we trade encyclopedic standards for stability?. --LexCorp (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict there, LexCorp, and you have added a most worthy suggestion. ID is not the innovation here, but the conservative thought resisting the "new" idea of evolution. I would love to see your introduction replace the present lede. Anyway, here's what I had written:

LexCorp said, "Beyond that there is no real definition given by anyone."

Any number of reliable online dictionaries and other reference sites define "intelligent design."

Merriam-Webster calls it a "theory."
American Heritage says, "The assertion or belief...."; Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon on the same page calls it a "theory."
The Encyclopedia Brittanica calls it an "argument."
Yourdictionary.com calls it a "concept."

Any refusal of ours to dignify intelligent design with appellations we may personally not prefer would be POV or OR and SYN; our job is to report what mainstream sources say. That said, I now see the "assertion" assertion :) as valid: the words "intelligent design" in this case are not a common noun modified by an adjective serving as the subject of the sentence, but code words, if you will, for an assertion regarding reasons for the complexity found in the universe. Which means I'm signing off on this discussion: any word'll do! Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:I'm comfortable with swapping the first two sentences verbatim except for appropriate syntax adjustment such as LexCorp proposes. Perhaps it would be better to get some feedback from long-term participants in the article. Dave souza, Guettarda, and KillerChihuahua are still active on the 'pedia, as I imagine are some others who were instrumental in bringing it to FA standards. Or, there's always permission to WP:Be Bold and just see where it goes from there. But I personally won't resist this particular change. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if LexCorp's suggestion for the first sentences completely holds, since ID technically is no argument for the existence of a deity but an argument for the notion that a deity has designed/created life (the existence of said deity is just presupposed). As such, it is clearly a pseudoscience since it is neither testable nor falsifiable nor provides any evidence that is accepted by any reliable source (see also the F.A.Q. above). Concerning LexCorp's last question: What happens if we don't? In case anyone claims POV we can provide quite an impressive amount of sources that see it as pseudoscience, too. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that the claim that ID is an argument for the existence of God is already in the intro and also sourced. But is this really true? Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the qualifiers "modern" and "which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer". If you take those into account then your reservations vanish into thin air. Mind you maybe changing "modern" to "novel" is more explicit and helpful.--LexCorp (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, but ID doesn't argue that there is a God, it just presupposes his existence. Or does it? Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I said, you are right. Its rather the other way round. "Oh look, how great this is, there must be an intelligence behind this (and therefore exist)." I now endorse your proposal as well :) Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories: