Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 24

Proposal

Copied from /Archive23

Continuing the work of Trilemma (see #My model for the ID article), I have a reorganisation proposal. Please see User:Trilemma/Subpage, where I have callously replaced Trilemma's proposal[1] with my own. See User talk:Trilemma/Subpage for justification.

Note how uncluttered and clean the table of contents looks, even though no information is lost. -- Ec5618 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism! Just kidding. I think your proposed layout is a step in the right direction, ec. Good work. Trilemma 18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I have not had time to go over it carefully, but it looks like you've managed to incorporate the best of Trilemma's layout and reduce ToC clutter. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Going over the layout carefully would indeed be in order, as I have mostly moved entire sections. Figuring out how to re-write the sections to fit the layout is going to be a pain. Nevertheless, I'd like to try. -- Ec5618 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I contest the order of the proposal. it isn't until the middle of the article that one is presented with "The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design" This needs to be presented at the onset. I also contest the definition as being unfair, the section of "Portraying intelligent design as science" as unfair, and the lack of definition of FTU (its too short and doesn't fairly portray the FTU argument), among other points. but we can address them one at a time, lets start with moving "The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design" closer to the top. A lot of work to do, but I applaud the start. Also, please place the NPOV template on the primary article while we hash out an agreeable rewrite. thank you. Marshill

Glossing over Marshill's comments, I've just read the proposal from top to bottom, and see nothing wrong with implementing it, as is. While some of its section may still read like criticism, it is certainly no worse than what we currently have, and being placed in the article space would certainly help in getting some collaboration going. Perhaps we could even discuss some of the finer points.

The references are currently in disarray. If anyone still has thoughts on rearranging the sections, let them speak now, or be willing to rearrange the references too. If no-one speaks, we can reorder the references and move the proposal.

Marshill, I feel that the debate is more relevant than specific concepts within ID, in the same way that often the history of something is more relevant than the actual description. Also, most other sections, such as 'Intelligence, as an observable quality', deal with specific concepts as well, and all concepts should stick together.

You suggested moving some section and placing a NPOV banner. I will not indulge an aggressive editor. In short, no. -- Ec5618 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not mandate fairness over accuracy. The definition of ID in the article is accurate and canonical, the section of "Portraying intelligent design as science" is necessary for readers to understand the challenge ID poses to the scientific method and why scientists reject it. Defining the method accurately is necessary for a complete article. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does mandate fairness. ID needs to be defined, on its own citing its proponents merits, whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant. In the same way, when I visit the wiki section on any other idea, religion, paranormal concept, etc, whether accepted by science or not....I expect that idea to be explained simply as it. For the most part, Wiki does a fine job giving us the neutral information before slamming it down with criticism. If we accurately describe ID and accurately state the defenses for ID in a nonbiased way, and then present the criticsms, then we have done our job and accuracy is maintained. At this point, the article, including the proposal, ID is not given a fair shake, bias is being masked by the undue weight policy which is being overly applied. undue weight does not equivocate to no weight. Marshill

If you feel the ID viewpoint is being given short shrift, you're welcome to expand upon it. But gutting the other viewpoint to the detriment of accuracy and completeness to bring balance is not the answer. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, I don't think that anyone has suggested that the article not include substantial criticism of ID. But what's missing is an accurate description of ID beliefs and arguments. To put the point in a less controversial context, I think we all agree that Xenu never ruled the galaxy. But it is also indisputably true that there some people believe that he ruled the galaxy, and Wikipedia correctly reports the fact that they believe it, and the content of their belief---and it reports that belief without constant negative wording. The ID article is currently missing those types of facts. Ben Bateman 69.6.140.11 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Xenu ruling the galaxy is not presented as science, ID is. The difference is both substantial and substantive. Jim62sch 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the "Portraying intelligent design as science" section, I see it lacks the ID viewpoint on specific points as to why ID qualifies as science. Here are the points. We need one or two sentences on each, with a link to a cite:

1. intelligent design is externally consistent
2. intelligent design is parsimonious
3. intelligent design is falsifiable
4. intelligent design is empirically testable
5. intelligent design is correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive

Who wants to write these and has citable support with links handy? FeloniousMonk 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

i agree that for each point, allow an ID authority to cite a defense from the ID perspective why it is met. The criticism may then follow. Marshill 22:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I too agree, and see this as an ideal opportunity for some of our editors to help with the actual content of the article. Please, Marshill, roll up your sleeves and participate. -- Ec5618 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

looks like we are going on the right track. i've got christmas parties this weekend, so I'll be helping with this early next week. i'm pleased with the cooperation I'm seeing at this point. i hope the final product reflects the mature cooperation that is taking place right now. I still feel the NPOV template is appropriate until the new version is released. but regardless, have a great night all. regards, Marshill 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is all moving in the right direction. I like DocJohnny's order of presentation a bit more, for understanding the topic, but completely understand those who prioritize understanding the controversy.--Gandalf2000 06:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal

Rather than change Trilemma's proposal, I am adding my own to my talk page. User:DocJohnny/ID Proposal --DocJohnny 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you summarize the differences for us between your's, trilemma's, and the current version? FeloniousMonk 21:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, this task is much bigger than I thought. I moved the concepts section to first, then movement, and am working on consolidating the criticism into a large section. --DocJohnny 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of specific concepts will need to be kept in context to be understandable and not give the concepts undue weight. General criticisms can be grouped together. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So DocJohnny, you've taken my version, and made exactly four changes. You've

1. moved the Intelligent design concepts-section above the Intelligent design as a movement and Intelligent design debate-sections, and
2. changed a header name. (Intelligent design in summary to History).
3. In the intro, you've also changed controversial assertion to concept, and
4. added that Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

How exactly is this a new proposal? I'm sorry, but wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just edit the existing proposal? Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to suggest these changes, rather than creation another proposal page?

As for the changes themselves:

1. As I've said before, I feel that the debate is more relevant than specific concepts within ID, in the same way that often the history of something is more relevant than the actual description. Also, most other sections, such as 'Intelligence, as an observable quality', deal with specific concepts as well, and all concepts should stick together.
2. I don't mind the header, so much as I mind that it doesn't fit the section it heads.
3. I don't mind the word concept. It's still controversial though, and the definition should reflect this.
4. Do they say that ID is a scientific theory? The source referenced in that sentence states, "the specific question of whether a scientific theory of intelligent design could be formulated", which suggests not all proponents agree with this assertion.

-- Ec5618 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To the ID apologists

Marshill and Ben Bateman, Trilemma, et al. Please add the facts that are needed to flesh out the support for ID. I think we can reach a consensus. --DocJohnny 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think its rather presumptuous of you to suggest this? What version should these facts be added to? What are you expecting of the other editors, and why are you assuming that a) the editors are subdivided into easy categories, and b) only pro-ID editors can find facts? -- Ec5618 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, anyone can find the facts both for and against ID no matter what their personal perspective is, so EC is correct. In fact, anyone who has ever debated competitively learned to argue both sides of an issue, no matter what their feelings/beliefs/preferences, etc. Jim62sch 16:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your request DocJohnny. Some of my concerns have to do with not accurately/adequately representing the ID position. Take for instance the "fine-tuning" argument. A rebuttal is offered saying, "a different sort of life might exist in its place." It should be recognized however, that the ID argument isn't just that our kind life would not exist, but that fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life to be possible (see Mere Creation page 372 and and this ID article), not just life as we know it. For instance, it is argued that if the electron to proton mass ratio were different, there could not even exist sufficient chemical bonding. And if the strong nuclear force constant were smaller, the universe would consist of nothing but hydrogen (thus allegedly not having any adequate chemical basis for producing anything like life). Now I agree that rebuttals to the ID argument should be given, but the ID views should at least be accurately represented before they are criticized.

When it comes to specified complexity (a.k.a. complex specified information), I do not think the article does an adequate job of explaining the concept. The article does not really explain what is meant by the term. Allow me to provide an explanation of complex specified information:

The definition of information being referred to here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary 2b. Information is an inherent attribute communicated by sequences of units (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computers) with each unit consisting of two or more variants. Complex information is simply a high information content. For instance, the following sequence PLMGQEIXZVITQAGUSAQPECNZA is more complex than ZP. For a complex set of information, it is unlikely that any particular sequence is chosen. For instance, the odds of getting the sequence of 143 characters exactly right via random chance (once we take into account spaces, commas and periods) is 29^143 or approximately 1 in 10^209. But to make a design inference Dembski says, it is not enough for information to be complex, it must also be specified. Specification, in short, implies the existence of a non-ad-hoc pattern that can be used to eliminate chance and be grounds to rationally make a design inference. Suppose the complex sequence was this:

THERE WAS ONCE A MAN WHO HAD A DAUGHTER WHO WAS CALLED CLEVER ELSIE. AND WHEN SHE HAD GROWN UP HER FATHER SAID, WE WILL GET HER MARRIED. YES, SAID THE MOTHER, IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD COME WHO WOULD HAVE HER. AT LENGTH A MAN CAME FROM A DISTANCE AND WOOED HER, WHO WAS CALLED HANS, BUT HE STIPULATED THAT CLEVER ELSIE SHOULD BE REALLY SMART. OH, SAID THE FATHER, SHE HAS PLENTY OF GOOD SENSE. AND THE MOTHER SAID, OH, SHE CAN SEE THE WIND COMING UP THE STREET, AND HEAR THE FLIES COUGHING. WELL, SAID HANS, IF SHE IS NOT REALLY SMART, I WON'T HAVE HER. WHEN THEY WERE SITTING AT DINNER AND HAD EATEN, THE MOTHER SAID, ELSIE, GO INTO THE CELLAR AND FETCH SOME BEER. THEN CLEVER ELSIE TOOK THE PITCHER FROM THE WALL, WENT INTO THE CELLAR, AND TAPPED THE LID BRISKLY AS SHE WENT, SO THAT THE TIME MIGHT NOT APPEAR LONG.

The sequence of letters above (taken from "Clever Elsie", one of Grimm's fairy tales) has 143 units, with each unit having 29 varieties (29^143 possibilities for a sequence of this size). Under Dembski's definition, if the information has less than a 1 in 10^150 chance plus the specification criterion it can be considered CSI (because anything less than 1 in 10^150 goes past the "universal probability bound"--so called because 10^150 is an upper limit on the total number of possible physical events since the big bang). Thus, under Dembski's theory we would have rational grounds for making a design inference here because the sequence above is both complex and specified (following a non-ad-hoc pattern; in this case a meaningful set of words). Dembski claims that life possesses specified complexity and thus requires a designer. The vast majority of scientists disagree, arguing that the evolution of life is not nearly as improbable as many ID adherents claim. Rebuttals are perfectly acceptable of course, as long as the ID position is adequately explained and not misconstrued.

The "who designed the designer" section has been something of a controversy, primarily about suspicions of original research. I thus proposed this as an alternative:

In claiming that life was intelligent design, critics have asked the question of who designed the designer. Dawkins and Coyne have argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation." They further argue that Intelligent Design simply takes the complexity required for life to have evolved and moves it to the "designer" instead. Intelligent Design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it. In this view, explaining the origin of life on Earth by reference to a designer explains nothing, for it does not explain the origin of the designer. And if the designer is itself designed, there is the possibility of falling into an infinite regression of designers. A design inference is thus vacuous and illegitimate.

ID adherents have claimed that one can still rationally infer design (e.g. a radio message sent by extraterrestrials) without knowing the identity or origins of the designer. Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists claim there is insufficient reason to make a design inference for life on Earth in the first place.

There is only one sentence that describes the minority view, but this one sentence quite well describes the ID position and permits the reader to easily understand this significant minority view (even if the reader does not agree with it). --Wade A. Tisthammer 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

New Opening Line

The current opening line is just wrong. ID is not presenting itself as a concept (Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that argues...), it is presenting itself as a scientific theory. Concept is just too wiggly of a word, and misses the fact that ID has adopted the guise of being either science, or a proto-science. Jim62sch 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This suggests that ID should be stated as presenting itself as a scientific theory, and that the term 'theory' should be used consistently throughout, as "scientific theory". The reason why mainstream science rejects the claim that ID is a (scientific) theory should be explained clearly.

I don't object to this approach. But the reasons why mainstream science rejects ID as a scientific theory have to be made abundantly clear. Bill Jefferys 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed re theory.

I think that the reasons are covered quite clearly in the article. In fact, FM's request (above) for proof of parsimony, consistancy, falsifiability, etc., note some of the reasons nearly all scientists reject ID as a science. Jim62sch 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture is accurate and appropriate, and the term used for most of 2004 in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Deja vu. I object to the use of conjecture, as its use outside science is to denote something with connotations of doubt, and its use within science is not standardized as are the terms theory and hypothesis. I think the word theory was fine, and let them prove it :P, but that was strenously objected to by some editors. Concept was the compromise wording. I continue to contend that by arguing semantics we are giving this too much credence. I have attempted to use the word theory and was reverted twice. I have argued that the third sentence clearly gives the appropriate disclaimer to the use of the word theory. "The vast majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science."--DocJohnny 04:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is presenting itself as a theory, why not just say that? Intelligent design (ID) presents itself as a theory that argues... -Parallel or Together? 04:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair solution. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd still prefer "hypothesis" to "theory" - its supporters may call it a theory, they present it as an hypothesis (or rather, as if it were an hypothesis). Guettarda 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and based on previous observations or extensions of scientific theories" from Hypothesis. Split the difference. If "hypothesis" then it should be Intelligent design (ID) presents itself as a hypothesis that argues... FeloniousMonk 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think ID supporters agree that ID at this point isn't "proven". My preferred verbiage is speculation differing from hypothesis in its ability to make testable predictions, but "presented as a hypothesis" is really good. --JPotter 05:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind, replace the word theory with hypothesis - so yes, agree with FM. Guettarda 05:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "presents itself as" - it's immediately argumentative and more to the point it avoids the facts. ID does not come anywhere close to the level of theory, and we know this. In the first line we should be absolutely explicit about what ID actually IS, not what its proponents claim it to be. The latter requires considerable context to comprehend. The former is hopefully digestible regardless of anyone's state of knowledge. I submit that something like conjecture or proposition should go there. I don't think ID qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, since its claims are not testable or falsifiable. This is why I like 'conjecture', though I'll acknowledge that that word can be seen to have negative implications. However, working 'theory' and 'hypothesis' into the intro sentence doesn't seem acceptable. Graft 06:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Man, that's some incoherent rambling. Too much wine. Time to start Wikipedians Against Drunk Editing? Graft 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we can always go back to "concept." It's hard to deny that it's a concept, and concept has no negative connotations. FeloniousMonk 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. The grammar can be improved. How about something more like: "Intelligent design (ID) is presented as a hypothesis arguing that..." --Gandalf2000 06:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FM's version of my suggestion (changing theory to hypothesis --> Intelligent design (ID) presents itself as a hypothesis that argues...) and I have no opinion on the difference between "that argues..." and "arguing that...". -Parallel or Together? 06:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I do like Galdalf's better. ID isn't presenting itself as anything. Best not to anthropomorphize it (or however you spell that word.) -Parallel or Together? 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the first paragraph explain that the phrase "intelligent design" has at least two meanings: It is both a theory and a political movement. Maybe separating those two will help keep the emotional temperature down a little. This distinction is already present in the current article; it just isn't explained to the reader up front.

This argument over the word 'theory' strikes me as an attempt at word ownership, which Wikipedia's NPOV policy discourages: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Word_ownership. In American English, the word 'theory' by itself does not imply a scientific theory, nor does it imply that the theory is proven. Just Google the word, and you'll find only a few references to specifically scientific theories. The rest are phrases like: queer theory, feminist theory, game theory, music theory, number theory, educational theory, and legal theory. It's a very flexible term.

Some have objected that using 'theory' here is confusing because ID makes claims to science, so the reader will think that 'theory' means 'scientific theory'. That would be true if we were talking about using 'theory' indiscriminately throughout the article. But we aren't. This is the article's first sentence. If the reader is learning about this subject for the first time, then he doesn't know that ID claims to be science, so he has no reason to instantly mis-read 'theory'.

But let's assume for a moment that some reader does misunderstand the term, and finishes the first sentence with the impression that ID is a scientific theory accepted by the scientific community. Won't the article soon correct his misunderstanding? Is there some concern that people will only read the first sentence? Is it worth garbling the prose and angering ID supporters to ensure that the ID opponents blow a raspberry in the first half-dozen words? Because if that's what the ID opponents want, then this article will remain opaque and uninformative. In case anyone has overlooked this point, the article's title is: "Intelligent Design." It isn't "Criticisms of Intelligent Design," or "Why Intelligent Design is Wrong," or "Intelligent Design Debate." The article cannot explain its subject clearly if the criticisms must start from the very first sentence.

Finally, 'theory' needs to go here because ID supporters use it to describe themselves. The article cannot coherently explain the beliefs of ID supporters without using the vocabulary of the believers. You may not think that it's a theory, but they do, and this article cannot accurately explain their beliefs without that word. Ben Bateman 69.6.140.11 07:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about using a block quote from an ID source? --DocJohnny 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition itself, "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." is a quote from an ID source, the Discovery Institute.[2] It's just a matter of framing it. We had this debate in 2004 and again in early 2005, and settled on "concept" as it is factually accurate an not weasely like some of the other alternatives. The proposals made here were also made then. FeloniousMonk 07:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid the word hypothesis doesn't make much sense when it says a few lines into the intro "Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory". (Technically, I haven't found a source for that assertion though). Clearly it can't be both a hypthesis and a theory. -- Ec5618 11:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One dictionary definition of a hypothesis is 'unproved theory' so I think it can be both. And anyway, what it is and what people claim it is can differ. But I don't think that an intelligent design can 'present itself'. An intelligent design is a perceived characteristic of a living organism. It can be presented as existing, or as leading to certain conclusions, but as above, it isn't an actor in its own right. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Within science, a hypothesis is not an unproven theory (theories are unproven theories). The word hypothesis is also used mostly in scientific circles.

Was there a problem with "Intelligent design (ID) is presented as a theory that argues.."? -- Ec5618 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me check my parsing of that. It reads to me that you are saying that the word hypothesis means something other than unproven theory, and that theory implies unproven. That doesn't make sense to me, so I suspect I haven't understood you? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems you understood me perfectly, but have somehow missed the definition of scientific theory. Science is always tentative, and never proves a theory. If you like examples, and have seen The Matrix, think of it like this: The scientists in the conputer generated world of the Matrix probably had a Theory of Gravity, and they were pretty convinced gravity existed. Turns out, gravity was part of the Matrix, and all an illusion. It wasn't caused by physical objects acting on eachother, since they were all simulated too. The whole of science is tentative, and while no amount of evidence can ever prove a theory, a single piece of evidence could shatter or bend it. A theory has never been wrong; nothing exists that can defy gravity, and if it did, the Theory of Gravity would need to be overhauled. No perpetual motion machine exists, and if it did, the Theory of Thermodynamics would need extensive work.

A hypothesis is based on facts, but is extremely fragile and tentative, and usually very specific. I may hypothesise that a specific cell culture cannot survive without vitamin C. By testing the hypothesis, I may prove it to be false, which will force me to rethink my experiment and my conclusions. Through hypothesese Theories are tested.

I apologise if my tone makes it seem as though I am addressing a child, but I am amazed. -- Ec5618 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you were perfectly civil until your last sentance. I now understand perfectly where you are coming from. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable and based on previous observations or extensions of scientific theories." --from Hypothesis.

ID has yet to shown to be testable (despite the claims of Dembskis, etc). ID is not so much based on previous observations as it is new inferences, nor is it an extension of scientific theories. ID is a conclusion drawn from an inference. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that word "scientific" - an hypothesis doesn't have to be testable - only hypotheses which are testable can be considered scientific. Guettarda 02:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We have thus discovered why ID appeals to so many: science is scary, full of incomprehensible terms and requirements, while non-scientific theories based on the supernatural are awe-inspiring and comforting. Jim62sch 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd, 'Intelligent design in summary' states:

"Its [IDs] stated purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents"

while Dembski is quoted as saying

"Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes."

This seems to clash with the definition in the intro that ID is a hypothesis or theory. Is it a research programme, a hypothesis, theory, or just an assertion or concept?

