Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions about Intelligent design. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

→

Something uncontroversial (hopefully)

Can someone who understands the inline citation system better than me cluster the citations in a way that we can actually read the sentences? Anyway we could just collect them at the bottom and then pull them by refname?--Tznkai (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that was already tried and it was deemed a failure. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a disaster, it made it unclear as to how well supported the passages were which invited allegations of poor sourcing and support from lurkers wanting to shitewash the article. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just helped get Alzheimer's disease to FA status, and it uses very easy to read grouped references. I actually despise the messiness of the html and wiki-code underlying this article. I can't edit it because it makes no sense, it's sloppy. So if someone wants to make this article a real FA article with clean editing underlying it, I'll be supporter. This article is a mess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I argued that (and a number of other stylistic points) a while ago. Folks jumped on me and called me a creationist shill. :( The primary purpose of the article needs to be to be read, not to prove itself against opponents. Big long strings of citations links get in the way of reading. --FOo (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember supporting you. I still think this should be done. It seems that when this was being discussed, the prevailing reason for having long lists of numbers after cited statements was to intimidate POV-pushers. But I find this reason rather questionable. The purpose of references isn't to deter POV-pushers, but to be an addition resource for the reader to continue researching the topic. Consolidating the references clearly enhances the readability of the article, and should be done as a service to the reader. If this means that editors will need to be more vigilant, then I can live with that. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, and assuming good faith of course, the prevailing reason was to respond to arguments repeatedly presented by pov-pushers or uninformed newbies and not to "indimidate" them. Tidying up and grouping the references will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is we strip/consolidate some of the references, make it readable, but take anything we remove and put it in a special sub-article or talk page. Its against style, but we might be able to get away with Intelligent Design/additional references as an appendix. Certainly Talk:Intelligent Design/additional references would be ok. Point POV pushers who don't like a references to that page.--Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against removal of references, unless there is a good reason to do so. Just to be clear, I was referring only to consolidating contiguous references to make the text easier for readers to parse. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced we need 4 references per statement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual approach is to add a line break separating two or more references cited from one inline link – thus <ref>[reference1]<br>[reference2]<br>[etc.]</ref> We did try that here at a time when there was a lot of editing going on, and it got very unwieldy, but things are calmer now. named references that are used more than once have to be separate.. dave souza, talk 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The current coding makes it extremely difficult to make even the simplest of edits. Maybe thats a benefit in some ways, but on a personal note, its driving me insane.--Tznkai (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Intelligent Design Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Intelligent Design category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Intelligent Design category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What, the comprehensive citation of reliable sources in the second paragraph of the lead section isn't enough? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref has made some inappropriate category changes in a whole host of Pseudoscience articles. It took a bunch of editors time this morning to clean them up. It's right in the first sentence. This question has been answered 40 times.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it pseudoscience. It isn't anything-science, its religion. Avruch^T 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, ID is religious in origin, it has religious implications, but it is not a "religion" it doesn't belong in that class. More to the point pseudoscience is approximately defined as that which imitates science, but is not science, thus ID is pseudoscience, because it explicitly claims to be science, and is definitely not. Religions can contain pseudoscience, Scientology being an excellent example. A religion can also make an extraordinary claim such as "a personal god that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent and imminent created the universe out of nothingness" but not attempt to prove it by pseudo-scientific means, and thus that belief is not pseudoscience. Its only when something masquerades as, or imitates science that something is pseudoscience.

tl;dr: Intelligent design is pseudoscience.--Tznkai (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We have decent reliable sources calling it pseudoscience. Now, I'm not personally sure that it is pseudoscience (waxing in detail about the difference between fringe science and pseudoscience would be only minimally relevant and heavily OR) but the sourcing describes it as pseudoscience so we're done. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a subtlety here that needs to be understood. We can consider this a religion if that's all the proponents of ID would do. If they said, "There is an intelligent designer that created the world." That's a religion. But the whole point of ID, as described the Wedge document, Teach the Controversy and the Discovery Institute, is to define ID as a science to overcome the establishment clause of the US Constitution. Since it tries to make itself a science, then it's a new ball game, and that's why there are reliables sources that call it a pseudoscience. Any attempt to say that ID is a religion must be considered disingenuous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is classic pseudo territory: something is presented as that which it is not. The campaign to get ID taught in science classes is well documented, as is its outcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see logic and reason win out over hoo-doo-voo-doo-do-you-feel goo once in a while. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re to Tznkai about Scientology. Yes scientology is a religion, or at least they claim to be. What Scientology espouses is pseudoscience pure and simple. Same thing here. Christianity is a religion. Some Christians try to convince us that the world is anything but a random consequence of physics, biology and chemistry by pseudoscientific concepts like Creation science and ID. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to get heavily POV. Can we focus on the issue at hand which is whether or not the sourcing is good enough for the designation? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is dicussing that, or even feels such a discussion is required. The National Science Teachers Association, David Mu writing in the Harvard Science Review, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.... those seem like valid sources to me, and way more than sufficient to support the point. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we're done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize much has already been discussed on whether "intelligent design" counts as science. The conclusion of the editors from the discussion seems to be this: "ID is not science." The top reasons seem to be this: "This was the finding of Judge Jones during the Kitzmiller hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community." And this: "Intelligent design does not qualify as scientific theory, because it is untestable even in principle, while all scientific theories are in principle dis-provable."

However, it seems that the answers to the FAQ "Is ID science?" can be improved if the reasons cited include ones published by philosophers of science (e.g. Ian Barbour or others). As it is, there are replies to the reasons offered (which are in my opinion decisive undercutting defeaters). With respect to a judge's testimony or the testimony of scientists, neither the judge nor scientists in general are trained to study the demarcation problem (the problem of saying what is science or how to define the word, 'science'). So they are not reliable experts on this question. Ask philosophers of science . If most of them judge ID to not be science (and my impression as a philosopher myself is that this is not so), then we may have a good expert testimony to think ID is not science. One piece of evidence that scientists are not experts on the demarcation problem is that very many scientists think that Karl Popper's falsification criteria provides a necessary condition on a statement's being science. But many problems with his criteria have been identified, and many philosophers of science (my impression is that most of them) reject it. (One reason, among many, is that the Big Bang theory is clearly science, yet no observations could, in principle, falsify it [though observations can make it less likely]). Scientists who are unaware of these problems don't count as expert testimonies on the demarcation problem. Also, given that the falsification principle is problematic (according to the experts in philosophy of science), it shouldn't be cited as a good reason to think that ID is not science.

So, improvement can be made by finding reasons for the claim that ID is not science that come from philosophers of science, and deleting the reasons offered in the FAQ that are defective.

Joshr737 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your mistake is that the Kitzmiller judgement forms a well tested assesment of expert opinion, including expert opinion of philosophers of science, and we're not relying on the judge's own legal opinion (not "testimony"). While I appreciate that many ID proponentsists fancy themselves as philosophers, they start from the premise that they want to change science to accept supernatural explanations, and present arguments rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as not being scientific arguments. The various approaches of philosophers of science all come round to the same view of creationism, a view which is of course rejected by creationists pushing for their brand of pseudoscience. You are of course welcome to present references to reliable secondary sources independent of the DI but related specifically to ID to provide verification of your argument. . . dave souza, talk 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I can see how the Kitzmiller judgment can be cited as evidence for the statement that ID is not science, if it indicates that most experts on the demarcation problem (philosophers of science and certain scientists) agree that ID is not science. It's not clear, however, from the citation that this is so (nor is it evident that the Court is a reliable expert as to whether the arguments presented for its judgment were representative of the field or justificatory). Perhaps a statistical survey of philosophers of science would be more to the point. As for the statement in FAQ that "scientific theories are in principle dis-provable", there are reputable philosophers of science who do not accept ID but who reject that claim (e.g. John Earman). My sense is that few, if any, philosophers would accept it. For critical reasons with references, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Crit. I myself do not know whether ID counts as science, but it's evident that Wiki's reasons and references don't adequately verify that ID isn't science. Thus, I recommend stating the conclusion much more tentatively, or else providing alternative reasons and/or references. Joshr737 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshr737 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't discuss Intelligent design, and I find it unlikely Popper evaluated ID at all. This ID article currently names and cites numerous authorities who have, including Philosophers of Science. Which work of Earman's do you argue should be used for an alternative view in this article?Professor marginalia (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And is this a suggestion to rewrite the article talk page's FAQ? Or claims made in the article itself? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the talk's FAQ page be revised. (Regarding the ID article, I believe "seek to define" is more accurate than "seek to fundamentally redefine", but I'll leave that be.) The Karl Popper link reveals deep debate over the falsification criteria--a principle presented dogmatically in the FAQ as if it were well accepted by the experts, which it is not (refer to the Popper link, or Wiki's own http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Falsifiability#Contemporary_philosophers). Also, citing some experts on the demarcation problem doesn't indicate what most experts think. I don't know if a survey has been done.Joshr737 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The FAQ is not an encyclopedia page, it's a short-cut answer sheet for quickly answering various repetitive questions which are genuinely posed by new editors first coming to the talk page. If this FAQ page presents its own editorial disputes, I'd question whether it's serving any real service to the project. I will offer more as a broad claim than a defense of the specifics on the FAQ page that the criteria "what is a science" regarding testability and so forth is very conservatively defined by scientists, academics, the national academy of science, etc, and this view is simply reflected by the Kitzmiller court. In the FAQ, which is not encyclopedic but designed simply as notes to help bring new editors "up-to-speed" about what's already been discussed to death on the talk page, you should expect to see only a shorthand outline for what should be well substantiated claims in the article. In other words, look to the FAQ to understand the issues posed in the events surrounding and involved in the intelligent design movement specifically as it has really unfolded. Any demarcation statements in the FAQ are only relevant here in terms of the ways they were posed by key players who're viewed as authoritative in defining or describing intelligent design. In other words the FAQ should say what authorities about ID say. Apart from ID it's irrelevant on the FAQ what other authorities about demarcation say.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok then. Thanks, Prof. Joshr737 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Defining Science section fixes

Copied as plain text without references here:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[158] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[159] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[160][161][162] it is expected to be:

Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)'

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[163] violates the principle of parsimony,[164] is not scientifically useful,[165] is not falsifiable,[166] is not empirically testable,[167] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[168]

In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".[169] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[170]

PZ Myers and other critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[171] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

I've bolded what I feel are the major problematic passages: what read like long digressions on what is science and what is nto. There are a few other problems as well, but they are minor.--Tznkai (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an important issue, but agree that a much more concise treatment would be an improvement. More references have become available, and in some ways it's a bit of a relic that needs to be refocussed now that ID has lost so much credibility. . . dave souza, talk 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is something very unscientific here! This whole article is written by opponents of Intelligent Design constantly fighting against it! Why aren't the proponents of Intelligent Design allowed to state what it is and why it should be considered as science? Or what's wrong with the above definition of 'science' and how it should be corrected? At least then all can clearly express their opinion for or against plus their reasons why. The way it is now, all we have is just an one-sided argument aginst something that is NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BE DEFINED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION! Let's take those blinkers off and admit our UNCERTAINTY according to rule #8 above - unless of course somebody is 100% certain that ID is 100% false - in that case just state your proof here as the end of all arguments!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.26.213 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2008

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New organization levels.

