The article says that "[ID] also received support from the Roman Catholic Cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn", but the very source cited has Schoenborg clearly stating that he was referring to a religious idea of creation (which he says is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution), rather than to ID as a supposed scientific theory. Therefore the erroneous statement should be removed from the article, or changed to something like "Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn was at one point reported to support ID; however, he later clarified that he was not referring to ID as a supposed scientific theory, but rather to a religious belief in creation, which he said is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution." 87.13.254.2516:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Scheonborn episode bears the fingerprints of manipulation by a few Discovery Institute principles. I think that this suggestion by 87.13.254.25 has some merit, and with appropriate sources, some clarification/expansion of this episode might be appropriate.--Filll17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have removed the following text, because the references do not actually support the claim being made about Cardinal Schoenborn's beliefs:
We should be very careful not to attribute beliefs to individuals if we don't have good evidence that they actually do hold those beliefs! --FOo17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should document this carefully, possibly in a daughter article if there is enough material, rather than just remove it. --Filll17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual statement, criticism and reaction are well covered in Schönborn's bio page, but there have also been statements that the DI set it up and manipulated it – for example on the BBC's War on Science programme. A brief mention here is appropriate as it's one of these stories dragged out to claim support for ID. ... dave souza, talk18:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should eliminate all direct implications between ID and the religion of the proponents of ID. There is an ID-theory, and the theory should be discussed. But not the religions. --Sensortimecom09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your thought is contrary to the reliable sources cited in the article, which show in considerable detail that ID cannot be separated from its creationist and religious roots. However, your statement that there is an ID-theory sounds interesting – do you have verifiable sources setting out what this theory is? ... dave souza, talk10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may call it theory, or hypothesis or a mere idea. Anyway, there is a written postulate, and we have to discuss the postulate. Not the religions of the proponents. Even an pure atheist could be a proponent of "irreducible complexity" or "specific complexity". Why not? I am a European. We do not prefer to publish the religion of a creative person in connection with his work. It does not comply with "political correctness" and ethics. Besides, such a "usus" could even call psychos, extremists and terrorists;-( Therefore, please eliminate the religion of the ID-proponents from this wikipedia-site !!! --Sensortimecom17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sensortimecom, read the article carefully. ID is mostly a religious movement, it has very little to do with science. Any article on ID without any mention to the religion of the main proponents would be incomplete. - PhDP(talk)18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We must carefully separate the "ID-religious movement" from what is matter of ID-theory or ID-hypothesis. In Europe, we meanwhile have many proponents who are neutral in question of religion. They do not want to be in the same pot, and they will fight against linking. --Sensortimecom20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, if you know of an intelligent design proponent who is not merely "neutral in question of religion" but not associated with the Discovery Institute, several editors will be delighted to know who they are. Tevildo20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In Europe, there are many ID-proponents who are neither associated with DI nor with religion. They do not mention any religious assertion or religious link in their literature. Such a behavior is usual here. We cannot imagine a hodgepodge like Dembski did it.--Sensortimecom13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example. Its a paper from Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-weg 10, 50829 Cologne, Germany
Claim CI001.4: mentions this 2004 paper, which "refer[s] to arguments and facts supporting the view that irreducible complexity (Behe) in combination with specified complexity (Dembski)" suggesting a link with our DI chums. ... dave souza, talk17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I must be missing something because those examples do not appear to be neutral about religion. And in addition, they all are allegedly connected with the DI, actually.--Filll13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... yes, these aren't neutral about religion. I agree. I latched on to the claim that intelligent design was disproportionately represented here as an American movement. Although I think it primarily is an American movement, it can't hurt to include some references about the European counterpart. So, I'm just collecting a few here for possible discussion. Silly rabbit14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this, either for this article or a daughter article. At one time I put a few in the external links section but they were removed. They will still be in the history however.--Filll14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they were deleted in response to this thread. Is it worth revisiting this? There does seem to be some logic in making a daughter article for the movement outside the US. Silly rabbit14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The movement outside the US (except maybe in Australia) was still-born. Articles I've read in various European newspapers have been quite dismissive of ID. An article from Le Monde (it's in these damned archives somewhere) was particularly scathing in its reviews of both ID and the Intelligent design movement. (Note that we have an article on the movement and that is likely where the European stuff belongs.) Even in the few countries where ID is thought of positively, it is seen as an adjunct to OEC or YEC paradigms. •Jim62sch•16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a definitive document (like the Dover trial) that we can point to? The closest I came was the parliamentary letter cited above, but this seems to be more of an advocacy letter than an official action. (Incidentally, it references the Dover trial.) Silly rabbit16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. As the farcical nature of ID was seen pretty clearly by the Europeans, there's very little on any real debate.
We have this regarding the Netherlands, "En Europe, en mai 2005, la ministre néerlandaise de l'éducation, Maria van der Hoeven, a tenu des propos à ce sujet en invoquant elle aussi la théorie du Dessein intelligent qui cherche d'abord à établir « scientifiquement » le fait que la nature semble être « pensée » avant de se hasarder à sous-entendre par qui elle l'a été. Cependant, elle n'a pas été suivie par le reste de son gouvernement." -- Roughly translated as "(In Europe) in May of 2005, the Dutch minister of education, Maria van der Hoeven, issued an opinion on the subject by calling it 'the theory of the intelligent design', holding that ID seeks primarily to establish 'scientifically' that nature appears 'to be thought-out' without defining the designer. However, the rest of the Dutch government rejected her opinion." •Jim62sch•17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may say, the ripples of ID into other nations, as a practical matter, is worthy of mention and the article already does so. But, consider the implications, by way of very rough analogy, of insisting on more detailed treament of Götaland theory in the United States. Yes, there are ripples of Götaland theory into the United States, and into the rest of Europe, but it's not the prime source of the controversy. (That said, I'm not attempting to negate the importance of clarifying the stance of Schônborn and the Catholic Church, nor of any other nation in which it's manifested in a notable way, which it very briefly did in the UK, Netherlands and Australia.) Just a thought. ... Kenosis18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combine these with the International section. It is easy to find articles against ID. The important issue is whether it is expanding internationally. These links to ID in Australia, Italy and Finland are important in contrast to: "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." Recommend taking the "International" section and expanding it to a daughter page, including those materials that were deleted. Then summarize that for the main ID article. DLH03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of ID movements outside the US is not incompatible with the statement "Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." - as most of these are very small, fringe movements, lacking in any significant influence. ID & Neo-creationism is a strategy to get around the US constitution, so has at best marginal relevance outside the US, where any acceptance of Creationism is more likely to be of explicit (rather than Neo-) Creationism. Hrafn4212:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The driving forces behind ID in the US are money, and the judicial decisions. These do not exist in any particular measure in other countries. So although there is a bit of "monkey-see, monkey-do" going on overseas, it is unlikely to catch on. Just look at how few edits the talk pages at the other articles on ID in other languages have. Almost none by comparison! Europeans and other foreigners in general who show up on this page are amazed to hear about it because they have never encountered it in their home countries, or believe it is just a joke, all of the huffing and puffing of the DI and its supporters to the contrary. And Muslim countries such as Turkey, where Haran Yahya has had a substantial influence, use some of the ID arguments, but it has quite a different flavor than the DI ID movement. In particular, on the Haran Yahya website recently, ID was denounced soundly, once the Muslims realized that the ID movement was connected with the US and Christianity and JEWS in particular, which the despise as much if not more than evolution. All this appears to the Muslims as some sort of evil plot by the West to destroy them, apparently! So I do not think that ID has much long term traction in the Muslim nations either, since it really is a nuanced and sophisticated argument that is really uniquely tailored for the US legal playing field.--Filll12:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is intresting report by Council of Europe: The dangers of creationism in education, 8 June 2007. "Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." Scroll down and you can find country reports. I can confirm that in Finland Intelligent design has received very little support. We have one professor[2] who is trying to get publicity for ID but i think he has so far failed (he has translated some ID books (Dembski etc) and has done some lectures about ID). ID is mostly supported and accepted by some fundamentalist pentecostal christians (pentecostals make up some 1% of population). They have done most (or all) of ID websites like intelligentdesign.fi. --Zzzzzzzzzz04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I am doing a light copy edit in response to the FA review. I know this article is the product of lengthy discussion and consensus-building, so I am trying to avoid any substantive changes, but I'm making even minor edits mostly one at a time so it's easy for folks to see what I've done.--Margareta22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all look like needed improvements to my eyes. Foo, see how she does this? It is gradual, it is visible, and reasonable. Slow incremental progress is best.--Filll22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, that's how I started out [3], and got reverted with a bunch of hostility. It was the hostility towards minor changes that led me to my concern that this article was stuck and needed to be un-stuck by a broader review. --FOo23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have a competent copyeditor in Margareta. The changes you made subtly reduced the effectiveness of the article. Pasado05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is how routine corrections should be done - progressive, with good, accurate edit summaries. One minor point, though - according to the Manual of Style (WP:MOS), commas (and other punctuation) should go _outside_ quotation marks unless they form part of the original quote. I've made the appropriate changes. Apart from that, Margareta's work is to be encouraged and praised. :) Tevildo22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was using the rules from Chicago and AP manuals of style, which both use the 100+ year old tradition (going back to the original Elements of Style) of putting periods and commas inside the quotes. I didn't know Wikipedia was different. I think it's silly, but I'll abide by the WP MOS (though I won't like it).--Margareta22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoS's do have that tendency. :) The "logical comma" style is enthusiastically endorsed by Fowler, and it _is_ - well - more logical, but these things are entirely a matter for the personal preference of the MoS authors. Thanks again! Tevildo23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok folks, what does this mean:
Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.
Would it be accurate to say this: "went on to become the program adviser of the Center for Science and Culture, where he worked with Meyer in forming and executing the wedge strategy."?
I think "went on to work with Meyer in [at?] forming and executing the wedge strategy, and became the program advisor of the [CRSC]." is a more accurate summary of the history. Tevildo
The two sentences are problematic, as the intelligent design movement complete with lobbying school boards, petitions, pushing teachers to take it into science classrooms etc. was on the go before Johnson published Darwin on Trial, and it seems that he barely mentioned ID in that book: it's certainly not mentioned in the review cited as a source. There's a common perception that he's the father of ID, but doesn't seem to have promoted it before 1995. Suggestion –
The structure of this part of the article is odd, going from ID's post 1987 historical development at the start of the Overview back to its philosophical predecessors, then previous uses of the phrase before looping back to post 1987 history. It would be better to start with an outline of the post 1987 developments, then have subsections for predecessors of basic ideas and of the term. A new main section on Concepts or Arguments would then have subsections on Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity and Fine-tuned universe. .. dave souza, talk23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made it through the end of section 1, but now I really have to go do some real work. I'm sure I'll find a need to procrastinate later, and come back and finish.--Margareta23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pick up now where I left off. I'm sure you'll want to go over my edits when I'm done, but I'd like to ask one little favor--please wait until I'm done to start editing my edits, just to avoid edit conflicts. I will probably have more than one window open while I work and edit conflicts will just confuse me. I'll post again here as soon as I finish. Thanks!--Margareta21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article quality seems in general to be okay...but I follwed up the quote 'Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[70]'; he does say this, but he does qualify this statement by saying straight after that "No argument that rests on empirical observations can have such force. " I think it might be better to remove that second quote because of that. 134.226.81.303:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably so. Ironically, creationists use the same kind of fallacy against evolution: "You can't prove it." --FOo03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is accurate, not used out of context. Behe's caveat falls under unverifiable personal opinion, whereas the quote given does not. I don't see an issue with it. FeloniousMonk04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that it's true of anything that one might say about the natural world. I think that one might be able to 'confess to "sloppy prose"' in some meaningful way, but it's meaningless and misleading, I think, to say that he *confessed* to not giving a logical proof to an (at least partially) naturalistic hypothesis. You're right that his talk of its force of effect can't be quoted here as it would require some additional interpretation, but the sense of it is quite reasonable, and does, I think, make the quotation a little bit out-of-context. 134.226.81.314:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following quote by Richard Feynman might be useful to illustrate the "Fine-tuned universe" Section
"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was
coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking
lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license
plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in
the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one
tonight? Amazing!”
As we exists (do we?) in this universe, it is not a valid objection that the probability of getting the current cosmological constants is very low.
I think a better analogy would be you travel to a State thousands of miles away from your home and you check into a motel and find a picture of yourself on the wall. TheBestIsYet16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a very good analogy where Feyhman's is not. The finding of a random plate is not a significant event where finding a picture of yourself is; as finding a fine-tuned universe is also significant. The quote should not be added because it is not applicable. TheBestIsYet17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strong anthropic principle is more like traveling to a place thousands of miles away and checking into a hotel ... and pointing at the mirror on the wall and saying, "Why is there a picture of me on this wall?"
It neglects to note that if someone different were in the room, the picture would be of that person ... and if nobody were in the room, the picture would be of nobody. --FOo21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other false analogy is the one where getting a perfect bridge hand extremely rare and the response is 'getting any particular bridge hand is rare' but only with a very perfect hand is there a workable universe etc. The point is how do we determine if the perfect bridge hand was caused by chance or intent. It is a scientific pursuit. TheBestIsYet00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I come across any sentences that are ambiguous in meaning I'll post them here and let you discuss them, rather than changing them to say what I think they mean. Starting with:
1. “The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere.”
Was it the campaign or the agenda that was going to “[employ] intelligent design arguments in the public sphere”?
2. Under Movement: "Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy."
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I'd like the "this" to be a little clearer. Is it correct to say that "this" refers to the contradictory statements made by the Discovery Institute?
3. This isn't ambiguous, exactly, but I think this could use a citation. Under Controversy: "The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues..." Otherwise it sort of looks like OR.
4. Also under Controversy: "Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories (sometimes called empirical science)."
Is it "natural science," or "the repeated testing of hypotheses and theories," that is "also called empirical science." (If it's the latter, the sentence is correct as writtern; I just want to be sure.)
A quick expansion of #4. Empirical science seeks to create knowledge based on observation and testing of hypotheses. Natural science is a subset of science (along with, for example, economic science). Natural science, as currently practiced, is (an) empirical science, but the two aren't identical. Tevildo22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what Tevildo says, wouldn't it be better just to say "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories."--Margareta22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be clearer without the extraneous commas and by splitting it into two sentences:
“The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign was directed by the Discovery Institute.” •Jim62sch•22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Another place that needs a source, under Defining intelligent design as science: "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be..."--Margareta22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. And another place for a source, under the same header: "Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard."--Margareta22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to tell who's talking about what in #4 above, but in response to some of the assertions hereinabove, the first sentence of the third paragraph now reads:
This edit is based on the presumption that natural science is a subset of empirical science, because social science is also involved in the discussion, and is generally regarded as "science" or "empirical science" to the extent that the particular social science(s) use scientific method. And, I think we can reasonably expect the citation police will be involved at some point, because this particular sentence, while a reasonable summary of the lay of the land, so to speak, is not, at present, cited to a WP:Reliable source[citation needed] Also, the proper term is "scientific method", not "the scientific method" [emphasis mine], because scientific method is both a collective noun and an abstract noun.[citation needed] As a matter of pragmatic procedure, though, thus far the particpants in this article have chosen to accept that repetitive insistence on changing "scientific method" to "the scientific method" will occur frequently, and that as a matter of course the participants in this article are not prepared, if history is any guide, to devote the necessary effort to defend a minor point such as this -- but on this particular point I digress somewhat.
In that case, I think we should lose it altogether - "Empirical science creates a posteriori knowledge...". "Empirical science uses scientific method" is just bad grammar, "Empirical science uses Scientific Method" goes against this article's prohibition of capitalization and doesn't address Kenosis' point (namely, that there's no such thing as the scientific method), and "Empirical science uses scientific methods" or "Empirical science uses the methods of science" would be tautological. Tevildo15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, maybe we can tentatively leave this particular point of discussion by acknowledging that there's no such thing as the scientific method, just as there's no such thing that can be called a universal generalization or broad classification as "the water", or "the intelligent design" or "the creationism", etc., at least not in English-language usage, because they're either collective nouns or abstract nouns, or both. That said, there may still room for improvement of the sentence at issue here. ... Kenosis02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the "progressive" creationism of the 1980s.[4] The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[5] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialistworld view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[6]
The problem that I can see with this is that, presumably, "progressive" creationism isn't the same as Progressive Creationism. Do we really need an adjective at all? "A direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980's" seems adequate to me. Tevildo15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem dropping the "progressive". I was using it because that's the way Forrest describes it. Pasado18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to revisiting this section introduction, with caution and hopefully a consensus process involved. I imagine, if I recall the history of the article correctly, that FeloniousMonk and perhaps a few other long-term participants will want to weigh in on this issue that Pasado just raised. ... Kenosis16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem this touches on is the difficulty in sorting, organizing and understanding the tremendously wide variety of creationists and similar beliefs in the US and overseas, in Christianity and other faiths, over the last 150 years. Neocreationism, progressive creationism, OEC, preadamism, YEC, Day-age creationism, intelligent design, assorted Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, Beyond Intelligent Design, gap creationism, theistic evolution, progressive evolution, Cremo's devolution theory, Aurobindo's cyclic evolution theory and many other varieties from Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other faiths make for an extremely difficult and confusing cacaphony to sort out. Each will claim that they and only they have the true knowledge of how life and humans appeared on earth. Each casts aspersions on the scientific approach, or tries to hijack science for their own purposes, and attacks the competing religious theories and movements. When seen in this framework, intelligent design is one of many many such anti-evolution and anti-science movements and beliefs, and certainly not the last one by any means. It is tricky to sort out exactly how it relates to the others, where it came from and why.--Filll17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best we can do is find the most reliable, verifable sources available and use them. The current thinking of a major ID researcher (Forrest) whose material was heavily used at Kitzmiller should be able to provide clarity on this issue. Pasado18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. I would feel even better if we had the views of a couple of other researchers as well that we could throw into the article.--Filll19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "progressive" creationism to Progressive creationism. On page 4 of Forrest's paper she goes into more detail about the ancestry of ID. I'll give it another day and if there's no other issues I'll update the first paragraph of the "Movement" section from:
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign, directed by the Discovery Institute, to promote a religious agenda[7] calling for broad social, academic and political changes, by employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialistworld view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[6]
to:
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the Progressive creationism of the 1980s.[8]
The movement is physically headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[9] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. This campaign primarily targets the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialistworld view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[6]
The first statement does not appear to be disputed, while the second may be if you define ID as part of creationism. There is a slight difference between progression from and defining it as. Be careful on wording. Attribute the statement if you change it to state that it is part of. Morphh(talk)14:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about adequate sourcing. I'd like to see additional sources cited, beyond Forrest's 2007 paper that traces the lineage of ID to "progressive creationism", such as the writing of Walter Bradley (previously a CSC fellow and mentioned in Forrest's paper) and perhaps others.
“Intelligent design theory” is the newest variant of the traditional creationism that has plagued American public schools for decades. Most ID proponents are “old-earth” creationists (OEC). ID is a direct outgrowth of the “progressive” creationism of the 1980s, a form of OEC based on the belief that nature operates according to both natural laws and periodic acts of special creation by God to create progressively more complex life forms. ... some are “young-earth” creationists (YECs)... However, virtually all reject natural selection as the mechanism of significant evolutionary changes. ... All believe that the limited power of evolution must be supplemented by God’s acts of special creation.
Maybe try something like the following modification?: The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[47] The movement is headquartered in the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[48] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. Perhaps a mention that some have termed it "neo-creationism" might still be appropriate, with a cite, say, to NCSE and Forrest? Perhaps also a mention of Forrests and Bradley's mention of "progreesive creationism" in a footnote might be appropriate? ... Kenosis00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the change with your recommendations. Feel free to add cites or add more material from the paper. This should also address Margareta's issue #1 above. Pasado04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to change the third sentence of the lead slightly such that it reads as follows:
Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2][3] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5][6] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] believe the designer to be God.[14] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[15] and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]. [wikilinks not shown here other than the presently relevant one]
As of this posting, the sentence reads: Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.[14].
As can be seen, the word "God" in the body text links to Abrahamic God in this proposal. I think this is more parsimonious than the last consensused version of this sentence, and says exactly the same thing. Because the relevant clause here reads "...believe the designer to be . . .", it's completely obvious which "God" we're talking about, and for any readers with questions, there's the link to "Abrahamic God". Hopefully this does not require a complete rehashing of the last round of debates about the article lead, which took over a month and might have raised the stock prices of manufacturers of headache remedies and alcohol distilleries a bit. Reasonable? Yes? No? maybe? ... Kenosis02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - It works for me. Morphh(talk)2:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, after reading DGG's tirade on the FAR page, perhaps we should look at using reference lists. The article would look better with no more than one reference tag per sentence. Pasado06:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is still for "God of Christianity", as that's the phrase used in the source, but I can't see any objection to either "God" or "Abrahamic God". Agree with the suggestion to combine the references, incidentally. Tevildo06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, saying "...believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." is better if that's what the cite uses. Pasado06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the lead, the more concise "God" works best for me. The detailed point about the source saying "the God of Christianity" belongs in the body of the article, together with the point that the DI claim to include a Jewish protagonist and have Islamic supporters. .. dave souza, talk07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively, then, accepting (1) that Orangemarlin and Tevildo have expressed reservations about the form of the word "God", but (2) that everybody in the modern world knows what the heck we mean here despite occasional protests, and (3) that the phrase uses the words "believe the designer to be...", a belief verified by statements of proponents and the Kitzmiller decision, I'll go ahead and make the edit. I leave aside, for now, the issue of "God of Christianity" because other sources have shown that the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture has one or more fellows who are Islamic, hence "Abrahamic God", which is inclusive of "God of Christianity" [Pasado's last point also noted]. Here goes with the next cautious little step. ... Kenosis15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has the benefit of accuracy, I see no problems with the edit. Why is this even a conversation? The only difference between the "God of Christianity" and Yahweh/Allah, is that the "God of Christianity" actively compresses polytheism into a form of monotheism (e.g., the triune nature of God.) And that, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Let's move on. Jim62sch16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph of the lead is misleading or inaccurate in suggesting that advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula began with the formation of the DI in 1990: such campaigning began with the FTE in 1989, and the DI don't seem to have been involved much until Meyer got them to fund the CSC in 1996:
The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. The following year a small group of proponents formed the Discovery Institute and began advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. The "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In this trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This revised proposal aims to clarify the development of campaigning:
The term "intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Courtruling that teaching "creation science" in public schools contravened constitutionalseparation of church and state. The high-school biology textbook Of Pandas and People introduced the term to replace "creation science". On its publication in 1989 campaigners promoted the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. A group developing their wedge strategy to change science to theistic realism with support from the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes. The inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula was challenged in 2005 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District when a group of parents of high-school students objected to a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". The court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This says a bit more about the aims of the DI, and mentions "educational changes" as their initial target was university education rather than schools.. dave souza, talk09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave (and others too), please don't forget to keep a close eye on what specific material is introduced in the "Overview" and in succeeding sections. That's at least three successive levels of depth, maybe four. One of the organizational issues right here is that the third paragraph of the lead must explain this quickly and sufficiently to give a basic idea of the legal history and present legal status of ID, leaving further detail work to the Overview, which in turn sets the stage for more in-depth explanations in other sections that follow. (Incidentally, Dave, it's good to interact directly with you once again--it's been awhile.) ... Kenosis14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note to newer participants here. A number of months ago, the participants also agreed to integrate an international perspective in that paragraph too, via making clear by the choice of words that ID is fundamentally a product of the United States, a response to US Supreme Court decisions affecting public-school science-education policy and the Establishment Clause. This the paragraph already does, both in the present version and in Dave Souza's proposal. The specifics of international developments, the outward waves or ripples, so to speak, are then summarized in a later section w/ several subsections. ... Kenosis14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to talk, our paths have wandered onto different projects lately. However it's phrased, the important point is that publication of Pandas introduced nearly all the concepts and public campaigning for "intelligent design" organised by the FTE without any involvement from the DI or Johnson, who had his own parallel anti-evolution agenda: the two tracks converged with Behe contributing whale blood clotting to the 1993 edition of Pandas, and combined by 1995 with Johnson calling his disciples "intelligent design scholars" just before the DI's funding came fully on line through the CRSC. As I understand it.
This should indeed feature in the more in-depth sections, including the "overview", which in my opinion need reviewing along these lines. Will try to look at that shortly. If you don't like the proposal above, we can discuss the minimum changes to avoid the paragraph being misleading. .. dave souza, talk16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is a bit unclear, "A group developing their wedge strategy to change science to theistic realism with support from the Discovery Institute developed the "intelligent design movement" pressing for political and educational changes." Did they do "abra-cadabra, science is now theistic realism"? ;) •Jim62sch•17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, you've uncovered their secret method! Cite Johnson 1996"theistic realism" ... the defining concept of our movement. The sentence and the Kitzmiller sentence need rethought. .. dave souza, talk10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, on the evidence we have, that the statement about the founding of the DI "the following year" is at all misleading and must give way to a reference to earlier developments such as the FTE or to "creation science", or other specifics, at least not in the lead. The DI was founded following the publication and failure of the book Of Pandas and People to gain a foothold in the marketplace (I'm not necessarily implying direct cause-and-effect). So the book gets published 1989 after a lengthy development period and changing the words "creation-" to "design", etc., but is a commercial flop; and immediately on the heels of this marketing failure the Discovery Institute is founded and ID advocates from a number of places, including the Texas-basedFoundation for Thought and Ethics, begin to collect around this mechanism provided by the DI's political and marketing experience. This is a watershed, or major cusp, so to speak, in the development of the Intelligent design movement, and its mention is quite reasonable because the DI continued to develop offshoots and subsidiaries like the Center for Science and Culture and its cousin the ISCID. I do understand the point that it can be tracked back further to the FTE, and also can be tracked back to Phillip E. Johnson's review of the amicus curiae briefs in Edwards v. Aguilard. And, among other possibilities it also can be traced back to the book Chance or Design? by James Horigan, a 1979 philosophy book whose cover features a logo virtually identical to the DI logo (the DaVinci figure surrounded by modern cosmic swirls) and which uses the words "design", "designed", and "intelligent design" many times throughout (though not as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry but as a philosophical argument--yes, another argument from design, which in turn can be traced back further to at least Aquinas, and probably to classical philosophy. All this and more is mentioned in various levels of depth in the article, as antecedents in "Origins of the concept" and "Origins of the term". The practical development leading up to the publication of Of Pandas and People also is introduced in more depth in the "Overview" and in "Origins of the term"
Note that the sentence about the DI being founded the following year, proceeding to advocate ID, etc. does not make any claim to being a definitive marker that says, e.g. "ID starts HERE ". So, I don't see the need to change or futher complicate this particular aspect of a lead that's already somewhat packed with specifics. Thoughts? ... Kenosis17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, think that the sentence introducing the "Dover trial" and leading into the following sentence "In this trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover..." could definitely be tightened up somewhat in its syntax and flow, without changing any of the substance of what's being said there. ... Kenosis 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ... For one specific thing, there's absolutely no need for the words "In this trial", when simply "In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District will do just fine. The prior sentence already introduced "the 'Dover trial", so there's no value added, nor any reasonable source of confusion avoided, by using those two extra words. So, proceeding cautiously as before, the words "... this trial ..." are outta' here. Any serious objectors please feel free to revert without any further argument from me. ... Kenosis20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<unindent> Matzke comments "Pandas represents the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement. This fact is obscured in most recountings... which usually credit Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial ... Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and Dembski (The Design Inference, 1998)... In fact, all of the basic arguments of these ID proponents are found in essentially modern form in the 1989 Of Pandas and People (Behe's irreducibly complexity argument is found in the 1993 edition of Pandas). The textbook came first, and the "research" to support it came many years later.... Pandas was actively promoted for public school use by creationists, starting in Alabama in 1989 and continuing throughout the 1990's. After 2000, Pandas activity largely died down". There was a lot of continuing activity promoting Pandas and it seems misleading to suggest that it was an instant flop. Unless I've missed something, the involvement of the DI really begins with Chapman getting "seed money" in 1993, though Meyer was involved with the nascent Johnson group from the outset and was a co-founder of the DI in 1990. Also in 1993, Meyer and Behe contributed to the second edition of Pandas, but Johnson doesn't seem to have talked about ID until a couple of years later. Clearly the FTE strand and the Johnson strand were coming together by 1993, and "the movement" takes its familiar shape at the summer 1995 conference "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture" which forms the basis for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture forming in 1996.[4]. As you say, this needs to be concisely explained in the Overview, which in my opinion could become History including subsections for origins of the concept and of the term (perhaps better seen as precedents), with Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe and Intelligent designer under a new Concepts section. ... dave souza, talk11:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that section could alternately have been written explicitly as a history, with a separate section as an introduction to the main concepts--irreducible complexity, CSI, FTU, etc. Presently, though, as it has been for quite some time now, the introductory section of "Overview" is devoted to introducing the substantive aspects of the approach of ID proponents, to which several paragraphs are devoted. I expect one of the issues that would come into play in a discussion of this is the question about how far the article goes in the direction of being about the movement, which has its own main aritlce.