It also makes it seem that ID is still tentatively seeking evidence, which would mean that it is nowhere near on par with evolution. -- Ec5618 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur that "presents itself" needs to go, its anthropomorphising. "...is prsented as a scientific research program..." might work - thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it.

Intelligent design (ID) is presented as a scientific research program that argues ..

We'll just have to be careful that the rest of the article doesn't state that ID is a theory (per se) or that it is complete. Am I right in saying that, while proponents may believe it to be superior, they do not (necessarily) see it as having been proven so? -- Ec5618 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting the amount of debate one grumpy editor (me) can create.  :) Anyway, I really like this current version as we get away from the negative connotations of "claims" without losing the spirit. This (Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its advocates as a hypothesis that argues that...) is quite good. Hope I didn't create too much agita with my grumpiness. Jim62sch 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

SA, the latest edit is quite bad, sorry, nine times out of ten I agree with you, but this time, I simply cannot. As FM pointed out previously, NPOV has no equivalency to bending-over-backwards to make an article more sympathetic to a minor view, or of assuaging those who take exception to accurate and necessary wording. I realize that you were being bold, but I think the edit lacks the accuracy of that from which you changed it. I would revert it, but I should prefer to discuss it first. Jim62sch 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What in particular would you like to discuss? --ScienceApologist 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What does the previous edit (or the new edit) bring to the article? To me it just weakens the article. In addition, it strays farher from the cite used to back up the first sentence. Jim62sch 18:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit removes the loaded terms "hypothesis" and "theory" from the first sentence and replaces them with the value-neutral word "perspective" and explicitly describes it as being about "origins". This is better than claiming it is a "hypothesis" which is a nebulous word, and claiming that it "argues" for certain points since whether it "argues" or not is subject to acceptance of the "perspective". --ScienceApologist 18:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it is clearly presented as a theory; in fact, ID proponents have explicitly used that term. Note the definition of ID from DI: "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." [3]

Perspective is probably more nebulous than hypothesis, and much weaker. Additionally, as much as I objected to "concept" it was decidedly better than "perspective". Jim62sch 19:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is "concept" better than "perspective on origins"? I understand that the IDists try to define their endeavor in terms of "theory", but the standards by which something is a theory in light of scientific conversations is subject to this debate. Everybody can agree that ID is a perspective on origins. --ScienceApologist 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

SA, it's hard to explain...it's a matter of the linguistic sense of the words...for example, everyone has a perspective, but few create concepts. Additionally, I wouldn't consider perspective and concept to be truly synonymous.

Also, the fact that theory is at the heart of this debate is precisely the point. I realize that theory is mentioned in the second sentence, and maybe that's good enough, but my perspective is that should be brought out in the opening sentence. That ID fails as a scientific theory in that it does not meet the classical definition of the phrase is true, but there's just something about the opening paragraph as it written now that bothers me. At the moment, I cannot articulate what that is. However, I'll give it some thought today and if I can find a way to articulate my objections, I'll post it.

Please, understand that I am not trying to be difficult; I simply want this article to be one of the best on Wikipedia. Jim62sch 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it help to overcome this confusion by adding a sentence after Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2] In saying this they appear to be using the term "theory" in a colloquial sense, as the published works to date fall far short of being a scientific theory or hypothesis.

From some of his statements, even Behe should be able to agree with that. ....dave souza 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it correct to describe either evolution or ID as theories "regarding the origin of life"? Evolution, at least, tends to define its domain as the development of life, not the ultimate origin of life. The article linked to in the sentence discusses abiogenesis and other theories, not evolution or ID. Snarkibartfast 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The relevant link[4] should be to Meyer's The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design which spends a lot of time describing a methodological equivalence between Darwinian evolution and "origins theories" such as ID and creationism. It's not always clear to me where he means origin of species which is the only origin relevant to Darwin, or if he's confusing this as other ID proponents do with origin of life. He then goes on say "that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth." This confusion of origin of life and development of species is typical of ID and has the propaganda advantage of upsetting their religious supporters about evolution's alleged claim to describe the origin of life. This, and dishonest allegations that evolution is atheist, motivates many of their vocal supporters. ...dave souza 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're correct, and I think he's purposely conflating the two for propaganda purposes. As for the belief regarding evolution being inherently atheistic, the theory, like all true theories, is non-theistic -- the existence or non-existence of a deity does not enter into the equation. Jim62sch 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How proponents can claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that is equal, or superior to, other scientific theories and yet anyone think they are using the term "theory" in a colloquial sense is beyond me. No, they say ID is scientific and present ID as a scientific theory. FeloniousMonk 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually they do it very easily. The legitimate scientists among them (ie Behe) uses the word theory in loose enough sense that Astrology could be considered a theory [5]. The others conflate the the meanings of theory in the lay sense and scientific theory perhaps through ignorance, perhaps intentionally. Remember that these people are not trying to convince scientists, they are trying to convince lay people that ID is science. And there are few actual scientists among them, and only one in field remotely related to the subject of biological origins (Behe). In fact, the discovery institutes official position on ID as scientific theory is written by Casey Luskin, an attorney and "published scientist", perhaps in geology. His education is not mentioned. [6] --DocJohnny 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Its not beyond me. Logic is a tool of the devil designed to test your faith. The Bible is literally true AND God is all-good AND God is all-powerful and thinking different from what I was raised to believe is the work of the devil and any trick to save your soul is justified. Know them ... raised by them. WAS 4.250 22:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucky you. Here's my newest proposal (if we're going to go in for appeasement, we might as well make Neville Chamberlain look like John Wayne):

Intelligent design (ID) is revealed science that proves that "certain features of the universe and of living things are clearly the product of an intelligent holy cause, as opposed to an unguided and sloppy alleged process such as natural selection."[1] Proponents have proven that intelligent design is a revealed scientific theory that is superior to current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[2] Jim62sch 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It serves no useful purpose to try to identify the real meaning or use of a term when the term is simply used as an element in a media campaign backed by sophistry. WAS 4.250 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup...it's funny though seeing how many people cannot see that it's just part of a media campaign (also a social engineering project) that aims to save us all from hell-fire and damnation. Jim62sch 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, not "revealed science". KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I probably just gave someone an idea...bad Jim. Jim62sch 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The serious point is that the "superiority" of ID rests on it redefining science to accept the supernatural, back to teleology friendly natural philosophy folks. Be nice to get that over early in the article. ...dave souza 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would, but then they'd all start with that "no other article is treated like this" garbage (whine a lot when you read that). Good thing there's not an example like the Ufology article. [7] Jim62sch 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

New opening line, part 2

I think the opening line is still wrong. ID is being personified in the opening line and throughout the article and that is making people angry. A "perspective" cannot "propose" something. An argument can, but saying someone's perspective is a proposition implies advocacy--part of the movement, not part of the concept. "Purpose" is a characterization of an action, Intelligent design is not an action. Claiming it has purpose is tying it to the movement. Intelligent design being "presented" means there is someone presenting it, again tying it to the movemnt. A concept does not "present itself as" something. This I think is ample proof that ID is being treated as if it were a person, something it is not, which is a fallacy of reification. This opens the concept up to weasel words, ad hominems, fallacies of composition, etc. as a result of this fallacy. This could be a result of poor writing, but I think the large number of things like this shows that one or more of the writers believes that it is appropriate to personify in this way, and indeed is inherent in their style of writing about this subject. In formal writing, it is not and this style invites much criticism, very warranted criticism at that.--Ben 22:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

These are in the first two paragraphs:

"Intelligent design (ID) is a perspective on origins that proposes that... "

"Intelligent design is presented as..."

"Its stated purpose is to investigate..."

--Ben 22:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Benapgar on this one. As I said above, "presents itself" needs to go, its anthropomorphising. That is now replaced with "is presented as", which I see no issue with, as that is not anthropomorphising.

We need to work this one, people. ID is not a being. It is a pseudoscience, a concept, not a sentience. Suggestions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "is presented as" is good either. Someone has to be doing the presenting, which again ties the concept to the movement. Better than "presents itself," of course, but it's still tied to the movement. This line would be ok on the movement page, but not on this one. "The ID movement presents the concept as..." would be more accurate (a group of people can present something). But obviously I'd think that should be on the ID movement page. I'm not saying the information contained in that particular sentence is wrong or should be removed, rather that the sentence should be reworded. The people presenting this concept are the editors right here on Wikipedia, and we should do a good job of it.--Ben 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bringing us, I think, back to my original comment. Jim62sch 22:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kind of, but it is still contradictory to the main point I'm getting at (see above reply to KC). --Ben 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to knock them down one at a time. I think we all agree that one is the least objectionable? Yet it is also the first sentence. So we need to pick one, and work on that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My first line would be something like "Intelligent design, generally, is a reference to theories (and the theories as a collection) which are an attempt to prove the teleological argument, "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.". These theories are regarded as pseudoscientific by most of the scientific community. etc. etc. I don't think the current wording can be massaged, but this is basically what is being said, correct? Yes I am using the word "theories" again because I think it is the best word to use, and the ambiguity which some people find inherent in the word I think is mitigated by the very next sentence.--Ben 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As much as I want to rid the opening of presenting ID as a sentience, I don't want to go into the realm of inaccuracy to accomplish that. ID references no theories of which I am aware, except Evolution, which ID proponents claim to disprove. What about:

Intelligent design (ID) is the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."

Choose one of belief/concept/assertion/conjecture, or possibly another suggestion? We cannot use a completely inaccurate word (theory) in the very first sentence with the mistaken idea that because we immediately refute it in the next paragraph, it is somehow less inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The theories the definition would be referring to are Fine-tuned universe, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and the other various smaller theories which attempt to prove the teleological argument. I don't see how that is unclear. And please at least acknowledge that the word theory can be accurate, remember when I provided the definition of the word theory. There is no sense in simply stating it is "completely inaccurate."--Ben 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind that none of which have been shown to be actual theories... FeloniousMonk 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:theory. Please at least acknowledge the definition provided by the dictionary. --Ben 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From Theory: "In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified." ID fails on all points to be considered as theory. It's no small irony that I have to point this out on this of all days. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference.com theory Please at least acknowledge the definition provided by the dictionary. --Ben 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster On-line theory Please at least acknowledge the definition provided by the dictionary. --Ben 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe (and that is not my theory) that we were discussing scientific theory, to which the definition citing "belief" does not apply. Semantics, and I refer here not to the dismissive, oft-repeated nonsense "oh, that's just semantics", is a viable and key part of linguistics. The sense of the word is of extreme importance. While it may take time to learn the differences between sentences (a reason thesauri should be used with caution), it can be accomplished by broadening one's reading preferences. Jim62sch 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Belief is fine, as that is precisely what the decision rendered today states it to be, but assertion would work equally well. Conjecture might be too subjective, and concept already got trashed. Jim62sch 23:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you write "Intelligent design is a religion that...?" --Ben 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(reduce indent) No. That would be inaccurate. Are you jesting and I'm just being dense? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Judge Jones did that, we can just quote him... FeloniousMonk 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was replying to Jim62sch who said "Intelligent design is a belief." Please do not take offense, I was not intending to be offensive, but instead trying to demonstrate a point. A point directed to someone other than you at that. Regardless, here is an explanation: I don't think that is an appropriate description of a concept/theory/argument whatever you want to call it, and I think it's basically like saying "Intelligent design is a religion." If that is considered accurate (I don't think it is accurate), that should be the opening line of the article.--Ben 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A belief is not inherently a religion, nor are the two words synonymous; in fact, a belief often has naught to do with a religion. I think you may be adding more to the word than is supportable linguistically or semantically, or possibly conflating the meanings of the two terms. Now, had someone said, "belief-system", you would have had a potential point, but even that phrase does not inherently equate to religion.

For reference, please see Merriam-Webster, belief, at [8] Jim62sch 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote an explanation, but it was a little rambling and I figured this would be better (and help me gain an understanding in case I am misintrepreting something). So, please explain why Intelligent design is a belief. --Ben 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Either of these two definitions fit (for the latter, it is important to remember that the ID proponents think that they have "examined the evidence", it is irrelevant if the examination or conclusions were flawed):

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

In any case, we agreed on "concept", so it really is a moot point. Jim62sch 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This article, however, is about the concept, not about the belief in the concept. That's the point I'm getting at here. I think it is important to understand that regardless of the word chosen, that's why I was hassling you. Otherwise we will run into this problem again and again in different forms. You don't say "Capitalism is a belief that a free market will solve all problems..." but you might say "Some capitalists like noted advocate Joe Jones believe that a free market will solve all problems..."--Ben 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the topic. WP:RTA all... we've discussed this many, many times in the past and have always settled on the compromise term "concept" which is accurate, neutral and sufficiently weighty. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The topic is not whether to call it a concept or not, the topic is the sentence structure. Personification and things like that. If you want to call it a concept instead of a theory that is fine. I personally think the word theory is more descriptive and easier to get a grasp of. --Ben 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's wiggly in a way, but I'm OK with it.

BTW: I encourage everyone to read Judge Jones' decision -- it's long, but excellent. Jim62sch 00:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to it? --Ben 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind I found it further down. --Ben 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, done with that sentence (for now.) Next I think is: "Its stated purpose is to investigate..." Ideas? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What was accomplished?--Ben 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon? Jim62sch 10:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me KC has arbitrarily declared the matter closed, as nothing has been changed nor any of what I brought up resolved. --Ben 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed "Its stated purpose" to "The stated purpose". The next instance I find of personification is "Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation" well no, "ID" does not try anything. Suggestions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Within the concept of intelligent design, there is no attempt to identify or name the specific agent of creation – rather, there exists only an argument that that one (or more) must exist."

Or something along those lines. Jim62sch 11:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I confess I dislike both the "within the concept" (the concept is tupperware?) and the " - rather, " (too conversational.) I further confess I have no better suggestion at this time. I will think, or if anyone else has a rephrase? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's OK, I was just tossing out an idea. As much as I despise anthropomorpism, I wonder if we won't end up giving ID the ability to "do" things again. I hope not. Let's get thinking folks.  :) Jim62sch 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're doing better than I, I have no valid ideas. I am trying to avoid "the proponents of" or similar phrasing, which would rapidly become overused if that is our default way out of the personification trap. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We may be OK with personification, anyway: I'm reading Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku, and he uses phrasings like "the theories of relativity prove", "M-theory asserts", "string theory holds that", etc. The same type of usage can be found in A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell (both by Hawking) and even in college-level theoretical physics textbooks. NOTE FOR ID SUPPORTERS: I am in no way comparing or equating the scientific validity of special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc., to or with the pseudo-scientific concept of ID, so don't even think of going there. Jim62sch 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those are very good comparisons. Do any of them say things like "The stated purpose of Quantum theory is to...?" Anyway, I am glad you are not comparing "ID" with those things because that raises a good point. ID is not a theory, really it's not even a concept unto itself. It's more of a brand name. Specified complexity is a theory, irreducible complexity is a theory, teleology is a philosophical theory (basically a perspective, but whatever). ID by itself is not a theory. Hell, I wouldn't even call it a concept. The Discovery Institute is yanking your chain with their "definition." Their definition is just a restatement of the teleological argument. That's it, their whole definition. I'd guess the reason they do that, considering their other underhanded stuff, is to make people think teleological argument is somehow "new" and to get people associating ostensibly untestable philosophy with what they say is empirical science. That way people can always point back to that argument and say "you're getting the definition wrong" no matter what you say.

(And if you have a problem with my use of the word theory, look it up in the goddamned dictionary, because I'm not going to explain it again and I'm not going to stop using it. It's not a thought-crime to call them theories. You know full well that I know they aren't considered scientific).--Ben 21:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So you too are gifted at misdirection, all the while claiming to despise the misdirection of DI. Ah, the irony. If you not, I did not include, "the stated purpose of...", try to read what I wrote not what you want to think I wrote.

As for anyone yanking my chain, that hasn't happened in many a year me boy.

If you wish to consider SC and IC theories, feel free to. As for teleological, make up your mind if it's a theory or an argument.

The remainder of your comment is simply silly. Jim62sch 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the thread. Specifically, my opening statement in the thread. In it I said, and I quote:

"ID is being personified in the opening line and throughout the article and that is making people angry... "Purpose" is a characterization of an action, Intelligent design is not an action. Claiming it has purpose is tying it to the movement... This I think is ample proof that ID is being treated as if it were a person, something it is not, which is a fallacy of reification."

Note that the phrase "Its stated purpose" and "the stated purpose" have been discussed within this very thread. Now compare to what you said:

"We may be OK with personification... Michio Kaku [uses] phrasings like "the theories of relativity prove", "M-theory asserts", "string theory holds that", etc."

From that, I interpreted that you believed "its stated purpose" was just as appropriate, given the context I provided myself in introducing the topic. So either you're not really paying much attention to what I was referring to when I said personification, or you're "shifting the goalposts" of my argument by claiming Michio Kaku's "personification," the definitive part of your argument is what I meant. The whole "stated purpose" line is one of the exampes that I was talking about this whole time until you and KC tried to take over.

P.S. Don't call me "me boy." That "figure of speech" is condescending and very inappropriate. Passive-aggressiveness like that is as inappropriate as outright personal attacks. You can harp on all you want calling me a liar, say I have a agenda and am involved in some conspiracy against you, whatever you need to do (and you often do do that). That's your opinion. Calling me your boy? No.--Ben 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You likely have a point on your PS, me boy was probably not in the best of taste. Nonetheless, I do not recall implying that you were a liar, nor do I have and problems with paranoia.

However, I don't think KC and I tried to take anything over. Additionally, my admonition to read what I wrote not what you think I wrote still stands. Jim62sch 01:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, my admonition is that you should follow the discussion. I read what you said. You wrote as if your argument applied to the context of the discussion when you said "We may be OK with personification." If you read the very first post in this section, the one that I wrote, you'll see that I include the statement "Its stated purpose" as an example of what I was talking about when I brought up "personification." Sure maybe that's not the same "personification" you're talking about, but saying I'm "misdirecting" for assuming you were talking about the same thing I was talking about when I said "personification" in the first post in this section and when KC was just talking about it (follow your replies back 2 steps) shows you're not paying attention, you're trying to start a fight with me, or you're trying to reform my point about "personification" to your own means so you can claim the whole "stated purpose" thing is fine because something I think is unrelated is fine. That's why I said I don't think it applies, because I don't think it is the same thing we're talking about. When I point this out you want to say I'm misdirecting? Ridiculous. It's difficult for me to assume you actually paid attention to what I said and/or difficult to assume you're not trying to piss me off. As for your other "rebuttals" here's what I think: Saying you think I'm purposefully misdirecting you = calling me a liar. Pretty simple. And you do often say people have a agenda, here's just 3 examples of you saying Marshill has an "agenda": [9] [10] [11] --Ben 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, the discussion moved on from your original comment onto a more general discussion of anthropomorphism after a bit of time. That's just the way a discussion goes -- we start at point A, and though a series of twists and turns arrive at point Z. Simply put, since other people posted other comments it becomes impossible to cater to Ben's whims exclusively.

You did misdirect, whether you like it or not. I never made a comment regarding "its stated purpose", thus you changed the argument I was making into the argument you wanted it to be. That's known as misdirection. As for your claim that I called you a liar, that is your inference drawn from what I wrote, and not based on any implication on my part.

Note number 9 dealt with a charge of atheism against Felonious Monk made by Marshill. The other two were based on what were clearly POV posts that appeared to an objective observer to be guided by an agenda.

The bottom line is that while we all have a problem with anthropomorphic properties being ascribed to concepts, there is often no choice because of the way in which the English language evolved. Jim62sch 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And so by assuming you are still addressing point A (about personification, specifically including the "its stated purpose" line), I'm misdirecting? There was a post 2 behind yours that was about point "A." You used exactly the same language as I used in point A. I thought you were making a point in general which included "point A." Why is that so amazing to you? You didn't say "except for the stuff about..." If you want to reframe the debate to exclude that point go ahead, but don't expect other people to know that you have done so. You gave no clue that what you were talking about would not include "point A." If the next time you reframe a debate, please state that you are doing so, because apparently you cannot take it and start calling people liars if for one reason or another they don't understand that you've done so. Especially when you are excluding points and you give no reason why. It also seems you are still incapable of not being passive-aggressive when you respond. Saying "me boy" and stuff like "cater to Ben's whims exclusively" indeed; what's with the third person? Are you talking to me or are you talking to an audience? My points are simply a "whim" of mine? And I cannot believe you would say that your accusation that I am purposefully misdirecting the argument is not the equivalent of calling me a liar. Therefore, I do not think you should continute to participate in this discussion. You've already ruined it by insisting I was "misdirecting" and making other insulting jabs towards me. FeloniousMonk already tried to hijack my argument by focusing on the word "theory." This is getting ridiculous again.