I've stuck IC, SC, Finetuned universe, and Intelligent designer as subsections of a new section called "integral concepts." To me IC is not on the same hierarchical information level as "movement" or "origins of the concept."--Tznkai (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"mainstream denominations"

RE this edit:
..... I don't want to be too contrarian here, but the phrase "Mainstream religious denominations" is most certainly not a value judgment as asserted in the edit summary; rather, it is a very reasonably objective observation. See, e.g., major religious groups, mainline (Protestant), and other articles and resources on this issue both within WP and without. The word "mainstream" would appear to be a reasonable way of expressing this very widely accepted "mainstream" concept. I recommend putting it back in perspective for the reader. It's not just that "Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution" but rather that "Many mainstream religious denominations have responded by expressing support for evolution." [bold emphasis placed on the words that are apparently at issue]. If there's another more accurate way of expressing this without being excessively verbose (which has been a prominent complaint on this page of late) I'd be very appreciative to see it presented here. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get slightly technical here, so bear with me. "Mainline" and "mainstream" are two terms used to refer to Christian denominations incorrectly. Mainline Protestantism is a marker for the older Protestant churches with more liberal/progressive theology. Less bible literalism, more historical critical, less experiential, more intellectual. The ELCA, UMC, Presbyterian USA are mainline churches. Whatever the origin of "mainline" it is used by scholars as a marker for a group of churches, not as an implication on how accepted, normal, or popular they are. Mainstream on the other hand, is an approximation of what is either most common or most normal, mainstream as opposed to radical. Where this gets stick is in the context of the United States, which is really where ID is relevant, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians outnumber mainline protestants by far.

Defining what counts as a "mainstream" religion to me, is a value judgment, and even when its not a value judgment, its a tricky one, dependent on social and historical context. What is mainstream here is not mainstream somewhere else.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet about fifty bucks that most of the major world religions have not deigned to weigh in an official position on evolution versus science: the Indian family and the East Asian families of religion don't really have a reason to care as such. Evolution has been sticky primary in the Abrahamic religions, and Americans in particular. (As can be seen by the lopsided information here)

What we're really trying to say, is that mainline protestants, Roman Catholics, and a handful of Muslim groups (giant can of worms on trying to find the mainstream pulse of Islam), and I think the orthodox church have given a thumbs up to Evolution (and really, science in general nowadays) Calling these groups "mainstream" though invites more problems than its worth in trying to clarify.

As an additional thought, I'm not comfortable with saying that the religious groups have expressed support for evolution in response to the IDM. IDM's reach is vast, but I don't think they're the historical agent responsible for getting religious groups to give thumbs up to science.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE "not comfortable with saying that the religious groups have expressed support for evolution in response to the IDM." : Absolutely correct on that. Maybe the sentence on major denominations expressing support for evolution doesn't even belong there-- though the issue was brought up a number of times during the evolution of this article to its current state. But if that sentence is going to be in the article, I'd prefer that it not be too easily interpreted to mean that possibly only some fringe groups have officially accepted that life evolved. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream is fine. What other adjective shall we piss and moan about next? Jim62sch^dissera! 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is on that mainline, tell him what you want. You can call him up and tell im what you want. Brilliant piece of gospel, Paradise and Lunch, '74, but I digress. Why not "major Christian denominations"? . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Major"would be a better choice. Mainstream has a value judgement on correctness/normalcy. "Major" indicates popularity, which is not so much a judgement as an observation.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. It certainly seems true that "mainstream" involves a much more detailed analysis than does the word "major"'; one can arrive at the latter just by looking at the numbers of constituents each denomination represents. The statement "Several major religious denominations have officially acknowledged that life evolved." would appear to me to be an accurate and NPOV statement. Tzknai is so very astute at catching these little things, I'm surprised the words "have expressed support for evolution" escaped his notice ;-) (Those words strongly imply a value judgment by the churches (as if the churches were expressing support for it rather than acknowledging that the concept of evolution more accurately describes how life got to its present state than does, say, a literal, superficial reading of Genesis.) ... Kenosis (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks, I think. I like your version of the sentance Kenosis, the only last vocab quibble is "religious denominations" versus "religious bodies" The second one is uglier, but it matches with the article it links to. I'm fine with either.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

interaction with other faith groups

Problematic section copied below:

Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views.[139] Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world[149]—a position described by the term theistic evolution.[150] As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.[151][152] The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,[153][154][155] and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.[156][157]

It seems that this section can be summarized as "IDM would like to make this about Christianity/Religion/God versus Science: lots of Christians/Religions have embraced/accepted evolution as good science and not a problem." Which doesn't quite explain why its in the "Creating and Teaching the Controversy" section, which seems to be about history. I understand that the point has to be made, but there is probably a better place and way to do it. Perhaps a "reception" section of the article, which can catalog how scientists, religions schoolboards and political parties and the like have reacted to ID?--Tznkai (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a standard ploy of IDists to present issues as ID vs. Atheism, this section follows naturally from the rebuttal of their claims. Perhaps a better heading would be Intelligent design and theology.. or something like that. As you say, it could perhaps be moved out of the teach the controversy issue, it predates that particular catchphrase. . dave souza, talk

I know theres been significant criticism of YEC as bad theology because it suggests a deceptive God, and I seem to recall Ken Miller going on in a speech or two about how ID suffers the same problem, but I can't recall off hand if this is me conflating the two. Anyone else?--Tznkai (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Courts don't define science

You know, there's something that's been bugging me about this article for a while now, and I've finally got the time and the inclination to bring it up. Both the article and the talk page FAQ use the Kitzmiller decision as evidence that ID is not science.

The courts are not the arbiter of what is or isn't science. That decision is properly made by the scientific consensus, not by any government agency, even one as respected as the judiciary. Consider: if the Kitzmiller decision had gone the other way -- if the judge had been predisposed to think of ID as scientific, and had ruled that it is science -- we would not accept this as proof that it is so. We would think the judge had been fooled, or was biased by religious belief, or some such.

If a court ruled that the earth is flat, or that pi is equal to 3, or that ID is scientific, or that people of a particular race are not human, that wouldn't make it so. And likewise, we would not cite a court decision that said the earth was round, or that pi is transcendental, as evidence in favor of those true propositions. Whether the court believes these things does not bear on whether they are true; they are true independently of what the court has to say.

(Even as a matter of United States law, the importance of Kitzmiller is overstated. It is a trial court decision, not an appellate court decision, so it does not set binding precedent -- meaning no other courts are required to defer to it in their own decisions. In common law, a lower court is bound by the decisions of a higher court: the Kitzmiller trial court was bound by the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.)

Kitzmiller has relevance to this article. It is the only United States court decision that has explicitly ruled on the issue of "intelligent design" under that name, rather than under the earlier name of "creation science". As a battle in the war over science education, it is an historical victory for science and a setback for the creationists; as a piece of writing, the court's decision is quite persuasive; and of course as a matter of law in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (but nowhere else) it is legally enforceable.

The court decision is a convenient summary of reasons that ID is not science. But the existence of a court decision is not evidence of that proposition -- because it is the scientific consensus, not the government, that is authoritative on what is and isn't science. --FOo (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The Kitzmiller ruling was based in part and included in its findings of fact that the scientific consensus was that ID was not science. In that context, it constitutes a reliable source for the scientific consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially, no one decides what is or what is not science. But there are a list of items that makes science, and I believe that's what the court did. Scientific consensus assumes you use the scientific method to determine a rational conclusion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What fun! The court memorandum provides a reliable secondary source as to the scientific consensus, citing its sources. Courts decide on the basis of such evidence weighed in accordance with the Lemon Test etc. as to whether something is science for the purposes of teaching in public schools, and as requested the court reached that decision. It's not a binding precedent, it's a persuasive precedent. A very persuasive one. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, trial courts can and do set precedent if the ruling is sufficiently broad, as this one was. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the court opinion is a useful secondary source for the scientific consensus, and for the various arguments that were presented to the court during the trial. It should absolutely be used and cited as a summary of these arguments. However, it should not be used as an authority, because no court is an authority on scientific matters.

For instance, Kitzmiller is the topic of the last paragraph of the lead, which presents the judge's opinion as the conclusion on the matter. This gives the impression that Kitzmiller is the deciding vote, so to speak, on the matter of whether ID is science: the judge said it's not, and that settles it!

There is one reason that the court's opinion on this matter is more relevant than on most scientific matters: "intelligent design" was coined as a way of sneaking past the Edwards ruling against "creation science". Insofar as "intelligent design" was coined purely as a buzzword for the courts, a decisive rejection of it is relevant. But it isn't an authority. --FOo (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

However, it should not be used as an authority, because no court is an authority on scientific matters. - as Orangemarlin has already noted, there is no official spokesman for Science. The court, however, is a reputable source for the fact that Science - as a whole - has rejected ID as the psuedoscientific nonsense that it is. Raul654 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. Courts make judgements on merit and evidence for the legal arena. They base their evidence on the experts of certain fields. We66er (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the nearest thing we have to an authoritative source would be the Inter-Academy Panel statement on Teaching Evolution (I'll dig out the ref if need be). That's signed by ~70 science academies and makes a pretty unequivocal statement about current scientific consensus - and the evidence behind it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller's relevance is mostly historical (possible deathblow) and in the context of science in schools. ID doesn't try to be science just for the sake of being science, its doing it to be in science classrooms. Its in that context that kitzmiller is pointful, because the courts do determine whats science inside of government institutions.--Tznkai (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

this is how I see it:

the only thing decided in Kitzmiller is that Intelligent Design should be treated as equivalent to Creation Science (and barred) for the purposes of science teaching in schools that get public funding.
the court ruling used the testimony of certain scientists to reach that decision, but legal standards and scientific standards are vastly different. the court is an advocacy system: the prosecution presented experts who supported its contention, not experts who represented an unbiased sampling of scientific opinion.

extrapolating from the prosecution's legal experts to the scientific community is a bit like extrapolating what's happening in the world solely from watching Fox news (or from listening to Pacifica radio). --Ludwigs2 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as Kitzmiller was a civil case, there was no prosecution. --FOo (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

true enough - I'm no lawyer...