As to Of Pandas and People, it was central to Kitzmiller v. Dover, in that the statement proposed to be presented to biology students at the beginning of the semester referred them specifically to Pandas as an alternative resource. As to the initial marketing of Pandas, the proposal to the publisher originally projected a massive marketplace, one that never materialized. The sales to public schools were probably zero and there were not high sales figures to private schools. The web writings of both sides of the controversy reveal this to be the case, that it was, as I said, a "commercial flop". Here are two references saying this same basic thing from opposite sides of the controversy, the NCSE version of the story about sales and the IDEA version of the story. The Amazon sales rank is presently down to 153,392; and although this can sometimes be misleading with a textbook because schools generally buy directly from the publisher itself or the publisher's licensed distributor, there appears to be little indication that those figures are very high either. In 1987, according to the testimony at the deposition of Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the original marketing projection estimated that: "... revenues of over 6.5 million in five years are based upon modest expectations for the market provided the U.S. Supreme Court does not uphold the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act. If by chance it should hold it, then you can throw out these projections. The nationwide market would be explosive." By contrast, it took four years to sell the first print run of approximately 25,000 books, and a grass-roots effort needed to be mobilized to do it. Also from Buell's deposition: " Q. Pandas certainly did not live up to your market expectations or hopes, did it? A. Not to our hopes." Buell's deposition can be found here, with relevant testimony at p95ff and p102ff. See also, the summary in WP at Of Pandas and People#Origins_and_promotion. ... Kenosis15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect that the Amazon ratings of such lowly-rated books would be quite volatile (potentially moving large numbers of places on the strength of the sale of a very small number of books), so wouldn't be better to state the rating as a range (e.g. "below 150,000) rather than a specific number (which is likely to become out of date more quickly)? Incidentally the rating is now 158,454 - presumably because they haven't sold a copy lately. Hrafn4217:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a very inexact and quickly changing number; sell a few copies and it jumps up, go awhile without selling very much and it can go way down, only to quickly jump up again. The figure is particularly variable from day to day among books with a lower sales rank (higher number), as is the case here. But this was pointed out in the broader context of pointing out to Dave Souza that sales since its publication in 1989 were not anywhere near what was projected. What was required even to sell the first printing of 25,000 copies in roughly four years was to mobilize the grass-roots troops, so to speak. This was maybe one-twentieth or less of what was projected in the original marketing proposal. (25,000 x wholesale price of about $11 or $12 = about $275,000 or $300,000 gross for the publisher over four years, from which must be subtracted all the costs, printing, marketing, administration and payroll, storage, shipping, etc.. The original marketing projection, as I just mentioned above, said to be based on "modest expectations", was "over $6.5 million over five years.") Main point being, by 1990 it was quite clear it wasn't going to be a blockbuster and that a grass-roots effort would be needed. All this is in context of Dave's excellent research about the timeline of ID, and what were the important events in its development that might possibly affect editorial decisions for the article in the future. ... Kenosis18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I quite agree that the argument itself is 'robust, it's just that I'm suggesting that a rating range would be a more robust way of expressing the rating. Hrafn4205:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information. Presently the sales figures, commercial success or lack thereof of Pandas are not at issue in the article. This came up as part of an analysis of what were important markers in the development of "intelligent design" such that it might affect the language of the article lead. After I mentioned that by 1990, the year the DI was founded, Pandas was already known by its proponents to be a "commercial flop", Dave responded that he didn't think that was a fair characterization. And I responded by pointing up reliable evidence that its market showing was indeed quite weak if not an outright failure, ultimately taking four years and a grass-roots effort to sell out the first printing, and which amounted to less than 5% of the original market projections for the first edition. To this analysis was added information about sales of Pandas in recent years, initially brought up by Dave. Nothing more than that was at issue for the present text in the article-- or at least I think that was the case. ... Kenosis17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent> Woops, sorry not to have responded earlier, I've been busy setting up schop amongst other things. There's no question that Pandas flopped: as Timeline of intelligent design notes, in 1987 Buell was projecting "revenues of Over 6.5 million in five years" on the assumption that they'd LOSE at Edwards! Surveys seemed to show plenty of demand, what stopped them was immediate activity by the NCSE. However, as Of Pandas and People#Origins_and_promotion shows, they kept trying to push it till about 2000. As far as I can see they had no assistance from the "Wedge" bunch until about 1995–1996, that group were busy with conferences and university level activity. Post 1996 the DI"s CRSC made it into a high profile PR campaign with immense political pull, but Pandas seems to have been almost forgotten until the clowns at Dover decided they wanted a 12 year old textbook, which is rather ancient for school texts. The fact that any at all are selling today is a testament to how slow creationists are to update their ideas, and how slow the ID crew have been to produce their long promised new textbook to have a controversy about. Hope alles klar, .. dave souza, talk18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legal summary vs Legal section
The Intro has a long 8 line discussion on legal status. However the text has only 2 references to Kitzmiller.
Summarize Intro & Add Legal Status section
Since there are many complaints of too long an intro, recommend adding as short section on "Legal Status" and
moving this long section to that Legal Status section. Reference the Kitzmiller page for further detail. i.e.:DLH05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you want to hide the origins of ID in Edwards away in the body text and not mention this essential point in the intro? The lead is of appropriate length: see WP:LEAD. ... dave souza, talk08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a US federal court ruled that requiring biology teachers to note availability of intelligent design materials as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life" violated the religion Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.DLH05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. .. dave souza, talk 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ... oh, and astonishingly enough you don't seem to think "that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" belongs in the lead. See WP:NPOV... dave souza, talk08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, talk slanted. I understand you're trying to put the best face on it, but can you at least attribute the Discover Institute's spin to the Discovery Institute please? Odd nature16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive length of the intro was one the critiques raised in the review. There is a long discussion of the legal status in the lead with little in the main text. Thus the editorial effort to summarize the intro and put full detail in main text.DLH02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeable to moving more of the legal stuff into the main article (Kitzmiller really ought to have its own section), but emphatically disagree with the proposed summary at the top of this section, as I feel that it does not provide an unbiased summary of the case. Hrafn4203:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'For more details on this topic see: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to mention availability of intelligent design materials in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the religion Establishment Clause] of the US Constitution. Legal reviews have critiqued that judgement.[10]DLH05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then in Kitzmiller v Dover refer to and cite DeWolf plus the following.
"[11], [12], [13]"
Given that all three of the authors of this article are DI members (and thus highly partisan), and two of them have no significant legal experience, I do not think that this article's opinions have any real credibility. Even its title indicates that its true purpose is rallying the disheartened troops, rather than any serious legal analysis. I do not therefore consider it to be an appropriate citation for a section on the "Legal Status" of ID. Hrafn4206:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Montana Law Review gave a major focus on the Kitzmiller v Dover case with an editorial summary of the case history and providing legal reviews with Irons giving the prosecution's side and DeWolf the defense side. Citing these three articles give Showing all three These together give the balanced review. I'm happy to explicitly include these four references. Here are the original links to the Montana Law review:
I don't see that the FAR needs to continue in general, but I notice that many of the refs aren't formatted, particularly toward the end. Could this be done and then we get rid of the headache? (I post this here rather than there, because of the acrimony.) I'll do the refs...but damn, there's a 185 of them. Marskell10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on the FAR page, we have of course tried different formats. The reason we settled on that one is to endow each of our statements and claims with a sense of overwhelming gravitas. Although this format might look unreadable and ugly, part of the goal is to hit the reader over the head with a hammer. It says, "hey buddy, you might not like this, but a LOT of people view it this way and it is well documented in a lot of reliable sources." If you can think of another format that has that kind of impact, but looks a bit prettier, then tell us what it might be.--Filll10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is we apply as many of the refs to the citation templates as possible. I don't care for the refs that just seem to discuss the view in more detail (seems like a self reference with no verifiability). It seems they should reference something external for the source of the information, even if we don't elaborate on the thought in the note itself - the reader can verify it. I would think we could reduce footnotes for a statement if we attributed more statements to a particular person or group, even if multiple groups make the statement. I certainly think we could reduce the footnotes in the lead. The lead is only a summary of the article, so the data can be more heavily referenced in the body. Troll objections can then be referred to the body content for in depth verifiability of the statements. I understand some of the refs look like that for a reason and perhaps some need to stay as they are. Though many don't have access dates, proper publisher information, etc.. I'm not bashing anyones hard work here.. just offering some constructive thoughts to help address some of the concerns raised. Morphh(talk)13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Morphh. There is a small group of them in "Defining as science", for instance, that consists of extra little explanations which have the benefit of avoiding unnecessary clogging of the body text. But we should ideally find external citations for these. The citations are out there, but fairly obscure, and just need to be found and placed into those notes. IMO, though, I wouldn't go so far as to say they need to be removed. Incidentally, I hate those citation templates with a passion; but if we're going to use them, by all means let's begin to standardize cite-web, cite-book, etc. But please don't ditch the extra explanations unless there's something plainly wrong or superfluous about the explanations. And please, please don't give a "ref name" to citations that involve references to different locations within a document, particularly Kitzmiller, and particularly books, articles and websites that involve different pages for different citations. We ran into a problem with that before, when a number of them needed to be carefully re-separated so as to refer to the specific locations within the sources. ... Kenosis14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ref name tagging has improved in the past year. It use to be that the main name tag had to be the first instance. This is no longer a requirement, so you can move text around without fear of blanking out the ref in the notes section. So long as one of the name refs has the content, it will display correctly. Not sure if this was your concern or not from your statement.. but it was a new feature so I thought I would mention it. Without using name tags, you run into having the same ref repeated muliple times in the notes section. Seems to be the common thing to do and effective on articles with similar length. Morphh(talk)14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand, seems like a bit of a step forward, so long as it allows separate page refs and avoids the trap of having one footnote # with different page references within, repeated with ^a, ^b, ^c, ^d, etc. For my own part, I also still think it looks absurd to see footnote #1 following footnote #121 and such, though I recognize how this came to be. ... Kenosis15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm not misunderstood, Filll, I did not mean the placement or volume of refs, but the lack of info provided. Some are simply weblinks with a title. Author, publisher, and date are also needed. The cite templates are one way to do that. You don't have to use them, but the way in which they break out info provides a useful template. (As I say, I'll help.) Marskell13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent>Certainly if author, date, publisher etc are not included, this should be corrected. This is one thing I am sure all can agree on and a very useful contribution.--Filll16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information, there are two approaches given in Wikipedia:Citation templates: the "cite book", "cite web" etc. templates are tailored to each king of cite, but don't have the option of cite footnotes in a "Citations" section linking on to a main "References" section. The other approach uses a standard all-purpose Template:Citation which is simpler as a basic template, and gives the option of this extra functionality when used with inline Harvard templates. This would simplify multiple references to the same document with the "Citations", for example, being Jones 2005 p.34 and the "p 34" giving a link to the exact page. More info on request, but it's a choice to make before starting to redo all the citations. This article was at the forefront of citations in linked footnotes, and it's already been through a few versions of that feature. .. dave souza, talk17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started formatting the refs. As I have not yet received my citation implant, this takes a bloody long time. I am using Template:Cite web. I know some people don't like the templates, but on a page with dozens of editors they are the best means of ensuring consistency. I have started from the bottom; someone else might go from the top. Marskell17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) "Others" is far too vague an attribution for such strong words as "junk science." It would be much better to say "Biologists and philosophers of science have called it 'junk science'."
(Gnixon 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to #2, it's come up before. I don't have the time or the inclination to look back through the talk archives now, and particularly not on an issue like this. But here's the relatively recent history of this issue in the article itself, as to the second paragraph of the lead as it relates to what Gnixon says it would be bettter to do, presented here at various sampling points through the time period within which it appears to be relevant to Gnixon's recommendation. Myself, I have no idea what's "better" in this regard, given all the suggestions to date. Not all the edits below are directly related to the second paragraph, so one may need to scroll down to see the then-current version of it on the date quoted immediately below.
I just had a chance to look over the history again, and would like to propose that the second paragraph be revised a bit, without changing its basic content. Presently it reads:
May I suggest the following change, attempting to get it to read a bit smoother while trying to minimize interference with others' edits and feedback on it in recent months:
I changed the words "say it is" to "have termed it" in the third sentence, and "termed it" to "and some have called it" in the fourth sentence. As to the proposed addition of the word "unequivocal" in the first sentence, I propose using it to replace the previous use of "overwhelming", which was removed late in 2006 if I remember right. An argument was made on the talk page at the time, to the effect that either something is a consensus or it ain't a consensus. As we have seen, there can be strong consensus, developing consensus, clear consensus, etc., etc. The consensus in the scientific community about this issue of intelligent design not being science can reasonably be characterized, in light of the references already provided in the article, as "unequivocal". Thoughts? ... Kenosis21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about "There is a clear consensus in the scientific community that ...."? I think that conveys the same information and might be a gentler tone for the lead of a controversial article. The attributed statements and quotes following give a good impression of the strength of scientists' feelings without letting the article adopt them. Gnixon22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last sentence, I really think attribution is important here. The phrase "biologists and philosophers of science" is (a) accurate and (b) makes clear that "junk science" doesn't come from just anyone---it's from scientists in the relevant field (biologists) and those who think about "what is science" (philosophers of science). I know this paragraph has been fought over ad nauseum, but attribution is an important principle, and this wouldn't seem to conflict with any of the previous versions. Gnixon22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow: The opinion has been expressed not just by "biologists and philosophers of science" but scientists of all stripes, not to mention leading scientific professional organizations, like the American Society for Clinical Investigation. There are many others that are not listed here but are easily found, so to attribute the view to "biologists and philosophers of science" is give a false impression. Odd nature23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references given were from a biologist and a philosopher of science, along with another article I wasn't able to view from here. I'm just saying that the specific (strong) phrase "junk science" should be attributed to those who specifically used it. Below I propose a more general phrasing. Gnixon22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, folks. We are talking about the article lead, where the article must summarize in brief. Presently the beginning sentence of that paragraph makes clear it's the scientific community making these assessments. WP:Weasel generally does not apply to the lead in quite the same way it might in the article proper, because it is the purpose of the lead to introduce the topic in general terms, leaving the article to spell out in more detail. Alternately the specifics can be relegated to footnotes. In the last sentence, it is spelled out in the footnotes. That is what Gnixon says must be done, and that is what the footnotes do.
This requires judgments to be made so as not to overly clog the lead with specifics. Here, it appears not to be necessary to state, in the last sentence of the present approach to the second paragraph, e.g., "Other notable members of the scientific community and philosophers of science have concurred that it is pseudoscience, and some members of the scientific community and one philosopher of science has called it junk science". It's simply not necessary. ... Kenosis23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I agree your longer version isn't necessary. I personally think it would be sufficient to use only one sentence to mention that some notable body, presumably speaking for science, says ID is not science. (The "publishers of Science" seems like a good choice to me.) If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase. My answer: it can convey the strong feelings of "biologists and philosopher(s) of science" if we specifically attribute them in the text. Gnixon06:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Gnixon here. Firstly, and most importantly, we don't discuss the "pseudoscience" or "junk science" claims anywhere else in the article. In default of a "Critisism" section (and I'm sure some would argue that the article is one long "Critisism" section), then the discussion should be in "Controversy" - at the moment, this section just addresses why ID is not science, rather than why it's pseudo/junk science. According to WP:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and I would argue that an accusation of "pseudoscience" is significant. Secondly, if we're applying pejorative labels to ID, we need to identify our sources - "Everyone says it's junk science" isn't good enough. I personally would remove the entire sentence from the lead, but, if that's not acceptable, "Others in the scientific community have described it as pseudoscience or junk science" would be OK, provided we substantiate those descriptions somewhere else in the article. Tevildo10:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I agree with Tevildo very much in that the second paragraph has bit by bit become overly specific over the past seven months. Look back at its form at the beginning of 2007 here, for example.
Regarding Gnixon's statement "If it's important to add the "junk science" sentence, let's ask ourselves what content that adds besides an incendiary phrase.": Actually, I believe this paragraph has reported for at least a year-and-a-half now that all three usages have been used in various measure by multiple notable persons and/or organizations intimately familiar with scientific method and/or the demarcation problem. Those three characterizations, used in various measure by various combinations of organizations and individuals in the scientific, educational and journalistic communties, are: (1) not-science or unscientific, (2) pseudoscience or peudoscientific, and (3) junk science. Numbers 2 and 3, if they are "incendiary", are included because this is what reliable sources have said about the topic. The article isn't responsible for creating the controversy, merely for reporting and describing it.
The solution here may be to begin a discussion about placing some of the specific material presently in the second paragraph and its footnotes into the Overview as a paragraph describing in a bit more detail the responses to the assertions that iD is science and therefore should be presented in public high-school biology classes alongside standard biology texts and lessons. The responses of the scientific and science-education community in this regard can quite readily be elaborated upon a bit futher down under "Controversy" in the opening to that section or in the subsection on "Defining as science". It should be a simple matter, I would think, perhaps moving some of the material from the footnotes into the body text of the article. I don't see any major problems with such an adaptation, but I feel sure it will require discussion and consensus before imiplementing a significant move of material such as this.... Kenosis11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, as I said above, quoting "junk science" can be useful to convey the strength of feelings of scientists, but that only works if attributed. Otherwise, "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are redundant with "not science" or "unscientific", and we need only quote one reliable source using one of those four synonyms in order to make the point. Gnixon15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a "Controversy" section, I think it would be a brilliant idea to provide a detailed section on controversy that would allow most of the rest of the article to simply describe what ID is and where it came from. Gnixon15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post the following last night when my laptop battery died. I'll read above comments momentarily... Gnixon15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, how about:
The publishers of Science have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.