AND WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE STATISTICS QUESTION: 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) --Ben 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous is an understatement. Good Night. Jim62sch 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bye bye! --Ben 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

some definitions

Dembski: "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."[12], Casey Luskin: "Intelligent design is a scientific theory which states that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. Design theorists argue that we can find biological structures with the same informational properties we commonly find in objects we know were designed." [13]
As for claims to be equal to science, Stephen C. Meyer in The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories[14] "addresses a series of methodological or philosophical objections that have been lodged against the theory of intelligent design, including the claim that the theory of intelligent design is not testable" and produces a long and to me convoluted argument which from what I've read so far argues against "positivistic" science which it claims has been discredited, and for "metaphysical or theological moorings". It claims " a general equivalence of method" between "naturalistic evolutionary theories [and] nonnaturalistic theories such as intelligent design, special creation, progressive creation and theistic evolution."
Heavy philosophical stuff. Conclusions: view could substitute for theory at times, the opening could include that proponents "claim it forms a scientific theory and argue that the basis of science should be redefined from a naturalistic approach to allow a metaphysical or theological philosophical basis.". ....dave souza 16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Concept" is preferable to "view," IMO. View carries a lighter connotation, I'd think. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough: someone's changed it to "perspective" which works even better IMO. In the Intelligent design as science section the second sentence could read:

Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and have argued that science should be redefined on a Metaphysical or Theological basis.

Less seriously, the Origins of the concept section might include what Meyer refers to as "Newton's famous postulation of special divine intervention to stabilize the orbital motion in the solar system", which appears to be from a letter written by Isaac Newton to Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, "To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent." and is cited to support the theory of intelligent falling.[15]. ...dave souza 20:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The key problem with view, concept or perspective is that ID proponents themselves call it a theory, which is just one of the reasons it is criticized so heavily. If theory is changed to a weaker word, why not just give in and ditch all of the criticism. Hell, just redirect everyone to the DI site.

Look, I know we're all tired of the constant debate over this issue, but attempting to end the debate in this manner will have the opposite effect. History has proven that appeasement is an ineffective mechanism for ending conflict. Jim62sch 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear enough there, Jim, the opening sentence uses "perspective" which is good as Wikipedia isn't endorsing it as a theory, then the second sentence starts "Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory..." which is grand. The only thing missing from the intro is that they want to redefine science to justify that. ...dave souza 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Dave, I was being grumpy.  :) Anyway, how about this slight change: "Intelligent design (ID) is a perspective of origin belief that..."? Yes, I know that "origins" redirects to origin belief, but my experience has been that a significant number of people can't be bothered with links. Jim62sch 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any real difference between "origins" and "origin belief" other than "origin belief" is more awkwardly worded. --ScienceApologist 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a very distinct difference in sense, and sense is one of the reasons that speech-writers, for example, go through so many rewrites. The same is true of the edits Ezra Pound made on TS Eliot's The Wasteland -- an attempt to capture a word with the proper sense to fit the structure of the sentence is an itegral part of any kind of writing. Jim62sch 10:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I really like the current "perpective on origins" opening line. Creative work, guys. Now, about that "neocreationist junk science or pseudoscience". It seems it would be hard to be less respectful, sympathetic and positive in tone and all that other good NPOV stuff. I agree that the perspective regarding pseudoscience has a place in the article, but just to keep a nice, pretty, warm, and fuzzy intro, wouldn't it be better to say in the intro merely that "the scientific community regards ID as a philosophy, and not as a scientific theory". Tom Haws 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see my point being proven (21:12, 18/12/2005). Tom, you might want to read up on NPOV, it doesn't claim to be sympathetic or warm and fuzzy. Additionally, the science community does see it as pseudo-science or junk-science, and as we have been through this before, I'm sure a stroll through the archives will supply you with quotes to support the assertion. Jim62sch 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the position or belief that life on earth is the product of a "designer" (i.e., God), as it is considered by Intelligent design proponents to be too complex to have occurred through the process of evolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"The scientific community regards ID as a philosophy, and not as a scientific theory" doesn't accurately reflect the view of the scientific community, which has shown a great deal of disdain for ID. "Neocreationist junk science or pseudoscience" does. FeloniousMonk 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, our job is to report the facts, not present positive, feel good articles. The NPOV policy does not say that accuracy should take a backseat to sympathetic tone. Sacrificing accuracy to make the article "gentler" on ID clearly violates the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Locking the article for 15 minutes

I'm protecting the article for 15 minutes while I get the footnotes in the correct order from the recent reorg. Again, if your going to make substantial changes, editing the article's body is only half the job. You need to make sure your changes are reflected in the footnotes as well. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I though I'd caught them all. -- Ec5618 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. No problem. FeloniousMonk 17:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

sudden emergence theory

"In the recent trial, a lawyer grilled an intelligent design proponent on why a textbook the witness helped to write substituted "intelligent design" for "creationism" in a later edition and with "sudden emergence theory" in a draft of a future edition. "We won't be back in a couple of years for the sudden emergence trial, will we?" the lawyer asked. To which Judge Jones interjected, "Not on my docket."" [16] WAS 4.250 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus proving that ____ by another name is still ____. (It doesn't matter what you put in the blanks). Jim62sch 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The author (of a book some people want in a public classroom) used "intelligent design", "creationism", and "sudden emergence theory" as synonyms. The issue is that courts have ruled "creationism" doesn't belong in a classroom, so the word was changed to "intelligent design". And in the coutroom where "intelligent design" is being evaluated for fitness in a public classroom, it was brought out that "sudden emergence theory" is the next phrase to be substituted when "intelligent design" gets kicked out of science classrooms. WAS 4.250 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose they should start working on a name to replace "sudden emergence theory". Jim62sch 21:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion and Redirect

We should delete this article and just redirect to creationism. :) --DocJohnny 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No way: all the "isms" have their own sub articles, and I don't want this getting mixed up with theistic evolution ! , ,,,,dave souza 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I have read about ID - it is very different from theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. A considerable number of Christians (including myself) have belief systems which resolve science and religion.

At first I thought ID was simply a theory that tries to prove via scientific method that God exist. I thought that there wasn't anything wrong with that; however, upon further research - I found out that ID is against Evolution, which has been approved by my religious organization.

I also found out that ID proponents want this ID theory of theirs taught in schools *in* science class immediately . This, I thought wasn't a good thing at all. Right now, it just isn't a science yet and I find it contrary to my religious beliefs as well.Lovecoconuts 02:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since much of what it posits is not now, nor will it ever be, testable, ID will never be a science. (Even after the name is changed to "sudden emergence theory"). Jim62sch 10:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

for some reason, "sudden emergence theory" makes me think of that scene in Alien where the alien suddenly emerges from someone's chest. Now, that was "sudden emergence" although of course not what is meant in this context. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

ROFL. Jim62sch 11:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well since you folks think this theory hypothesis concept view perspective tripe deserves its own article, I think that rather than dignify it with its own text, we should take a page out of their own playbook like "Of Pandas and People". Let's copy the article from "scientific creationism" and just do strikeouts whereever creationism is mentioned and substitute "intelligent design". This can serve as a template for "sudden emergence" or whatever is next.

---

Creation Science Intelligent Design is a creationist scientific endeavor that holds that the events associated with the account of the creation intelligent design of the universe related in the Bible (see Creation according to Genesis) science have scientific evidence and can be modeled through the scientific method, a view rejected by mainstream scientists (see pseudoscience). Creation science Intelligent design as an organized movement is concentrated within the United States, primarily among Evangelical Christian denominations which hold to Biblical inerrancy scientists, real scientists! We swear!.

---

--DocJohnny 13:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the potential threat it poses to real education, it does deserve an article. If it were confined to Sunday School, I doubt many of us would care one way or the other about it. But, when school boards like the Dover cabal (who were just voted out of office) and the forward-looking folks in Kansas want it to eventually supplant real science, it deserves an article, even if the name eventually has to be changed to "Sudden Emergence Theory" or the "Guided Genesis Theory" or whatever they come up with next. Jim62sch 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Humor ALERT!!!--DocJohnny 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I got it, I got it. Jim62sch 16:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

ID?

i´ll describe this junk with 1 sentence, and it is hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha honestly get a life, realise that we humans arent uniqie, when ure dead ure dead and wont exist again. its cruel but u cant change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.208.244.194 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right Mr. IP adress. Let's add that to the article, or better yet, let's just delete the article. It's total BS. --chad 05:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Be sure to read the decision handed down today in federal court. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Jim62sch 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationism template

Adding the Creationism template atop the page instead of the Intelligent Design template, is not correct. Ther is a "See also" secion in which the Creationism articles is linked to. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, you removed a template, it wasn't added. And technically Guettarda's edit wasn't an edit, it was a reversion.

You may want to check out Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. ID is most certainly part of the series on creationism. Furthermore, please don't start edit wars. If you want to make a change, and the change is disputed, please use the Talk page to address your concerns. -- Ec5618 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that theistic evolution is on that template, quite rightly, but in terms of the controversy is on the side opposing "creationism". ....dave souza 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's all ignore the fact that the name was changed to ID to protect the fundamentally innocent. Jim62sch 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Shh, Jim, you're not supposed to know it's creationism in the same way that the designer's not god, goodness no, it's an unimaginable entity which for the sake of argument we can call Slartibartfarst. Think they'll start using fjords as examples of design? ...dave souza 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as no one uses "Belgium" gratuitously in this article, I think we can handle it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The intelligence that goes into the making of each and every snowflake proves the intelligent designer is hard at work all the time. I can tell just by looking at their perfect beautiful shapes. No way they are random. The handiwork of the master is obvious! WAS 4.250 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do enjoy having a laugh on the ID talk page, but let's not bait the pro-ID people too much. Best not to accidentally give them any "POV!" ammunition. -Parallel or Together? 02:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I still believe that placing the creationism template atop the page and making this article "part of the creationism series" portrays a certain POV. I don't want to start an edit war, but I disagree with the addition of that template on such a prominent place. I am switching the templates, puting the creationism one lower in the page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the humor (a good laugh is always welcome), but do I sense a bit of dimissive demeanor in these comments above? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It gets a little stressful here at times, humor helps to keep things lighter. I certainly hope none of the humor was disconcerting to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Humor from the Anti-ID side is like nails on a blackboard to ID proponents. If ID proponents do take offense at jokes, I don't think such reactions speak very well of them. After all, jokes have been made about Evolution for a very long time, and I've yet to read about present-day scientists complaining and acting defensive about that infamous drawing of Darwin's head on a monkey's body.

Personally, I cannot help but prefer the side with the broader sense of humor.Lovecoconuts 04:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ID is by necessity a type of creationism. Use of the template is appropriate. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A good laugh is always welcome. Just make it good enough that I can laugh as well. Note that I am neutral in this discussion. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, as usual, is absolutely correct regarding the creationism template. I know that many people here think that ID = thinly veiled religious creationism (myself included). However, even if it is not a type of religious creationism, ID's arguments at a minimum demand creation in the form of a design. Also, I do laugh at all the jokes, and I hope jossi can, too. I laugh at Wade and ant's jokes! -Parallel or Together? 05:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The compromise is to include both templates, but having the template of Intelliget Desin articles atop the article, and the Creationism template anchored to the section about religion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Judge's decision in the Kitzmuller case: "We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," Jones said.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Objective" being the key word. One might note that sentience may be required as well. Jim62sch 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, FM, I just formatted the ID info box, so it lines up better with the Creationism infobox. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Legal Ruling

[Legal Ruling]

How should we integrate this? --Davril2020 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

... Sorry that link seems not to work.

Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5492468,00.html :--Davril2020 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea!!!! (i'm not editing this article so my POV doesn't count. i'm just glad that the obvious dishonesty of the ID camp is finally being named for what it is: dishonest. and this is coming from someone of the Christian Left who actually does believe in God and actually does believe that God had something to do with the creation of the universe and in influencing the development of life and intelligent life, but i clearly recognize that as a religious/philosophical belief and not science. boy, was i pleased to hear this clear repudiation of a bunch of dishonest and self-righteous liars who call themselves "christian". r b-j 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in ABC News and CNN as well. It actually got a Breaking News label on CNN. Big news indeed. It should get a mention in the ID in politics article at the very least.Lovecoconuts 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Decision in PDF form Jokestress 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some classic quotes from the conclusion:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Jokestress

Wow. "Breathtaking inanity". You don't read that in a legal opinion everyday. I can't wait to read this, but I think the download site is a bit overcome by demand. - Nunh-huh 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Breathtaking inanity" descibes well some of the stunts seen around here as well. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And no doubt we'll be treated to yet more of same. Jim62sch 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added the news of the ruling to the appropriate topic. Feel free to add (especially some of those priceless quotes) if you desire. Thanks.

Jim62sch 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Forbes has posted some excerpts from an Associated Press article (for those who want more than the articles, but less than the 139 pages): [17]

KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah now come on. Anyone who can read through this talk page's archives can read 139 pages... plus the font is rather large. On top of that, it was a real page-turner. I couldn't put it down.  :) -Parallel or Together? 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Y'know PoT?, you've got a darned good point. If one can suffer the slings and arrows of the utterly outrageous comments in the archives, one can easily read through a rather cleverly worded opinion.  :) Jim62sch 10:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But if someone doesn't, here's a very well-written summary, only a few pages long, and witty to boot: The Skeptic --Steve Rapaport 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The news [18] article for this event on Yahoo news contains a link to this article. Expect traffic. --JPotter 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing it may need a protect sometime within the next 12 hours. --Davril2020 18:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

High-profile pages should not be protected; we never protect a given day's FA. We just revert a lot. Guettarda 18:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The PDF file is also available on MSNBC.com [19]. Jim62sch 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks FM for sorting out the footnoting. I did a double-take when editing and a new simplified article with a nice picture of a panda came up briefly. A very interesting judgement. UK Channel 4 News had a pretty good report, mentioning that Pandas is still being left in school libraries, and there could be an appeal to Supreme Court. The BBC News24 reporter (live from the U.S.) seemed badly informed and should have read this article. However, don't forget that Cobb county is still simmering away, with a pre-decision announcement by Judge Ed Carnes that "From nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific theory. There is less evidence supporting it than there is for other theories. It sounds to me like evolution is more vulnerable and deserves more critical thinking" .[20]/] . ...dave souza 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, Cobb County, home to reason (just like Dayton, TN was in 1925). Jim62sch 20:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The court decision should not be placed in the summary. I agree that it is relevant to this topic, but current events are for the newspapers. An encyclopedia needs only mention events within its text unless they are the topic. --Optimus 23:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as it is a key document for those wishing to understand ID and the controversy surrounding it, it most certainly does need to be in the summary. A passing notice of the decision would hardly be acceptable, as the decision will have significant consequences for the future of ID. Jim62sch 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The court conclusion isn't just a current event, it is a detailed objective analysis of the claims of ID and testimony under oath by leading experts on both sides.... dave souza 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is an important event that merits mention in this topic, however, this topic is not Intelligent Design in Public Schools. It is an event which deserves its own topic, a discussion within this topic, and, at very most, a link to its topic in the summary of this topic. As I have said before, the summary should be little more than description of the idea and a description of the amount of dissent. To go further is to go too far for a summary. The summary is the part of the topic that should see the least amount of change, thus it is not the place for current events. And besides that, supporting evidence goes after the primary evidence, not before it. --Optimus 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the topic whether ID is science? .......dave souza 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was...seems we misunderstood. Jim62sch 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how so many people completely miss the point of the wikipedia. The topic is not "whether ID is science," but it is "what is Intelligent Design?" This just goes to prove that you have an agenda of proving your point rather than an agenda of sharing knowledge (i.e. the agenda of the Wikipedia). Feel free to debate here, but the article is not a forum for debate on the theory of Intelligent Design. It is a place to tell about Intelligent Design and all things related thereto (including the debate on Intelligent Design). --Optimus 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the summary for the theory of Evolution. Notice how it devotes the majority of the summary to a description of the idea. One sentence is devoted to some of its critics (only the religious critics), though this topic clearly deserves more time spent on criticism since it is more popularly criticized. The point: there is no mention of current events with regard to evolution. Not even recent updates to the theory. Let's use the summary for the theory of Evolution as a template for the theory of Intelligent Design (with significant reference to the significant criticism of the theory). --Optimus 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently the wording is "United States federal courts have ruled as unconstitutional a public school district requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes, on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature."

We should consider scrapping the first sentence as irrelevent to the article and moving the second sentence to the end of the previous paragraph. That would be the best way to include this information. Also, the link to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in the See also section should stay (though I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that it be removed). --Optimus 18:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The information regarding unconstutionallity is relevant. The only other way I can see to pphrase the info is this:

"In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States federal court judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, and thus its inclusion in school curricula is unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. " Jim62sch 21:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand why the constitutionality of a theory being taught in public schools has anything to do with the description of the theory. The opinion of the court is that it is not science. That is the only part that seems to have any bearing on the theory itself. Phrased another way: why would anyone in the UK or Canada care if the US allows it to be taught in public schools? They would be interested in the fact that a judge ruled the concept as non-science, but they would not care at all about our laws. The bias that I am trying to remove in this case is national bias. The changes I suggested display the fact that the US judicial system belives it to be non-science without giving any internationally irrelevent data. --Optimus 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The court ruling is really worth reading, even if you only go through Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science, The basic description of the "theory" is the teleological argument, something looks so clever it must have been designed, we don't have an explanation of how it came to look that way, so that proves it was designed. As the judge found, ID finds examples, makes a lot of public statements about them, fails to keep up with research explaining the examples, fails to do any research of its own and fails to even attempt to produce peer edited scientific articles subjected to proper critical analysis. He makes it clear that "arguments against evolution are not arguments for design". On the evidence, ID is creationism repackaged. There is a philosophical argument about introducing the supernatural into science, which he comments on. Pinning down ID is difficult, because all its proponents seem to have different ideas about what it says in detail: see Behe distancing himself from what's said in the bits of Pandas that he was supposed to have given critical review, but didn't actually write. As for other countries, a fair number of people in the UK care, for example, because ID or creationism is being taught in half a dozen state schools. We have an interest in science, too. You do have a point about the constitutional argument, though that's at the heart of why ID was contrived to replace creationism. Perhaps it should say that in finding ID teaching unconstitutional, his findings explored ID in great detail...dave souza 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC) modified ..dave souza 00:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the court ruling is worth mention in the summary as opposition to ID, and even worth having a sub heading devoted to it. I just can't honestly excuse wasting "time" (more reading = more lost time for the reader) with something that does not directly oppose ID (whether it is taught in public schools or is constitutional) in the summary of the article. Remember, at one point in history, the various governments would burn at the stake for heresy those who suggested scientific theories which removed God. The fact that the law supported such acts does not mean that such acts were correct. --Optimus 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimus, re "internationally irrelevent data", I'm guessing you meant relevant. Anyway, I'm working on that by searching the web for articles in a number of languages. What I've found so far, is that ID is not a big hit with anyone with any scientific knowledge. Jim62sch 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant what I typed. Whether or not the US government finds ID in public schools constitutional is irrelevent to a UK or Canadian citizen who is reading to find out what ID is. It is important to the article because it is the background for the court ruling. It's just not important to the summary. --Optimus 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I must've gotten confused by the phrasing. In any case, the international coverage of the decision was quite extensive, and did highlight the unconstitutionality of teaching ID. Thus far I have read articles in Le Monde, La Liberation, Diario Digital, El Mundo, El Periodico, La Repubblica, Le Parisien, and Arroutada Noticias* that reported on both the case and the decision. Notably, Europeans tend to be more aware of our laws and constitutional issues than we are of theirs. Thus, the unconstitutionality issue is relevant.