<so, to summarise> Courts don't define science, they assess definitions of science presented by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and report on their findings. . . dave souza, talk 08:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

errr... no. Courts make rulings to resolve political or social conflicts between involved parties. They do this by assessing evidence presented by advocates. any relationship to actual scientific principles is purely coincidental. Please remember that the the theory of evolution lost in the Scopes trial. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been legal developments since 1925, and the Kitzmiller judgement is a reliable source giving well tested views as put forward by the scientific community. You're not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And there have been, maybe not in the US so much, intellectual developments since the age of Coolidge. Jim62sch^dissera! 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia editors are never reliable sources, by policy - that applies to you as well as to me. and so far as I know there have been no changes to the legal system that set courts as the deciding bodies in scientific or academic debates. my point with the Scopes trial reference was to show that the court opinion cannot be consistently relied on for this exact topic. please... --Ludwigs2 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Scopes was decided by a jury and refered to a specific point of Tennessee state law. Kitzmiller was decided by a jusge and dealt with constitutional law. Get the difference? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, I do. That being said, courts decide points of law to settle conflicts between interested parties; Science determines functional principles of the natural world. get the difference? --Ludwigs2 23:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, Ludwigs, you stated that evolution "lost" in scopes. Uh, no, it didn't. Evolution was not on trial. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the Department of Scientific Law? Where are they located? Who are they? Well, they don't exist. Your rude, uncivil response is unhelpful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails out of that comment; it doesn't seem to make sense in context. can you restate it, preferably without the harassing comments? --Ludwigs2 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you said science determines the principles of the natural world, not the courts. So I was wondering where they were located? And yes, you were very uncivil to Jim. I, on the other hand, innocently pointed out your uncivilness in the hopes that my advice will make you a much better editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the help. now, if you're done making senselessly argumentative commentary, I'd like to get back to the issue at hand. --Ludwigs2 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Ignoring the commentary above, what exactly was the requested change to the article? Specifics please.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to FOo on this, since he started he thread, but I'll give an answer if he doesn't. --Ludwigs2 05:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No one wants changes in this part. But thanks for asking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In short, FOo asserts at the beginning of this talk section that: (1) "Courts don't define science"; and (2) "the article... use(s) the Kitzmiller decision as evidence that ID is not science." Actually, point 1 is only partially correct, and point 2 is false w.r.t. the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

well, point one is entirely correct the way you've stated it (courts might define science for legal purposes, but they don't determine what is and is not science for scientific purposes). but its impact on the article is limited. I'd suggest modifying the second to last line in the lead to read U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and thus cannot be taught as science in public schools, which removes any ambiguity that the court is rendering verdicts on science itself. the rest of the article seems to handle the K trial appropriately.--Ludwigs2 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state "ID is not science" as fact - it attributes the statement appropriately - so this whole section is a bit moot. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to anonymous edit. The Judge did rule on the science. And since defining science is a philosophical pursuit, why not let an independent arbiter be the perfect reliable source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> That's becoming clearer. The judge did not define science, he looked to expert opinion and the scientific consensus on what is science, and on the basis of that definition, set out his ruling. "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Hence, "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 that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." That makes it clear that ID is not science, and that has to appear in the summary for the lead as a very significant part of the ruling. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

and yet, the judge is not qualified to render a verdict on what is or is not a science for scientific purposes; he is only qualified to render a verdict on what is or is not a science for legal purposes. at any rate, do you have a specific problem with the change I suggested above? it seems to capture the actual meaning of the ruling without implying more (i.e., avoids SYN), unlike the current version. --Ludwigs2 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. Once again, the judge is imminently qualified, per what dave souza said, to make a reasoned analysis and decision on what is and what isn't science. And since he has the force of law, I'm not sure how you can synthesize a point that he isn't qualified to state that. As I mentioned sarcastically above, there is no Department of Science to render a decision for us. And though I have an arm's length of advanced degrees in sciences on my resume, I have no force of law, so my opinion matters about the same as yours...it doesn't. So, please don't make changes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be missing here is the ability to see the ID concept in its full light. When we look at the "teach the controversy" section we can clearly see that ID was masqueraded as science and used to bring religion into public schools. Jones clearly saw that, hence his decision. And, as ID was, and still is, very much a PR ploy to sneak the teaching of religion into public schools, Jones has every right and all constitutional authority to rule on whether ID is seen to be science and whether it can be taught in science class. The preponderance of the evidence that was presented in the trial showed that ID is not a science. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, what's missing is a clear distinction between the proper places of law and science. I don't really disagree with anything you said, Jim, except for the unwarranted extension of the legal verdict that 'ID is not a science for the purposes of public school education' to 'ID is not a science'. please justify that through scientific sources; a judge's ruling would not be accepted by any scientist anywhere as binding on science itself.

really, this is such a minor point - why this incredible resistance? --Ludwigs2 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The intro gives numerous other sources. Also, bear in mind that prior to the decision the Kitzmiller trial was bandied about by the IDists because they believed that the decision would be 180 degrees from what it was. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Too subtle?

I thought this was pretty simple: the government isn't an authority on what's science and what's not. ID fails to be science for dozens of reasons, but "Judge Jones ruled that it's not science" is not one of those reasons.

The Kitzmiller decision is relevant in two ways: first, the trial itself and the court opinion offer a summary of arguments on the matter; and second, since the term "intelligent design" was created in part for the consumption of the U.S. court system, its rejection by the court system is relevant as a point of political history.

I agree with the statement, "Judge Jones ruled that ID is not science." I also agree with the statement, "ID is not science." What I object to is the suggestion that "Judge Jones ruled that ID is not science, and therefore ID is not science."

Why? Because that suggests that if Judge Jones had ruled the other way, that ID would be science. And that is wrong.

I'm not saying Judge Jones was ill-informed, unreasoning, or unwise. I'm saying that the status of science is independent of the rulings of judges. That while judges can have wise and true things to say about science (or the lack thereof), their rulings are not evidence, any more than any other well-informed essayist's proclamations would be.

Is this too subtle a distinction? --FOo (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you for the most part, possibly all the way, what in the article in specific do you think needs to be fixed?--Tznkai (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What we have at present is this:

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 that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We've already mentioned that it's a district court and full names belong in the body text, so it could be rephrased as:

In his ruling, Judge Jones drew on expert witnesses from both sides to conclude that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Alternatively:

Judge Jones drew on expert witnesses from both sides to conclude that intelligent design is not science, and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," He ruled that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Just an idea. . dave souza, talk 12:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The middle one. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Working of the middle one, How about {{quotation|In his ruling, Judge Jones drew on expert testimony from both sides and concluded that intelligent design is not science. Jones further ruled that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and thus the school district's promotion of intelligent design violated the Establishment Clause.}

I think wikilinking establishment clause should eliminate the need for First Ammendment part, but not sure.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Infinite improbability

A useful educational resource. Must have a heart of gold. . . dave souza, talk 08:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what does this have to do with anything?--Tznkai (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot, really, given that Demski relies so much on bogus probabilities for his specified complexity assertion. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. Is this YouTube video submitted to some sort of use in the article, or is just commentary?--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither the video nor the HHGTTG are reliable sources, but the video sets out what in my opinion is a simple and clear exposition of the probability issue. Worth using to reassess our coverage of "specified complexity". We mention Dembski's huge odds, but don't seem to note that things don't occur by random chance, and the sheer improbability of the most obvious things if they're assumed to be random – as demonstrated in the video. Worth checking for a better source making these points. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps the fine folks who edit probability can help out on something pertinent?--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, if we reach out. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid original research we need a source that relates these points to ID. While I dimly remember seeing something along these lines, I don't have a source to hand or the time just now, but there are several recent sources such as Expelled Exposed or the NAS evolution and creationism book / pdf which may have something suitable. Something to hunt out when time permits. . dave souza, talk 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I deleted the paper by a Swedish mathematician that showed why Dembski's math is indefensible. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This source is pretty good, though it might not be exactly what you wanted: Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Now Dave, that is not funny. Furthermore, the video you recommend is technobabble. Now, if you found a pebble that also perfectly fit the key to your front door, it would be applicable, as this is akin to the protein argument. Stick to discussing improving the article, and not original research, and not pooking fun at what you deem creationist arguments. IIDHOG (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Ben Stein's "Expelled"?

How 'bout an intra-wiki link to Ben Stein's movie? RichLindvall (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a link already exists in the references. And it isn't really relevant to this article, because the movie wasn't about ID so much as it was about complaining that ID doesn't get equal time in schools. And that subject is adequately covered in this article's discussion about the Kitzmiller trial. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! RichLindvall (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about edits

Tznkai (talk · contribs) is making significant changes to this article, which was stable after an WP:FAR, listing as a mainpage FA, and editor consensus. I'm very close to reverting to the last stable version. If we want to make this much change to an FA article, then it should go through an FAR. This is getting out of hand. As an editorial point, I'm not opposed to every change made by Tznkai, maybe only half or so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, I try not to comment to other editors directly except to compliment them butthis edit calls that personal policy into question. Do you realize I was reverting the removal of a section I had tagged as needing a citation? In otherwords, I was keeping old content, not changing it. I've made small incremental changes, about at the same pace Kenosis has been doing, who has in a single edit [1] removed more text from the body than I have in my edits.

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

So, why don't you line up your objections to the edits you disagree with, and we'll discuss it. Or if you wish to continue to make this about my massive changes, why don't you go ahead and catalog the major changes that I've made and especially reverted to keep in place. You may have to go back to 2005.--Tznkai (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your lack of interest in ceasing your POV editing (mind you not all of it), I'll take it as a de facto reason to revert your edits to the previous stable version. Or we can FAR it, so that it doesn't get POV'ed one edit at a time. These are not threats, but the only remaining choices to the destruction of an FA article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, the consensus article was from before you entered the editing here. So, I shouldn't have to waste time disputing or agreeing to any of your edits, but you should have gotten consensus for your changes to an FA. Therefore, I conclude we have two choices. Revert to a stable version or an FAR. I'm inclined to the FAR, because it will bring in more editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...Let me get this straight. You're saying you can revert my edits on sight without bothering to read them, because in your opinion, I'm a POV editor?--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you got it crooked. I'm saying that since this is an FA, any significant changes require discussion. I can't tell if you have a POV or not...like I've said, I strongly disagree with a number of your edits, some are fine. Since I have the right to do so, I'm going to FAR this article, and request that the article get protected until all the points have been cleared up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, please slow down a bit, and don't take it personally, let editor review your edits. OM, I reverted your most recent edit because what you removed was from the FA-version. Peace, Vesal (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't examined these intervening edits, but in comparing the current version to version prior to tznkai's edits I see little difference in them, certainly no massive changes. FA's aren't stable versions or static, and we don't protect them to keep them that way. So I see no need at this point for article protection or reversion to a prior version. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with review of my edits, everything we do in the wiki process counts as that, and more. FAR is the wrong forum (since its for former featured articles) and I think the Law of Unintended Consequences is going to rear its ugly head here, but in the meantime, lets continue discussing the edits on the talk page, like its here for.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if keep or start is the right verb. So, what's your take on the "Law of Unintended Consequences"? Jim62sch^dissera! 22:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only edited this talk page 28 times since October began. Apparently that doesn't count.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

An FAR is NOT for former FA's. Where in the world would you get THAT idea? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Information lacking on the Zogby poll

Intelligent_design#Polls

According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".[122] Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws...

Even though the Zogby polls are flawed, why are no figures actually presented as to responses. For the Harris poll we get a clear figure "10% of US adults". For Zogby we only get "more support [than the Harris poll]".

Is there some valid exclusion for not specifying the Zogby results? (WP:RS?)--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals these polls used very different questions. How can the Zogby poll considered to have gotten "more support" than the Harris poll when it asked a totally different question. This section shoudl be written to accurately reflect poll content and results in sufficient detail.

These particularly polls being most strongly mentioned in the references were commisioned by the New Mexico IDnet, using questions from previous DI-Zogby polls (which are vaguely mentioned in passing). Is the NM IDnet = DI, Seattle? This also should be clearer. Which results is Wikipedia referring to?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The designer designer: How obvious?

Intelligent_design#Intelligent_designer

Last paragraph:

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"(95)

Now the previous 'critical' response in this section was:

... a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely ...

Notice the difference between these two statements?

Criticisms should be attributed to person/s responsible for the criticism.

Is it NPOV for us to clearly as-matter-of-factly state that ID requires a designer-designer? Is it that obvious/true/supported?

PS. Try to be gentle --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How dare you ask such a question. You noob. How horrible of you. ;) My only issue is that those who use the design "hypothesis" don't need to answer that question, because isn't the point that the designer is a supernatural force? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote the book on Intelligent Design?

Intelligent_design#Further_reading

Why are Of Pandas and People, Darwin's Black Box and other DI-produced books omitted from this list.