A single footnote on the 2nd sentence could say "For example, see a, b, c, d," perhaps with more detail, such as quoting "junk science." Gnixon15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as any improvement on the original phrasing, and agree with odd nature's point about downplaying here. I can't support this change. FeloniousMonk15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd nature's objection was that "biologists and philosophers of science" is too narrow. Isn't "numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science" broad enough? Or is your objection that not using "junk science" constitutes "downplaying"? I'm not sure how to be both so broad and so specific in the lead, since obviously not all of the broad group have said, quote, "junk science." I thought the chief advantages of my proposed version were conciseness (for the lead) and a representation of how many scientists have felt the need to speak out. Gnixon22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between not downplaying a point, and misrepresentation of our sources for that point. "Not science", "pseudoscience", and "junk science" are three separate descriptions, and I don't think it's fair to say that every scientific organization that's critisised ID can be taken as supporting all three of them. I agree that we don't need to list every source individually, especially not in the lead, but we do need to make it clear to whom we're attributing each of the three descriptions. Tevildo18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph already breaks up these three classifications applied by various parties who represent or participate in the scientific community or in the professional philosophical analysis thereof, presented in summary form as a lead is expected to. It says:
If Tevildo is currently alleging that this paragraph involves "misrepresentation" of any kind, now would be the time to state specifically what it is that's misrepresented, and provide evidence in support of any such assertions. ... Kenosis19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not being clear enough. I think the paragraph is fine as it stands in terms of content, although I agree it is a little on the wordy side. What I would object to is something along the lines of, to quote Odd nature - "Scientists of all stripes consider intelligent design to be pseudoscience and junk science", and I think there may be a risk of this if the sentence is simplified beyond GNixon's suggestion above, especially if the point isn't addressed in more detail elsewhere in the article. Tevildo19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<unindent>Well, anyway, six months ago it read like this:
If the editors here are able to come up with a suitable paragraph describing more specifically the responses of the scientific and educational communities, it can easily be inserted in the "Overview" that follows the lead-- assuming of course that there's consensus for whatever's proposed. Due to the FA review, presently there are more participants paying attention than has been the case for much of the time since FA status was first granted, so I think this might be a good time to create such a paragraph and see if there's adequate agreement on its content and agreement on whether we should insert it and simplify the second lead paragraph, Seems to me that both the new insertion and any significant changes to the second lead paragraph should probably be done more-or-less simultaneously, given the parameters discussed just above in this talk section ... Kenosis19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm saying is that if we're going to quote specific phrases, we should attribute them specifically. I agree that that level of detail would go better in the body of the article, instead of the lead, which is why I propose replacing the current lead paragraph with
The publishers of Science have stated that Intelligent Design is "not science." Numerous biologists and other scientists, as well as science teachers and philosophers of science have spoken out against considering Intelligent Design a viable scientific theory.
Can you clarify? Do you object to specifically attributing specific phrases or putting such detail in the body of the article? Please don't call my suggestions "nonsense"---I consider it uncivil, and I've been entirely polite. Gnixon01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Gnixon's compact version. It gives the essence of the argument. This lead has serious case of editorial bloat. A main criticism during the FA review was the lead's length. There was an even more compact elegant summary proposed in the FA review that I would like to point to. Please give a link to that.DLH03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover and other reliable sources including quoted statements made by the notable ID proponents, all of them do not believe the designer is "a god", but that the designer is "God" in the sense in which virtually everbody immediately understands it, even children. The link to Abrahamic God clarifies this further. The Kitzmiller decision stated that on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the "designer" in ID is the "God of Christianity". In light of this, it would appear there's no overriding reason to mince words in the article. If there is one, kindly call it to the participants' attention. Thanks. ... Kenosis18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ID limits statements to what can be inferred from observable evidence, not to personal beliefs of its proponents. ID's methodology can be applied to indentifying intelligent causation whether by SETI, in historic, or for origin theories. DLH04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...other religious beliefs within the scientific framework of scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge...". Can we lose at least one of those 'scientific's? I would suggest "within the framework of scientific theories as established bodies of knowledge". Tevildo12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edit just made to the last sentence of the first paragraph, so it now reads:
Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientifictheory,[15] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]
Previously it read:
Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientifictheory,[15] and also seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[16][17][18][19][20]
The original reason for the insertion of the "also" was in response to those arguing on the talk page that either advocates claim it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, or are trying to change the definitiion of science to accommodate it, but that advocates can't logically have it both ways. In fact, according to the reliable sources, advocates assert it's a scientific theory in order to meet the criteria set in Edwards v. Aguilard quoted in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section in the article, which is that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction". The claim that ID is a scientific theory seeks to meet the standard set by the Supreme Court's language, and has been said by various proponents to be justified on multiple grounds, that it's a scientific theory under existing criteria, and the assertion has been made that science must be redefined to allow theistic and/or supernatural aspects. Claims have also made that ID's a scientific theory but that the scientific community has unfairly excluded it, that its main competitor biology is not science but speculation, and that the court's interpretation that ID is not science in Kitzmiller v. Dover is the biased product of an activist judge, as well as on other grounds. All told, though, the words "and also" in the first lead paragaph does nothing more to explain the details of this to the reader than does the word "and", so I removed the "also". ... Kenosis15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The qualification The term", previously at the beginning of the third lead paragraph, was redundant with the first paragraph of the "Overview" that summarizes the issue a bit more explicitly, which begins with "The term "intelligent design"...". Thus the words were unnecessary and superfluous in the third lead paragraph, since the whole affair began after Edwards v. Aguilard. If there are any remaining doubts among readers whether this refers specifically to the term or to the set of concepts, or both, they may proceed to read the article to learn the specifics of how the term came to be utilized by intelligent design advocates.
Hopefully this addresses part of the "redundancies" referred to by one of the commentators at the FA review. ... Kenosis17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like an improvement. Both the term and the "concepts" of "intelligent design" originated post Edwards, though of course the concepts are essentially the same as certain versions of creation science. The sentence isn't very informative in the use of "involving", and by replacing that word with "that teaching "creation science" in public schools violated" the context is made a lot clearer. It also allows the sentences after it to be tightened up, shortening the paragraph overall. More on that later. .. dave souza, talk22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at over the article in making these assessments. That is almost verbatim what the first sentence of the fourth paragraph (first paragraph of the Overview) says. ... Kenosis02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But much condensed, as befits the lead. That paragraph was introduced into the overview, introducing a brief and incomplete mention of origins before going onto the "overview" which mixes fragments of history with current concepts and claims. In my opinion Edwards is important enough to justify that position, but the whole "overview" section would benefit from splitting with, firstly, a history/origins of the intelligent design concept section which would include the present "origins of the concept" subsection redefined as "previous teleological arguments" or predecessors, and "previous use of the phrase" rather than "origins of the term. The second section on "Concepts" would include all but the first paragraph of the present "overview" bit, and the "Irreducible complexity" subsection onwards. Judging by this, the overall meaning of theistic realism also merits prime mention. The history of the concept(s) from the 1960s to the present needs clarified, while the history of the movement in the ID movement article also needs straightened out, and the timeline is still only a start. So much to do.. ..dave souza, talk11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the comments in the FA review described it as a "forest through the trees" issue. Before taking serious aim at a reformatting of the whole article, the participants will need to look at the whole article carefully and be familiar with where every bit of content is presently placed. Though I don't necessarily object, it would require a lot of work. Another thing to keep a heads-up for here, IMO, is that history and substantive concepts are deeply intertwined on this topic. ... Kenosis12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, which is why it's easier to tweak the lead. For very valid reasons a lot of the closely argued content predates Kitzmiller, and could benefit from reviewing and simplifying in the light of recent knowledge. For example, in the Defining as science section, footnotes 144 – 148 provide essays rather than citations, and it should be possible to cite these points. In the meantime I'll try to pull together the timeline to get to grips with the history. .. dave souza, talk14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the topic of "fine-tuned universe," the author states the following:
"Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design. Critics assert that this is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles.[81][82][83]"
After reading Granville Sewell's article linked under citation 82, I would move citation 82 to the end of the first sentence above since he is a proponent of the theory not a critic as the second sentence states. I read the article expecting Sewell to be a critic due to the location of the citation.
This is a topic that greatly interests me as my thermodynamics professor asked us to prove or disprove the origin of life using the 2nd law on a test. (It was a bonus point question.)
I for one am thankful that science is finally opening its eyes instead of squeezing them shut against any possibility other than that life originated by pure chance and that increasingly complex organisms can come from less complex organisms. Common sense does not lead one to such conclusions, in my opinion.
My last comment is that the article does not take the theory of intelligent design seriously--calling it a "claim" rather than a theory. But, really Darwinism/Naturalism is also a THEORY or a CLAIM. . . No one really knows what happened when life began or sprang into existence. No one has observed the leap from one species to another through natural selection alone. I just wish Darwinism/Naturalism was more often taught as a THEORY so that scientists would be true scientists and explore other possibilities as well.
Stayinguptoolate06:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really?...seems to me they're just accurate comments based on the apparent ignorance of life-sciences and science itself displayed by "Stayingup". Oh, and when was sarcasm banned? I didn't get the memo on that. •Jim62sch•20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize if I sounded like I had all the answers--I know that I do NOT know everything when it comes to science or anything else. It's been a while since I took undergraduate and graduate level thermodynamics, and we did not focus on the origin of life the whole time--as is demonstrated by my apparent "ignorance." I really do appreciate the links from Reinis and will peruse them thoroughly. So far, I must admit that I like my apparent "ignorance" and prefer theories that lean towards intelligent design--we can agree to disagree (and you are free to think that I am so stupid that I don't know what a theory is after years of chemistry and chemical engineering classes). I must say I expected to be attacked for my scientific "ignorance" because those who differ from "established" science are often maligned for their views. . . Just as some scientists have been maligned by religious authorities in the past. Thank you Gnixon for your polite referrals to civility.
Stayinguptoolate18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relief that it's been a while since your thermo lecturer gave you that odd exercise, because it seems to have been based on or resulted in a very strange misunderstanding. An introduction to entropy might help clarify things, though in my experience it's not an easy field to get to grips with. Your preference for a deus ex machina to overcome natural laws when life or species form is understandable, but please be assured it's not needed for the 2lot. .. dave souza, talk
Order, please! This is also rather amusing. Anyway, back on topic. Stayinguptoolate hasgotagoodpoint about the Sewell cite going at the end of "his" sentence, and before "Critics". On my machine it seems to be cite [81]. Any problems with moving it? By the way, naturalism isn't a THEORY, it's what naturalists do. Unlike supernaturalists. .. dave souza, talk22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jim62's comment about entropy, according to order and disorder, entropy is the natural tendency of a closed system towards disorder. Scientists can have "fun" using natural laws to prove or disprove theories (as well as gain more knowledge by going through the proofs themselves), which is why I will not forget "disproving" evolution (or the tendency to create order out of disorder) using the law of entropy. Other students probably thought it was fun to prove evolution exists. Of course, many scientists disagree with using entropy to disprove evolution as the originator of life, several of which you have cited, but there are also arguments for it, such as Sewell's article discussed (now at citation 81). Thanks for the enlightening discussion and the in-depth article on ID.
Just for your interest, the analogy of entropy as relating to molecular level "disorder" is discussed more fully at Entropy (energy dispersal), which provides links to various interesting sources, including this pdf of a study into the effect the concept of "disorder" has on student understandings of entropy. .. dave souza, talk17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had common entropy definitions used "differently-ordered" rather than "disorder" (and occasionally "chaos") the concept might be less problematic. Energy dispersal, a very good way of explaining entropy, is slowly becoming the way entropy is explained in text books -- a good thing in my estimation. •Jim62sch•10:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following introduction statement only states the criticism, not the ID position:
It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5][6]
As an article on ID, this should instead summarize the ID position:
Intelligent design tests for evidence of intelligent causation. It is an empirical form the teleological argument for the existence of God.[4][5][6]DLH05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Astrology, where the subject of the article is primarily being described instead of criticized, even though all the "not science" objections raised against ID could be applied equally there. Gnixon14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology is not being used by the Christian right in their efforts to overthrow science and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in an attempt to establish theocracy. ID is. Tevildo00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may motivate some of us to rail against ID in our personal (or professional) lives, while dismissing Astrology as harmless, but those emotions shouldn't affect the tone of Wikipedia's coverage. Gnixon01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, be it ID or astrology, that poisons the intellect and stunts the growth of "the little grey cells" is dangerous. But that's hardly why this article is concerned with undue weight. ID is pseudoscience and as such, falls under WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. •Jim62sch•22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Marxists put all who disagreed with them in "reeducation camps." Please avoid the red herrings.
The proposed sentence states the ID case. If you want to add the critics, then add:
Similarly this section begins by stating the critics position, not the ID position:
"Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit."
ID and critics' positions should be balanced. e.g. by stating:
Intelligent design limits its statements on the nature or identity of the designer to what can be inferred from evaluating empirical evidence. Critics claim it intentionally avoids identifying the posited intelligent agent.DLH05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents also state this – for example, see numerous statements by Johnson such as "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." [6].. .. dave souza, talk08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH's point here is also correct, and follows from a simple reading of WP:NPOV. I find it incredibly revealing that an editor of this article would disqualify a statement because an ID proponent might say it. Gnixon15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it incredibly revealing that an editor would deliberately misunderstand another editor's statement as "disqualifying...because an ID proponent might say it." The simple fact is, ID proponents state what the article already says: that ID arguments intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent. DLH's point is incorrect by proposing to add a claim that only critics say this. That's not NPOV. -Amatulic21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article missleading with numerous false or contradictory statements regarding the origins of Intelligent Design, the first ID publication and the ID movement. The statements relating to origins, first use, first publication etc. need to be harmonized with facts to justify FA.
e.g. at least with those listed in the following articles and compilations:
e.g. the following statement in the introduction is false and missleading:
"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving constitutional separation of church and state.[30]"
"Intelligent design" was used by advocates and critics from the 19th through the 20th century before 1987.
"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and Chief Justice Rhenquist recommended against using this phrase.
The following introduction statement is similarly missleading:
"Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[31]"
The Overview similarly incorrectly states:
"The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion."
e.g., Following are some of the significant books and articles prior to 1989:
1986 John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press.
1985 July 26-29: Walter R. Thorson presents "intelligent design" at an Oxford conference, PSCF 39 (June 1987): 75-87
1984 Charles B. Thaxton et al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (ISBN0802224466)
1983 Raymond G. Boblin and Kerby Anderson, The Straw God of Stephen Gould (JASA 35 (March 1983): 42-44)
1982 Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp 27-28 ISBN: 0894900838;
1979 James Horigan's book Chance or Design refers to "intelligent design".
Recommend the following statement in the introduction:
Intelligent design principles were presented in early publications by Horigan (1979), Thaxton et al. (1984, 1989), Barrow & Tipler (1985), Thorson (1985), Johnson (1991) and Behe (1996).
with respective references to:
Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen The Mystery of Life's Origin(1984), Barrow & Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), Pandas and People (1989), Johnson Darwin on Trial and Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box (1996).DLH05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This topic of earlier teleological arguments and previous uses of the phrase is fully covered in the article. Use of the phrase as a term began with Pandas, and as its publisher Jon Buell has more recently stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use."[7] . . dave souza, talk08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Intelligent design" as a descriptive phrase does have the long history claimed. What was different with its deployment in 1987 in drafts of "Of Pandas and People" was that "intelligent design" was there said to be, itself, a scientific field of endeavor and human inquiry, and not merely a descriptive phrase of no particular significance. The weak and flabby "intelligent design principles" stuff is obfuscation; the real issue concerns when "intelligent design" was touted to be a thing unto itself, and not just a means of describing some other concept. We have the date for that, established and verifiable in the trial record of Kitzmiller v. DASD as 1987, and its locus as drafts of "Of Pandas and People". The article should clearly reflect this. --Wesley R. Elsberry12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S."