• (I'm in the process of translating a load of ID articles from around the world) Jim62sch 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. Be careful how you phrase somethings. If I were less open minded, I might conclude that by saying "anyone with any scientific knowledge" you're suggesting that the scientists that came up with the idea had no scientific knowledge. The idea may have been publicized by people who consider themselves to be Christians, but it was originally considered by those scientists, not by those who publicized it (and subsequently ruined what little credibility it had). <rant>These people who consider themselves to be Christians need to learn to keep quiet when they hear about something that supports the existence of God. If He wanted His presence known beyond a doubt, He would make it known beyond a doubt. He doesn't need their help.</rant>

Well... I guess that's my opinion on the subject... 8^) --Optimus 15:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked the rant.  :) Anyway, to what scientists are you referring? Additionally, (and this is just my opinion) I think any scientist who can propose or accept the incorporation of a supernatural entity into an allegedly scientific theory is a piss-poor scientist. While many may chafe at the rules of science for a number of reasons, those rules serve a purpose: they make sure that a certain logical progression is followed. Obviously, the pro-ID scientists disagree (see various quotes by a number of them) with the rules, which they are free to do if they so desire, but in so doing they become pseudoscientists. OK, I'm done for the nonce. Jim62sch 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Vast" discussion

Guettarda: This comment is concerning your edit to the introduction, where you modified (actually reverted) the sentence to say, The vast majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.

I believe that the above sentence is clearly POV. It is easily verifiable that "the majority of the scientific community rejects (or "disagrees with," etc) intelligent design." No sweat there. There are plenty of sources to confirm that nearly all mainstream biology textbooks assume some flavor of biological evolution. It would, however, be much more difficult to ever verify that all biologists reject ID on the grounds that the sentence above specifies. Those grounds are very specific, and would, to be verified, require some sort of survey to confirm the motivations behind all of the rejections of ID, creationism, or whatever. The source cited in the footnote does apply the "pseudoscience" and "junk science" epithets to ID, but, unfortunately for this sentence's continued inclusion in its present form, does not cite some survey that reliably attributes this precise view to the "vast majority." Any claims that do posit such are either original research or out-right POV advocacy. If you could cite a source that supports the specific claim, please do so. Otherwise, the sentence ought to be brought into compliance.

Another point: According to the Free Dictionary, "vast" may be defined as follows:

vast 
adj. vast·er, vast·est
1. Very great in size, number, amount, or quantity.
2. Very great in area or extent; immense.
3. Very great in degree or intensity. See Synonyms at enormous.
n. (Archaic) An immense space.

Now, I am perfectly satisfied that the word majority belongs in the above sentence (assuming that wording discussed above is modified). The word "vast" is stickier. Who is to say what is vast? "Vast" seems to be a totally subjective modifier that is being used here for POV purposes. Compounded with the above sourcing problem, this is a fatal bit of NPOV noncompliance for this sentence. Dick Clark 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Would "overwhelming" work better for you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vast majority of does not equal all. How are you reading this? Most scientists, by far, dismiss ID. -- Ec5618 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will gladly agree that most scientists reject ID. My problem with the sentence at issue is that "vast" seems to have no quantifiable definition and is therefore unproveable. It just seems to be a loaded word in this context. "Majority" is easily demonstrable when numbers are available. The fundamental problem with the sentence above, though, is that the claim about this "vast majority" is so specific. I think it is much easier to make the claim that "The vast/clear/etc. majority of those in the scientific community reject Intelligent Design as a scientific theory" than "The vast/clear/etc. majority of those in the scientific community reject ID for cause (x)." The latter is a claim that is more specific, and is therefore likely to narrow your pool some. The appropriate action, in my opinion, would be to replace the above sentence with the two that follow: "The majority of the scientific community rejects Intelligent Design. A number of notable biologists, including (Richard Dawkins), (WhiteCoat2), and (WhiteCoat3) have dismissed Intelligent Design as (creationism in a clean raincoat), (pseudoscience), or (junk science)." Those terms set apart with parentheses should be replaced with whatever content can be derived from appropriate sources. Again, I don't think there is any disagreement between us that (a) a clear majority of scientists reject ID, and that (b) many notable biologists have referred to ID with one of the above phrases (or others of similar thrust). Dick Clark 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Try nearly all scientists reject ID. "Vast" is the compromise language reached by consensus last week. It doesn't need to rehashed again now. As for your proposed language, why don't we just cite the 70,000 Australian scientists who reject ID as well? [21] ;-) FeloniousMonk 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk: That source would be an excellent addition. This still doesn't settle the problem which I proposed that we split the sentence over. The source letter clearly states that the signatories reject ID as unscientific. It also states that inclusion of ID in curricula would lead Aussie gov't programs down a slippery slope towards inclusion of "astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions." The source does not apply the labels "pseudoscience" or "junk science" explicitly, however. Also, this is a letter representing 70,000 Aussie scientists, not the world scientific community. It could, however, be included in, say, the "Intelligent design debate" section, or the "Intelligent design as science" section. Additionally, if there weer, say, similar letters from a goodly number of US scientists, or any other class of scientists, that would be pertinent also. Dick Clark 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's hairsplitting, "vast" is appropriate and fits the bill nicely. The vast majority of the scientific community do view intelligent design as not valid science. That's an indisputable fact. 60+ scientific professional societies have issued position statements saying as much. We can either list them all in the article with little caveats from ID proponents for each one they object to, or we can just simply say the "The vast majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory..." Anything less is inaccurate. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your appraisal of this sentence's wording as "hairsplitting." Correct me if I am wrong, but this change isn't insignificant enough for me to make without being immediately reverted (assuming that I made such an edit prior to appropriate discussion in this forum) by you or others, correct? It obviously isn't "hairsplitting" to the point where a change would be insignificant to you, or you wouldn't be contesting it. My point is that the word "vast" is totally subjective, and isn't verifiable. I am trying to be totally accurate here, and I think "vast" is too hazy of a word to meet the order. I think it is included almost solely for its impact as a loaded term. Dick Clark 21:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What percentage qualifies as "vast" and what as just "most" then? FeloniousMonk 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, "most" means "a majority." "Vast," as noted earlier, is defined in wholly subjective terms (as "very great," or, if you prefer, "really big"), and therefore ought not be used in this context. This is an article on a contentious subject where absolute rigor will cut down on edit wars, POV grandstanding, and outright vandalism. Look, if we had one (or several different) source(s) that included estimates by notable figures on what the numbers actually are, that would be best for our trying to describe the proportions of the two camps (IDers vs. Non-IDers). Dick Clark 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean, really, the point is absurd. If 99.85% is not considered vast, (or enormous, overwhelming, behemothic, gargantuan or even humongous for that matter) then I do not know what would be. Let's stop regurgitating old points; if you wish to ruminate on your own, have a blast, but as we have already digested this cud several times, there's no need to chew it again. Jim62sch 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim62sch: The point may seem absurd to you, but "vast" seems totally subjective and therefore questionable in an encyclopedia. By the way, where is your 99.85% number from? If verifiable, that would work better than the more vague "vast". Dick Clark 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate 'huge'. About 1 in 1000 scientists support Young Earth Creationism, so it would be astonishing if many times that number didn't have some support for ID. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not put in your own opinions about these matters. Specifically to the person who added that the question of 'how the Egyptians built the pyramids can be hypothesised and tested', actually no it can't. You can propose hypotheses and even test whether or not they are possible. But proving that they are possible (for example by building another pyramid using the same techniques) does not prove that that was the techniques used by the Egyptians. The only thing we can do (short of inventing a time machine) is to propose hypotheses and to predict archaeological observations we might make that are would support or not the hypothesis. We can then go and look at for new observations, but since new observations are very hard to come by this can be problematic. This is the same technique that is universally used for sciences where we cannot make experiments (astronomy etc.) and it's certainly arguable whether the same techniques can be applied to Intelligent Design. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelming certainly seems better than vast. The ideal would be to have a footnote giving figures: DI's less than 500 against how many equivalent scientists in total? For consideration, other pages such as the Pandas use the sentence "This is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.". ...dave souza 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like the idea of using overwhelming at first blush, but I think that would really get across the point without using a loaded term. "Overwhelming: Overpowering in effect or strength" sounds like it would work nicely. All of us have more or less agreed that the scientists who reject ID are more than a simple majority. Given the (verifiably paltry) number of papers published by IDers as compared to opponents of ID, we can certainly say with accuracy that ID opponents have a majority that seems unlikely to fade to minority status any time soon. Dick Clark 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelming seems POV, but not as much as vast IMHO. Perhaps "Large" would work better. The REAL Dyslexic Q-Thief 23:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vast is subjective, but overwhelming is not? Are you kidding? The only difference is that vast is more nebulous.

Nonetheless, I too like overwhelming. Jim62sch 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "far majority"? As to percentages, I think the Steve-O-Meter is an okay reference. Also, I think biologists have a bit more weight as well as medical doctors in this field.

The Steve Project currently has 600+ scientists in their list, all named Steve, of course. Just compare that to how many Steve scientists are backing ID.Lovecoconuts 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Newsweek of Feb 7 2005 Doubting Darwin gives some figures. The Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" petition that "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," has been signed by about 350 scientists. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has 120,000 members. On that basis, just under 0.003 % of U.S. scientists give some support to ID, and the international percentage is likely to be much smaller. The figures may have been updated since 7 Feb, and there was comment somewhere that the DI had included some names without consent. ....dave souza 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, 'overwhelming' is the correct word. It is not POV because it is an accurate description of the situation. It may be the only truly accurate word to describe the situation. Bill Jefferys 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the figures...I had been including only those concerned with life sciences (around 42K) and using 500 as the number who'd supported ID. However, as a number of the (small number of) ID proponents are from fields outside life sciences, I believe (with no religion implied) that your figures are more accurate. Again, thanks. Jim62sch 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kitzmiller_342.pdf repeatedly refers to an "overwhelming" number of scientists (p.83) so in view of above comments I'll change it and add a footnote for clarification. ...dave souza 10:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is fine with me. Also, I've noticed that some news organizations use the phrase "nearly universally" opposed or rejected by mainstream scientists.Lovecoconuts 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A syndicated Knight-Ridder article on the topic used "vast" yesterday, but "overwhelming" is just as accurate. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably even more so. Vast is too nebulous for me (personal opinion).Jim62sch 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many are against the idea of stripping out all bias. Is wikipedia going to be a believable source of information or not? The fact is that "The majority of the scientific community does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." So why not just say it like that? No bias is necessary. Let the facts speak for themselves. --Optimus 20:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Because "The majority of the scientific community..." equivocates. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a substantial difference between 50.0000001% (a majority) and 99.7% (an overwhelming majority). The words need to match the math. Jim62sch 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, it does not equivocate. It is the truth. How can the truth be equivocal?

Jim62sch, then why not use "99.7% of the AAAS does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory."? It gets the point across with the least ambiguity. (Sorry, I forgot to sign earlier. I'm new.)--Optimus 22:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear then that people have trouble agreeing on the matter. I would suggest noting that definitions of 'scientist' and who is an is not a legitimate source of authority on ID/evolution is a matter of some controversy - except I don't think it belongs in the introduction. Perhaps we could simply refer to the majority in the introduction, and expand heavily on assessing scientific support for ID in the main article? I'll have a look for authoritative studies on the subject to see if we can hammer something out in the meantime, though I doubt we will reach a number on which everyone agrees. --Davril2020 22:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are articles on TalkOrigins referring to one letter in which the heads of over 80 science organisations confirmed their support for evolution. We could use it, but I'd prefer not to clog up the front of the article as such a comment immediately invites discussion. --Davril2020 22:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the summary should be little more than description of the idea and a description of the amount of dissent. To go further is to go too far for a summary. --Optimus 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I just went to the Discovery Institute's list of signers of their "dissent." I counted all of the individuals whose credentials were arguably related to the biological sciences (including many who would be at the edge, such as biochemists and physicians). I counted 156 individuals that I could make such an identification. Bill Jefferys 23:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised that anyone cares so much about this topic. The truth cannot be known beyond a shadow of a doubt in any case unless the event is currently happening. For all we know (through experimentation) an alien could have stopped on our planet for a bathroom break on a long trip and it was his... contribution... that started life as we know it here. --Optimus 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, for clarification, when I said "dissent" I was referring to the dissent against the theory of intelligent design, not the theory of evolution. --Optimus 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are no further objections or suggestions to "99.7% of the American Association for the Advancement of Science does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." then I am going to go ahead with the change. I don't see any point in the article constantly being reverted so I will wait today for objections or suggestions. --Optimus 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think that's acceptable. We can treat major organisations representing scientists as, well, representing scientists. Thus we can assume the heads of these organisations speak for most of their members. I feel a better solution is to keep overwhelming then use multiple sources. Alternatively, a sentence saying "most mainstream science groups (including the AAAS) overwhelmingly do not view ..." would be best. Over 80 genuine scientific groups have opposed ID in writing. --Davril2020 15:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Davril2020. We are speaking of more than the AAAS, and we don't need to get into a situation where we post every organization or noted scientist separately, or post percentages which will add to maintenence of the page. Overwhelming covers it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case then more sources should be referenced so as to make the case concrete. One source is debatable, however, 2 or more is hard to question. As I said before, the facts should speak for themselves. If there is an "overwhelming" majority then there should be an overwhelming number of sources making it quite easy to find as many as 2 or even 3. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that a majority of scientists do not give credence to the theory of intelligent design. However, this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias deal in facts, not overwhelming opinions (or opinions on "overwhelming" for that matter 8^) ). --Optimus 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It has just occured to me: Davril2020, you say "We can treat major organisations representing scientists as, well, representing scientists." I ask you, how many citizens in the US right now believe that George W. Bush represents US citizens? The fact that the head of an organization has such a position does not necessarily mean that he also represents the opinions of that organization. I grant you that in many organizations this is the case, however, there are a number of cases (greater than 0.3% 8^) ) in which that is not or was not the case. --Optimus 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A handy source: Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83 "we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.".... dave souza 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelming, is, as many of us stated, acceptable, in fact, preferable. Any member of AAAS wishing to break from the stand of AAAS has the free will to sign DI's petition. Thus any arguments stating that the AAAS’ stand is not representative of all its members are specious at best. Jim62sch 17:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimal, there are several points to make in response to your last comment. The main point is that if you are a US citizen than the president has general executive control. He does not direct your specific work policies or represent your work. If I am a biologist, my academic organisation represents me as a biologist and I am free to leave it. However, if I am a biologist GWB would not represent me as a biologist and it would be extremely tortuous to extricate myself from a position in which GWB was not my president - the two are very different in terms of how they relate to me. --Davril2020 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no argument "that the AAAS’ stand is not representative of all its members." I am merely trying to keep the discussion limited to the facts (and am receiving a surprisingly large amount of resistance). A good example of fact finding would be what dave souza has done. Especially if said source contains a list of the individual "scientific associations that have spoken on the matter." --Optimus 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I give you... the rules on NPOV: Rewording a potentially biased statement. This clearly applies in this situation as it is exactly what I am saying. --Optimus 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Which of course presupposes that a charge of bias has been lodged, and that the charge is sustainable. I do not see it as biased, and apparently, neither did Judge Jones nor did a number of other people. Jim62sch 17:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Then apparently you didn't read the example. For your convenience I will quote:

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified.

Currently we have "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory," which is equivalent to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Thus "even better would be" "99.7% of the American Association for the Advancement of Science does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." since it is the equivalent of "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre". --Optimus circa 18:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that the 99.7% figure is garbage. The AAAS put out a resolution saying ID was not science in 2002. The AAAS has 120,000 members. The percentage of AAAS members supporting the resolution is not in the article. 350 scientists signed the ID support statement from the Discovery institute. No one knows how many of the 350 are in the AAAS if any. The 99.7% is from the extremely dubious calculation (120,000 - 350)/(120,000) *100%. --DocJohnny 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, understood it and saw no reason to apply it.

The sentence containing "overwhelming" is fine as it is, however, this topic is becoming a vast waste of time and energy.

Doc, I'm sure that someone needed the math lesson. (BTW, the calculation is not dubious as it arrives at the correct answer; you may argue that the figures used in the calc are dubious, but not the calc itself.) Jim62sch 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that someone disagrees with the rules is not just cause for ignoring them, otherwise the Wikipedia would fall into total anarchy as the nay-sayers in the conservative media suggest. If this article is to be factual, and not a political fiasco, it must have facts and nothing but facts. This is not a journal. It is an encyclopedia. This rule applies so unless someone has a constructive criticism (such as a suggestion for better wording or a citation that has its basis in fact, and fact alone) then the wording needs to be changed. Overwhelming is by definition (Overpowering in effect or strength) a subjective term, thus it is biased by definition. --Optimus 21:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is/was ignoring the rules. In addition, the lecture/sermon was unnecessary and rather presumptuous on your part. Finally, what word do you propose? In all honesty, all adjectives and adverbs (except perhaps those relating to colors) are inherently subjective. So, what is your proposal? Find a word that represents the facts, but is not subjective. Have a blast. Jim62sch 22:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat my suggestion for your convenience: "99.7% of the American Association for the Advancement of Science does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." --Optimus 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone has a constructive criticism (such as a suggestion for better wording or a citation that has its basis in fact, and fact alone) then I am going to change "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory," to "99.7% of the American Association for the Advancement of Science does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." Overwhelming is by definition (Overpowering in effect or strength) a subjective term, thus it is biased by definition. Facts (i.e. numbers), by definition, are not biased if attributed to the correct measurement (i.e. "99.7% of the AAAS" not "99.7% of the scientific community"). --Optimus 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be dense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks only seem necessary when one's argument becomes invalid. --Optimus 16:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the previous statement. Though it is a true statement, I believe I misunderstood both the point and the target of KillerChihuahua's previous comment. After reading the linked description of being dense, I now understand that he was referring to the fact that my "wealth of well-established policies that contradict" the current status quo in this article was clearly being lost on the current crop of critics. --Optimus 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt KC's comment was meant as a personal attack, but I can understand where you might interpret it as such. Let's move on. While I see you're point about the use of hard numbers in the body of the article, here I feel it defeats the purpose. The current wording works well, and the link further clarifies the statement. To use your suggested wording, we risk presenting the 99.7% as that of a fringe group. You and I might know better, but does the reader? The article is for them, not us.

If this does not settle things for you, may I suggest a Straw poll? While by no means perfect, it will help you establish whether or not you have support for the change. And if not, it will let you know that you may be tilting at a windmill.--ghost 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On my part, the link was indeed the point - if it came across as a personal attack, that was my error in failing to highlight the importance of the link, and I apologize for any ill will that may have engendered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I can already tell you the outcome of the straw poll simply by the numbers represented by the comment. It'll be 98 to 2. 98 Intelligent Design opponents vs one Intelligent Design supporter and myself. --Optimus 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is citing a reasonably credible source: Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. Got a better one? ....dave souza 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. I would choose a group of individuals who have studied a topic for decades over a federal judge any day. 8^) --Optimus 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, if fear of confusion regarding the potential obscurity of the AAAS is the only counterpoint, then a better change would be: "99.7% of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (an association of at least 120,000 Americans including postdoctoral members, professionals, students, and teachers) does not view intelligent design as a valid scientific theory." The paranthetical portion is via [the AAAS website]. In fact, the original is more obscure than this because the original insinuated that the AAAS is composed of primarily scientists. --Optimus 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimus, I understand what you are getting at, but the opening sentence is fine as it is. No personal comment intended, but wouldn't it be more profitable if we moved on to another topic? Jim62sch 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Optimus! The last link in your last entry comes up empty. The apparent URL does not point to a page containing the parenthetical remark you cite. Can you please fix this? Thanks Bill Jefferys 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It should be fixed now. I forgot to double check my links. (I thought I had this wiki link system down... guess not. 8^) ) --Optimus 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Optimus! The link works, but it doesn't say anything about the parenthesized material above, e.g., the count of members of the AAAS... Bill Jefferys 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Suggestion!