Quite obviously they do have quite a lot of information that would illuminate what ID is/is purporting to be? Are they omitted on grounds of reliability? Is this a suitable grounds for omissiting THE book/s that wrote Intelligent Design?

~~Also might suggest including links in Further Reading to:~~

~~Wikisource: Dover Trial.~~

~~Antievolution.org document~~

These documents would also provide further illumination on context/subject of ID history and present.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, you're making me do work. You should report this stuff at the FAR. However, doesn't MOS (now I have to look this crap up) state that we don't need to repeat the "further reading" if it's inline cited? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading. Still, Pandas and Black Box are not used as Reliable Sources, so might merit inclusion. They are mentioned in text, but not their full publication details. I'm not really caring either way.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[#Further Reading] does not include publications that were used as reliable sources in writing this article; these should be cited as references ... To avoid unnecessary duplication of information, publications listed in any other section of the article should not be included in "Further reading".
— Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading

revert war over "controversy centers on three issues"

/sigh/ Okay........the "disputed" text is:

From the standpoint of public-school educational policy, the intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:

Can intelligent design be defined as science?

If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth?

If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in science classes?

This content has literally been in the article since Jan 2005. It was tweaked 'round into its essentially stable form nearly two full years ago [2], [3]. It survived the FAR, and it interfered not with the article's big moment on the wikipedia Main Page. What turned it into a battleground? This relatively harmless fact tag. Today, it's become a tug-of-war[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], complete with excuses to remove it such as "Awfully POV" and "Don't add unsourced content to a Featured Article", with the editor who actually fact tagged working to keep it in because the section doesn't make any sense with it removed.

This content is obviously not being yanked out because the edit's "awfully POV" or because it's an illegitimate unsourced addition "marring" the FA. It's being yanked out because Tznkai is under (thus far unwarranted) suspicion and carelessly presumed to be the source of it.

So let's everybody calm down, put the content back and work to source it for now. As Tznkai pointed out, the section is essentially constructed around it, and has been for nearly 3 years. Substantial changes will need be made to remove it. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Call it an "edit war", "tug-of-war", etc., it's not that complicated, and not much of a "war". At the time a close variant of this statement was first inserted into the article, there was an ongoing discussion relating to the inclusion of the Time Magazine cover image which involved complex WP policy minutiae arising out of the work of a number of other WP users acting independently with WP:NFC. In my opinion and that of other participants, it was a reasonable editorial discretionary decision to include this paragraph as a follow-up for the prior paragraph that mentions the Time article in addition to other aspects of the ID controversy. The precise formulation of the questions presented quite plainly is questionable and subject to debate-- in particular about the second and third question presented. The second question reads: "If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth?" It's followed by the assertion that "if the answer to either question is negative" then the third question follows. IMO, this formulation, although reasonable, is just edItorial opinion. The paragraph with the three questions was just very recently flagged for citation, which according to a strict reading of WP:V allows for its removal, at least lacking a consensus override of its removal. After initially resisting, I support its removal.
..... The section flows rationally and informatively, and in keeping with WP's core content policies, either with or without that paragraph. Any useful insight the paragraph contributes is very arguably outweighed by its debatable nature, and, it's unsourced. I therefore support its removal. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, it's great to have editors with the institutional memory to help sort things out. The earliest appearance I found for the content dates back to Jan 2005.[9] I couldn't find the discussion you speak of in the talk page archives around that time. Can you recall the TIME article discussion in question? If it came from TIME, it would be good to source this rather than remove it, even if it warrants tweaking for copyright concerns. Again, there's no real reason to remove the content if it can be sourced. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, more specifically, it sounds as if it was sourced at one time and now we need the source. Any earlier dispute about whether it's free content is moot because every word of the section in question has been reworked. With the source, we can determine if undue liberties were taken as this was done. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to help sort out confusion rather than add to it. But I should tell you that the original three-step analysis in the "Controversy" section was added about eight or nine-thousand edits ago here. It was later modified and got entangled in the discussion I mentioned above involving the Time cover image. My mistake there, which I hope is minor in this present context. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A brief follow-up. Here is the original 2005 insertion of the three-point analysis, followed by a significant late-2006 change in approach here, with an intermediate follow-up edit here, and with another intermediate follow-up edit here. Along the way, this three-point analysis got moved to the "Controversy" section-- I don't recall precisely where and don't have the time to track it down right now. In Summer 2007 it got wrapped up in the Time article debate I referred to above. Hope this somewhat helps to clarify the history of the three-point editorial synopsis. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ... Another follow-up. You're right PM. The earlier insertion of the three-point analysis does indeed go back to what you pointed out just above, here. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ... A final follow-up on this point. It was the addition of the words "From an educational policy standpoint..." that got added during the debate over the Time cover image. Thanks for jogging my memory :-( ... Kenosis (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks Kenosis. Brainstorming here on questions beyond whether this list was ever derived from a RS, let's agree that the dispute about ID in U.S. public schools is a legal question, not a scientific question. The reverted ballywick currently is whether ID is scientific, and the section pursues the question from a "scientific pov". But it's a bit ahead of the argument because the question "is it scientific?" is relevant in US public education only as a subset of the larger constitutional question "if ID is a religious idea, does it have a secular purpose?". The article would do better to connect the dots in the legal sphere instead of skipping ahead to the "is it a science?" question. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that its removal makes the whole section make even less sense than it does already, so I'd like it to keep it around until the surrounding paragraphs are fixed, but I think the three lines going away soon as redundant to a well written paragraph would be a reasonable goal. And speaking of the Time magazine article, that section doesn't make a lot of sense, I havn't fixed it yet because I'm not sure how yet.--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Specificly: "The eventual decision of the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, and answered the question posed by Time magazine with a firm negative, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.[5]" The court wasn't responding to Time magazine, so this is pretty sloppy prose and repeating a point that has been made in the lead, in Kitzmiller's section, and a couple other places.--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is more confusing to me then. If this is the same article Kenosis referred to, then we don't have a source yet. The disputed content went in the wikipedia article months before the TIME article was published. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unwinding a bit: in terms of the law, there is the so-called "lemon test", which goes thru the following questions judging religion in schools: "is there a secular purpose" (answer MUST be yes: if something religious is also scientific, that would be one type of "secular purpose"); the next questions are "is the primary effect of it religious?", and "does this result in 'excessive entanglement' with religion?" (the answer to both MUST be no). There are certainly sources available linking ID in schools to this Lemon test. Maybe we could head that way if necessary to rework the section. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jones decided Kitzmiller along the lines of the Lemon Test very deliberately, so there should be plenty of information there--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's become a key decision from religious case law, and good judges would dare not sidestep it. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary proponents

I'm tinkering with the lead, and noticed a major problem: we never identified who the major proponents we're talking about are. I'm certain theres a source that includes say: Behe, Dembski Johnson... but who else?--Tznkai (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This could reopen the same can of worms that fill the archives but has never been adequately resolved. The Discovery Institute has become a kind of "center" for ID, but some of the more important developments, such as Pandas and People and the Kitzmiller trial, weren't closely tied to the DI and didn't conform well to DI's more careful outline for ID as a movement. This has contributed to both contentious overstatement and hair splitting about who or what is or isn't officially ID.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only has this issue been "adequately resolved", it's been resolved on this talk page beyond any reasonable doubt. Repeatedly the request was put forward, to the effect of "Name one person who could reasonably be characterized as a "leading" advocate or "notable" advocate who is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute or its direct offshoots such as the Center for Science and Culture or the ISCID." Not one proponent has ever been put forward who can reasonably be characterized as leading or primary or notable that is not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. The point being, "intelligent design" is not the product of authors and/or advocates affiliated with independently operating academic institutions or independent competing scientific institutions or even independently operating philosophical or religious institutions, but rather is solely a product of the group of persons that have clustered in and around the Discovery Institute. The DI is the sole nexus of intelligent design.
..... Regarding the assertion that "the more important developments, such as Pandas and People and the Kitzmiller trial, weren't closely tied to the DI" : As a matter of fact, Charles Thaxton, the editor of Of Pandas and People who first came up with the words "intelligent design", is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. The fact that Dover PA didn't precisely follow the DI's playbook is irrelevant; the school board took the material the Discovery Institute affiliates provided, including a written referral of students to Of Pandas and People an an alternative resource to supplement their biology curriculum, provided the school with a bunch of copies of the book, etc.. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you see how such fuzzy confusions start to creep in? The Discovery Institute did not refer the Dover school board to Of Pandas and People, Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center did. The DI materials sent to Dover were advocating the "teach the controversy" angle, and included a video version of the anti-evolution Icons of Evolution which attacks evidence for evolution but doesn't really define intelligent design. Pandas and People's definition, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc", doesn't jive well with Behe's. Behe testified he accepts some level of evolution and common descent in principle, however he disputes that every phenotypic feature or difference between systems can be explained by it, chiefly at the cellular level. He rationalized the "abruptly" in Pandas referred to abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and denied that sudden appearance meant suddenly originated. In other words, he denied the Pandas and People quote was the real definition of intelligent design. So we have two DI fellows with two different definitions of intelligent design, and so for many claims about ID we will need to identify proponents a little more specifically. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RE "you see how such fuzzy confusions start to creep in? The Discovery Institute did not refer ..." : It doesn't matter who did the specific referral. The DI is the nexus, and the lead properly identifies this for the reader of this article.
..... RE"Pandas and People's definition" : I believe a "Definition" section has already been proposed below in order to accommodate specific alternate definitions such as the Pandas definition, Dembski's definition, etc. I personally have no objection to such a section. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're responding as if there's dispute about whether DI plays a prominent role in ID--there is not. There are legitimate editorial questions about when proponents should be identified, and which of their views or roles should be associated to them by name in particular. It gets a little old when so often in these creationism articles legitimate points raised are rebuffed as if they're "hostile fire" from the enemy.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources, it's more than a prominent role. Rather, it's the sole nexus or clearinghouse for ID, the driving organizational force behind it. Virtually all the funding that underwrote the development of written products and strategies of the ID advocates since the early 90s has come through the DI. As to the question about which proponents should be identified, the most primary ones are already in the WP article. If you believe there's a case to make that there are other proponents to include in the article, please by all means present such a case. Personally I think the article is more than long enough and detailed enough. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're still not hearing what I'm saying. The dispute isn't whether DI can be assigned the top "nexus-hood" prize, and the more this gets picked away at between us, the clearer it is that exactly "who did what" sometimes matters very much. Because, as in this example I mentioned, DI was not really the "sole nexus", clearinghouse, or driving organization force behind events in Dover. Pandas is an FTE publication, not DI. Pandas was promoted to the Dover school board by the Thomas More Law Center, not DI. DI did not urge Dover to use Pandas to teach ID-the advice they gave Dover was to not require teaching of ID but to leave a door open for teachers who wish to "teach the controversy". That wasn't the approach the Dover board took. DI did not furnish the books. As Eugenie Scott puts it, once the controversy bubbled beyond local Dover, DI offered "tepid support" for adopting Pandas, post hoc, as a resource to introduce qualms about evolution theory but even at best they were never more than a reluctant helpmeet toward Dover. And -except for Behe- DI bolted altogether as the trial approached. In the eyes of DI, what Dover implemented was way off the reservation, not what they advised at all, but instead a constitutional minefield that left ID seriously threatened. I'm not arguing that this article must tell this particular story with the who-did-what's in minute detail. But it is important when these events are described that the "who did what"'s are identified. This is simply an example - I'm only going into this detail now because you incorrectly offered these things in particular as DI's handiwork, these were the "who did what"'s you used in your argument above about how all roads lead back to DI. As I've tried to show here, they don't always. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside here my personal thoughts about what it appears you might be driving at, is there an alternate proposal for the lead of the article? ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, back to my question... who are the primary proponents, and according to whom? I'm not challenging, so much as asking for information, so we can insert it into the article. What we have right now is like talking about the European leaders in during 1815-1830 and not bothering to define them as the ministers from the Great Powers: Austria, Great Britain, Russia, (eventually) France, and Prussia.--Tznkai (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the sources provided in the footnotes. The statement in the article is properly sourced and properly reflects the reliable sources provided. We're not obliged to name them all. .... Kenosis (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We may not need to give names everywhere, or even in the intro if the descriptions given in rest of the article provide the specifics well. But of course the many of the key figures should be named, and their various roles explained. The article does cover most of this pretty well now, but maybe it could underline them as the "key players" so to speak. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We do name the key players in context, and there are others associated with the DI who are lesser "leading proponents". The point as stated in general terms is well supported by the citation, which doesn't go on to say "and here's a list of leading proponents". Feel free to search for such a list if you think it would be useful, but in my opinion it's unneccessary clutter. As for Behe "In other words" implies original research, and "he denied the Pandas and People quote was the real definition of intelligent design" at the same time as testifying that Pandas was an excellent supplementary textbook for teaching kiddies about intelligent design. Two contradictory definitions from the same guy. There's probably a good case for a definitions section, a question in my mind is whether it should precede or follow a "background" or brief history section to show the context of the various definitions. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All I am getting at, is that the start of the article should be a primer: remember, we're writing for the reader, a reader familiar with English, but with little to no cultural or historical context. So, as we introduces facts, we should explain them. if we tell the reader the Primary pronents believe X and are associated with Y, they probably want to know who qualifies as primary proponents and what Y is.--Tznkai (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ID's "primary proponents" as named in Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse are Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. The intro footnote in the "chief proponent" sentence alludes to the Kitzmiller ruling. I haven't looked thru the testimony to verify just now, but it would be necessary to confirm these 4 are the same "primary proponents" whose views were entered into testimony at the trial. (odds are good, since Forrest was a chief witness). The 2nd endnote ref to that passage gives example quotations from 3, Wells, Johnson, and Dembski. I believe, though, that Behe himself testified he believed the designer to be God in his own testimony-again I'd prefer to double check this. Assuming all these ducks line up to these same 4 individuals, then they should be identified. I think it's sufficient to identify them in the text of the footnote itself. I'm a big proponent of putting specifics like this in the footnote when, as I think it would do here, doing so directly in the text jamb-packs more detailed information than the overall flow of narrative can bear.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking your word for a source that I don't have, that sounds reasonable. Suggest that the names could be presented as "Barbara Forrest names..." or as a quotation, since there's actually been a long testing of lesser "leading proponents" all of whom turn out to have a DI connection. That excludes prominent "followers" like George Bush (whose position is ambiguous, anyway). . dave souza, talk 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll write up a draft and submit it here after I study some European history.--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks a bit more sticky, I'm afraid. Forrest's testimony includes these 4 as prominent and foundational to DI (which she also identifies as leader of the movement), and links Johnson, Wells and Dembski very specifically to the "God is the designer" claim: transcript -it's a more oblique association she makes there to Behe, but I do think (still unverified) Behe testified to this himself. What I mean by it being more tricky is that she also lists many other "leaders" in ID, all associated with DI, but doesn't really directly say they each believe the designer is the Christian God. I've been hunting and pecking through the testimony, and a simpler direct tie-in might be there which I just haven't found quickly. I'll work on it some more. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have no problem with including criticisms of ID in the article. In fact, a quick glance at the news media would suggest that there has been more ink spilled on debunking ID than there has been in promoting it, I do however think there is a problem here:

Which ones? The article does not make it clear why "Argument from Ignorance" is discussed at length while the spectacular failure of ID against Lemon test isn't mentioned but once.

For that matter, should the cricisms be included within the concept section (Irreducible complexity immediately followed by what various scientists, perhaps H. Alan Orr have said about it being bunk?) or in a separate section labeled "Criticism?" There are some style issues here to be sure, as well as clarity issues.

To summarize my own point: What criticisms to include, where, and why?--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of criticism of ID - but nowhere is a clear statement of ID claims allowed on this Wiki! Why not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.26.213 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 December 2008

Because the ID movement has failed to make a clear statement of its aims. A clear statement verified by a reliable secondary source would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 13:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Think tank

I don't get what the problem is. I just took a run on sentence and made it straight forward, and explained what the Discovery institute is, which say the New York time agrees with me on: "SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars." which is by the way, the same citation. Other than I suppose, the "religious" qualifier which is a shorter way of saying what Numbers said here about "overthrowing materialism."--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I remember your participation going back to, was it late 2005 and early 2006?, and I remember it being fairly fruitful/helpful at that stage of the article's formation. In the interim there's been a long stretch during which a number of participants argued and re-argued, sometimes at great length, over the specific language of that one sentence. (As if virtually every point covered in this article wasn't controversial in some way.) I don't have quite enough time right now to track them down in the talk archives. Where it repeatedly settled is where it presently is, which has been the only stable, sustainable version for well over two years now. (There were residual debates about whether to use the word "primary proponents" or "leading proponents". The words "U.S.-based" were added without much stir, though they're unnecessary because the text already says ID was formulated by a group of American (United States) creationists to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.) The wikilink to Discovery Institute was seen as having adequate informational value for readers who wanted to know what the DI is. The additional statement about the DI being a "religiously conservative think tank", along with breaking that one up into two sentences, throws additional confusion into the mix. Firstly, it's not just religiously conservative but also politically conservative. Secondly, though the words politically conservative are supported by the citations, I personally would not advocate adding any additional obvious elements of controversy in the lead. When one links to Discovery Institute, it's right there in the first sentence of that article. Thirdly, the second sentence of the two-sentence string was a bit clunky, at least to my eye.

The primary proponents of intelligent design are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a religiously conservative think tank based in the United States.^[7][8] All of these proponents believe the intelligent designer to be the God of Christianity.^[9][10]

The second sentence when framed in this way also seems to me to beg the question "Is there any one of the folks directly associated with the Discovery Institute or its Center for Science and Culture who aren't Christian?" And the fact is, there are several. To me, stating it for readers in that manner is just asking for yet more unnecessary tendentious arguments about the lead of this article, even at this relatively late stage of the "intelligent-design-in-biology" fiasco. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for explaining your objection to my edits at length, I see what you're getting at now. I think adding "think tank" is important. A vital park of ID's identity is that it is created, not just by creationists, but by politically involved creationists. This isn't the priest down the street coming up with a grand idea, ID was crafted for use in United States public schools. We write for uniformed readers, and I think telling them up front at the top of the article that DI is a think tank and not some vague writing group is important.

Secondly, I understand that people are getting frustrated by me changing things, but I think I am addressing real flaws in the article: and the argument that "this is a stable FA" holds no water to me. Maybe thats because its been two years plus since I've edited this article, but I feel that anyone who casts a critical eye over this article will admit it has problems, that it could be improved. I think editors here have settled for this article as it stands, as a way to avoid fighting off the next ID Pusher, well intentioned or otherwise. We'll, I'm not that guy, and this article has been semiprotected since April. I think its time to give a real shot at making this article better, and most of those ares have nothing to do with an actual POV, but making the writing coherent, especially explaining the history behind ID. ID is a historical phenomena at least as it is a philosophical one.

As to the rest of the edits: I don't like the God of Christianity section, but that was my reworking of what was already there, and I seem to recall strenious objection to any changes in the lead that might de-emphasize IDs connection to creationism. I find it unnecessary with the statement "ID was created by creationists."--Tznkai (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and the attitude of other Christians.

Cla68 on the FA page brought up the interesting issue that the article doesn't discuss religious criticism of ID. It may make sense to include something about that in the article. However, the only thing I'm aware of that might be relevant is the Clergy Letter Project which is more about evolution than about ID. Is anyone aware of anything else that might help this? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, didn't George Coyne dismiss ID publicly and strongly? I can't remember what he exactly said in Religulous, but I swear he was criticizing Intelligent design. So there must be writing somewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And he did. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I believe Ken Miller has written at length about it, and some of the christian criticisms of YEC are salient, See also Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. I know what most of the arguments are, but not who to source them to, it could take me a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you intentionally ignoring the FAR?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I point out highly specific references from Christians that criticize ID, and you seem to ignore it. I'm confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was responding to JoshuaZ, not you, and I haven't formulated exactly what I want to say on the FAR: in fact, I'm not convinced its necessary. So, sort of, and I wasn't talking to you, because you weren't asking a question. --Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you don't like the FAR? What are we supposed to do, stop and wait for you? I don't think so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. I'm not asking you to wait for me.--Tznkai (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> There's a brief discussion of this towards the end of the Creating and teaching the controversy section, with some references. It could be clearer if this became a new section and was expanded to report theological views of ID. Exploring Our Matrix lists a number of useful pages if we can accept the blog of James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis, as a reliable source. Overview with lots of links from the ASA. Pretty sure that there are other examples that aren't immediately to my hand. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) modified 21:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful to have a "response" section within Movement, (See this)this would allow us to streamline the article slightly, putting the supports (the affirmative action one might be notable) and the criticisms (pick your favorites) and then I'd try to put Teach the Controversy as more of a historical blow by blow of the rise and fall of the attempt to get ID, ending (for now) at Kitzmiller--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions from FAR

A number of suggestions have been made by Cla68 which in my opinion are worth considering in detail, with a view to reviewing the article structure. I've added and signed some comments. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just make sure we strike each point from the FAR, as we agree to these fixes or, in case we improve on the fix. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition section

Some kind of "Definition" section should begin the article. The "Integral Concepts" section doesn't give the reader a simple and concise introductory definition of the term. A two paragraph Definition section at the beginning, that perhaps summarizes the Integral Concepts section, should be able to do this. The Definition section should not include any criticism of the concept.
- This would be useful, and should show the original "abrupt appearance of birds with feathers, fish with fins" definition. Basing it on third party sources, the section should not be uncritical as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" apply. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think critical is unnecessary here, but mentioning the political framing, intense controversy, and dispute might be worth while, which will show the minority nature of ID without looking like direct criticism.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  - You could rename the vague and woolly overview section, definition, for that is what that section is, in essence, and then make the next two sections subsections of it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Background section

The Background section doesn't go far enough back. The section should include a brief history of the entire "evolution vs creationism" in US public schooling debate, i.e. a synopsis of this article with a "for further details see" template at the top of the section. Then a history of what directly led to the development of ID, including the "Origins of the concept and term". The last three paragraphs in the Background section appear to give a definition of the idea, not background.
- This arose from a brief renaming of "overview" as "background", but as the history of 20th century creationism up to Edwards v. Aguillard is crucial, a brief outline drawing on the timeline of intelligent design seems a good idea. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I think creating an actual history section with a Main article: Timeline of intelligent Design would help a lot. I think more focus on the history of the movement, rather than the supposed intellectual roots of ID would be better.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Integral concepts section

After that, the "Integral concepts" section mixes more background with definition. Can't the two be separated? The "Intelligent designer" section briefly defines the concept, and then launches directly into a debate as to its validity. It would be better if one paragraph was dedicated to defining what Intelligent Designer is supposed to mean, then follow that with a paragraph or two about the validity of the idea.