Some editors refuse to allow counter evidence. Recommend adding:
"Yet, by 2007 ID events had been held in Canada, Czech Republic, Norway, and the UK, with growing international interest.[16]DLH05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DLH's many objections here are a textbook example of the sort of the policy- and guideline-devoid disengenous objections from ID promotors long term contributors to this article have had to contend with. Before anyone cries foul I'll point out that User:DLH has in his 1.5 year at Wikipedia yet to make any meaningful contribution to an ID related article but has an established history of using Wikipedia articles to promote ID views and rhetoric while discounting the mainstream view and ignoring WP:NPOV, as well as link spamming ID-related articles to his pet project, an ID wiki researchintelligentdesign.org: [8]. FeloniousMonk05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious. I seem to recall having tried to make numerous editorial improvements, particularly to balance the discussion, many of which were systematically reverted by one FeloniousMonk. How is it that critics are free to criticize, but efforts to actually state ID positions or balanced statements are reverted? DLH06:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your "improvements" of late have consisted of original research on flimsy evidence: above, you seem to be citing your pro-ID wiki. A few "events" and "origin courses including intelligent design" hardly constitute much support, but evidence from reliable sources can be considered in context. .. dave souza, talk08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ad hominems from FM and DS, directed at DLH, are entirely inappropriate, especially considering that he has raised several legitimate issues in good faith and a civil manner. Gnixon15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you might have a very bizarre concept of ad homs. Ad homs criticise the person only, not their actions. If you'll not, both FM and Dave were criticising the user's actions and contributions. I assume that we understand each other. •Jim62sch•21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FM calling DLH's objections "disingenuous" is equivalent to the ad hominem of calling DLH "disingenuous." "DLH has yet in 1.5 years to make any meaningful contribution" is, likewise, essentially an ad hominem. I apologize to DS if I misunderstood his tone, which came off as a personal attack when I read it after FM's comments. Gnixon01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S." This statement is also an assertion without reference. Either delete or balance it.DLH04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonize outline structure. It makes no sense to have this a lonely subsection. It should be moved up to the same outline structure as surrounding sections.DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit down to relevant Peer Review subject matter. This section has numerous comments extraneous to "peer review" that should be moved to other sections or deleted as redundant. e.g. reference to the "wedge strategy" should be deleted as it is already mentioned four other times in the article.
The following sentences belongs under "scientific Method" not "Peer Review":
"Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence." . . ."The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community." DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Present both Pro/Contra ID positions. The section goes to great lengths stating as fact the critics position that there are no ID peer reviewed articles and burying at the bottom the ID position that there are peer reviewed articles. The should summarize the ID position first with references, and then the critics position.
This should refer both to the Design Institute's list of ID publications, and to Dembski's annotated list of ten articles:
"Ten Peer-Reviewed ID Articles (with Annotations), William Dembski, Expert Witness Report, The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design, March 29, 2005, Appendix 3, p 28-30."DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reconcile publication statements. Stating that there are no ID peer reviewed publications is internally inconsistent with stating that Myers article was published. DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonize Overview with Peer Review
The Overview only mentions the critics position, not the ID position. i.e.,
"However, no articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[44]'
Recommend changing the Overview to read:
ID proponents list articles they hold support ID and have been peer reviewed, while critics say no articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[44]DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct statements on Meyer's article.
The "STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON" nowhere states the article was withdrawn. It was only disavowed based on claimed inappropriate subject matter. The editor Richard Steinberg, states that the article was appropriate, and that editorial policies were followed. The statement on its being withdrawn need to be corrected.
DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
State both sides of editorial policy argument. TO be NPOV, Steinberg's position on editorial procedures, policy and subject matter need to be stated as well as the critics position.
The following statement is misleading by citing out of context.
"In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[158]"
In Darwin's Black Box, Behe says the same thing for evolution. This reference to Behe should therefore be balanced to state:
Behe has stated that neither evolution nor intelligent design provide detailed rigorous accounts of how any biological system has arisen. with both citations.
The Overview and the Peer Review section combine Peer Review with Scientific Research cf:
" nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[44]'
Separate out Scientific Research into its own section.
Recommend separating discussion on Scientific Research into its own section separate from Peer Review as this addresses different subject matter. e.g., the following section should be separated out:
"The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."[153]"DLH06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statements referring to Templeton, ID and research proposals contain several false statements. i.e. Templeton never asked ID to submit proposals, and Dembski had submitted a proposal.
The article needs to be corrected/harmonized with the facts. See:
Refer to ID research. The section should refer to research questions ID proponents are proposing and to research that is being funded by the Design Institute etc. See:
Your pro-ID wiki shows a lot of vague "questions" and no evidence of any scientific research. Don't seem to be any reliable sources there supporting your assertions. .. dave souza, talk09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tough question is how to represent ID proponents' claims that they have proposed research without performing WP:OR to dismiss them. Gnixon15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm - while it's verifiable, is simply proposing research really notable? Doing it (and publishing it) should surely be what's required for a science topic to be taken seriously by an encyclopedia. Whether ID applied for Templeton funding or not, its near-total (total?) absence in the scientific literature is very telling (especially when one considers that even homeopathy makes an appearance there). Anyway, we certainly have sources pointing to the absence of ID in scientific journals, so no fear of WP:OR on that particular point. --Plumbago15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable? What's presented above seems to be a wiki blog, a primary source giving the Templeton Org's response to the wiki blog, and links to Dembski's blog. Please present verifiable sources that fully comply with WP:RS, with assessment by secondary sources to avoid original research in interpreting primary sources. Again, the "research questions" ID proponents are proposing according to the ID wiki seem to be vague philosophical queries, a long way from being a proposal for scientific research. Surprisingly enough. .. dave souza, talk16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's verifiable that ID proponents claim they have proposed research, which is all I'm saying. Is it notable? It might have a place in a discussion of whether ID performs research. Gnixon02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could wax poetic about my plans (if I had any) to build a rocket to go to the moon, but until I build the rocket and get my ass to the moon, it's all just talk. •Jim62sch•22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose the following citations:
Jonathan Wells posited that Centriole cause the "polar wind" and proposed research to test it.[18]
This is a published ID proposal in a scientific journal.DLH04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem attacks cannot fail to disprove that this is a published reference. Wells has reviewed the literature, and given a testable hypothesis. He is now working on ways to test that. That is citable ID scientific theory and research in a published citable journal.DLH04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since 1979, Sermonti has been Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world (founded in 1919), which, prior to Sermonti's assumption of the role of Chief Editor was considered to be respectable journal. Since Sermonti took over, however, it has published papers which would be regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community, particularly articles by creationists such as Jerry Bergman, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, as well as articles by Morphogenetic field advocate Rupert Sheldrake and holistic scientist Mae-Wan Ho.
Rivista di Biologia is a well known pseudoscience journal. Do your homework before coming back to Wikipedia again and destabilizing an article with tendentious claims. Odd nature16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section appears biased, pushing Foresters argument on creationism. This should be deleted. If it is kept, it needs to be condensed and balanced with corresponding evidence for agnostics and moslems advocating ID.
For it to be kept, a corresponding section should be placed under Evolution emphasizing the number of atheists including Dawkins who advocate evolution. Recommend adding the following:
ID proponents include Moslems, agnostics, and former atheists (e.g., Mustafa Akyol [19], David Berlinski [20], Andrew Flew [21])
Convert section to an article on Origin theories and religion.
All origin theories have philosophical implications separate from the theory itself. It is inappropriate to focus on ID and prevent similar discussion in Evolution.
Recommend converting this section to a separate article that addresses the religious beliefs of practioners of origin theories.
Include sections on Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creation Science. DLH07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Kitzmiller. Also note "leading" proponents: Akyol appears to be a creationist making some references to ID, and Flew may be a proponent but has hardly "led". ,,, dave souza, talk09:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH, that is a great vomitous spew you have favored us with, but the more you write, the more obvious it is to me that you will only be happy if this article is written in the same style as the articles on that other wiki, and is essentially an advertisement for the Intelligent Design position. Now ask yourself, seriously, how likely is this to happen? --Filll12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filll, characterizing DLH's comments as "a great vomitous spew" is extremely uncivil and an extremely inappropriate response to his/her polite comments. It seems to me that DLH favors ID, but that in no way disqualifies him/her from helping to improve this article---in fact, his/her knowledge of the subject and interest in it is a strong qualifier. DLH's comments, in my opinion, are far from suggesting that s/he wants to turn this article into an advertisement for ID. For the most part, his/her comments amount to simply suggesting that Intelligent Design is presented in the same style as, say, Astrology. The latter is hardly an advertisement, in my opinion. Gnixon15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnixon, once you and DLH have basically discredited yourselves, you create a certain image of yourselves and your suggestions. And frankly, I think "intelligent design" is presented the way I would like to see "astrology" presented, especially if there was a dishonest, lying and cheating bunch of intolerant jerks pushing for it to be introduced as science in the classroom. In that case, sure, present them the same way. Why not? But to do that, lets not lighten up on intelligent design, but instead crack down on pseudoscience and assorted horse puckey like astrology even harder.--Filll18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember that it's not the mission of Wikipedia to shoot down Intelligent Design and Astrology. Gnixon20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. .. dave souza, talk21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying "give equal validity to minority views." I just don't understand why most so much of the article should be about debunking ID instead of describing it. WP:UNDUE isn't about making all of Wikipedia's articles about pseudoscience topics turn into debunkings. It's okay to indicate the strength of moral repugnance many scientists may feel toward ID, but it's not okay for the article to adopt that POV. Our readers are intelligent enough to decide whose perspective to accept. Gnixon01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately many proponents of ID, while doubtless very intelligent, seem to spread misunderstandings about science which this article has to try to clarify for those looking for information. It's understandable that those who want science to comply with their faith might find that a debunking, but this article has to inform readers rather than support faith. .. dave souza, talk21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate your insinuation that my statement has something to do with some religion I might follow----I've never offered any information about my personal beliefs, and I haven't tried to guess yours when evaluating your comments. My point about "debunking" was simply that every statement or paragraph about ID is followed by a statement or paragraph about the position of its critics. That's a straightforward observation, from which follows my opinion that it ruins the flow of the article and makes it read like it's going out of its way to emphasize the position of ID's critics. Regarding your comment, I don't agree that this article is compelled to correct the supposed ignorance or gullibility of its readers on the basics of science, which are not the subject of the article. More generally, it's obvious that the positions of scientists, federal courts, etc., must be presented at some point, but why turn the entire article into a long list of point-counterpoint? Gnixon06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not commented on your religion, or indeed my religion. Your concern about the flow of the article suggests you'd like the views of non-proponents to be separated away from the points they're discussing – that's actually a lot harder to follow than fully discussing each point as it arises. .. dave souza, talk12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it would be awkward to try and address each point in some separate section, but why is it important that this article addresses each point? ID is generally the argument that nature shows signs of a designer. I think a section on the scientific/social reception could generally indicate that scientists disagree. Another issue is that much of ID is about attacking the basis of evolution. I think a section on scientific reception could simply give a couple examples of why scientists think the objections are baseless, then link to Objections to Evolution, where they are appropriately addressed point-by-point. I really think a couple examples would serve to get across the positions of scientists, then readers could link to Objections for more detail if they wanted it. I think that layout would drastically improve the readability of the article. Gnixon16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These objections and proposals appear to turn WP:NPOV on it's head, giving the minority viewpoint precendence over the majority view and treating the ID movement's spin of the facts as fact. DLH, have you even read WP:NPOV? Because until you acknowledge that the scientific community (which has dismissed ID as not science alonside the courts) is the majority view there's nothing here to dicuss. This huge list of complaints about the article reads just like a Discovery Institute press release. Literally. Odd nature22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OddNature, GNixon is reknowned throughout the land for misunderstanding NPOV, then yelling long and hard (of course, throw in the filing of ANI's against anyone who might stand up to his POV warrior attitude) when he doesn't get his way. He ignores the undue weight clause, because, well I wish I knew why??? Orangemarlin04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH is simply yet again regurgitating the Discovery Institute's same tired rhetoric, shown to be outright falsehoods over a year ago in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and yet again expecting it to be taken at face value and considered afresh and misrepresenting sources (again) in so doing. He apparently expects us to favor completely partisan sources over more neutral and credible sources. DLH, read the Dover ruling in its entirety and accept it. Then read the sources in the article. We're bound by policy to rely on source, and not just any sources, but the most credible: NYT, NAS, AAAS, the courts, etc. Wholly partisan sources like those you cite, are suitable as primary sources only. We're not going to be playing the same game here as the Discovery Institute and the Thomas More Law Center tried in Dover, misrepresenting both the view of the scientific community and those who testified on its behalf like Forrest. In fact, your very objection to Forrest is the same one made by the DI there, and whose reasoning was ultimately rejected by the judge. Your proposals here will never fly as long as they continue to employ partisan rhetoric to inflate a partisan viewpoint to a degree far beyond its level of support, sustained by partisan sources. Again. FeloniousMonk05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Which is a more reliable source on the beliefs of ID advocates: statements made by those advocates, or interpretations of those statements made by opponents? It seems to me that the best possible source for a claim such as "Joe Foo believes proposition X" is a reliably-sourced assertion by Joe Foo that asserts proposition X ... not an assertion by some third party that "the wicked and treacherous Joe Foo claims to believe proposition X". --FOo22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper categorization of what an opponent is. When objective reliable sources such as numerous scientific organizations overwhelmingly agree "that's a bunch of bunk; it's not science" and other objective, reliable sources say "it's philosophy or theology or religion", and a federal court admonishes the advocates for their dishonesty, etc., etc., that doesn't mean WP editors must assume all these are "opponents" and that we're thus obliged to strike some kind of balance between the proponents' preferred version of events and that of the many published commentators and analysts of the situation. But, I had been wondering if this sort of opinion might be FOo's position with respect to this article. Thanks for helping to clarify. ... Kenosis23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Foo, I have your number now. It ALL starts to become VERY CLEAR. Thanks so much for your honesty and forthrightness. --Filll23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent> FOo, personal blogs and wikis are not reliable sources, even for the views of their proponents. "Official" sites are a better source for such views, but as a primary source they should as much as possible be read in the context of a secondary source. DLH was proposing a wiki and Dembski's famous blog as the sort of references we should be using, without secondary sources. Need I say more? .. dave souza, talk23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument from Fascism: FeloniousMonk apparently wishes everyone to accept his POV or his interpretation of the majority position without question and thus establish fascism (contrary to the First Amendment.) Are the courts so infallible that he would have us bow to the Dred Scott decision? I am afraid that the skepticism essential to science, engineering, and democracy prevents me from so "bowing the knee". Perhaps FM would care to ponder on the ancient proverbs: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." Proverbs 18:17; "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17. DLH04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the ad hominem comments. When do we get to substantive discussion on the issue? Yes I have read NPOV. FeloniousMonk is avoiding the substance of my recommendations. This is my perspective, not DI; This section tries to claim ID is invalid because of the religious beliefs of some of its proponents without mentioning beliefs of other proponents. That is equivalent to saying Evolution is valid/not valid because some of its proponents are atheists. That is a logical fallacy that needs correcting. This should be in a separate page by itself.DLH05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Evolution is part of science. It is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence gathered, rather surprisingly, by scientists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. One can be of any belief system yet understand evolution. That it negates some aspects of some belief systems may be unfortunate, but neither here or there as far as those studying evolution are concerned. ID claims to be science. This claim is not supported by the scientific community and ID was ruled in a US court not to be science but rather an attempt to import religion into the teaching of science. One of the most notable things about ID is that it is not what it claims to be. Therefore the motives of those who make the claim are of interest. To better understand those motives, their religious backgrounds are important. The religious backgrounds of those who work on evolution are not important because their work has nothing to do with religion. --Michael Johnson04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson, You are avoiding the logical fallacy and revealing how little you have read on the issue. If you address motives of ID proponents, then you equally need to address presuppositions and motives of evolutionists. THose are the two opposing origin theories based on opposing metaphysical presupupositions. Since science cannot prove that intelligent causation does not exist, it is logical to allow that it might and test for it. Again evaluating presuppositions and motives of both should go on a separate page addressing those issues.DLH05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm well that post really shows your POV, and clearly indicates you have very little understanding of either evolution or how science works. Science cannot prove that little green jellybabies are not running the universe, but the complete lack of any evidence would indicate that further investigation is unlikely be productive. OTOH substantial evidence supports evolution. But what, pray tell, are the motives of scientists, other than to better understand the natural world? But hey, given what you have written, there really does not seem to be much point in furthering the discussion. --Michael Johnson05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought it was little blue jellybabies, oh well. Bottom line that DLH and other POV-warriors fail to comprehend is that evolution is mute on the existennce or non-existence of a deity or deities; it's simply irrelevant to the theory and thus to the discussion. •Jim62sch•10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DLH: The problem is that there's a wide variety of presuppositions that might lead one to accept Methodological Naturalism, Science and Evolutionary Biology, including a disbelief in God and a belief in a God that generally allows the universe to proceed via consistent and determinable natural laws (as well as a wide variety of other equivalent presuppositional positions based on agnosticism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc). On the other hand the presuppositions that lead to promoting ID (and rejecting Methodological Naturalism) are much narrower, more onerous, and thus more directly topical. Science is under no obligation to test for every wild speculation. If ID-ers want their speculations to be tested (and eventually accepted), then it is up to them to formulate, perform and publish these tests for themselves. Hrafn4211:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that since this is an article about ID, the motivations of its proponents are much more relevant than the motivations of those who accept evolution. Gnixon19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might note that in every case where tests have been proposed, such as those by Dembski and Behe, the tests have been attempted and ID has failed the tests so far. So even if it is claimed that this possibility must be accepted and tested for, the result has been negative. So...do you have any tests for green jelly babies?--Filll12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to consider something like miszabot for archival. It's very easy to set up and it's pretty flexible. Gnixon15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cute this ref. Formatted with cite web, it looks like:
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html|title=Index to Creationist Claims|publisher=The TalkOrigins Archive|first=Mark|last=Isaak|date=2006|quote=With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical}}</ref>
From the homepage: "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins." A Usenet archive does not meet our sourcing policies. Marskell16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the homepage:
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
The article in question is edited by Mark Isaak, himself a published author (The Counter-Creationism Handbook, ISBN:0520249267). I would claim that it is a WP:RS. Hrafn4216:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, the (still debated) exception is for pop culture, such as Babylon 5. (Do you not see an irony in arguing for weaker sources when countering Intelligent design arguments?) However, the awards section proves that reliable third parties have discussed the site, and if Isaak is published in the relevant field then he may be allowed under the exception on V. Marskell04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with Marskell. Not only is it ironic, but in this instance it vastly complicates the analysis of what is a reliable source. There are many other reliable sources that point up the importance of independent critical analyses in peer review. The article can do without this particular source, I should think, and it can readily be replaced in due course with another reliable source that doesn't involve a separate analysis of the reliability of this particular type of newsgroup. ... Kenosis05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent> It certainly is ironic that the scientific community has avoided giving the credence of formal discussion of creationist claims, and those dealing with such claims from the early days chose usenet which is deprecated as a source. As I recall, a distinction has been drawn between this well acclaimed Archive and the usenet postings which were used as its basis. Another point to consider is that the FAQs are well referenced in themselves. The exception at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) for acknowledged experts who have published elsewhere makes it an option that has to be treated with caution. There's a further irony in that we have to be very careful about using this well scrutinised and referenced resource, but newspaper articles by ill-informed reporters are reliable sources in our terms. My own opinion is that TOA is a useful resource and should not be lightly dismissed, but that in this particular instance the point may be well enough covered by the Brauer / Forrest / Gey citation that follows it. .. dave souza, talk06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be hard to find peer reviewed work dismissing it, because there's no actual peer reviewed work supporting it. The court cases and the various statements by scientific organizations are the strongest sources one'll find. I also agree about newspapers, and have recently argued vigorously that they should not be used for points of scientific fact.
If Isaak is well-acclaimed and published, and the site material has been vetted by other professionals since its Usenet incarnation, I will demur per the V exception. Is he attached to a university? I've noticed a blog from a professor at the University of Wisconsin, which we should also be careful with. Marskell06:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk.Origins Archive is not an unedited archive of Usenet posts, in the sense of Google Groups or the old Deja News. It is an archive of articles relevant to evolution, many of which have been posted on the newsgroup as well. These articles themselves are generally well-referenced. --FOo18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Defining as science section, I'm concerned about the paragraph beginning "For any theory..." It doesn't have references but rather explanatory notes that veer into OR unless sourced. Intelligent design violates Occam's Razor? OK, what reliable source has said so? Marskell06:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on this before. In my opinion these unsourced notes should be deleted, and if a reference relating that paragraph to ID is not available, it should also be deleted. My view is that the entire section should be reconsidered to incorporate the points set out in s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science, together with other relevant points which are fully sourced and attributable. .. dave souza, talk08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. There's a difference between "citation needed" or "unreferenced", and on the other hand "unverifiable", or not in keeping with WP:VER. And it's most certainly not OR. The components on this list can be found in several seminal legal cases, in many standard introductory experimental method texts, and in a number of texts dealing with the philosophy of science. I'll go into my personal library and have a look, for starters.
As to Dave Souza's point, anyone closely familiar with the philosophy of science and the demarcation problem is familiar with the points in that short list. And yes, it certainly can be reworked somewhat and still be consistent with the most widely agreed basic criteria. ... Kenosis15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added two references for now. When there's an opportunity, it would be nice, IMO, for participating editors to go over this list of criteria again and review it with a closer eye on the testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. And, it would be nice to begin filling in the specific sources for each of these as applied to intelligent design. Yes, I know they're verifiable, but am requesting that we find the reliable sources and place them in the article. Some of them can be found in the lengthy talk-page discussions around the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006. ... Kenosis00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes it more legit, and agree that in the longer term the section can be reviewed. In some ways the problem has been much illuminated since the section was first written, and it may be possible to tighten the focus. .. dave souza, talk20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the question isn't whether those criteria are in keeping with the demarcation problem. The question is whether other sources have stated ID violates them. Until you have a reliable source stating "ID violates Occam's Razor," it's OR to say as much. Marskell10:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Perhaps the problem with the "Defining as science" section is that it's attempting to provide definitions of science not particularly related to ID, while the meat of the relevant discussion is directly under the main "Controversy" heading. My suggestion is to move the "Defining as science" heading to immediately before the third paragraph of Controversy", so that it begins with "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on...". The last paragraph of that section at present, which starts "Although intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others...", could be moved up to the "Movement" section where a new subsection "Religious reactions" would follow naturally after "Religion and leading proponents", or could form a new subsection further down in the controversy section. .. dave souza, talk11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell's concern here is quite reasonable, IMO. These were originally placed in the article based on reliable sources, but prior to the stage in time during which there came to be a more widespread expectation in WP for stricter fullfillment of WP:VER via placing the sources in the article, as versus the earlier expectations that users be prepared to show the proof of sourcing when a particular issue was contested. Since we're doing the FAR, now would be an excellent time to find some of these and provide them. I'll track some of these down over the weekend. ... Kenosis14:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This quote[9] from William Dembski might be an appropriate reference for the 'Empirically testable and falsifiable' bullet point:
But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability. But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.
While was working on formatting a cite in the lead, an edit conflict showed up slightly changing the wording and the spelling of archaeologist to archeologist. It seemed to me no improvement and an odd spelling, so I noted the latter and went ahead with the cite template. It appears that archeologist is actually a US spelling, and as it's a US subject that's perhaps appropriate. However, you'll note that that's a redirect, and the Archaeological Institute of America seems to prefer the usual spelling, even for the American Journal of Archaeology. Is it worth being different? ... dave souza, talk19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who made that small change after consulting a few online sources. I am not sure that archeologist is even the preferred US spelling (although it is certainly acceptable). For example the main entry on the subject in Merriam Webster (a American dictionary) is under archaeology with "archeology" listed as a variant, and archeologist not even listed.
Of course, this is such a minor change, that I wouldn't really object if you decide to revert to the older spelling for whatever reason. Cheers. Abecedare20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal, and as noted above it was mainly less hassle than having to start again with the cite template. It was almost certainly a US editor who used the "archaeologist" spelling in the first place, let's see if anyone else feels strongly about it. .. dave souza, talk20:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. It was I who changed the archeologist -> archaeologist for reasons given in my previous post. User:Tevildo changed it back to the version without the "a" citing "US spelling" in the edit summary, which I think is incorrect. But oh well ... Abecedare20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for any problems caused. This article follows US spelling conventions, and I'm afraid I assumed that "Archeologist" was the standard US spelling (by analogy with "medieval", "encyclopedia", "hyena", etc.). If "archaeologist" is standard US, by all means keep it that way. I was only really concerned with the position of the comma. :) Tevildo20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Archaeology", "archaeologist" are more common, yes. "Archeology", like "ameba", is archaeic. :) --FOo
Interesting reversal of an old trend-- can't wait to begin spelling "Wikipaedia, the Free Encyclopaedia" and such. Yes, I'm afraid "archaeology" has become more common even in the US. (myself, I like the older way better -- "archeology" -- but it's a minority usage and no one in "acadaemia" uses it anymore.) ... Kenosis21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never before has the inclusion of two measly letters in scholarly content generated such heated debate with competing examples, analogies, and views of history and US culture being brought forth! Abecedare01:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent> Heated argument? If you think this is a heated argument, you've obviously not read the archives! ;) . . Anyway, since there's also an archaeology in the article, it makes sense to standardise (or standardize) on archaeologist. Or, if that's too many letters, archæologist.. <ducks> Bit rushed now, will sort it shortly. .. ..dave souza, talk08:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: My last post regarding "heated debate" was intentionally hyperbolic, and a allusion to the fact that all these debates about a in archaelogy, or s/z in -ize etc, pale in comparison to the ones engendered by the two measly letters: "ID". Re-reading my old post, I see that it was far too cryptic, and the attempted humor fell flat as it was taken seriously :-) Abecedare20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qualification (to be read in a Yorkshire accent) Call that an argument? In my young days we 'ad to eat coal for breakfast, read t'archives all t'way through, and fight wi pit boots an' pick handles for four hours solid, 'afore we thought we'd 'ad an argument. Trouble at ID? It's their enormous egos.... dave souza, talk21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some say it is still open. Some say it is closed. Some say it has to stay open for another couple of weeks at least or else people will complain. Someone offered to keep it open for a year. I am confused. Is it closed now, officially? Should the material from the FAR talk page be moved here to discuss different versions of the lead and a possible introductory "fork" of this article? Or should we just drop it?--Filll18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little more investigation just revealed to me that this FAR was indeed closed on July 20 by User:BozMo: [10]. Unfortunately, the notice at the top of this page has not been updated accordingly.--Filll18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That closure appears to be disputed, unfortunately. I suggest that we keep all discussion here (on the talk page, in case this gets moved) until the FAR process owners make their decision. Tevildo20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also found out that even though it was closed, they have decided to keep it open, but at its FAR archive page, which is not really an archive page, found here.--Filll20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background: During the FAR, it was repeatedly suggested that the LEAD of this article is too complicated and has too many references, and is not nice and simple like the German and French article LEADs. Also it was suggested that this article was not accessible to school children and the general public, which I somewhat agree with. In accordance with that, I decided to explore the issue of creating a "parallel" Introduction to intelligent design article, and also examine the LEADs the critics said were superior to ours. More information can be found at the FAR archive page.--Filll18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Le dessein intelligent (Intelligent Design en anglais[22]) est le concept selon lequel « certaines observations de l'univers et du monde du vivant sont mieux expliquées par une cause intelligente, et non par des processus aléatoires tels que la sélection naturelle. »[23]
Here is a rough English version of this French lead:
Intelligent design is the concept that certain observations of the universe and life are better explained by an intelligent cause and not by natural processes like natural selection.[24]
This LEAD has one reference, to the DI website. None of the other statements is cited. There is no mention of the trial, which was widely covered in the English media. The controversy is downplayed. It is certainly easier and more accessible. It does not say who thinks ID is equivalent to creationism and why. It does not explain what this "intelligent cause" is, or make it very clear that this intelligent cause is not supposed to be the laws of nature. This was mentioned above as a preferable approach. It might be the basis of a companion article called Introduction to intelligent design. I think such an article would be valuable, but have a very hard time in the current environment. Comments?--Filll13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "Introduction to intelligent design" would be the best possible idea, as the title makes it very clearly absolutely dependent on the parent article. Maybe "'History of intelligent design theory" or "Development of intelligent design theory" instead? John Carter13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed intro is lacking in all respects: 1) It only presents one side of the issue, that of ID proponents, and the summarizing description misses all the nuances of their claims that are so important to understanding how and why the scientific community has reacted to ID. 2) It ignores the reaction of the scientific community to ID in direct violation of WP:NPOV. 3) It also fails to describe ID's legal status, which is central to why ID proponents are in the pickle they are in and why ID has made no inroads into the one area ID proponents have tried to advance it the most: public high school science curicula. 4) It violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV by protraying ID's creationist roots as a view held just "some observers". Sources are already provided in the article that show that all involved parties in the ID debate acknowdge ID is a form of creationism; every leading ID proponent has admitted ID is a form of creationim (in moments of candid dialog with their constituency), every leading scientific professional society has said it in policy statements, as well as the education community, and now a federal court has ruled it. Describing these already verifiable fact as just a view held by "some observers" is to commit an error of fact right up front in the intro and to promote an impression that ID proponent would like to perpetuate, something we won't be doing in this article. Any intro this dissapated and sparse will never serve as an appropriate summary of the article as called for by the guidelines and is a move in the wrong direct. It will never fly. FeloniousMonk14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with all of these objections by FeloniousMonk. However, I would ask that people ponder the question, can we write a simple short article that covers these points, but still make it readable for someone with about a grade 8 reading level? I have raised this repeatedly on the article talk page when we were discussing teleological arguments, but eventually I realized it was hopeless and the intelligent design article was going to veer off into a less accessible direction. However, I do think that DrKiernan has a point, when he says that most of our readers will not be able to understand the present article, and will probably then just go to the very websites that present the arguments from a pro-ID and pro-DI perspective. Can we make something easy to read, that still makes it clear that ID is pseudoscience, etc? I do not know, but it would present a substantial intellectual challenge, and possibly result in a useful article.--Filll15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be correct. I just wanted to raise the issue and see what people thought, since this is one of the perceived problems of the intelligent design article and its FA status. That is, people demand that the intelligent design article must be all things to all people, which of course is impossible. How this was successfully broached at the evolution article (which suffered from much the same difficulties, frankly), which is mentioned above as a model, was to create a parallel "baby version" of the evolution article at Introduction to evolution. This then left the main evolution article to be as sophisticated as the editors wished, but still presented accessible material on evolution to the readership at the new simplified introductory article.--Filll15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this illustrates very well the need for the carefully balanced lead that the article has at present, contrary to proposals for watering down its description put forward on the article talk page, and the dangers of a simplified pov fork that gives undue weight to the deceptive descriptions officially presented by the DI when they're not rallying their religious supporters. .. dave souza, talk15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with dave souza as well. If the critics of the current intelligent design article lead read the suggestion (partly put forward by me playing Devil's Advocate) and the objections that it inspires, it becomes clear what the problems are with some of the "helpful" suggestions that critics have made above. I also fear that oversimplifying the argument with a fork might run into POV problems, be hard to write in an NPOV fashion, encourage more pro-ID attacks, and be soon challenged repeatedly by POV warriors who demand citations, until the fork looked pretty much like the original article.--Filll15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content and "structure" of the lead, contrary to several complaints that amount to a demand to change it altogether, is in keeping with both the FA criteria and WP:LEAD. A lead section is not required to be a quick trace of the exact outline of the article, but rather is expected to summarize and introduce the topic and be capable of standing on its own. The present lead does all three of these, summarizes, introduces the rest of the article, and is capable of standing on its own, independently of the rest of the article. Frankly, this one's about as good as it gets in the business of presenting complex and controversial topics. The first paragraph says what ID is said to be by its proponents, what it actually is (a modern synthesis of teleological arguments for the existence of God), summarizes in two clauses who its leading proponents are (all affiliated with the Discovery Institute) , and summarizs in one sentence what its proponents assert to be the class of thing that ID belongs to (a scientific theory). The second paragraph summarizes the response of the scientific and science education communities. The third paragraph gives a very brief picture of the legal history, the emergence of the words "intelligent design" as a term followed by the founding of the Discovery Institute, the gradually increasing visibility of the ID movement, and its culmination in a federal court case that resolved the question whether ID is science and whether it can be taught in public schools,
The article then proceeds to explain all of these things. Indeed, each of the subsections on particular aspects of ID summarizes the battle between ID proponents and the scientific and science-education communities along with other notable critics, as to each basic class of ID-related concept, as to the strategy of proponents and the responses of critics and the court system, as to whether it is scientific such that it can be taught as science. Additionally noted in the article are a number of criticisms by notable commentators that go beyond the issue of whether it's scientific, illustrating to the reader typical debates about the teleological argument itself, irrespective of whether it's scientific per se, which has also been a notable part of the stir about ID. Where this is done, the article so notes (e.g., by stating "[B]eyond the debate about whether intelligent design is scientific..."). That said, of course it could be written differently; and so what? To reiterate: there is no requirement that the article precisely duplicate the internal outline and/or every little point of emphasis mentioned in the lead-- it presently serves the accepted purpose of a WP lead exactly as it stands, and exactly as the article is currently written. ... Kenosis16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rough translation of the vaunted German article LEAD, as stated above, is:
Intelligently Design (ID) is a neocreationist position that the characteristics of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by an undirected process, like natural selection.[1] Its most prominent advocates are all [2] Americans belonging to the Discovery Institute, and state that intelligent design is a scientific theory, equivalent to existing scientific theories for the origin of life or superior to them. [3]
An overwhelming majority [4] of American science organizations state that intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory, but is pseudoscience [5] or “junk science”. [6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences argues that intelligent design and similar beliefs are not science because they require supernatural intervention in the origin of life, cannot be studied empirically, and make no predictions and do not allow the creation of new hypotheses. [7]
The legal status of intelligent design was established in the legal proceedings Kitzmiller v. Dover AREA School District (2005), in a US Federal court, presided over by district judge John E Jones III, appointed by George W. Bush. Jones ruled that a public school district according cannot require that students be taught that intelligent design is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. This is in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the US constitution. The decision concluded that intelligent design was not science and essentially religious in nature.