Why not go with vast/overwhelming/etc in the introduction, and then create a new section (yes, I know I'm an article size facist, bear with me) detailing the positions of each notable organization? Encyclopedia articles can always include collections of statistics within them--Tznkai 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion and would normally agree with it. The problem is that if a comment is made that can be taken as biased in the summary of an article, then it must be backed up by facts that are listed in the summary as well. Otherwise, opponents of such wording may leave after a cursory glance at the summary, never to return, believing the article to have no basis in fact, when, in fact, it does have basis in fact. --Optimus 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimus, I think you misunderstood my eariler suggestion of a Straw Poll (which btw is part of the WP:Dispute resolution process). It shouldn't matter what our views of ID are or aren't (you'd be surprised *wink). What matters is the article, and handling your concern of the appearance of bias. You're suggested wording has merit: it's precise, it's referenced, it makes the point. The current wording has equal merit: it's succinct; it's linked; it's too makes the point. I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But you feel it's broke. Let's see how many other editors do. If more than a few do believe it creates the appearence of bias, I'll be glad to help you rework it. Perhaps just "majority". No adjectives. *hears Schoolhouse Rock music* --ghost 20:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about jumping to conclusions regarding the straw poll. I'm very new here, but mildly impressed at the professional nature with which everyone is participating in this discussion on a very controversial topic. I'm not immediately opposed to the straw poll, it's just that I feel as though this should be obvious enough that one should not be necessary and I fear the bias that is inevitably going to show up in a straw poll on such a controversial topic. As far as simply removing any adjective from the statement, that was my original suggestion, but it was suggested that this would give the false impression that it was a 51% majority as opposed to the actual 99.7%. I understood the reasoning and that was what eventually led to my latest suggestion. I guess the straw poll is a go. I've read Wikipedia:Straw_polls. Anything else necessary? --Optimus 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have to determine the straw poll options - usually it is a yea/nay kindof phrasing that gets the most useful feel for consensus. I suggest either the statement read that the "overwhelming" is how to keep the opening statement, or that the "99.7" change is indicated - either one, you choose, if you wish I will write it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The logic behind the "overwhelming" being cited from the court ruling is that if you follow the link it gives reasons justifying use of the word. The 99.7% is a ballpark figure taken from numbers in one news report and as you'll note above can easily be contested. ...dave souza 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur w/dave souza - using the 99.7% also limits the ref to the one poll, and there are many more sources to support the "overwhelming", such as the Ohio Scientists' Intelligent Design Poll, which had a 97% "no id" result; the Steve list, the Nobel prize winners letter, and numerous other indicators that "overwhelming" is accurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Dave as well. I hate to chew my cud twice, but as I explained previously, 50.000001% constitutes a majority. There is, however, a huge difference between 50.000001% and 97% or 99.7%, thus an adjective is needed, and quite frankly, no matter how "biased" overwhelming may appear to some, it is accurate. In fact to re-chew another piece of cud, every adjective (other than those relating to colors found in the rainbow, or number adjectives) is biased. I really think that we should just do the straw poll and get this conversation over with. Jim62sch 01:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I also agree with Dave, the fact that the use of this (or another) adjective maybe technically correct does not mean that Optimus' concern is wholly invalid. If readers are perceiving bias then something's there, even if we don't see it. Our thinking about ID and Science requires logical thinking. But the article is a collaboration with editors whose perceptions we need to respect, even if they seem illogical. That said, we can't water down every phase because then in trying to please all, we'd please none. Thus I'll do a run straw poll on request. Optimus, would you feel this is satisfactory?--ghost 15:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be a little more open than choosing between an adjective and a conceivably mistaken percentage. Perhaps more of a general concept for the choices: an adjective, a reference to a reliable source (or a number of reliable sources), and removal of the adjective. These choices would require some deep thought on my part at least. --Optimus 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I do have one other suggestion before the poll though. How about "unequivocal" instead of overwhelming. It has the meaning that opponents of adjective removal fear would be lost, and it is not nearly as biased as overwhelming because the definition (clear and unambiguous) is exactly what we are trying to get across, that this is not a slim majority. --Optimus 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Unequivocal" works for me, and I image for most others as well. Objections? BTW, "clear majority" (with link) may read easier.--ghost 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "clear majority" over "unequivocal majority." I also suggested "far majority" somewhere before.Lovecoconuts 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Unequivocal" can also relate to 50.000001% (and is not synonymous with overwhelming). Technically, no one can dispute that that percentage itself is a majority (they can, however, dispute at how it was arrived, thus calling into question the unequivocal nature of what the percentage represents). Clear and far in no way equal the force or mathematical accuracy of overwhelming. Jim62sch 16:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have a tiring feeling, some will keep on saying "overwhelming" is bias. Then again, accuracy should have more weight than whether or not a term seems bias, I suppose.

Will clarify. I prefer "clear or far majority" over unequivocal majority, but I do think "overwhelming" is more accurate than those three. Also, I'm resubmitting "near-universal" for reconsideration. I've come acrossed references that say ID is "near-universally opposed or rejected" by the scientific community.Lovecoconuts 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT, people, this discussion now spans 13 pages on my browser. It is NOT A BIG DEAL. Stop talking about it. Let it lie the way it was. Not everything is worth hashing out in such excruciating detail. Meanwhile, other parts of the article are still crap. Graft 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Eloquently put... 8^( But I suppose he does have a point. I motion to leave the current wording and table the discussion for later. --Optimus 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As I stated much earlier, this topic has become a vast waste of time. However, rather than stating that "other parts of the article are still crap" I would have preferred some specificity as to which parts Graft is referring. Jim62sch 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Great improvement, everyone

I've got to chime in and say that the current version of the article is a tremendous improvement over what I first saw weeks ago. I want to complement everyone involved on the hard work of getting this reorganized for clarity. Also, it seems now the material is organized so that detail can be added much more easily. The issues and objections are so much easier to follow. Kudos, folks.--Gandalf2000 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

wow... thanks, although I personally didn't do much, the credit goes to other editors - but thank you so much for taking the time to post something positive. It is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution Shortfall

Evolution is based on processes within living, reproducing organisms. Evolution does not address the question of how something could progress towards increasing complexity before life began.

The key question relating to intelligent design is: Did the DNA necessary for the first living cell occur by chance?

The question should be addressed scientifically - What is the minimal complexity required for DNA to support life?

Once we have addressed that issue, we can consider if it is reasonable and logical that a molecule of such complexity could occur by chance. If scientists decide that such a molecule could not reasonably be expected to occur naturally - then we should seek any and all explanations of how it did occur.

Obviously, prior to the first living cell, there was no process of evolution going on.

The scientific investigation into the possible sources of such complexity prior to life is a totally appropriate issue to explore in schools. (an unsigned comment from LHB (talk · contribs)

How does this opinion apply to the article? FeloniousMonk 01:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Answer: It doesn't. He probably meant to post on uncommon descent but got lost along the way. Jim62sch 10:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, FeloniousMonk, if you ignore his last sentence, he brings up a good point that I, personally, had not considered. The theory of Evolution is not necessarily contraverted by the theory of Intelligent Design. Considering the vagueness of the general definition of Intelligent Design (not that imposed on the theory by Conservatives who consider themselves Christians and the conservative media), the two could coexist equally. But to be brutally honest, this comment is out of place as Jim62sch suggests, regardless of the validity to the article.

I'm coming in here late

I've just been reverted. Out of interest, why are we detailing the ID debate before we explain the concepts behind ID? How can you understand a debate about a topic without first understanding what is actually being debated?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, revert was reverted again :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is very good...

... however, could we reconsider some of the section structure? For instance, shouldn't "Intelligent design as science" be part of "Intelligent design debate", and shouldn't "The designer or designers" be part of ID concepts? Further, "Religion and leading intelligent design proponents" seems to me to be really part of the "Intelligent design as a movement", though this could be debated I suppose.

What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, "General criticism of intelligent design" is really part of the ID debate, right? So therefore, shouldn't that be incorporated into the ID debate section? It's good material, it just seems redundant. Incidently, might as well state that for the record, I count myself as an evangelical Christian, but I also think that ID has some issues... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We have 23 archives and I think 3 separate talk pages for this - one a sub page here, and two sub-pages of editor's pages. Where do you want to start with our huge reorg which finally actually passed approval of ID proponents and ID non-supporters? I suggest you try starting with Talk:Intelligent design/Marshills NPOV objections, along with the usual archive reading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not delve into archives. Would it be possible to just get a reasonable answer as to why it wouldn't be possible to further change the structure? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is a short version. I'm sorry, I'm very tired, and we've just redone the entire structure following more discussion than you would believe and complete rewrites of the article in at least 3 versions in user subpages, and if you cannot be bothered to read up on it, then the best I can manage for you right now is "because that is consenus, please do not stir the pot right now right after we got it settled." If you wish to help in the article, please see Talk:Intelligent_design#New_opening_line.2C_part_2 where we are trying to remove anthropomorphism in how we are presenting ID. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold. If you could give me a clear understanding of why my change isn't any good, I'm more than willing to listen. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just been reverted. I've reverted back again, could you please explain what was wrong with the change? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Ta bu shi da yu's recent change is an improvment, despite all the recent discussion and hard won compromise. I'm cool with it (as long as he does the work on the footnotes as well). It makes sense to me. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so a further move was to move the section "Religion and leading intelligent design proponents" to "ID as a movement section", as these are about the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, one more structure change. I've moved the design or designers section to concepts, as this is a specific concept of ID. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Those sections should be spun off into daughter articles. There's good criticism there, but too much for a main article. Also, if left in the current position, the pro-ID side needs to be articulated as well. I'm not saying that because I'm pro-ID (I'm not, and in fact I added a lot of that criticism myself). I just think that it doesn't belong here as currently written because it says too little about what IDers think about the designer. Dave (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that the restructure has found some holes that we need to work on. I'm not rightly sure how we do this. Any ID proponents lurking that can offer advise? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The design or designers section belongs in this article, as I've explained here many times (attempting to remove it has been a favorite passtime of ID propoents here). It is a central element of the scientific viewpoint's objections to ID, and is necessary for fully understanding that particular viewpoint.

As far as describing ID concepts of the designer, Dembski says ""Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." If we were to take him at his word, there'd be nothing to describe. Of course that's not the case though, as all leading ID proponents have cited the God of Abraham as the designer. I suppose a paragraph is warranted on that, but it will overlap with the "Religion and leading intelligent design proponents" section. FeloniousMonk 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think anyone wants to remove it totally, but maybe there is enough material for a daughter article which we can summarise in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with making almost everything a subsection of a section again. 'Intelligent design' as science, for example, is also an important concept of ID, and part of the debate, so shouldn't it be in both sections, by this reasoning? That ID does not speculate about the designer is as much a general concept of ID, as it is a topic of discussion. In fact, everything about ID is a topic of discussion, which makes me wonder what the point is of having any of these sections as subsections of 'the debate'.

In my view, the 'concepts' are clearly unique to ID and deserve a section. But 'The designer or designers', 'General criticism' and 'As science' all deserve individual sections.

In short, ID says the universe was designed, without stating by whom ('The designer or designers'), for which it presents several concepts as proof ('Concepts'), is presented as science, although not everyone agrees ('As science'). It is heavily criticised ('General criticism') and debated ('Intelligent design debate'). I much prefered the older version, although I could be persuaded to agree that 'Religion and leading intelligent design proponents' should indeed be part of the 'Intelligent design as a movement'-section. -- Ec5618 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with the old structure was that several of these sections were in effect talking about similar things. The new organisation has made an attempt to group them together better. One of the problems that Nature magazine highlighted was not so much our inaccuracies, but our problems with structure making things unclear. When I first read this article, I immediately noticed how difficult it was to nail down exactly what the central arguments of ID were. It was only after wading through criticism, counter-criticism and counter-counter criticism that I finally got to the central concepts behind the movement. That's why I've reorganised things.

The section "As science" is basically science's response to ID. I feel that this is the best place for it. I'm not sure why it should have it's own section: science debates the basis of ID (and does so with flying colours - I'm convinced that it's not a scientific discipline!), so therefore this is appropriate in a the debate section. As for it being heavily criticised, and debated: criticism comes through debate.

That's my take on things. I'm open to suggestions, however. I'm just not sure why science should have it's own section. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point in saying that the section currently deals with mostly criticism ("science's response to ID"). Part of my objective in reorganising the sections however was to reduce the impression that the article contained mainly criticism; The section was contained in the 'general criticism' section, making it impossible for IDists to add their side of the story. By moving it into a more general spot, they are free to provide the evidence of ID's status as science.

Also, I still don't think any of these sections should be subsections of the debate. The debate has its own article, which would suggest that anything dealing strictly with the debate should be moved there (and I don't think these sections should be moved). These subsections also deal with more than merely the debate: the 'scientific status' of ID is an integral component of ID. And the general criticism of ID is not merely a part of the debate either, it is criticism of ID in general.

In the end, we would be left with:

   * 1 Intelligent design in summary
         o 1.1 Origins of the concept
         o 1.2 Origins of the term
   * 2 Concepts
         o 2.1 Irreducible complexity
         o 2.2 Specified complexity
         o 2.3 Fine-tuned universe
         o 2.4 The designer or designers
               + 2.4.1 "What (or who) designed the designer?"
   * 3 Intelligent design as a movement
         o 3.1 Religion and leading intelligent design proponents
   * 4 Intelligent design debate
   * 5 General criticism
   * 6 Intelligent design as science
         o 6.1 Scientific peer review
         o 6.2 Intelligence, as an observable quality
         o 6.3 Argument from ignorance
   * 7 See also
   * 8 Notes and references
   * 9 External links
         o 9.1 ID perspectives
         o 9.2 Non-ID perspectives
         o 9.3 Media articles

and even then I'd prefer to move the debate section either to the front or to the back, as it currently breaks up the concepts of ID ('Concepts' and 'As science'). I'd also prefer 'general criticism' to flank the concepts, to either introduce the concepts or to bring finality. -- Ec5618 10:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(decrease indent)Ta bu shi da yu, it looks lovely. Sorry I was testy last night, I was tired (as I mentioned.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Designer

A proposal for how to handle the designer sections:

• Start off by saying that ID intentionally leaves the designer's identity ambiguous.
• Show examples where they accidentally said that they think the designer is God.
• Briefly talk about why God is considered a more likely designer than alternatives like aliens.
• Brief summary of the criticism from both sections, summarizing the block quotes rather than quoting them
• A link to a longer daughter article (possibly called criticism of intelligent design or hypothesized intelligent designers or the intelligent designer or something) that looks roughly like what the current version of these sections, and possibly including other criticism, dependin on what we decide to do.

Sound good to anybody? Dave (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a good start. I do have a bit of a concern about having an article strictly about criticism of ID, however we've had other articles that seem to do OK so it might be worthwhile making one. I think, however, that the best solution is to make one daughter article called The intelligent designer (or should this be Intelligent designer?) and then work from there. If further daughter articles need to be created from this, then we should do that also. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, we already have an article Intelligent designer. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perfect. Let's do that then. Dave (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There's already an Intelligent designer article. Also shuffling criticisms from scientific viewpoint to a sub-article will create a POV fork. FeloniousMonk 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not pro ID. I think it's dumb. But the discussion of the designer is currently way too long. If we keep the designer stuff where it is, which is a section about what ID's ideas are, then we can't have it be twice as long as the irreducible complexity and be all criticism. If it gets moved to the debate section, you might have a point. Dave (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened it substantially and lost very little. There was a lot of repetition. Dave (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In Australia

I don't wish to cause offense, but wish to alert everyone to a problem of systemic bias in this article. ID has been gaining a foothold in Australia lately, and I think it probably needs to be documented. Currently I can only read things about America. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Would be more relevant to Creation and evolution in public education.--nixie 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? shouldn't there at least be a mention in this article? Interested in response... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do mention the recent 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers who issued a statement declaiming intelligent design as science.[22] FeloniousMonk 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There's mention of Oz in Creationism#The western world outside the United States and something similar might be appropriate in intelligent design movement. ...dave souza 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(decrease indent) France, as well. That's in the archives, was not pursued due to no French translators taking on the task of the Le Monde articles in question. If there is interest here, I will dig through the archives and find that again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since this article is primarily about the "science" of ID and the ID movement, and it is a largely US-centric movement, I don't think it's necessary to discuss fringe movement in other countries. All I've heard about the situation in Australia is that religious schools recieved some ID videos from the US, nobody is suggesting that it be taught in Australian public schools - so a discussion of the movement in Australia would be blowing the situation out of proportion in my opinion.--nixie 12:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this article is primarily about the "science" of ID and the ID movement, any information about the movement should be included, whether detrimental to the movement or otherwise. To do otherwise would suggest that there is an attempt at hiding information. --Optimus 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have an intermediate knowledge of French. If you can be more specific as to what needs translation, or point me to the archive, I can make the atempt. --Optimus 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, just be careful -- translating the sense of what is being said is harder than just translating the words. In addition, the French prefer the Cartesian method, which has certain "rules/guidelines" regarding content, phrasing, logic, etc. Jim62sch 18:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Media Articles

FM, I do not understand why do you revert my edits for no reason. If you have reasons, please state them here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed one article you added to the section as it was very out of date. Media articles should list recent articles only, or else it soon turns into a link farm. FeloniousMonk 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What is considered out of date? The Newswek article was on the Feb 7 issue. And it is quite a good article, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

"What is considered out of date?" Anything older than what's already in the list, I'd say. Articles whose content is overtaken by events clearly should be removed. Do we really need a news section? FeloniousMonk 06:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of these articles are excellent backgrounders. I would argue that if a journalism piece is good and not only focused on "news" it should be kept. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that we were the ones who gave a good background... is it entirely necessary to have lots of background articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

These articles are an excellent resource on an overall analysis of ID. It's right to review their inclusion if they become superseded, but for example the Christian Science Monitor article is very useful. ....dave souza 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I slept, I awoke and voilá!

To all of you who worked on making very constructive and excellent changes to the article during the night (through which I had the nerve to sleep), I thank you for a job well-done. Jim62sch 11:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Froglais in the headings? – steady on Jim! Moi, je parle seulement Écossais. Anyway, article's looking good, particular thanks to FM not least for refs sorting and an excellent elegant trimming of the third paragraph of the intro. It may miss nuances that there's more than one Fed court ruling, and that the Kitzmüller judge's conclusion reads as though teaching of ID in public school science is unconstitutional, not just district requirements for that, but these can properly be explored elsewhere. Jolly good show. ...dave souza 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Use best source in intro

"[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26) "ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43) Judge's decision based on sworn expert testimony WAS 4.250 17:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone attribute this?

At the end of "What (or who) designed the designer?" section, it reads:

Thus these attempts to patch the intelligent design hypothesis appear to either result in logical contradiction or reduces it to a belief in religious creationism. Intelligent design then ceases to be a falsifiable theory and loses its ability to claim to be a scientific theory.

Can someone attribute this to a source? Otherwise it reads as a conclusion made by an editor. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a very common of fisking of ID's logic. As a merely descriptive statement, it shouln't need an attribution. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

Shouldn't mention of Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument be added? It does fit the subject, as it implies that an intelegence or intelegences created our universe as a detailed and advanced program in theirs.

For those unfamiliar with the simulation argument, information can be found here, and on Wikipedia under Simulated reality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G 1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's really more suited for a philosophy page. Jim62sch 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but from what I've seen, several of the varying ID arguments seem equally philosophical, based more in logic (however correct or flawed) than more concrete methods (though in all fairness, Evolutionary Theory initially wasn't all that dissimilar). G 1

You have a very good point, however, as ID presents itself as a science it needs to continue to be treated that way. I don't know if adding a philosophical theory that would be no more than pseudo-science to the article would help any. Nevertheless, as with everything, I'm open to hearing others' opinions on this. Jim62sch 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a smart-ass by repeating a previous statement here, but it is relevent to this conversation as well. Since this article is primarily about the "science" of ID and the ID movement, any information about the movement should be included, whether detrimental to the movement or otherwise. To do otherwise would suggest that there is an attempt at hiding information. --Optimus 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design debate

This section includes recurring arguments and counter-arguments already made previously in the article. We have three options:

1. moving all counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments in the previous section, to this section;
2. merging the contents of this section onto the previous section(s); or
3. keeping it as as, for a long and quite tedious repetitive reading of same arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arguments and counter-arguments" are more properly described as "ID viewpoint" and "scientific community's viewpoint." Since the scientific community's viewpoint is just as necessary to understanding ID's validity as the ID viewpoint, lumping all the "counter-arguments" (the scientific community's viewpoint) into one section goes against WP:NPOV#Undue weight. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, FM, but I do not follow. This article is not about the theory of evolution. It is about intelligent design. In an artile about the theory of evolution, undue weight cannot be given to ID. But this is not an article on the theory of evolution. You also fail to address the question on why do we need duplication of material. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that this section is not about the debate (maybe the first few sentences are). But about the critics viewpoint only. As such it needs to be properly labelled. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Overly lengthy headers

...are a bad idea, IMO. The "Who (or what) designed the designer" is overly long as is. Making it longer seems like a very bad idea to me. Guettarda 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

The links from TA don't seem very relevant: how about changing the footnote to this quote from the Dover trial conclusion p24:

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.