Movement" section

The "Movement" section again combines background with current definition. "The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s." Isn't this a repeat of information that should be included in the Background section?

One refers to the movement, the other to the concept. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating and teaching the controversy section

The "Creating and teaching the controversy" section is the section that appears to have the most problems with NPOV. It reads like it was written by someone seeking to discredit the idea. Phrases such as "A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public..." and "The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to..." sound like editorializing. Perhaps some of the sources use this kind of language. We shouldn't, however. The fourth paragraph which begins, "Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching..." is written more NPOV. Remember, if someone can read the article and not be able to discern the opinion of the author on the subject, then it has successfully been written with NPOV.

These statements also happen to be spot-on paraphrases of the actual campaign documentation. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of editorializing needs to be avoided (of course, not at the cost of the substance)--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Defining Science section

If this article was an essay on ID, then the "Defining Science" section should be there. It's not an essay, however, so I'm not sure why that section is included.
- The claim to scientific credibility it a crucial part of the definition, perhaps this could be greatly condensed and included in the Definitions section suggested above, with detail being split off into a sub-article. . . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  - As I've stated before, the defining science section is essaylike. A wikilink can explain to the reader what counts as science: probably a good place to put this information is in explaining what the article means by ID proponents want to change the nature science. Again, it must be brief and avoid editorializing or essaying. --Tznkai (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    - The section could be renamed to "Redefining science", which is more focused on the ID movement. The mainstream view on science is needed in order to explain why scientists are nervous about theistic realism. The section should not be an independent essay, but I read it carefully in light of this critique, and I believe only minor tweaks are needed to make clear the purpose is to explain the ID strategy of redefining science. Changing the title to "redefining science" would make the intent of the section clearer. Are there objections to changing the section title? Vesal (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Makes sense. Its the difference between a position paper "What is science?" and a history papers "Timeline of IDM sought to change science." Sounds like a good change, but I still think the section could use a little trim--Tznkai (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review section

The "Peer review" section has some NPOV issues. The first paragraph is NPOV. The second is not. It needs to say something like, "The American scientific community states that Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science..." in order to make it sound like the article's author isn't taking a side. The third paragraph is NPOV. The last paragraph in that section is especially POV. How about, "The Discovery Institute claims that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[182] including in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics from the scientific community reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, say critics, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[183] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[184]" Isn't that a little more NPOV?
- Too much undue weight and giving "equal validity" to a fringe view is being proposed, worth reviewing. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think adding in news media coverage of ID will solve the weight problem: "ID claims this" "All the relevant Science groups claim this "News media has reported this" and "Courts have ruled This"--Tznkai (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kitmiller and See also sections

The next two sections should be shortened and interwoven into the "Concepts" section. As they now stand, they look like criticism sections tacked onto the end of the article.
The "Kitzmiller trial" section is NPOV until this line, "As predicted..." Make this say, "As Jones predicted..." See the difference? By putting it this way, you place the opinion as coming from the judge, not from the article's writer.
- The preceding paragraphs made the source of the prediction pretty clear, but this is a useful clarification which I've implemented. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Do away with the "See Also" section. If those topics can't be linked to somewhere in the article, then they don't belong in the article.
One question...all of the criticism in the article appears to be from the scientific community. Have other Christians criticized the idea? With all of the Christian denominations out there, there must be a few of them that don't agree with the ID idea or movement, or at least portions of it.
I hope this helps a little. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- As discussed in #Intelligent design and the attitude of other Christians. above. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MoS cleanup

Considering Dave souza's long post above, is it premature for me to be working on MoS and citation issues? If I'm just going to get in the way and cause edit conflicts, I'll hold off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is excellent, many thanks. My long post is for discussion of proposals before any action, so there should be plenty of warning and no problem of edit conflicts. As far as I can tell it's not going to affect the value of what you're doing, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can anyone tell me where to find the talk page archives without going in to edit mode? The links in the archive box are dead links. Where is the talk page link to talk page archives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused: the show "buttons" reveal drop down lists of links that are working for me, and bringing up the archives on the ones I've checked. . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

hmm. No show buttons on IE7. I see nothing but dead, black text, no link. Is anyone else on IE7? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it back, there is one live link in the archive box for me (the FAQ is live). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone has an idea, I'll post a query at the Village Pump (technical) about how to fix the archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted to VP/T: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm using Camino and didn't notice any problem. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now by the brainiacs at VP/T ... now I see archives (I wonder how long they've been gone :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, Jim, Kenosis, OM and I (+possibly others) are probably going to scream at eachother on the talk page before a major change in writing occurs: if it occurs at all, so I wouldn't worry about it, unless you want the break.--Tznkai (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, that is so unfair, you really should apologize. I pushed this FAR, because I think it needs serious cleaning. Not only is the MOS and citations bad, but the writing is, well, horrible. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant it in the nicest way OM, honestly. I doubt we're going to agree on exactly how to fix this article without a lot of aggressive discussion first.--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We will get it figured out, even if we have to call in some boxing refs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On tricky articles I've always found it best to post drafts on the talk page, and argue with revised drafts until everyone's not too peeved. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

←I want to help clean up this article, but the mess of HTML and other code embedded in the article makes it terribly difficult. It needs to be removed, because I've looked at a lot of FA articles, and I rarely see this amount of commentary embedded in the article. If anyone thinks that just because it's there means someone is going to read it or be convinced by POV discussions inside of the code, then I'm going to cheer for the New York Yankees. Commentary can be put into references, but even that's a bit nasty. If no one is going to complain, I'm going to remove it. Since I don't think that's going to happen, what other choices do we have? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to plug away at cleanup as long as no one mentions the Yankees on a page I'm editing. Or Tampa Bay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you here all the way OM, just get at least Dave and Kenosis on board, since they seem to be the most active.--Tznkai (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't listen to me. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Suits me to remove HTML, not even sure what that means. . dave souza, talk 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Same goes for other code, though of course the cite templates remain with cleaning up as Sandy's been doing. . . dave souza, talk 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I for one am going to be vetting your removal any sources or quotes from the article. From my past experience here most of these quotes from sources were necessarily added over "concerns" by those seeking to delete content unfavorable to ID by hoping to get the sources removed leaving the content unsupported. In order to prevent a repeat I'm going to be ensuring the deletion of sources, sourced quotes or content makes sense and is supported by policy, not something else like personal opinion. Odd nature (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, any removal of sources or quotes should be discussed here first, with good reasons presented. Probably won't be necessary, if anything the additions proposed above are likely to need more sources. There may be some duplicates which can be combined using the ref name= approach. . dave souza, talk 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

HTML comments and ref clutter

You may want to discuss with this user and other developers about the various ideas to unclutter citations: Bug 12796 and Bug 5997. The basic idea would be to simply allow defining a ref somewhere in the references section, e.g., <ref define="foo">long citation</ref>, and then you can use it simply with <ref name="foo" /> in the body, just as we do with multiple refs. The code for this already exists, so you just need to convince the key people that this is desperately needed. Then, perhaps, things would move forward. This is assuming you agree that keeping the refs separate would help... Would it? Vesal (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness

Odd nature, would you mind looking at the citation and correcting the issue before you remove a comment? The source cited (Guardian) does not match the URL given (BBC). There's an error there; will someone please correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it. I was commenting here first. Odd nature (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Too late, slow boy :P The ref was a duplicate of the next citation, which was the BBC. I found the Guardian article and put the correct ref back. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SS. A note, I am working with the edit refs script, which pulls out only text between ref tags, so when I'm looking at a citation, I'm not even seeing the text cited. And I'd rather not change a citation, instead leave it to regular editors here to sort anything I flag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design's long march to nowhere

Sandy raised the problem here. Looks as though someone was using the linked press release, but the link is dead and I can't find a substitute – Amazon and google don't seem to know about the book. The statement it supports is "According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research." Most of that is covered by the later Kitzmiller judgement, the last sentence needs a source. . dave souza, talk 08:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

that most certainly should be supported by someone, but preferably with more elegant wording.--Tznkai (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation workshop

I think there is a broad and fuzzy agreement that the references need to be audited and consolidated. There are, at last count, over 220 references to this article. I suggest we do two things: 1. divy up the work load for the auditing. Just volunteer to take a chunk and audit it. 2. Start working on consolidating references.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So ... should I keep doing ref cleanup as I was doing? Did anyone get to these? Should I resume working on that section from that point? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller

I think the salient points from Kitzmiller come in three or four broad catagories:

1. Is ID Science? So sayeth Judge Jones: No.

2. Does ID violate Establishment clause. A. Yes

3. Is ID a direct descendant of creationism? A. Yes (could be collapsed with 1 possibly)

4. Has ID been through scientific proccess/does ID have scientific support? A. No

Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:Kenosis should be adequately informed of this, since he/she really strongly objects to any consolidation whatsoever of the references in this article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Silly rabbit. The long string of footnotes has since been consolidated into two. The remaining problem with consolidating the Kitzmiller footnotes has to do with referencing specific places in the 139-page decision, in keeping with WP:MOS. Similarly it is with a number of other existing footnotes. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What have the opinions been about having soooooooo many footnotes on too many claims. Sentences that end in 5 or 6 superscript note numbers remind me of lights on a runway. To me, their effect is like a badda-BOOM clash of the cymbals where it doesn't belong. Fuzzy-wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy-wuzzy had no hair.[4][10][13][54][64][65] Fuzzy-wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If your point is there is information overload and confusion, you've made it... but not in the way you might've expected. In otherwords: Huh?

And Kenosis, I think we can seperate citations into functional categories as I did above, bringing us down to very few.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to further consolidation so long as it doesn't ruin specific page refs, as called for by WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence and as noted in the WP:MOS footnote page. I also think it'll be a pain to maintain over time. Are PM and Tznkai volunteering to do regular checkups in months and years to come? ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is, to me it is more encyclopedic to do this153 type of footnoting instead of this13 14 15 16 when denoting multiple references, especially in the lede. A string of ref numbers such as here has the same effect visually as a badda-BOOM has auditorially.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since this article is increasingly about a historical event, with fewer tendentious participants than was previously the case, that approach makes sense to me at this stage in time. The obvious exception would be where one source is used multiple times, as is the case, for instance, with footnote 4 and 5 ... Kenosis (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if there is one citation or a huge number of them, and I don't care if there a bunches of them in the lead (the word is lead). My problem with combining references has always been that it makes it nearly impossible to refer to that same citation later in an article. I don't think it's important to combine references until such time that we've cleaned up all of the references.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What I've done in the past is to combine the non-repeat refs into one ref tag, and leave the named refs out of the combined ref tag; that method often works to reduce the number of superscripted tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I'm not in favor of Tznkai's original proposal. Odd nature (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creation-evolution table

I've removed a See also link to Wikipedia:Creation-evolution table as the table isn't ready for prime time – it's very confused and / or confusing.[11] . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, more to the point, it's one editor's opinion and original research. --FOo (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't be in the "Wikipedia" namespace either. This should be moved to a subpage of the author's userpage. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image fair use rationale (FAR)

This seemed to be avoided in the points brought up at the latest FAR.

Brought up by myself, and User:CBM.