I would ask the critics to demonstrate how this LEAD is superior to our current article LEAD? Instead of vague complaints, I want to know exactly why our present LEAD is so terrible, compared to these purportedly "better" LEADs? Could these hold up to criticism by POV critics? Are they as complete? As accurate? As detailed? --Filll16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be in favour of adopting the German lead. Most importantly, it says up-front that ID is creationism, without the digression we currently have regarding the teleological argument; one major point of contention we have is the word "teleological" itself, and the German approach eliminates this problem. (I appreciate that we might have a similar controversy over "neocreationist" as opposed to, say, "progressive creationist", but the basic message of the statement wouldn't change). The US-centric nature of ID is emphasised by the frequent use of "American" - indeed, if all the leading proponents are American as well as affiliated with the DI, we should include that in our article, even if we don't make any more fundamental changes. The rest of the lead is essentially the same as ours, but simplified and cut down considerably, which I think is a positive feature. The German lead _isn't_ as complete and detailed as ours (I won't comment on "accurate", but I can't see anything wrong with it on that front), but I think that makes it superior, _as a lead_. The place to be complete and detailed is the main body of the article. Tevildo17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I simply don't see the German version being any improvement on what we already have. In fact, it's less complete and less accurate. Odd nature21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree, at least, that (a) "Neocreationist position" (with appropriate reservations about the "neo") is better than "claim" as the key word(s) in the definition of ID, and/or (b) the nationality as well as the religions beliefs of the "leading ID proponents" is a significant ommission from our version? Tevildo21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the German version was copped from an older version of this page. We've alread had that argument regarding Neocreationist position. I don't get point b. •Jim62sch•21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess point b. would make it "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute in the U.S." something on those lines. The US centric nature of ID is indicated by paragraph 3, but not made explicit in the lead. .. dave souza, talk21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<undent>Part of the difficulty with that characterization is that it is not exclusively a US phenomenon, although it is primarily a US phenomenon. Clearly, the DI is trying diligently to spread it outside US borders. There are IDEA student clubs being started all over the place, in Kenya, Canada, the Phillipines, and the Ukraine, as well as all over the US. There have been ID websites set up in several foreign countries as well. They have been making efforts in the UK and Australia and other places, although they have recently had some setbacks politically. In addition, clearly the DI has romanced the Haran Yayha organization (although it looks like it is backfiring, since they have recently denounced ID, finally figuring out it was associated with Christianity and even, God forbid, THE JEWS, which they definitely despise more than evolution). Also, if you look at A Scientific dissent from Darwinism, it is clear that a lot of the signatories are from outside the US, so this muddies the water a bit more. So, short of going into a huge long clarifying discussion in the LEAD, should this be even brought up in the LEAD? --Filll22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the German version has an idea worthy of adoption. A defining characteristic of ID is that it is some type of creationism. They state this obvious fact up front without any weasel words. Is there some way we could do something like this? I’d like to think so. Here’s my shot:
Intelligent design is the creationist claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
While I agree that ID is an updated version of creationism, we already had this debate and ran into significant objections to the use of crerationist or neocreationist in the lead. The German version likely did not as ID is a curiostity in Germany not a battleground. In fact, that is what both the French and German leads fail to convey, the level of controversy ID generates. If the ID flacks who've attacked this article had a clue how to read German or French then those articles would become very contested. •Jim62sch•10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is not noticed by most of the people in love with the French or the German LEADs is that these are similar to LEADs that once existed here in this article. The pro-ID, pro-DI POV warriors forced most of the changes on the current LEAD. One change that was not from them was the use of teleology I think. I personally did not favor using the word teleology in the LEAD, but eventually after weeks and months of fighting, consensus headed in another direction (basically, one side gives up in exhaustion). That is how things work on WP, as everyone knows). However, the fact that the French and German versions are able to survive is evidence that the DI's claims that they have legions of supporters outside the US appears to be completely false.--Filll12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These versions are quite blunt as well, especially the Catalan: [11], [12]. If you need them translated, I'll get to it later (note that the Catalan version is an expansion on the Spanish version). •Jim62sch•10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides this English article, the only other ID article to get a special "distinguished" rating appears to be the Swedish article: [13], and so maybe it merits special attention. As I look through these, some of them do not have ANY citations whatsoever. Their talk pages are also essentially empty of any comments, particularly compared to this one. As Jim says, in most other countries this is just a curiousity.--Filll 12:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Interestingly, it has a separate paragraph to note the pseudoscientific nature of ID, "Det vetenskapliga samfundet avfärdar intelligent design som pseudovetenskap med religiös grund". •Jim62sch•10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several other LEADs in other languages do not have any citations. I have not found any with much in the way of talk pages. The Italian version of the article itself appears to be even longer than the English version, and has only 70-80 citations. However, there are still very few posts on the talk page of the Italian version. A systematic survey of all the versions in all the languages might be interesting, but perhaps not particularly relevant. The environment this article must survive in is brutal.
I admit I like the Italian terms for "junk science" better, "("scienza rottame" o "scienza spazzatura")" (literally "scrap iron science" and "trash science" respectively). •Jim62sch•10:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They also cleverly work in teleology, "I sostenitori del disegno intelligente considerano tali critiche errate e dovute a un pregiudizio naturalistico che vorrebbe negare a priori uno status scientifico a qualsiasi ipotesi o teoria teleologica". •Jim62sch•10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that User:SandyGeorgia and User:SlimVirgin and other outside admins and editors were somewhat surprised to discover that, surprise surprise, what was reputed to be a controversial and contentious subject, in fact, actually was a controversial and contentious subject. To this end, there appeared on the FAR talk page no less than 4 POV-pushers, including one who had to be banned, one who paraphrased other's comments and edited the discussion to slant it in his direction, one who was sufficiently irritating that an RfC was lodged against him (and which required incredible efforts to defend him against, wasting the time of all concerned), and one who brought the action and was revealed to have been completely misleading everyone as to his real intent and purpose, and began to act in a petulant fashion. One edited a closed page repeatedly, ignoring all the warning signs and page color. One posted huge long screeds and puerile diatribes that had to be repeatedly removed as inappropriate. This all contributed to making it a uniquely unpleasant and unproductive experience.
In addition, this episode was connected with internal FA dissension, and controversy over the closing of the FAR, which might have negative consequences for some of those involved eventually. These POV pushers, who shall remain unnamed but are well known to all, can thank themselves for getting the FAR closed. They made things so unpleasant and so difficult and so fractious, and their complaints were revealed to be so biased and so baseless that the entire reason for the FAR evaporated, compared to the heat generated by their biased attacks. As near as I can tell, this was just an exercise in producing a platform on which the DI and its supporters could parade around various malcontents and scream about unfairness, throwing public tantrums. As they say, by their fruits ye shall know them...--Filll13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that sums it up nicely. Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis and put it all down for the record. Now, what to do about the remaining POV pusher? He's still more than a little disruptive, preventing discussion on more relevant issues by resurrecting old issues long settled and misrepresenting sources, or ignoring them outright. Reading WP:DE I suggest bring this to WP:CN. Odd nature16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following some confusion about whether or not the featured article review had in fact been closed, I have decided to close it. This article remains a featured article. Raul65413:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The review had difficulties, as Filll says above, but also brought in some useful editing help. We'll update those citation templates yet! ... dave souza, talk14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I counted correctly, 15 users advocated keeping as FA, with about five or six users that had miscellaneous complants about it, but who did not agree among themselves as to what thing(s) would constitute proper reason(s) to do anything other than keep as an FA. Personally, I say thank you to Marskell, Dave Souza, and others who had a hand in there, for digging in on some of the hard work of updating the citation templates, along with everybody else who made improvements. Geez, will we ever get all of those footnote templates done? ;-) ... Kenosis16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the FAR is close it's time archive FAR related debates so we can get down to actually improving the article as opposed to dealing with sniping criticisms and the same old tendentious objections taking advantage of the FAR, using it as a pretense to weaken the article. Odd nature16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because these days experimental psychology uses animal models and new technologies like FMRI and EEG and genetics and tools of neuroscience, etc, I believe that psychology is relevant.--Filll12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What SallyForth123 seems to be doing is going around articles that have been semi-protected, but not tagged as semi-protected, and tagging them. A reasonable action, but likely to have been far more effective if she'd explained her actions in an edit summary. Unless the article is in fact not semi-protected, I would suggest letting the tag stand. Some system whereby tag & reality were automatically aligned would be a good long-term idea. Hrafn4207:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as to everything Hrafn42 said here. The lock insignia for "sprotect2" is visible but discreet with a hovering tab and a link to WP:PROTECT, Unregistered IPs or new users who attempt to implement an edit are notified at the top of the edit-box page what their options are. If the article's long-term sprotect2 involved a mssive template display, it might arguably be excessive to constantly display it, which I'd suppose was discussed in arriving at the lock icon the way it presently is designed. Sallyforth123, I agree, did the right thing. As to justifications given for long-term or indefinite sprotect2, please see Wikipedia Talk:Protection_policy, e.g. the thread currently at the top of the page. ... Kenosis13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I think you misunderstood me on my final point. I was not recommending that this article get "long-term" semi-protection, rather that having the protection/unprotection of an article automatically cause the tag to be applied/removed (e.g. via a bot) would avoid confusion due to misalignment of tag versus reality and might be a good long-term idea. Hrafn4214:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real need for the extra "Ummm", IMO, but NP either. My last sentence was referring to the practice of having had a long-term semiprotect in place, as this article has done for some time now. I was merely making an additional note that the practice is reasonable and has been well justified and supported to alleviate unnecessary work and disruption of content in articles where there are many "drive-by" edits by anon IPs that do not serve to help the article in question. And yes, a bot would be a reasonable approach to matching the page to the actual protection status. ... Kenosis16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen bots go around and remove tags from pages that are no longer protected. I'll see if I can track down one and recommend to the owner to set it up to also add them to pages that are portected and don't have the tags. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to put this article on the main page (as Today's featured article), what image should I use? The only pictures currently in the article are the creationism and watch pictures in the templates, and I don't care for either of them. Raul65414:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any costs attached to any of these, and the fair-use rationales appear sound on all of these. I might also proceed to put in a permission request, e.g., to Time Magazine, to use the August 2005 "Evolution Wars" cover. They tend to grant these permissions fairly readily. ... Kenosis 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) And, for another example, the cover of Monkey Girl ought be readily permitted by the (Harper-Collins), though frankly it's a bit less NPOV to put way up front in the article. ... Kenosis19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px| The textbook Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989, changed the words "creation-" to "intelligent design" prior to its original publication. Its intended audience is secondary school biology classes.]]
Image:Richard_Dawkin_Kepler_Talk.jpg|thumbnail|center|200px| Richard Dawkins, a prominent critic of intelligent design creationism.]]
As I understand things, the book covers aren't going to pass fair-use outside the articles on the books themselves - indeed, it's quite possible that all fair-use images will be banned before too long. The Dembski photo is also a bit doubtful, as it's copied without permission from his own site. Even though the photo is legal, I'm not sure that Dawkins is the ideal candidate to represent the anti-ID position; perhaps Ken Miller or Barbara Forrest, if we can get free-use photos of them? The photo on Miller's article isn't free-use (and isn't that good, to be honest), so we can't use it. Tevildo20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't cite you case law at the moment and have not a clue whose lawyers are writing what to Jimbo Wales' offices in Florida. But this is an article that deals with all of these books and is a almost a poster child for fair use. That is quite unlike the widespread uses of cover art on the web for people's various commercial uses. But I haven't been following the discussion on these matters within the wiki, so if the current discussion says to drop all cover photos from all articles, I imagine they'll get removed. ... Kenosis20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% - Wikipedia would be on completely solid legal ground if it were to allow this sort of image. But, it doesn't, and we have to play by the rules, if the Powers That Be aren't prepared to change them. :( Tevildo20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since some more pictures have been dug up which can be used, could we insert them in this article and some of the subsiduary daughter articles to make them a bit more interesting and less intimidating?--Filll20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - see WP:NFC, particularly "Examples of unacceptable use" paras 7 and 8. I've removed the images - reluctantly, but those are the rules. Tevildo20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the criteria listed in WP:NFC, transcluded from another page:
Non-free content may be used on the English Wikipedia under fair use only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. These criteria are based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure.