Looks more informative to me. ....dave souza 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Works por moi, I mean, for me.  :) Jim62sch 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Just days ago, the layout was changed, and it was an improvement, in my view, and in fact several editors suggested it was an improvement. Now, somehow, the basic structure of the old version has been put back, without discussion. I have reformatted, again.

I've also used comment tags to add some helpful text to the references, so we can now move sections without too much hassle. Not that we should continue to move sections haphazzardly, ofcourse. In fact, I'd much prefer it if further major reorganisation efforts were again co-ordinated through this Talk page. Thanks. -- Ec5618 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ec, but I disagree, the version you reverted was the better. There was tepid support for your/trilemma's version at best. I've reverted to the most recent version, which had broad support. FeloniousMonk 01:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, to be on the other side of the argument. Broad support, you say? I say that a single editor made the changes, and that no discussion preceded or followed. I hope you actually looked at the layout, and at the references.

Note these quotes, all of which preceded this latest (I suggest unsupported) reorganisation.

"To all of you who worked on making very constructive and excellent changes to the article during the night (through which I had the nerve to sleep), I thank you for a job well-done."

"This article is very good..."

"Great improvement, everyone" -- Ec5618 02:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Concepts should go before debate. Dave (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments for the footnotes is a great idea. I wish I'd thought of that months ago. Dave (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree that concepts should probably precede 'debate' and 'as a movement', but since I also feel that all concepts, including such sections as 'Intelligent design as science' (which is an important part of ID) should stick together, that would mean the debate and movement sections would come last. I'm not opposed to that, per se, though in my opinion the debate is more important that the actual concept of, say, IC. I hope I'm maing myself clear. Still, moving both sections down is not a problem. -- Ec5618 02:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that ID should be able to present its ideas (including irreducible complexity) before it gets kicked around by scientists and philosophers like Richard Dawkins and Robert Pennock. Dave (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Let the article speak of the ID concepts, so that the reader can get a basic understanding of what these propose. ANd later we can present the arguments agaisnt it by the scientists, philosophers, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Done, and I agree. Movement and debate are now discussed last. We will need to rewrite a few sections, I'm afraid, to improve the flow of the text. -- Ec5618 02:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that EC's version is not as good as FM's. In EC's version, the "debate" is disconnected from the "criticism," which doesn't make sense to me. The movement gets criticized before it gets introduced. Specific criticisms (like lack of peer review) come before "general criticism." The "debate," which is why the criticism matters in any sense except ivory tower debates, somehow comes at the end. None of those are good decisions, unless I'm misssing something. Dave (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The layout by Ec5618 does not make sense to me either. I have restored FM;'s version. Let us go slow, please. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Atleast regroup the references then. -- Ec5618 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the section headers should be the basis for the organisation, moreso than the text in each section. For example, while the section 'Scientific peer review' currently reads like criticism, some ID proponents mainain there are peer-reviewed articles, but that mainstream science journals refuse to print them, for PR reasons. If text to such effect were added to the section, it would no longer be criticism; it would be a section dealing with an important aspect of ID. All in the interest of allowing ID to explain itself.

Similarly, 'The designer or designers' is currently rather critical of ID, highlighting logical fallacies, which ID proponents maintain do not exist. The section should be edited, and most likely will be.

In the 'FM' version, 'criticism' sections are grouped, meaning that it is impossible for any editor to add pro-ID content (the content would be removed, for being 'out of place'). In 'my' version, the stance of each section is more open to interpretation.

In my mind this also addressed your concerns that the 'criticism' is disconnected from the debate: criticisms needn't always be purely criticism. I do think however that the debate should probably be introduced first, as should the movement. I'll note that the 'debate' and 'movement' sections are not inherently critical, and it should therefor not be a problem to first introduce the concept loosely, follow that with a description of the activity surrounding Id (arguably more important than specific concepts), followed by a detailed description of specific aspects of ID. Perhaps readers should read about the debate, before delving into details such as specified complexity, which, truth be told, are irrelevant to most readers.

In the end, I prefer 'my' original version, in which the debate and movement came before a long list of aspects inherent to ID. My main point: 'grouped criticism will lock each section, to be either pro-ID or anti-ID (if you'll excuse the terms)'. -- Ec5618 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be willing to move the "movement" part up. I'd also be willing to rename sections (e.g. from "ID is not science" to "ID as science" or "nature of science") if that would make them more neutral and make all of them (including "general criticism") subheadings of "debate." I also think that daughter articles for criticism (analogous to the criticism of libertarianism article I helped write) could help. I don't think that your version is the way to go, though. Dave (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have renamed the sections and eliminated the "criticism" section entirely through merging. I think this will make it less structurally anti-ID, since each section can talk about both sides. Dave (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, I like it. Now to get this puppy up to featured status. Oh, we should probably discuss your point to move the concepts down at some point, but lets work with this organisation fow a while. -- Ec5618 10:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A radical layout idea

Here's my idea. I think that both the "criticism" sections (is ID science, is intelligence observable, etc.) and the "concepts" section (specified complexity et al.) should be under the "debate" section. The article would then look something like this:

• Intro
• Summary

• origins sections

• movement

• religion

• Debate (possibly renamed "evaluating ID")

• Is ID science
• stuff about complexity and observability of intelligence and the argument from ignorance
• stuff about the designer

The various complexity arguments and the observability of intelligence and the argument from ignorance all address the same issue.

Let me know what you think before I mangle the article any more. Dave (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are you putting the IC and SC sections? Guettarda 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I included that as "stuff about complexity." The idea would be that IDers could say what it is and why it matters, and then scientists could say why it doesn't matter or is misleading. Dave (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the current layout. Let's give it a chance for a while. Two major reorgs in a week are enough. FeloniousMonk 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. I'll drop it. Dave (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD Terminology Request

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Wikipedia_talk:Eras.

Currently, the terms BCE and CE are used within this article. Since this article refers to "Intelligent Design", otherwise meaning "God" and religion, I deem it necessary to use the terminology BC/AD. Also, the BC/AD terms are much more accepted and understood in general society. Honestly, every day people (who are the people that use Wikipedia, to get information) have no idea what BCE or CE mean. They also probably don't even know that "AD" stands for deeply religious terminology, so why musn't we use it? Religious bias you say? Then why is it that the Nordic/Pagan religious Gods remain in our every day use, when we say "Tuesday, Wednesday, January, February", etc.? This is anti-Christian is what it is, there's no need at all to replace all known Christian historical accomplishments/trends with secular terminology. It's secular bias. Just the same as when all the American media replaces "Christmas" with the ear-hurting "holiday" term for every known Christmas tradition (Holiday tree, etc). Leave history as it is, please. Whether you're a Christian or not, this is history and should NOT be changed! I vote for the change from BCE/CE terms to BC/AD terms. PatrickA 06:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC). ***UPDATE*** - I notice all the responses are not addressing one issue I noted, which is the issue as to why the terms BC/AD (which are very rarely used anyway) are being pushed to be replaced, but other religion-associated namings such as with the days of the week and months, not one single person is attempting to change this. We use the days of the week/month daily in our speech, BC/AD is used but once a month at most. This is why the BC/AD change to BCE/CE strikes me as being simply anti-Christian. Can anyone answer as to why the other religions like Roman and Nordic religious Gods are not being picked on like the Christian religion? Someone below said "AD is POV because it says Christ is the Lord", well, saying "Tuesday" must then be POV, but there are no such pushes to remove it. Someone, please answer. PatrickA 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Stop shouting. Shall we adopt Onesday, Twosday, Threesday, etc? Besides, as an American of Nordic descent, I'm offended by your dismissal of Nordic religion. Jim62sch 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Quakers use(d) (some still do) "First Day," "Second Day," and so forth to avoid what they viewed as the "pagan" implications of the usual names for the days of the week. I support BCE/CE because these are now the usual scholarly terms, and WikiPedia is supposed to be a scholarly source of information. Bill Jefferys 01:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Portuguese do the same thing, except for Saturday and Sunday, which are sábado and domingo. Of course, we could adopt "mya" and "tya" from physics. Jim62sch 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You had me going until you started going ALL CAPS and excited, at which point I decided to argue against you instead of supporting you.

1) Religion?Christianity.

2) Christianity is not a race.

3) Counting to 2005 is not a Christian "accomplishment," nor is it much of a "trend"

4) Many of the biggest proponents of BCE terminology are religious, though they are not Christian.

5) Many historical religious traditions (like not eating shrimp and the Crusades) have gone out of fashion with good reason; tradition alone isn't an argument.

6) new sections go at the end.

Dave (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the comments, but why is it that you would base your vote on whether I was a little jumpy on the subject and perhaps wasn't paying attention when I wrote "Christian racism" or had lack of other words, rather than basing your vote on the actual subject at hand. If you decided against me for these reasons only, perhaps you should reconsider and vote against the BCE/CE terminology. Thanks. PatrickA 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

Hi Patrick - the Intelligent Design researchers have gone to great length to separate themselves from explicit ties to Christianity in an effort to get ID recongized as a scientific research program. So the BCE/CE terminology which is common in academic and scientific literature is appropriate. --JPotter 07:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Jason, I understand your view. BCE/CE may be used sometimes in scientific literature (though not always), however what I am actually trying to do is reverse this fact, and re-instate the original terminology. I'm trying to get the point across that yes, BCE/CE terminology may be more inclusive, but so would "Day #1, Day #2" for "Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.", it doesn't mean we actually change the historical names for that simple reason. BC/AD are historical as well as religious. The fact that Christianity still exists and Roman and Nordic faiths don't, shouldn't mean we discriminate against the Christians. I'll have you know that I am actually not a Christian, but feel that they are being "picked on" when it comes to these things, simply because they are a majority. PatrickA 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

I'm actually pretty indifferent on the subject, which is why I could be swayed by irrelevant factors. Policy is sort of vague in this case, since most ID proponents are Christian. On the other hand, the dates involved aren't talking about Christians, so that argument may be moot. It's not a big deal to me either way; in some cases, the culture-war battles about religious or secular "persecution" can be more of a problem than the initial trigger. Dave (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As the one who reverted PatrickA, I feel I should respond. First of all Patrick, it's good to see you explaining your points rationally rather than emotionally; you'll find your words have far more effect this way. As Mr. Potter mentions above, while scientists and many ID critics feel that ID is simply a religious idea stripped of overt religious references, ID proponents themselves have, for the most part, tried to establish that ID is not a religious theory. This does make for a bit of a confusing situation regarding which term to apply. I understand what you're trying to do, but keep in mind that there are also others who are trying to get BC/BCE used universally throughout Wikipedia. As a sort of compromise, the current consensus seems to be to try to stick to whatever the original usage in the article was, a la British vs. American spelling. If you wish to discuss these policies in general, this specific talk page is probably not the place. Some people are very passionate about this issue, so much that a couple users have been banned by the Arbitration Committee from making further date changes. I also feel it is illogical to suggest that Christians are being "picked on" or being "discriminated against" because people don't wish to use an overtly Christian-based calendar—we don't use Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, or any other active religion's calendar either. This all being said, I don't really much care about the whole CE vs. AD matter, and since intelligent design is basically a Christian movement, it may make sense to use BC and AD. If others feel that the format should be changed in this article, that's fine with me. Otherwise, I'd say we should just stick to the currently existing format, as is generally done. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried looking on the DI website, but they just seem to talk of "thousands of years ago" (not millions!), thus avoiding the issue. ...dave souza 11:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the people that Knowledge Seeker was talking about, let me say that I am strongly opposed to converting the page from BCE/CE to BC/AD because, as I have read the NPOV policy, BC/AD violates NPOV. I accept that people disagree, but about half of the people who voted on the issue agreed that BC/AD violated NPOV. BC (Before Christ) asserts that Jesus is the Messiah. AD (Anno Domini) asserts that we are in the Lord's time - since it is set relative to the birth of Jesus, the implication is that Jesus is God. While I agree with that POV, Wikipedia is only allowed to describe POVs, not assert them. Hence, BC and AD violate NPOV. Guettarda 14:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh God... Just yesterday, I found out about the Merry Christmas - Happy Holidays controversy. Now - this. I think the world has gone mad. Lovecoconuts 18:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, you are correct: BC/AD is inherently biased. Io bona Saturnalia, all! Jim62sch 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Patrick, you state that your use of BC/AD is POV:

..BCE/CE may be used sometimes in scientific literature (though not always), however what I am actually trying to do is reverse this fact, and re-instate the original terminology...--PatrickA

Since your intended use of that system is POV, please don't use it. While I occasionally disagree with Wiki standards, they are for the community and the public, not the editors' pleasure. Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year.--ghost 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD is not anti-Secular and neither is using BCE/CE anti-Christian. I happen to be okay with using either and saying Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays too. I swear I'll throw something painful at any person who dares accuse me of being anti-Secular or anti-Christian.Lovecoconuts 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have the spiked ball from a flail if you need it.  :) Jim62sch 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A Merry Winter Solstice to All!

Weel, ye should a' ken that the Kirk didna approve of Christmas richt up tae the 1950s, syne it's really a pagan festival. Merry Christmas 2005 AD/CE to All! ....dave souza 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Robert Burns.  :) Jim62sch 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

PatrickA, consider discussing this at Wikipedia:Eras instead. There is even a vote currently going on regarding the usage of BC/BCE and AD/CE that I'm sure you would want to vote in. Other related links you might find helpful Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal. Let's not continue an issue here that is already being discussed and debated somewhere else. Obviously one of the two has to be used, and the current policy is to leave things as they are and not go around changing everything (much like the British/American spelling policy). I also suggest going to war on Christmas, as I am sure there is a giant flamewar over where you can argue with the same people about it. (checks) Yep there is. Go to it guys. Keep it out off of here.--Ben 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Kitzmiller conclusions: references

The judge's summing up (Kitzmiller_342.pdf) gives a very good overview, and provides information on points that people are raising in this talk page. Would it be feasible to copy the pdf into a Wiki resource (Wikiquote?) with headings added by us so that the relevant part can easily be linked from the article or here? I'm willing to do the copying and add section headers, and understand that U.S. court docs are public domain, but am not sure of where to start such a page. ....dave souza 11:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's free content (public record?) we could place it on Wikisource. Is there much precedent for that?

Wikisource – The Free Library – is an online collection of free content source texts

Free content encompasses all works in the public domain

Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. Examples include federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions).

So, any federal court opinions are free content, and eligible for placement on Wikisource. -- Ec5618 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, raw text now at Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et. al., will try formatting it with a section for each page and possibly subsections when topics come up though that may not be allowed. ...dave souza 13:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

in progress, will split into topics as page too huge. ....dave souza 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This summary from "The Skeptic" deserves to go down in history, I think:

"Kitzmiller provides an excellent case study of evolution in action; ironically, in this case how the language of creationists has adapted to changing cultural environments. The defense argued that Intelligent Design is an entirely new species unrelated to creation science, and the plaintiffs expertly demonstrated both the clear ancestral relationship between creationism and ID and the selective pressure of higher court decisions that caused the speciation. With that phylogenetic relationship clearly established in the trial, the judge evidently decided that creationism had not mutated enough to survive as the new species of Intelligent Design."' --Steve Rapaport 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is priceless and too the point. Can we get it engraved on stone monuments and put them in front of every public school? Jim62sch 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but you have every right to have it engraved on a stone monument and put at the head of your grave. 8^) Here's hoping no one needs that particular type of bed for a long time. I suppose it would be lawfully acceptable to place such in front of your house, just not socially acceptable (i.e., it would be weird). Oh! You could start your own private school devoted to the teaching of the religion of atheism... except then you'd get public funding for being anti-religious and would no longer be a private school. Strike that last one. --Optimus 16:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimus, Jim isn't an atheist. And neither am I.Lovecoconuts 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither was I suggesting that he is nor you are. Why jump to such an odd conclusion? --Optimus 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Optimus needs to stick to discussing the article's content and not speculating on the personal motives of his fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk needs to grow a sense of humor. It was a joke. Lighten up.

For the record, there was no speculating on the personal motives of my fellow editors intended. --Optimus 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It'll come with time, gentlepeople. Let Optimus learn. BTW, I'd find this no more weird than the folks who insist on posting the 10 Commandments signs in their lawns. Enough rhetoric, let's move on.--ghost 16:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. No offense was intended toward, Jim62sch, but I think he knows I was joking just as much as he was. --Optimus 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ghost, you just took the wind out of my sails -- that was exactly what I was going to say.  :) And, Optimus, you should never make an assumption regarding a person's faith, remember that Judge Jones has been described as a Christian who attends church regularly. Jim62sch 16:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe he didn't know. --Optimus 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, unfortunately, I don't think I have as much patience as you. Optimus, read what you wrote. Many deists would consider that post insulting. Right now, it's 4 who didn't consider it a joke and only you who thought it funny. By the way, there are plenty of Christians who do not like ID, including myself. ID proponents very dishonest, in my personal opinion.Lovecoconuts 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah! Everybody! I'm sorry! I've learned my lesson! I'll never try to join in lightening of the mood again! --Optimus 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. As I have said before, I have little patience with people who make atheist insults. Oh! You could start your own private school devoted to the teaching of the religion of atheism... except then you'd get public funding for being anti-religious and would no longer be a private school. Strike that last one. (rolls eyes)Lovecoconuts 17:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, why is the truth considered insulting? If someone started a private school based on the teachings of atheism, would they not get public funding? If they received public funding, would they not then be a public school and no longer private? --Optimus 17:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, whatever. Consider yourself on my ignore list.Lovecoconuts 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support among scientists – this is bogus

A Newsweek article reported The Discovery Institute's petition being signed by about 350 scientists, while the AAAS (the largest association of scientists in the U.S.) has 120,000 members, indicating that around 0.3 % of U.S. scientists give some support to ID. The international percentage is likely to be much smaller.

I fixed the math in this statement (it read 0.003 % previously). The argument itself remains weak at best: The proportion of US scientists that are actually members of the AAAS is not given, so the number of scientists (by whatever definition) may actually be larger by orders of magnitude. It is quite plausible to assume that many scientists agreed with the 350 but did not sign, an error that works the other way. For all we know (according to the data offered), the 350 may all be biologists and the majority of biologists among 120'000 scientists. – We simply don't have the data here to work out any meaningful proportion. Algae 14:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to find out how many of the 350 are biologists, since the list gives their names and specialization. I would bet dollars to donuts that most of them are not biologists. On the other hand, most of the articles in Science (the organ of the AAAS) are on biology, and a large proportion of its members are biologists. Science is an important journal in the biological sciences, and it is a fair bet that most professional biologists are members of AAAS just so that they would get the journal. Bill Jefferys 15:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The scientists I know tend to read their journals via (electronic or paper) subscriptions of their libraries or institutions, but that's not even the point. WP wants to be an encyclopedia, it should not state facts based on "safe bets". Algae 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to x100. It's very rough and ready, but gives some indication subject to caveats both ways. Feel free to improve figures or remove it, The term "overwhelming: is cited from the Kitzmiller judge. ...dave souza 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This statement is rank speculation: "It is quite plausible to assume that many scientists agreed with the 350 but did not sign, an error that works the other way." It is not plausible, it is merely possible.

Dave, the figure needs to stay barring objective proof to the contrary. Also, thanks for adding overwhelming. Oh, I added clarification/justification as to why the number is likely smaller internationally. Jim62sch 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This 0.3% number is exactly the kind of junk science you argue against. You are lending credibility to ID arguments if you claim that scientific rigor doesn't apply whenever it is inconvenient. I am convinced that "overwhelming majority" is an accurate description, but the 0.3% number is a perfect bogosity and needs to go. It is not up to me to provide "objective proof to the contrary", it is up to you to show that claims you make in WP are correct, and you lack the data to do that in this case. You don't even have the data to qualify the number with a reasonable error margin.