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. (b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.
Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia.
Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following.
(a) Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source as set out at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images.
(c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free media rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
The photo of Dembski fails #1. The book covers fail #10c, as the rationales (both template and text description) make it clear that they're being used to illustrate the articles on the _books_. Although the books are a major - indeed, an essential - part of the Intelligent Design movement, _this_ article is not about the _books_ specifically. The photo of Dawkins is OK, and can be re-inserted if necessary. Tevildo21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images (including Dawkins) also arguably fail #8 - they make the article prettier, but they don't (unlike, say, a map or diagram) _add_ to the content of the article. Tevildo21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, with respect to #8, please look at the images above, and let us know whether the reader's understanding is not significantly increased by their inclusion with captions, and diminished by their absence. Recognizing I could very well be wrong, it seemed to me that the article came to life with the images included, whether viewed from the perspective of "friend" or "foe" of the strategy of intelligent design. An example of the article with images and reasonably brief explanatory image-captions included is here ... Kenosis21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to consider seeking explicit permissions such as are quite routinely granted by publishers, who are virtually always willing to have additional exposure for their products. ... Kenosis21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. It's also possible that the rationale for "Pandas", at least, could be extended to cover this article (and the Kitzmiller article, too) - however, I must warn you that you're up against forces which make the tenacity of our regular editors look like Teflon®; getting explicit permission would be a much better way. Tevildo21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo, I've looked into this a bit further, and don't mind seeking explicit permissions from publishers. I can tell everybody from personal experience (specifics irrelevant--see the illustration at the top of this page) that publishers routinely grant such permissions without a second thought. But I don't think this should be necessary here. As to using book cover images relevant to, and capable of improving the readability and explanatory power of this article noticeably, may I suggest allowing a brief period of maybe a few days between installing the images and presenting explicit rationales on the image pages as asserted by #10c, in order to gain consensus that such images are or are not helpful to readers' understanding of the topic. (And, if we need to get to placing the rationale immediately in accordance with current boilerplaete dictum 10c, this too can be done.) Please remember that well chosen illustrations and illustration captions presented in conformance with WP:NPOV and such are capable of being extremely helpful in facilitating readers' understanding because they create a visual reference of an important marker within the topic and have attached to them a brief note about this marker, e.g., "this 1990 Book by author X was among the first 'intelligent design' books", etc. As to William Dembski's image, I suggest it'd be necessary to balance an image such as that of Richard Dawkins for purposes of NPOV-- I think offhand that it needn't necessarily be a one-on=one balance, but it does need to be balanced. And per criterion #1, I don't think anyone here can just go see William Dembski and snap a photo. (If someone here can, please let us know. Or maybe face shots are outta here by consensus or whatever, but IMO they also help to provide aesthetic balance when used in conjunction book and/or magazine cover images. After all, this is about both advocates and the books they've published. In Dembski's case, I personally wasn't able to find an image that meets the criteria set forth in WP:massofintormationabouteverythingintheworldandthecurrentlystatedrulesthereof with respect to "free images" as presently defined in some quarters of WP.) Thus, lacking presentation of a "free image", Dembski's phono meets criterion #1 I think.
So, my preliminary proposal is to change the article to roughly this version upon recieving feedback from as many participants in this article as care to comment. ... Kenosis02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use images should never be used on Talk pages (see point 9 of fair use criteria), so the displayed fair-use images above should be changed to simple links.
Kenosis, you are welcome to ask the publishers for permission to use the book covers, but in my opinion, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they will release them as free images - we all can imagine the what incredible use the anti-ID crowd could put such images (and their derivatives) to if they were indeed public domain! Of course, there is a slim possibility that they will allow the use of those images on wikipedia (although even that is unlikely, given that wikipedia's content doesn't parrot the publisher's /author's beliefs), but wikipedia does not allow wikipedia-only or non-commercial licenses.[15]
That said, it may be possible to establish a fair use justification for some of the book-covers, since their content are specifically discussed in the article. Perhaps a question regarding this can be posed at WP:ICT, where editors relatively well-versed in copyright issues hang out. Cheers. Abecedare04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hard-and-fast distinction I'm seeing misrepresented by at least two, perhaps three, users above -- between "free" and "non'free" images on the wiki as "yes"/"no" or "go"/"stop", "permitted"/"not-permitted", etc. -- is by far an overly simplistic, and fundamentally false distinction AFAIK. This would be a reasonable time to begin a bit of re-education about these issues around the wiki I would think. (Not that I have enough time to do it singlehandedly. And I could, of course, end up getting sent to a re-education camp myself, as perhaps could others, depending on how things go in our part of the "real world". But that is irrelevant to the current legal status of images produced in the U.S. and subject to U.S. copyright law.) Criterion #9 is, frankly, an arbitrary and overly sweeping distinction for images produced in the U.S. and subject to some basic communication rights related to the same First Amendment that was at issue in the Dover case, except that we're not in a public school science class attempting to teach philosophy, theology or religion. Rather, we are discussing the public implications of the material put forward by those books. But if someone else wants to subsume the inline images on this talk page above into links, by all means please go ahead on this basis with no further objection from me. As to the proposed use of these or any other low-resolution book-cover images, such as the ones displayed or linked above, it is squarely within the applicable fair-use critieria AFAIK; the Dembski photo is self-published in conjuneciton with Dembski's curriculum vitae on the web, and thus, lacking a "free" alternative, is more than fair game for reproduction in the context of conveying information. ... Kenosis11:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Raul has pointed out, copyrighted images have to be under a free license if they're used on the main page. Of Pandas and People introduced intelligent design as a new term and began the campaign for its use in schools, as well as being central in the Kitzmiller case. It uses a pic of a panda on its cover, and made the panda into an icon of ID. We don't have to use the book cover to convey that icon, and have plenty of images of Giant Pandas available for free use on the Commons. This picture is particularly bold and graphic, and in my opinion would work well on the article. It would be possible to make "fair use" of the book cover on an article which directly discusses and criticises the book, so that may be arguable but it's hardly the main function of the article. Copyright and care over licences works well for Wikipedia, and we have to take care in respect of other people's licences. .. dave souza, talk11:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I understand now. Thanks Dave, for clarifying the distinction for me. Anyone care to go to Seattle and snap a photo of the Discovery Institute? Then publish it as free? Sure, I suppose a laughing Panda ought to hit it big with the NPOV police. How about a more demure Panda maybe? ... Kenosis13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image suggested by dave is the nicest, and in anycase closest to the cover image of pandas and people. ornis(t)14:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps TIME magazine will allow the use of their cover? I am not sure what can be done, if the pocketwatch is not good, and the Pandas are too obscure for most people, and the book covers are not available and the main players in the controversy are not suitable or recognizable. There is of course the 747 gambit, but this again is too obscure. Maybe a picture of Darwin? I am not sure. A picture of the Beagle? The tree of life? Maybe a picture of the flagellum tha that is supposed to be irreducibly complex? A picture of DNA to indicate genetic information that ID claims cannot be produced?--Filll14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Draft for discussion. May redo if I can be arsed. [Have tweaked a bit.] And [please] don't rush this article to the front page: some points of clarification / reorganisation to be considered, and those cite templates linger on... dave souza, talk 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [amended dave souza, talk07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]
That editor, Walter Isaacson, appears to have written as follows (the IP of origin is in Loveland, CO, and Isaacson is chair of the Aspen Foundation, so it's authenticity, though by no means guaranteed, is at least plausible):
Keep [the image]. I was the editor of Time Magazine when we ran this cover. I admit that I have an emotional interest, but I would respectfully argue that it is worth keeping. The photograph is by Philippe Halsman, one of the greatest American 20th century portrait photographers, whom Einstein helped escape the Nazis. I personally think it is the most famous and best portrait of Einstein. His widow gave us special permission to use it on our Person of the Century issue, and she kept it out of circulation for the year leading up to that issue at our request. I have read the 10-point Wikipedia guidelines, and I can attest that it is fair to use this. Time has always allowed, as a matter of policy, its magazine covers to be reproduced in the context of an article about the issue. In addition, we always negotiate -- and in this case did negotiate -- the right from the artist or photographer (in this case Halsman's estate) that the cover may be reproduced, as long as it is in the context of a magazine cover (in orther words, you could not automatically reproduce Halsman's image, but you could reproduce the Time cover using the image). In my opinion, both the photograph and the Time cover showing him as Person of the Century meet the "notability of this image" criteria. -- Walter Isaacson
I'd say there is a reasonably high probability that Time Magazine would explicitly permit uses such as a low-resolution image of the August 15, 2005 cover as an illustration of a public manifestation of the intelligent design controversy. There are significant commercial advantages for such magazines as Time to freely allow their covers to be reproduced in low-resolution as much as anyone cares to, irrespective of the reason, so long as it does not dilute or infringe the trademark or get used for commercial gain (e.g., by selling a collection of their magazine cover images).
Thus, I want to advocate replacing that image in the article. As to the other cover images of books such as Of Pandas and People, Darwin on Trial, Darwin's Black Box, they similarly are low resolution images of book covers that fit the ten criteria for "fair-use" images. They are important markers in the topic of intelligent design that increase the readers' perspective on the topic, along with the other criteria except for 10c, which requires disclosing the rationale on the image page. This, it would appear, needs to be done more-or-less concurrently with placement on the article page, else it would fail #7, which requires that the image be used in at least one article (not exactly a catch-22 if they're put on the page and the rationale is given at approximately the same time).
As to Dembski's photo, it's probably not copyrightable to begin with, since "works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all." If it is copyrightable at all, 1) it's already been placed out in the public domain by the subject of the photograph, with no indication of who took the photograph, 2) it is a low resolution photograph that has no commercial value at all and is already freely posted in electronic form on the subject's website, and 3) it's a fairly becoming photograph that, if there are any serious complaints about it, can perhaps be replaced with an old yearbook photo or a snapshot of this person dodging out of the DI headquarters in the rain (unfortunately we can't find one right now, so there are no "free alternatives" and thereby meets criterion #1).... I've stricken this last paragraph, having had a chance to brief myself on the present debate within WP concerning photographic "head-shots" of living persons. It is indeed a still-debated issue, though in March, 2007 the WP Board of Trustees passed a resolution that states: "An EDP [Exemption Policy Doctrine] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."Here's the policy resolution. An example of the current debate can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_deletions_of_living_persons. In any event, the photographer of another photo of William Dembski has offered to release it into the public domain, so the question may become moot in the near future by taking that photographer up on her/his offer on this page. ... Kenosis16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking around for a public-domain image that meets NPOV, though I haven't found anything yet that seems to fit the need here. I recognize that the watch is not ideal, particularly without a caption noting what the watch means. Similarly it would be with an eye, which would require at least a brief caption to explain its significance.
But I'm also interested in knowing whether there's interest in having those other images in the article, as was attempted, for example [here (scroll down to observe one possible approach). Oh, and then there's the photo of Judge Jones too, if anyone cares to think about that one. Doubless there are other realisitic possiblities as well. ... Kenosis19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the pictures in the article mock-up. It makes the article more visually stimulating. The Anonymous Designer picture is great! We have to have that in the article somewhere. I would like the judge Jones picture used on the first reference to him in the lead. Pasado05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get in touch with the photographer who took the photo of William Dembski that can be seen on http://www.designinference.com/index.htm. He says he will get in touch with me later in the month and endeavor to upload or email the photograph and release it as a free-license. In the meantime, the fair-use photo in William Dembski is still available until the one I just mentioned gets released. Presently I've tried two initial approaches, one that I implemented [here, and the other of which can be seen with slightly smaller pixel resolution on all of the images here]. Tevildo had knocked down my last attempt to try some images after Raul654 had brought up the image issue, on the basis that the images were not the ideal "free" images but were "non-free" (i.e., "fair-use") which I hope has since been adequately clarified. Tevildo, any further thoughts at this stage? As to Raul's request to look for freely-licensed images that would be suitable for a main-page presentation, we're still stuck for one that captures the concept in the way that Raul requested above. ... Kenosis02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead for now and re-introduced a preliminary set of images with the following edit summary: introducing images per recent talk threads. Fair-use rationales given on Talk, with specific rationales for each category of images, e.g., low-resolution book covers, low-res photos, etc. Lacking any major objections, I imagine it'll go one step at a time from here. Most unfortunate to me is our inability to find a "free-license" image that can convey the overall concept of intelligent design such as Raul had requested. Perhaps it's still out there or could be created at some point in the future. ... Kenosis04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not been on the main page to date. This is preparatory, just in case the FA director and FA community decide to feature it at some point in the future. ... Kenosis15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the questions presented by Yqbd on a separate page because they are increasingly verbose and already consensused as to the content of this article based on WP:Reliable sources such as a federal court and the entire scientific community save for a few that confuse Biblical apologetics, theology and philosophy with what today is termed "scientific method". Yqbd's assertions, and responses to Yqbd's assertions, are now at Talk:Intelligent_design/Yqbd's_peer-review_arguments. If there is the slightest hint of possible consensus to revisit the issue of "peer review", please feel free to revert and place that content back on this page. Sincerely, Kenosis03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting strategy you guys have here. Respond with assertions and when challenged, remove discussion. --Yqbd04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your more than welcome to continue the discussion, but having it on a subpage is more convenient so it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of this page. If you change anyone's mind on the subpage or there is indication that the consensus about these issues has changed then it will make sense to bring it back to the main section. JoshuaZ04:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not if they're relevant and backed by a reliable source. This has gone beyond raising an issue to disruptive trolling to make a point. ornis(t)04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, respond in the discussion because you're repeating your unsupported assertions again. Respond to the questions of your assertions and let us move on with the discussion. --Yqbd04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have noticed with all the back-and-forth (is that eight or nine reverts now?) but no one is willing to contribute to the discussion as you have laid it out above. And insisting on people answering your questions, as if you were a courtroom lawyer harassing a witness, is not helping you to persuade anyone. It simply isn't doing any good to expect people to debate with you on your own terms, because this is a public space and everyone here is a volunteer. Please try to find a way of suggesting and discussing improvements to the article which is non-controntational and does not antagonise other editors. This is the only way to gain consensus for changes to the article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. There is no judge or jury that you are persuading with this course of action (unless you count the admins). What you are doing is not working. That is why I suggest you try a different tactic. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What tactic do you suggest for communicating with people that leave assertions and don't respond to questions challenging their assertions? --Yqbd05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think people are not responding to your repeated demands for answers. I think it is probably either because they can't believe that you are so unwilling to follow basic guidelines of wikipedia (there are plenty of links at the top of this page, for example) or because they are just waiting until you get permanently banned before starting to clean up your mess. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) ps I already answered your question; I guess you didn't read carefully enough.[reply]
What is this demand for answers you speak of? [WP:AGF], please. I guess you didn't answer clearly enough. If you answered the question already, a simple copy and paste shouldn't be difficult. --Yqbd06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
^"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
^"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
^David K. DeWolf, John G. West & Casey Luskin, Intelligent Design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover.
^Peter Irons, Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 59 (2007).
^David K. DeWolf et al. Rebuttal to Irons, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 89 (2007).
^ La traduction en français de design par dessein est devenue usuelle dans ce cadre. Une traduction par conception serait plus exacte et permettrait de traduire intelligent designer par concepteur intelligent plutôt que par cause intelligente