And no, saying that something is "plausible" is not speculation. Plausibility is a fairly weak argument but needs no empirical evidence. If an overwhelming majority of scientists consider ID crackpot science, there's clearly a strong incentive for ID supporters to remain in the closet (or their academic career will go down the drain). That is plausible. Of course it hinges on the interpretation of "many scientists" – the aggregated number will most certainly remain a tiny fraction, but I am willing to bet that 350 is off by factors if not orders of magnitude.

FWIW, I agree with your clarification/justification regarding the international number, although it would carry a lot more weight if you had a source for that claim. Algae 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The numbers were sourced. Do your own homework. Jim62sch 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Algae is right when it comes to who needs to prove what. The burden of proof is on you to prove your contention. I'm not saying your contention is necessarily wrong, just that your argument concerning "who needs to prove what" is wrong and it will make you look biased to some people. See Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. I don't think the addition what Algae added about plausibility is appropriate, as I think it justs further muddies the argument. Whoever wrote "indicating that around 0.3 % of U.S. scientists give some support to ID" needs a lesson in statistics. The sample is not "U.S. scientists" the sample is "collective members of the AAAS and those who signed Discovery Institute's petition". Is that representative of "U.S. Scientists?" No. It is a biased sample. From my understanding it is a clear cut case of selection bias, which is what I think Algae's problem amounts to. Given that, the statement should left out as biased/unreliable.--Ben 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you can give one of us a lesson in statistics. I doubt it, but give it a try.

Note (again) that the figures were sourced. You do the math. Were it not for your history, I might give your argument some credence, but I cannot. Jim62sch 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, declining (or being unable to) sign a petition does not count as an endorsement of the opposing view. So, it's out just on that count. For a poll to be valid you have to ask a Yes/No question and include all responses from the sample. You have no way to know what the sample size is, and so you have no way to know what the margin of error is (and it is likely huge in this case). You've basically selected your samples rather than polled a given sample. This is called selection bias. If that still doesn't convince you, I don't have time but I'll come back later tonight or tomorrow and explain some more. --Ben 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What Ben said. Just to clarify: I never meant to add any of my arguments to the article. They were just intended to show why the percentage given is bogus. 120'000 is not the number of US scientists and 350 is not the number of US scientists who believe in ID. We can't just hope that the errors will cancel each other out. Algae 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"indicating that around 0.3 % of U.S. scientists give some support to ID. The international percentage is likely to be much smaller." is original research. There is a problem, but it isn't selection bias, it is false assumptions. Reading the article yielded the following facts.

• 350 is the total amount of scientists that supported ID, not total amount os AAAS members that support ID.
• 120,000 is the number of members of AAAS which put out a consensus statement.
• We do NOT know what percentage of members is necessary to put out a statement.
• Thus any ratio is assuming that 100% of members is required to put out a statement.

--DocJohnny 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's what selection bias is. "pre- or post-selecting the samples that may preferentially include or exclude certain kinds of results" Any way, there is some sort of sampling bias, I don't think you'll get any of these guys to agree that there are "false assumptions" no matter how obvious it is, but if you get the statistics done right, you can just show them with math. And I think that, while you have a point about the number of members of AAAS required to put out a statement, that's actually irrelevant because the sampling is biased in the first place, so I wouldn't even focus on that. --Ben 02:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted until we finish this discussion. Your third and fourth statements are like arguing that George Bush was not reelected because not all eligible Americans voted. Jim62sch 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is original research. Find a published source that says 0.3%. There isn't any. You calculated a number based on assumptions that you cannot prove. And your analogy to an election is false. It is like saying all americans support George Bush because he was elected president. And why are you so enamored with that false figure? Of course an overwhelming amount of scientists support evolution against ID. ID is garbage. You don't have to make up bovine excrement to combat garbage. That 0.3% is an embarrassment and is not only original research, but faulty research based on seriously flawed assumptions that have been pointed out several times. And it is also unnecessary as it is only supporting the word overwhelming. The numbers 350 and 120,000 are impressive enough without deriving a false conclusion. --DocJohnny 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a rough ballpark figure and "suggests" might be better than "indicates", but in the context of ID proponents talking of a growing number of scientists giving them support it gives some perspective. ....dave souza 03:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. Jim62sch 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jim you still haven't replied to what I said above (02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)). I need to know if you understand what I'm saying or not, and whether you find it convincing, that way I know whether to bother finding some help to show you that the statistics are biased and shouldn't be included (I've already asked for some help on Talk:Statistics, but that page isn't as active as this one, so any reply might be a while.). If you understand and are convinced, great. We'll take it out. If you do not understand and/or are not convinced, let me know. This is especially important because there's already people citing the 0.3% number (for example Parallel or Together? cites the 0.3% right on this talk page to support his point), and as the statistic is in error, the paragraph is spreading disinformation.--Ben 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that the percentage of scientists who support ID is far less than .3% (globally at least). I just used it as a ballpark estimate, though I think that my point would have been equally well supported at .1, .2, .4, .5% etc. I actually do see Ben and DC's point about the statistics not being exact, and it is a good one. However, I also see Dave and Jim's point about the number being a good ballpark figure (which was how I used them in my comment below). Obviously the number wouldn't pass muster in a scientific experiment, but it does help give a view of about how many scientists support ID. However, is there a way to present the number less authoritatively in the article? Or, is there a more accurate number we could get from an unbiased source? -Parallel or Together? 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I understood your point and, as I said, I don't need help with stats, thanks. In any case, I also think PoT? has a good point. Instead on having an endless circular debate, let's try to find a source we can use. Jim62sch 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't understand my point. You "don't need help with stats???" OH YES YOU DO. You told me to "do the math" after I explained it to you, indicating you still thought the methods were good and therefore did not understand my point at all. <personal attack removed> I am however glad that you finally acknowledge the derivation of the number is in error. --Ben 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, you might want to work your on drawing of inferences not implied in the statements made by others. Anyway, what I said was that the numbers were representative and sourced. Did I say they were perfect? No, I did not. In any case, I understand stats very well, and those used by Dave were fine inasmuch as he was essentially using them to support the use of "overwhelming". (BTW: I noticed that FM removed yet another of your personal attacks) Jim62sch 14:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty easy. You said you "understood." When did you understand? Before my first post explaining it to you? After? When you made something like 11 posts and didn't respond to mine where I asked you if you understood, holding up the discussion? You said "I don't need help with stats" even though you explicitly asked for "a lesson in statistics." Regarding the personal attacks, that was when I called you a "the l-word." I stand by it. When it comes to talking about what Dave said, we weren't talking about "support [for] the use of "overwhelming", we were talking specifically about the 0.3%, which is what you introduced when you said "Dave, the figure needs to stay barring objective proof to the contrary." and which I and others disagreed with and went about providing objective proof to the contrary. Obviously you didn't understand then. When did you understand? Don't play the slippery eel with me.--Ben 18:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, go to sleep, get some rest, have a Merry Christmas, learn how to read, figure out sarcasm, have a Happy Chrismahanukkwanzaakuh, stop being such a smug, arrogant person who just lives to argue over trivialities -- or maybe just likes to argue for the sake of it. Oh the last line is really cute, pointless for a variety of reasons, but cute. Merry Christmas. Jim62sch 00:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop with your passive-aggressive behavior towards me. It is inappropriate and insulting. Based on your insults, calling me smug, arrogant, illiterate, stupid, stubborn, and your other sarcastic perjoratives, I also interpret you wishes of a Merry Christmas as totally insincere. You are spitting in my face. I called you a liar based on the fact that you said you "understood" while clearly demonstrating you did not, and that you "don't need help with stats," while clearly demonstrating you did. If you do not want to defend yourself against the accusation, I would prefer that you simply say so rather than continue to attack my character. I am calling you a liar, as I believe you lied in that particular instance and, furthermore, I believe your motive was to insult my contributions to the discussion and attack my character. I have provided you with pertinent and very specific questions regarding that instance which you may choose to answer. I am accusing you of lying. Do you wish to say anything in your defense with respect to this accusation?--Ben 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, with all due respect, how can you tell someone to read WP:NPA and in the same paragraph call them a liar? Not exactly consistent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your views and my views on what is and what is not a personal attack differ. I do not believe accusing Jim62sch of lying/calling Jim62sch a liar qualifies under the policy as a "personal attack." I do not want to explain my views at the moment, but consider reading Wikipedia_talk:No personal attacks. There are a variety of views there that you may not have considered.--Ben 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben: You're going to lecture KC on Wikipedia's guidelines? Are you kidding me? Onviously, calling you smug and arrogant could not be seen as a personal attack as you have just proven the point. KC knows more about Wiki-policy than most people are likely to ever know.

And: Ben, yes I do have something to say: I needn't explain myself to you. Period. That having been clarified, I regard your accusations as humourous diversions: they are based on innuendo and inference, presented in a ridiculously stentorian manner, and, are, quite frankly, of little relevance or interest to me. Jim62sch 00:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's consider another statistic. After four years of well-funded effort, the Discovery Institute has managed to find 350 scientists (many of which are not really scientists, but, for example, engineers, and half of which have no connection to biological sciences, but let that pass) to sign their petition.

After four days of only internet effort, an unfunded effort got over 7700 scientists, mostly in the biological sciences, to sign an [23]anti-ID petition.

This is a rate 690,000% higher than the DI's effort.

Does this qualify as "overwhelming?" We have on the one hand, a well-financed effort, over four years, to accumulate signatures, versus an unfunded effort over four days. You be the judge. Bill Jefferys 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The "overwhelming" discussion is a couple sections above (the section called "Vast" Discussion[24]). This is specifically about a the 0.3%, not about the word "overwhelming."--Ben 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as I explained above, the 0.3% figure was used in conjunction with the use of overwhelming, so Bill's point is quite valid and apropos to this particular discussion. Jim62sch 14:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Project Steve. Here is John Derbyshire's take on its relevance. Dave (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Before some people get terribly excited about a % being shown in the article, I suggest that they look at what footnote 3 actually says at this time. ...dave souza 01:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, now it's just suggesting a percentage, but that's at least better than pretending that percentage is proper and correct. Also it should probably say "whereas in contrast," which says there is a contrast (there obviously is) but does not go so far as to turn it into a percentage. This is instead more of an "ah I appreciate this particular contrast" instead of "99.7% of scientists believe ID is "neocreationist pseudoscience." (the word "neocreationist" is another problem, but it's a different problem) I also don't think this will cut it for people who will dispute the "overwhelming majority" line, which is what it is being used as a source for. Get a poll and just use that, surely someone has done a poll already. The judge is ok, but you need a valid poll and everything will be fine. --Ben 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is about as close to a valid poll as you are likely to get. One poll has every advantage (millions of dollars to the DI), the other was unfunded. One took four years, the other took four days. Bill Jefferys 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, how can you dis Bill in one sentence by dismissively telling him that the vast discussion is above, and then point out a few lines later that the 0.3% figure is related to that exact discussion?

I didn't realize that the 0.3% and the sources it was derived from were specifically being used as a footnote to support the word "overwhelming." I thought the 0.3% was just a paragraph in the article and that the "vast" discussion was a separate thing (i.e. based on different sources). Thanks for pointing that out above too. It is relevant, but it still might be good to move discussion there (or continue it from there) since the 0.3% problem, which is what this section is about, seems to be solved. --Ben 18:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill, your statement is correct. Jim62sch 14:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that no one has pointed out that "120,000 members" does not refer to scientists only. Also it does not specify how many of them were scientists. As per [the AAAS website], there are a number of different types of members of the AAAS, only two (professional and postdoc) of which can be considered scientists and one (Emeritus) that can include scientists as well as others. I personally consider only the postdoctorals to be scientists, but that is a distinction that is little more that semantic. It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that those "120,000 members" were all students. --Optimus 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I think Optimus better examine the lists of scientists ID has come up with before analyzing scientific organizations with 120k members. The parody list the Steve project came up with has a lot more credibility than ID has at this time.Lovecoconuts 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to hone one's harpooning skills by practicing on the smaller fish before going after Moby Dick. Jim62sch 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why such opposition? I was simply posting a link which brings a formerly reliable source into questionable status. Do I need to go into my spill about the agenda of the Wikipedia again? --Optimus 17:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why such ignorance? Perhaps you don't know that ID proponents has been misrepresenting scientists? How'd you like to hear the story about the scientists who don't even know that their names had been included in ID lists?Lovecoconuts 17:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If I have given you the impression that I support ID, I apologize. I am just trying to help this article become iron clad in its information. I suppose that has been misunderstood. I will gladly leave if that will benefit everyone and cause discussion to continue in a more open, undivisive fashion. --Optimus 17:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad edit summary

Sorry, Intelligent designer is linked in the first infobox, not the first sentence. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reminder about WP:NPOV

From WP:NPOV

Fairness and sympathetic tone

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

Hope this is a useful reminder. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is this article listed a "pseudoscience" at all? Isn't that a blatent defilment of NPOV?--Petral 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Am I mistaken? Shouldn't a good article avoid trying to draw conclusions for the reader/ Why not simply present both sides equally, and let them decide? something that clearly can't be done while this article is tagged with "pseudoscience"--Petral 01:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not a blatant violation of NPOV. ID is pseudo-science, thus, it needs to be reported/recorded/desribed as such. Jim62sch 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I posted on your usertalk page after continuing deletions despite this discussion, so here's my logic for everyone to see:

Your complaint of POV on Intelligent Design

Right to begin with, you aren't removing any of the mentions of creationism from ID, so surely you accept that ID as a connection to it, yes? Second, the core point of intelligent design is that a scientifically unverified and potentially unprovable "designer" designed the universe. That's great and fine if you believe it, but wiki's own definition of pseudoscience reads:

"The standards for determining of any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice as nonscience vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor."

1. There is no empirical evidence of a designer, divine or otherwise.

2. It is physically impossible to disprove the existence of something that supposedly may not even exist in our universe anymore.

3. There is no scientific method in reaching the idea of a divine creator.

4, and possibly most importantly. Occam's Razor is the example given in the article, and applies here. ID works off the logic that the human body is so complex that evolution couldn't possibly have made it, so the simplest answer is that someone just designed it. That is the definition of heuristic logic, Occam's Razor in particular.

Staxringold 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I stated on Petral's talk page: :If I put a lighthouse in the lighthouse category I'm not preventing the reader from making up his/her own mind, I'm putting it in the correct category. This is the same type case. If its pseudoscience, it goes in the pseudoscience category. Its a definition thing, not a conclusion or POV thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone arguing about the relationship of ID to pseudoscience, please read Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science. ....dave souza 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• A state judge, whose ruling has no bearing on anything outside of Dover, PA--Petral 02:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. That's a federal judge, not a state judge. - Nunh-huh 03:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can complain all you want, but unless you have a new definition of pseudoscience, ID is pseudoscience. It is scientific facts (hence the science suffix) with a completely scientifically unproven or provable designer tossed in the middle (hence the pseudo prefix). It's the same reason Flying Spaghetti Monster is pseudoscience. Staxringold 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That page isn't the ruling, it's a summary of a lot of careful evidence gathering and analysis which is useful to anyone giving the question an open minded assessment. You can be sure that any future court case in the U.S. will refer to it: "after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us." ...dave souza 03:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about 'wikipedia isn't a crystal ball' you have no idea what any future case will say, you can't make a conclusion like that--Petral 03:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Off subject. Dave Souza was clearly attempting to show relevence, snotty comments are uncalled for. That was not the point, and you taking a small quibble and making a counter-attack out of it is misdirection. ID is pseudoscience. Be done now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that I've 'lost', and thus only your opinion may be included in the article--Petral 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Your opinion may not be included because it is POV in that it denies all others (something can't be a pseudoscience if it isn't a pseudoscience). We, on the otherhand, do not hold an opinion but the definition of the word pseudoscience and the definition of intelligent design, and understand how the English language works to form sentences that hold meaning like "Intelligent design fits the parameters of a pseudoscience and is therefore in the pseudoscience category. Merely being categorized, however, does not hold any innate bias either way." Staxringold 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If there isn't any bias in merely categorizing something, then it shouldn't matter what it's categorized as, should it?--Petral 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate using categories to bypass NPOV. Read what is the definition of "pseudosience" in Category:Pseudoscience:

This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.

That is great, the problem is that in the article itself you see the categorization, but not the attribution of that categorization. That, from my perspective, breaks NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be true, if Wikipedia didn't exist to transmit information. Unfortunately for you, because it does, Wikipedia is set up to allow the most sensible connectivity, not the least. "Why is George W. Bush listed under the Presidents of the United States category? Huh? Isn't that biased? Isn't that just the opinion of the Electoral college and hundreds of millions of Americans? Isn't that POV?" No. Stop it. Just as Bush was elected (sort of) and sworn in as president, and therefore fits the definitions, Intelligent Design fits the definition of pseudoscience. "Petral doesn't like it" isn't sufficient factual evidence to make it a POV statement. Staxringold 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally believe that ID fits within the definition of pseudoscience, but the issue at hand is that in a controversial article like this one is, a categorization without attribution breaks NPOV as it does not assert who categorizes it as such. Nobody disputes that G W Bush is the President of the US (even if there are disputes about how he got there). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A pseudoscience is a practice believed by some to be science but that violates the scientific method for some or all of it's facts and/or proofs. Intelligent Design is scientific fact with a wholly unproven or provable designer that is not pointed to by any scientific method. There. Staxringold 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubbing ID a pseudoscience is making a value judgement that ID is not science. ID proponents claim that it is indeed science, therefore the appelation seems to be POV. --JPotter 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to give equal weight to that opinion, merely note their perspective. By your logic, Jason, we cannot label anything as pseudoscience, as the practitioners of a pseudoscience never label themselves as such. What you are asking for is the removal of any reference to pseudoscience from Wikipedia. --Davril2020 11:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

jossi wants attribution that ID is claimed to be science and this is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community.. Petrai seems to think that the Kizmiller v Dover judgement will be ignored in future cases: English and U.S. law is based largely on precedent, and if you were to read the document you'd find plenty of earlier cases being cited, as this will be in future. Since neither seems willing to follow the link, here's just the intro. It's interesting that this gives plenty of attribution to an assessment very similar to our page here.

Page 64 of 139

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:

(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and

(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.” (P-649 at 27).

This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.

Sorry even this brief extract is so long, but this is sworn evidence of something that too many people seem to be in denial about. ....dave souza 11:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have to follow what that judge has ruled. It would be seriously remissed of them not to include certain main points in that ruling. It is/was very big news.

Dave souza, yeah - I too get the impression that certain people here are having personal difficulties about that ruling, but I also understand that people do get personally attached to their pet theories. It's human nature to defend one's favorites, even if it seems like a lost cause.

However, I am getting irritated by all the POV accusations. I think it's hypocritical to accuse this or that as POV when it's obvious that the accusers are being POV-ish themselves.Lovecoconuts 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The judge's opinion does illustrate that ID is pseudoscience. However, lets not forget that it wasn't the judge just ruling "this is creationist bullshit" that makes ID pseudoscience. If another judge came along and declared ID to be a legitimate scientific endeavor in the future, that wouldn't make it so either. It is the scientific community's acceptance or refusal of ID, based on actual scientific research (impossible for ID), that determines its pseudoscientific nature. If ID actually was testable, backed up by the facts, fit in with other theories, and met all the requirements of scientific inquiry, I would guess that it would be accepted by 99.7% of scientists. None of this is true, and ID is instead supported by just 0.3% of scientists. That is why it is pseudoscience... not because one judge reached the conclusion, but because thousands and thousands of scientists reached it. -Parallel or Together? 15:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The challenge of NPOV is then asking ourselves, "What is the majority opinion? What is the minority opinion?" We have a responsability to present and identify them both. The single most important step in NPOV to make our best attempt to remove our own opinions. So, when we start typing, "IMHO...", that should be a warning to ourselves to stop and back up far enough to reexamine what we're really doing.

As to the main point, categorizing anything is by definition opinionated. However, we can never eliminate all POV from any Wiki article. The best we can do is offer reasonably fair treatment of issues. So if the majority opinion of a subject is that it falls into Category X, it cannot go in Category Y, and it's equally inappropriate to say that it cannot be fall into either. While I respect the efforts of editors to remove what they perceive to be bias, we cannot allow ourselves to overcompensate, for then the article remains baised.--ghost 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Point of clarification: while the judge's ruling and legal opinion are significant, what's much more important here is that both sides presented their best evidence and expert witnesses testifying under oath, one particular issue addressed being whether ID is science, and the judge carefully set out an objective logical analysis which we can examine and draw on. ....dave souza 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't we have this whole argument elsewhere an elsewhen? Jim62sch 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and (hopefully) defused the situation:

ID is pseudoscience, BUT Category:Creationism is already in Category:pseudoscience. My understanding of categorization rules is that we should just have the creationism category listed here, because we're not supposed to clutter things up with subcategories and supercategories. For example, we wouldn't want house mouse to be listed under Category:Old World rats and mice AND under category:rodents AND under category:mammals AND under category:animals. If the debate is to continue, it should be about whether ID is creationism and whether creationism is pseudoscience. The above debate is really just a side issue. Dave (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ID by necessity is both creationism and pseudoscience. Since it's a particular form of creationism, neo-creationism, which has its own category, I've removed the creationism category and re-added the pseudoscience category. FeloniousMonk 02:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly. ID is a kind of Neo-creationism, which is a king of creationism, which is a kind of pseudoscience. According to the following guideline, we should not put pseudoscience here:

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. Articles with the same name as the category should be in both the category with the same name and the higher level category. The category with the same name will also be in the higher level category.

Ideally, that means we'd have this article in the ID category and in the neo-creo category. The creationism template adds it to creationism as well. But there's no reason to clutter up the bottom of the page with the pseudoscience category. ID is categorized as pseudoscience whether or not we add that here. Dave (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors browsing by category (and some do) would not know that unless it were listed in the category. I find the "if creation, then neo-creation, then it's assumed to be pseudoscience as well reasoning rather strained. If ID is pseudoscience and a form of creationism (which it is), then there's no reason it shouldn't be listed in both categories, since saying one implies the other is a non sequitur. FeloniousMonk 06:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, there's no practical reason ID cannot be in the creationism & pseudoscience categories. ID has a rightful place being listed in both categories since both pseudoscience & creationism are the main objections to ID being legitimate science. FeloniousMonk 08:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason it shouldn't be listed in both categories: the guideline that Dave quoted. Saying that "both pseudoscience & creationism are the main objections to ID" is a tautology. If anyone develops a bot to implement the guideline, then it is going to remove the pseudoscience category. I think you are wrong in this instance. User:Noisy | Talk 11:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is ID pseudoscience? Yes. Is ID creationism? Yes. End of. — Dunc|☺ 11:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a tautology: Creationism isn't necessarily pseudoscience, and is valid as a philosophical position: also check out evolutionary creationism. On the other hand, ID is clearly pseudoscience. If you want authorities for that, examine the Kitzmiller case and the announcement by the Pope's representative. ....dave souza 11:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, if you think that this case is special, and the guideline shouldn't apply, you should explain why it's different from the rodent example or the microsoft word example I provided and why your argument doesn't prove too much. If you think it's a bad guideline, this isn't the place to discuss it. If someone were to browse by category, they would still find ID among other similar ideologies in neo-creo. (They'd also find it under creationism, since I can't figure out how to turn that off in the template). In fact, someone browsing by categories is the most likely person to realize that ID is creationist pseudoscience, since they would have had to go through each of those parent categories to find it. Dave (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe FM's point to be that the relationship between ID, creationism, neo-creationism and pseudo-science would not be inherent to a reader who knew nothing of ID or creationism, etc. Yes, an objective observer raised with a Western world-view would easily see the relationship, but someone raised in a very different environment may not. As Wikipedia has readers from round the world, FM's point is a valid one for reasons of clarity. Jim62sch 16:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we have ID in four consecutive categories (pseudoscience, creationism, neo-creationism, and ID itself) I was also wondering why ID should not be added to pseudoscience's parent category, "beliefs," since people believe it, to its parent category, "thought" (although I hate to admit it, what Behe does can be called "thinking"), and to "science," since, for some reason, science is a parent of pseudoscience. Dave (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I think you're starting from a false premise; that because creationism is included as a sub-category of pseudoscience, all creationism articles are automatically pseudoscience and need not show that parent category. This is not true: for example, Argument from poor design and Theistic evolution are rightly in the creationism and evolution categories and not the pseudoscience, while Theistic realism is in both creationism and pseudoscience. Creationism itself isn't in pseudoscience, logically enough as not all its sub-articles are pseudoscience. As you can see, other articles are in the two categories, and it's logical for this to be too. ...dave souza 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, this article is violating wikipedia guidelines for categorization. It should only be in the Intelligent Design and Creationism categories. See Wikipedia:Categorization

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. Articles with the same name as the category should be in both the category with the same name and the higher level category. The category with the same name will also be in the higher level category. Both the article and the category will be listed in the higher level category. For an example Kansas City Chiefs contains Category:Kansas City Chiefs in addition to that category's parents, Category:National Football League teams, Category:Kansas City sports, Category:Dallas sports and Category:American Football League.

--DocJohnny 18:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorted. As Fastfission proposed on the talk page of the creationism category on 13 Jun 2005 and discussion today, I've removed the creationism category from the pseudoscience category. Harry491 who appears here as Dave can stop having an edit war with Duncharris about the ID category being in the pseudoscience category (without raising it on the talk page), and if the ID category stays under pseudoscience there seems to be no reason for it to be separately categorised as such here. ....dave souza 20:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Given my previous dealings with Dunc and his unwillingness to discuss either here or in edit summaries, I had already given up. I'm glad someone found an alternative solution--Good luck dealing with Dunc if he disagrees. Dave (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ID as philosophy

Responding (somewhat belatedly) to RfC: as a philosophical and religious concept, intelligent design is an interesting proposition. In an abstract sense it isn't necessarily opposed to evolution. A deist might argue that an omniscient being set up the laws of physics billions of years ago in just such a way as to generate the miracles of life we know as the Asian bird flu, Britney Spears, and chihuahuas. The problem seems to come from a popular confusion of "true" with "scientific." This article does a good job of explaining how ID fails to meet the definition of science. Problem is, it introduces the subject in a way that would drive away most ID adherents during the first paragraph. That's a shame because the rest of the article is so well sourced and well reasoned. Perhaps adjust the order of presentation among the topics in a way that makes sense to a nonspecialist who may have heard a bit of both sides and wants to approach the subject with an open mind. Durova 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I concurr with your assessment. Why don't you give it try and fix the introduction? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I also thought that ID was a proposition along the lines of that God created the laws of nature. This was before I realized that ID people were against evolution. That first paragraph is from Pro-ID sources. ID people seem to have big issues with natural selection.

After learning more in detail about this particular brand of Intelligent Design, I've more or less come to the conclusion that I do not agree with this current version of intelligent design. Fortunately, scientific theories can be modified to better fit evidence such as fossil records.

Right now, I'm still waiting for ID people to make their version of intelligent design better. If ID would just stop targeting evolution in particular, it would be a lot easier for me to consider it as a sound scientific proposition and as a philosophical belief.Lovecoconuts 04:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way - Jossi and Durova - this ID is against Evolution, unfortunately. ID isn't the same as theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism. I find TE or EC quite compatible with my beliefs. Technically speaking, I'm probably TE or EC. I also mistook ID for TE or EC the first time I've heard about it.

The way ID is right now, I really don't think it's TE or EC especially since ID people seems to have plans to rename ID as the "sudden emergence theory." Not only that, ID people refer to ID and Creation Science as though they were the same. ID and CS is definitely not TE or EC. Some IDers and Creationists even criticize Theistic Evolutionists because TE-ers accept Evolution.Lovecoconuts 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Theistic Evolutionists don't go telling school boards to include TE or EC in science classes. (Thank God.) I happen to like TE-ers, and I'd appreciate it if people don't confuse them with ID-ers. Unfortunately for ID-ers, they've got spokepeople who have turned me off ID.Lovecoconuts 04:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A hopefully not so difficult request

My own personal experience as well as from observing other people's comments have led me to believe that Intelligent Design is often confused with Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism.

I would like to request that a clear distinction between ID and TE/EC be added to the article. I will understand if my request is judged unnecessary.

I know that I can edit the article myself, but I would prefer a discussion about this before I make an editing attempt on this very controversial topic which frankly irritates me nowadays. There appears to be a inverse relationship between how much I know about ID and my patience with it.Lovecoconuts 07:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In watching the edits made by some newcomers to the topic, I concur with L&C. The distinction between ID and science is one distinction which (correctly) has recieved much attention. We are also seeing confusion between ID and TE, which IMHO should also be addressed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be reasonably easy to get a line or two in the article explaining the differences between ID and TE. LC, did you have a specific edit in mind? Jim62sch 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

KC and Jim, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed the confusion. Jim, please have a look at the "ID as a philosophy" discussion about two discussions up.

In it, Durova said, "...as a philosophical and religious concept, intelligent design is an interesting proposition. In an abstract sense it isn't necessarily opposed to evolution. A deist might argue that an omniscient being set up the laws of physics billions of years ago..."

Durova understandably thought ID was similar to TE. If you recall, I also made the same incorrect assumption sometime ago. I've also come across news articles wherein people thought ID was something like TE - they actually thought anti-ID people are against the idea of God when actually anti-ID people are just against ID as a scientific theory.

I hope that a line or two will be enough to prevent this perhaps common misconception of ID. I'm thinking that Theistic Evolution should be mentioned somewhere in the article.

Perhaps something like this - Intelligent Design is sometimes mistakenly identified as Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism. The latter is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. ID, on the other hand, is opposed to Evolution, in particular - Darwin's Theory of Evolution by natural selection. - Please feel free to improve or even destroy.Lovecoconuts 13:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. When I came to this article a year ago, that was my misconception.--Tznkai 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, how's this (might be too wordy(?))

Intelligent Design is sometimes mistakenly confused with, or identified as, Theistic Evolution (TE), or as it is sometimes known, Evolutionary Creationism (EC). TE is the belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. ID, on the other hand, is opposed to Evolution as an explanation for objects displaying CSI. In particular ID is directly opposed to Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

"ID, on the other hand, is opposed to Evolution as an explanation for objects displaying CSI..." Is it really? My understanding of the non-Deist ID is that it embraces Evolution for refinements, just not CSI. Like a Moder who embraces a car and customizes it until it unrecognizable (maybe not even a car), but it's still got the same VIN.--ghost 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And thus you may have hit upon one of the great problems of ID -- it refuses to be pinned down. It is like a slithery snake, tempting young, impressionable minds with an ever-changing tale of mystery and illogic. Jim62sch 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside: by non-Deist ID (should probably be non-theistic, as Deist is a reference to a specific belief paradigm) what did you mean? Jim62sch 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: non-Deist ID: Jim, I meant exactly that. The vocal proponents of ID in the US (re: Discovery Institute, et al.) do adhere to a specific belief paradigm. There are other less vocal proponents of ID that do not tow the DI line. There are also TE proponents who, while they disagree with the DI's tactics, do believe that TE or ID (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) should be discussed as a philosophical subject in schools. (I'm specifically thinking of Deepak Chopra.) The majority of these folks who exist outside the Discovery Institute "tent" have little or no problem with evolution. I don't want us making arbitrary statements about those outside the DI "tent".--ghost 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)) should be discussed as a philosophical subject in schools. (I'm specifically thinking of Deepak Chopra.) The majority of these folks who exist outside the Discovery Institute "tent" have little or no problem with evolution. I don't want us making arbitrary statements about those outside the DI "tent".--ghost 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that these proponents are adherents of Deism? To the best of my knowledge, that's not the case. Also, TE and ID are different animals (you probably know that but by saying "TE or ID' it appears, to me anyway, as if you are equating the two). As I stated quite a while back (before you joined our happy discussion) I have no problem with ID being taught in a philosophy class -- so long as it gives up its pretense to science. In fact, I think a philosophy class that included the various schools of philosophical thought, including all mythologies/religions, would be beneficial, especially for those planning to attend college.

I'm not exactly happy spending time on this. So, beg your pardon if my editing tends to be anti-ID. Just correct me if it doesn't sound neutral. Another attempt below. Going to do this slow and steady.

Intelligent design is generally considered as an attempt to reconcile religion and science, and as such is sometimes mis-identified or thought similar as Theistic evolution (also known as Evolutionary creationism). However, there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts. Most proponents of ID seek to refute Evolution, in particular Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection whereas TE or CE is compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of Evolution.

Now, going to figure out how to add footnotes.Lovecoconuts 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend, "...Most proponents of ID seek to refute Evolution, in particular Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection whereas TE or CE is compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of Evolution. It's more inclusive.--ghost 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Changed above. Also, I've requested for input from TE/EC editors. I think we should give them a heads up before TE/EC is mentioned in the ID article. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't like the idea of TE/EC being directly mentioned in ID article.t.Lovecoconuts 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ID is not...

Can we insert a sentance into the introduction somewhere along the lines of "Intelligent design should not be confused with young earth creationism or theistic evolution" or other concepts an average reader may mistake it as? (less likley now and in the future, but still significant I think) Possibly just in the disambig line--Tznkai 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it correct to say that Intelligent Design encompasses TE and young earth creationism? That is, young earth and TE would be considered more specific versions of the idea? It seems that, at least in rhetoric, many outspoken young earth and TE advocates have been changing terminology, which would indicate that they think of their beliefs as a subset of Intelligent Design theories. Perhaps a clarifying note could be added, but I'm not sure if the line between the concepts is as distinct as it once was. Phidauex 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a straight line between early creationism (biblical literalism) --> YEC --> Creation science --> ID. The court case is a good example of this. However TE is a completly seperate ballgame. It has 0 conflict with science, and science has no conflict with it. Its a philsohpical opinion, not an attenpt at science. A knowledgeable TE believer will agree that ID is true, but claim it is invalid because it is not science. The same with YEC, the two movements have significant conflict--Tznkai 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would add that ID can also encompass progressive creationism, and several other origins possibilities. Dembski recently proposed, as part of a "Vise Strategy" (apparently intended to replace the Wedge Strategy), that TE is really a variation of ID.--Gandalf2000 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He'd be wrong then, as TE commits to no theory. ID is a specific collection of so called theories, TE is a position that says science is science, no matter what science it is--Tznkai 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sticking point is that TE does have a "theistic" component to it; otherwise, it's a meaningless term. That theistic component is usually taken to mean that evolution is either kick-started or guided by theos. That is what ID says is necessary for evolution to have occurred, though phrased in terms of a designer rather than theism. (Though ID is compatible with theism, it is not presented as a scientific proof for theism.)--Gandalf2000 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Theres a major diffrence that TE takes one thing on faith, a prim emover, and ID attmpets to create a scientific proof for the same.--Tznkai 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Can we insert a sentance into the introduction..?" Yes. But I don't think it's necessary. The template does a fine job of exactly that. "Isn't it correct to say that Intelligent Design encompasses..?" You'd think, but no. The logic is exactly inverse. Many TE & YEC proponents come to they're faith thru a philosphical process that paralells ID, but ID crosses the line into faith-based science. At which point Occum's Razor comes and lops off the Emperor's head.--ghost 21:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There definitely is a difference between the two. Unlike ID, TE makes no pretense to science, it is, as Tznkai said, a philosophy (theistic, yes, but a philosophy nonetheless). There is nothing wrong with disarming the conflation of the two issues. That Dembski may draw that parallel is a matter of politics -- he wishes, like many infamous historical figures, to gain as many adherents as possible, no matter how much deception is required. Jim62sch 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO --ghost 21:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There are TE-ers who object to ID. That is why I requested that ID and TE be differentiated. For sources, just google for "intelligent design" "theistic evolution." From the top ten results, I copied the obviously anti-ID TE links.

Intelligent Design - The Cure for Naturalism - Intelligent Design is not compatible with Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution is the idea that God created life by providing for undirected natural ...

gathman.org/class/design/cure.html

Some Objections to Intelligent Design - Intelligent design asserts that body design is direct, while theistic evolution asserts that body design is indirect, although somehow guided by God under ...

www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html

[PDF] Intelligent Design What Is It Really All About? and Why Should You ... *See The Wedge Document: The Strategy of the Intelligent Design movement at ... “Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. ...

As for YECs, I do not know if there are YECs who object to ID. If there is, then I think ID should be differentiated from YEC as well.Lovecoconuts 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/EncephalonSeven

Why the reversion? --JPotter 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional issues to consider

• Perhaps, this article needs a section that summarizes the current state of the evolution theory. This section could point to some gaps that the scientists are currently working on. This section could say that in principle the questions about ID are thought-provoking, but science already answered many of them and is working on the others.

• Do the ID proponents talk about the time frame? They seem to be amazed by biological complexity, but appear not to theorize about the moment in time when everything was created. The question about time of creation is important because one could argue that the things were never designed; rather they always existed in good conditions. The time frame is also important for the evolution theory.

• Is there currently a group that thinks that the question cannot be resolved one way or another because of lack of evidence? (They would be called "positivists").

--EncephalonSeven 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia should have a page about what is and is not known in terms of evolution and that this article should link there. I don't know if one exists, and I don't know how much of that really belongs in this article per se.

• ID proponents don't really talk about their theory if they can avoid it. To the extent that they do talk about timeframe, there isn't much agreement. See big tent.

• Creationists tend to argue that no one can know prehistory one way or the other, so they're no less scientific than evolutionists.

Hope this helps. Dave (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is the article for information about evolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should say more about the tendency of ID "scientists" to find something unexplained by evolution theory and loudly announce that this proves ID, ignoring pre-existing research and shutting their eyes to answers when they're announced. The classic case is at Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 78 of 139 .... "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” .. Also, see page 77 about "irreducible complexity" in blood clotting. ...dave souza 11:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As Dawkins noted in an article in the Times, "if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right!" ID is based on a fallacious syllogism, and creates a dichotomy that does not inherently exist. However, this is akin to the pseudoscientific writings of the UFOlogists and others of that ilk who desperately seek to "prove" their theory, not by proving it in the traditional sense, but by saying, "if not A, then it must be B". Given that B is not even a theory in the proper sense, the syllogism is faulty -- and could be best illustrated by this: a truck (lorry) rumbles by your house at 3AM and is heard and felt by nobody, in the morning, the family finds grandma's urn on the floor, ashes all over: conclusion -- a paranormal event!, grandma's spirit is disturbed and she knocked over the urn. Jim62sch 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think it's 'if theory A fails in some particular, theory B is more likely'. Looking at scientific evidence and using logical reasoning, the statistical impossibility of some forms of nature occuring naturally implies that they did not occur naturally. ant 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm sure there is a misunderstanding. There is no statistical impossibility. There is highly unlikely - and very highly unlikely things have happened, frequently. Disproof (not unlikeliness) of a theory means Back to the drawing board, not gee, lets choose plan B. That's oversimplified but hopefully makes sense.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Falsifiability of irreducible complexity

This paper is a very interesting one about the constitutionality of including ID in the public school curriculum. In particular I found its argument that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not falsifiable to be cogent. It makes many of the points that have been made here and claimed by the ID side to be original research. This paper removes the argument from the original research category and puts it firmly in the realm that can be used in the main article. Bill Jefferys 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent paper, thanks Bill -- I think it merits inclusion on the main page as a resource article. Anyone else feel that way? Jim62sch 13:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it deserves linking. However, I'm not sure where it would best serve the article. Is the Irreducible Complexity section weak? We need to present this link as the work of an ID opponent, so as not to bias the reader. Great find, Bill.--ghost 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Several anon edits were made this morning without discussion. They were reverted. This is a controversial subject. Any anonymous editors are more than welcome to join the discussions here. If we understand the intent, we're more likely to embrace the edits rather than revert them.

BTW, guys. An anon edit campain is usually a sign that we need to review the appearence of bais...--ghost 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't think that will be easy. ID is like a laughingstock right now.Lovecoconuts 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anon edit campains mean anything more than some fringe ID proponents will stoop to whatever means necessary to attempt to render this article one-sided. FeloniousMonk 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with FM. Experience over the last month or so has shown that to be the case in an overwhelming majority of the cases. Jim62sch 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the last anonymous edit by 65.209.120.238 was a perfect case-in-point. Jim62sch 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)