My comments at the FAR repeated:

This was brought up before and was very controversial at the time. However, the egregarious use of non-free images of book covers on this page is an issue. WP:FA Requires all non-free images to be used appropriately according to the Non-free content criteria. All 10 criteria MUST be met. These book covers continue to not meet criteria 8 "Suitability":
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

At issue is that the presence of these pictures does not serve to "significantly increase readers' understanding", nor would their removal be "detrimental to that understanding". Indeed the only Image I see greatly increasing the readers' understanding in a way that only an image can is the representation of The Creation of Adam at Intelligent_design#Movement. This clearly illustrates the CSC's use of religious iconography in a way that would be difficult to effectively express in prose. None of the book covers actually present material in pictorial form that contributes to knowledge of this article. To comply with FA standards these images must be removed (unless some editors can explain how the images -not their captions- supply necessary information that can only be conveyed in pictorial form). Removal of these images however would mean intelligent design would be poorly illustrated, and therfore bland and no longer eligible for FA status.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

USER:CBM notes that alternative free image illustrations that remain on-topic could easily be created.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we please discuss this. No one seemed interested in discussing the seemingly blatant NFCC violations.

Images do not "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the topic
Image removal would not be "detrimental to that understanding"

Note: Images, refers to the images themselves. The content of image captions can not be used as fair-use rationale.

Note: This is not a discussion of whether removal of the images would be detrimental to this articles FA status (I note this is a given). Fair-use rationale pertains to significant improvement in "understanding". Images obviously provide additional information and generally look pretty, but this is not enough to justify "fair-use".--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't discussed, evidently, because it doesn't need discussion. I disagree that there are any blatant violations going on here. Your arguments apply to any book cover image in any article, even those articles about the books themselves. Nobody really needs to know what book covers look like. The usefulness ("significant increase in understanding") arises from creating a mental anchor image for the accompanying text.

Now, if you can argue why such images should be kept in the articles you think they may be appropriate, you may well find that those arguments apply here too. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Book covers are relevant to the books themselves. Describing the visual appearance of the cover of a book would be a laborious and boring set of prose. Being able to identify subject matter visually is definitely a "significant" increase in udnerstanding. However the book cover is not a visual representation of "intelligent deisgn" the concept. Thus the use of any non-free book cover on an article is not about teh book itself (or perhaps the series, if teh book is part of such) would constitute a violation of NFCC #8. This is too step criteria, not only must understanding be gained, but understanding must be lost if the image is removed. Looking pretty and providing a visual image does not neccitate this particular image. As brought up by CBM - free content can be used for the exact same purpose. You need to be capable of justifying why this image, and no other is needed here, otherwise it is not fair-use. --ZayZayEM (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

In the lead there is the statement:

Intelligent design's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

Given Ben Stein's production of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed he could be considered a leading proponent, given his face is now one of the more publicly recognized ones in the cause. So, that's at least one of the leading proponents, who's not Christian. Perhaps "Judeo-Christian God" is more appropriate.

Regarding "...primary proponents, all of whom...". I may be mistaken, but I think it's wrong to say "primary proponents" (plural). You could have a "prominent proponent" (singular) and a "primary group of proponents". But I don't see how you can have "primary proponents" (plural). Perhaps "leading proponents" is what's meant. --Rob (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein does not represent Judaism. I'll bet he may be the only Jew that's supports this junk science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure it used to say "leading proponents"...for years. Don't see a problem with the change, but I can't recall why it was made. Guettarda (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with rob's points, and per Guet I've changed it - maybe changed it back? Privatemusings (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the change back to "leading proponents". As I recall, the change from "leading" to "primary" was a split decision, so to speak, among participants. The point about Stein's prominence tends once more to make "leading" a more accurate characterization. It's also a more verbatim recitation of several of the cited sources including Kitzmiller. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording of the lead is way too one sided. Intelligent design isn't just an idea. What do others think? Refreshments (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that ID is just an idea. The lead frames this correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Darren. If ID is an idea, so is the theory of evolution. Both have evidence supporting these "ideas". It has evidence behind it, scientific evidence. Refreshments (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...no. While Evolution has 150 years of experimentation, testing, papers, and peer reviews, Intelligent Design has approximately a dozen papers, none of which passed peer review, no experimentation, and no testing, and has only been around for about 20 years. They are in no way equal, or of equal weight.Farsight001 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the lead doesn't say that "ID is just an idea" – it's careful to say that ID is a specific if rather woolly assertion, developed from the idea known as the teleological argument. With the cunning distinction of claiming that "the designer" might not be G_d and therefore the same old creationist argument from ignorance is now "science" suitable for teaching in US public schools. . . dave souza, talk 09:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "idea"? Even evolution started as an idea. If ID was not an idea, what was it? --A D Monroe III (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the word "idea" either. But the earlier consensus was to refer to it as a "concept" in the first sentence of the article. More recently, after lengthy discussion, it was changed to "assertion". SSDD. Seems to me if it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that there have been enough recent complaints and discussion about the word "assertion" that we should consider changing it. "Idea" or "concept" sound more palatable to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and there were a roughly equivalent number of complaints about "concept", which is why it was changed to "assertion". I would expect a roughly equivalent number of complaints about the word "idea". Indeed, the number of complaints about everything in this article -- from ID advocates, opponents, and ostensibly neutral parties alike -- has tended to be more in proportion to how close the statement is to the beginning of the article. The closer to the beginning, the more complaints it gets, no matter what how it's put. It's just the way it is with a controversial and complicated topic such as this-- there's no way to satisfy everybody. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Idea" and "Concept" are vague, nebulous terms. Assertion has a specific english meaning - a statement that is claimed to be true by the person making the assertion. Therefore, I think assertion is clearly the better choice. Raul654 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I go with "assertion" too. Any term that is used is going to get an argument.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Intelligent Design is more of a concept than a idea. ID does have scientific evidence. Its origin is a Biblical one. Many scientists do believe in the possibility of a more intelligent Being creating the universe. Refreshments (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Refreshments - (1) "Idea" and "concept" are synonomous for all practical intents and purposes; (2) saying that there is scientific evidence for intelligent design and other forms of creationism does not make it true. You have been asked, on this page and on others, to provide examples of the scientific evidence you feel is missing. You have not. Nor are you likely to, because it simply does not exist. All the "evidence" for creationism consists of evidence against evolution which is a false dilemma. (Not to mention that that evidence against evolution is generally misconstrued, falsely stated, and tends to betray a lack of understanding of basic science in the person making it) (3) As far your claim that "Many scientists do believe in the possibility of a more intelligent Being creating the universe. " - I seem to remember Stephen Jay Gould commenting that roughly half of scientists think that god might exist. That these scientists think he might exist does not mean they think he created the Universe, nor especially does it mean that they think he actively designed or directed evolution. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On your logic - that "idea" and "concept" are synonymous - why is there so much contention on changing the wording to concept? Idea is not a good word to use to describe ID. I have an "idea", why don't you let us rewrite the article, and we will include all the refs you need. ID has a firm footing in science. I am sorry but it does. Evolution on the other hand, well. Once I see pigs flying and horses swimming, then I might give it some thought. If evolution was the true explanation for our existence today, there wouldn't be gaps in several scientific fields. It doesn't add up: Thousands upon thousands of missing links, not to mention improbabilities. Evolution is trying to persuade someone that a man won the lottery thousands of times, consecutively. Take a bag of 10 balls and have them named 1 - 10. Now, see how many attempts it will take you to take out those balls 1 - 10 in that order. Multiply those balls by a million or a billion even, and this is what you have with evolution. It's one improbability after another. Just because the evolution theory is the best explanation to what scientists have to the origin of this earth, doesn't mean that it is a good explanation, and all other concepts are bad explanations (J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94). Refreshments (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since apparently my response below suffered from TLDR, I'll try something shorter. ID claims to be science. This is the fundamental problem. Also, please cite verifiable evidence, not your own novel argumentation.--Tznkai (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Gould formulated the idea non-overlapping magisteria, a restatement of an old idea that religion and science are not in genuine conflict, but are responsible for different parts of the universe. While the many of the lead scientists countering Intelligent Design movement (Dawkin's comes to mind) are unabashedly and obnoxiously atheistic and hostile to religion, more than a few (Ken Miller) are proudly self described traditional theists, who believe in an intelligent creator... but still belief that has nothing to do with their views on science. Believing that there is the possibility, or straight up believing there is a God, even a creator God, doesn't automatically imply an adherence to *this* concept, idea, assertion, argument, etc, because ID as a concept, idea, topic, or whatever, 'claims to be science.'--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick note from the trenches of Religious Studies: there is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity, at least nothing that isn't steeped in controversy. Judeo-Christianity was an attempt by American Protestants to create a supposedly neutral "heritage" that most of America shared. Abrahamic God, or God of Abraham, may be more useful, and has considerably more traction in scholarly circles (from what I've read, seen, heard anyway.) Judeo-Christian is a deeply POV term, and it is also a political one, and should be, in my editorial opinion, depreciated.--Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point that belief in God does not automatically imply belief in ID, and I think that point can be fleshed out more in the article.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I had proposed a new structure to better address the reaction to ID from people not scientists, but I never got around to it. I may yet after my real life clears and if I resign a posts and voluntary duty or two. But yes, I agree with you.--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. The article, while very good and very informative, would benefit from more perspective along those lines. I made a similar suggestion some time ago but never followed through.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in an attempt to work towards a compromise, does "Intelligent design is the assertion (I prefer argument, but whatever) that an intelligent cause and not natural selection, is the best explanation of certain features of the universe and of living things." work?--Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Tznkai, that's not really any improvement on the actual quotation whe have at present, and natural selection doesn't explain any features of the universe generally, only features of living things. Similarly the statement by Refreshments "the evolution theory is the best explanation to what scientists have to the origin of this earth, doesn't mean that it is a good explanation, and all other concepts are bad explanations (J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94)." mixes up evolution (the usual area of debate) and stellar evolution which is part of astronomy. It may be the best explanation that scientists have, but that doesn't mean that supernatural explanations are bad – they're just not science. Turtles all the way down, ma'am . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, its an attempt at compromise, and I don't particularly like the other features of the universe part myself - but the current version uses it too. To me, the controversy with evolution has always been about the origin of life, species, and so forth, not about the age of the galaxy, and its misleading weight wise to mention otherwise. That having been said, that is the definition people here chose to use.--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More significantly, it's the only consistent "definition" that ID proponents present, and while the controversy is mainly about biological evolution, that misses out their star martyr Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) and all the other areas of science they want to attack in later phases of their wedge strategy. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its been a while since I read this massive article in depth but... is that actually addressed at all?--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We have new editors everyday at wikipedia, and many don't understand how the wikipedia is different than an internet blog or messageboard. They're sometimes confused about how opinions are dealt with here, and in evolution related articles especially. New editors will not necessarily understand yet that these talk pages are not for debating or being educated in the pros and cons of evolutionary theory, etc. What perpetuates the misunderstandings about the purpose of these talk pages is that sometimes even long-time editors join into the debate or teach/preach the truth as they see it for or against evolution, ID, etc. Instead we need to restrict the talk on this page much more narrowly, to specific encyclopedic editing considerations. Resist the urge to joining in to debate or lecture about the issue itself, or to wax on about its bigger questions. Stay focused on editorial considerations to put the article together properly. Doing otherwise does a disservice to new editors. It perpetuates feelings among some about possible double standards being used unevenly against those with certain personal views. And in the evolution related articles, the "discussion" typically turns into a contentious and time wasting diversion from the job at hand. So please let's remember-sources determine what we say in the article, we don't. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For info, #Fine-tuned Universe covers Gonzales, #Movement includes "The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"." and further down has a link to Wedge strategy so that covers the basics. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility

In response to a request for discussion, a DI spokesman has replied stressing the importance to them of civility. Hat tip PZ. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave, maybe I'm missing something, but this looks awful like a message board post, instead of something having to do with the article.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, just seemed both topical and relevant to DI attitudes, but not reliable sources. Feel free to delete if you prefer. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

id not assertion, use of quote biased

Intelligent design is not an assertion, or an assertion that x. Proponents of ID assert x, the assertion x is the primary assertion of ID, the ID movement promotes the assertion x, but ID itself is not an assertion. An assertion is an act. One asserts. A concept, hypothesis, theory - these are things. Two sentences later it's called an idea, and there was a revert when someone tried to use the word "concept", so the changes aren't even consistent. Resorting to semantically nonsensical phrasing when one can't figure out what to say should not be acceptable in a featured article. I'm going to change "assertion" to "idea" because there is apparently accepted precedent in the article for that term. (I'm also unsure why anyone is pointing to a previous semantic analysis of the term "concept" from this very talk page, since our discussions here are all OR.) –M^T 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition supplied by the discovery institute is not neutral. It reinforces the misconception that natural selection is wholly random. NS is, in the relevant sense, highly directed. The use of a sentence that positively affirms ID (rather than merely describing) in the lead is also questionable. Why are we using a pro-ID site's definition of ID? The discovery institute doesn't have a particularly good record of using language in a neutral manner. Also, the use of quotes does not edit-protect a section. The quote isn't even credited to an organization. How would that look? "ID as an assertion, according to the discovery institute, is '...'". I'm going to remove the quotes, thereby allowing other editors to change the content. –M^T 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a direct sourced quote, removing the quotation marks makes it akin to plagiarism. It is that simple. And it is an assertion by the folks there - not testable, therefore not a valid hypothesis. Vsmith (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not sourced, it's cited. In one case, it's clearly presented as the words of another. In our case, we use the quote to open our article. It's similar to taking the definition from MW, a creationist magazine, or another encyclopedia, putting quotes around it, and then adding a cite, thinking that somehow sufficient. It's not, and it's just as much plagiarism. It might be best if the quote is removed under copyvio. It's not an article about TDI's definition of ID (see Nicene Creed point below), it's about ID - using their definition is both plagiarism and endorsement of their definition. Note also that I'm not claiming it's a hypothesis, I'm merely claiming that it's not an assertion. And assertion is a speech act, as is made clear in any dictionary. –M^T 03:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of which term is best, I've blocked User:M for continuing to revert against multiple editors. It's just for 3 hours, but hopefully it will be enough to prevent any further edit warring over the article. The way I see it, the lead sentence should only need to be changed at most one time, after a consensus emerges on this page as to what it should say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. –M^T 03:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Believers believe ID, so ID is a belief. ID is not an assertion (singular), since ID believers make numerous assertions. Since it's not testable we should avoid "theory" and "hypothesis". Believers have many ideas about it, so "idea" (singular) is inadequate. I think we should just say it's a belief, and then quote the DI's definition. Quoting the DI isn't an endorsement, just as quoting the Nicene Creed isn't an endorsement. --Rob (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." Everything is a belief. I continue to advocate "argument" as a preferable term. If nothing else, ID is a series of assertions, accusations, opinions, ideas, and interpretations. --Tznkai (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We have very few articles whose topics are beliefs. A belief is something believed. One doesn't believe that intelligent design. One believes that intelligent design is or is not correct, though. Or that grass is green - that grass is green is a belief that many hold. But one doesn't believe that Marxism, or that Harvey Milk. If you're wondering about a word, try it out in simple language. ID isn't really an argument either. It's a non-rigorous hypothesis - an explanation offered for some phenomenon. Probably the safest word at the moment is "idea". The objection to "idea" offered by Rob doesn't make sense. Yes, they hold many, and many of these are covered in the rest of the article. Among these is the idea that an intelligent agent best explains the universe's complexity. –M^T 03:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ID is a belief. It's creationism recast. Jim62sch^dissera! 03:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have "belief" than "assertion", but ID isn't a belief. If it were a belief, I could say "I believe ID". Yet I can't say that. I have to say "I believe that ID is incorrect" or "I believe in ID". People have these beliefs about ID, but that hardly means ID is itself a belief. A belief is an attitude people have towards a preposition. ID is not an attitude. –M^T 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ID is presented by its leading proponents as the cited assertion, along with the misleading claim that it's a "theory" and has some scientific basis, though these points have been refuted and even some of its leading proponents now draw back from these particular claims. It's not the belief of divine intervention, because many people believe in such intervention without subscribing to ID, for various reasons. Its own proponents claim that it is a part of their larger religious view, that there is empirical evidence of the "designer" which is empirically untestable. Spot the self-contradiction. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't figure out how this is relevant to what has been said above. Proponents present it only as a theory, and they use assertions to communicate, just like we are. ID is not an assertion. Cats are animals. Now with quotes around it: "cats are animals". This in no way shows that cats are assertions. –M^T 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a sound argument. Cats aren't an assertion, but "feline animalism", which is the idea that cats are animals, is an assertion. Spotfixer (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I assert that it is analogous. "It is analogous" is an assertion. There's something strange about "I assert that feline animalism", and nothing strange about "I presume feline animalism" or "I assert that feline animalism is correct". Our quote is like the latter. It's definitely an assertion related to ID. The problem is that ID itself is not an assertion. Compare with Cogito ergo sum, which is an assertion. If ID were an assertion, then we could replace it into X of "she asserts that X", but we cannot, so it is not. –M^T 16:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

<undent> You miss the metaphor. Cattists might define cattism as "the theory that cats have souls", which is certainly a religious proposition and not a scientific theory. One could then say "cattists assert that cats have souls", or that "cattism is the assertion that cats have souls. Its proponents argue that it is a scientific theory." After eating a cheese snack, I await your response with baited breath. . . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not cattism, but rather "cats have souls" that is an assertion that cats have souls. Cattism is the thesis that cats have souls. Cattists believe that Cattism is the way to go, and sometimes open their mouths and assert that cats do have souls. That assertion is very important to cattism, because it expresses what cattism all about. "The theory that cats have souls" isn't a theory but a proposition for a very different reason: what we're referring to is a sentence (see those quotes?) and sentences are never theories, though they might serve to communicate theories. Open your mouth and say cattism. No, not "cattism", but cattism. You can't. This is because cattism (like yellowness, or rage) isn't in the class of things that can be said, much less asserted. –M^T 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, missed this one. So, it's defined by its proponents as "the theory that cats have souls" but it's not a theory. It's not the idea that cats have souls, as many other groups have the idea that cats have souls without agreeing with cattism as presented by this little group in a small office in Seattle. Got a better word, or can you accept that it's the assrtion that "cats have souls" as presented by this particular group who also claim that it's not religion, nosirree. . dave souza, talk 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes for the theory sentence, no to the idea sentence: an idea need only exist in the mind of one, and they don't even have to agree with it. I'm not too concerned with "idea" at the moment, I just want to get rid of the word "assertion". "Intelligent Design is wrong" is a sentence. Intelligent Design is a thesis/concept/idea/theory/something (but not a sentence). "Iorem Lpsum for" is a poorly formed sentence. Evolution is a theory. "Evolution" is a word. "Is evolution a theory?" is a question and a sentence. "Evolution is a theory" is an assertion. Evolution itself is not an assertion, it's a theory. You can make thousands of assertions about it, but saying "evolution is an assertion" is like saying "evolution is a sentence" or "evolution is a question" or "evolution is that way which we are, as living people". It's inane. Saying "evolution is the assertion that..." is still a claim that evolution is an assertion. Same goes for ID. "ID" is an abbreviation. "Intelligent Design" is a noun phrase. Intelligent Design is something (I'd go with "thesis"), but it definitely isn't an assertion. (Someone needs to look at court documents and see what they call intelligent design.) "Intelligent Design is best expressed by the assertion that..." would work, but would still sound ugly. –M^T 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a stance. Spotfixer (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sulloway [in the source given below] describes ID as a doctrine, would "Intelligent design is the doctrine that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected...." work better? . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If I might suggest something at this point: This is an encyclopaedia, and as such our task in this article is to document what reliable sources have published on the subject. Therefore, a better lead sentence might read Intelligent design is the assertion that "[quote]" according to its primary proponents. Not only is this a relatively small change to the lead sentence, it also has the benefit of complying with the "simple formulation" aspect of our neutrality policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, ID is not an assertion. "ID, according to its proponents, is best expressed by the assertion that..." –M^T 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing through, but I read the above discussion before commenting. When I first read the lead, the first thing that I thought of was "What is this? Don't these editors know that evolution is not 'undirected'?" Then I saw the quotes, had to go down to the refs to realize that this was a quote from DI. While Sheffield's suggestion may appear benign, I suspect that most readers will forget about the quotes and assume that this is a neutral definintion of ID, which it certainly is not. Maybe if the last part of the quote was left out it would be better.Desoto10 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 'natural selection'. Would it be possible to shorten the quote:

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause..." [1][2] Desoto10 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We should abandon that quote. In an article about some crazy dictatorship, would we treat the dictator's words as authority? X is a "prosperous and democratically elected government". No, it's ridiculous. TDI isn't that bad, but it's not an authority on what ID is and what ID is doing/trying to do. They describe ID as a theory, and evolution as undirected (the first we chop, the second we parrot). What ID is according to its proponents - this is not something that should be in the lead - put it later in the article. "Stance" is great, "doctrine" implies prescribes-action, but either are fine, and much better than "assertion". The quote needs to be removed. –M^T 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed in favour of what? If we're not going to use the definition provided by its proponents and creators, the next most well-informed view of ID is that of its critics... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "assertion" -no, you're mistaken, "an assertion" is a noun, not a verb.
We have had several rounds of discussion. Please consult the archives. To quote myself from just a couple months ago:

The statement that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", what Sober called "mini-ID", is a compromise statement that keeps the ID "big tent" together. It isn't a "belief" or "view" - ID proponents don't believe in an "intelligent cause" - they believe in some flavour of God. The hold any single "view" - some are YECs, others deny common descent between humans and apes, others accept the pattern of evolution but reject to cause. ID proponents present no evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", so it's unreasonable to call it an argument, hypothesis or theory. Similarly "premise" gives it undeserved weight - a "premise" is a foundation upon which you stand a logical construction or an argument. Calling it a "position" is misleading - it's impossible to say whether an ID proponent actually holds the position that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"..."takes" the position, perhaps, but that just boils down to "asserts". So "position" introduces needless ambiguity.
People make assertions. An assertion is simply a declarative statement. The ID movement makes this assertion because they seek to be a big tent, and because they sought to skirt Edwards. I cannot think of a better term than "assertion". Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to using that quote from Luskin on the DI website, I'm with Sheffield Steel - whose definition of ID are you suggesting we use? Guettarda (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a couple of headings, (and mess up Dave souza's heading - sorry) one for the use of the quote, and one for what ID is. Response to the point above: an act is a noun, not a verb. "He gave the ball a kick", "He made an assertion". I'm not objecting on the grounds that it's actually a verb. To call ID an assertion is a category mistake. "Evolution is correct" is an assertion. Evolution is a theory, not an assertion. "Complex things cant come about without a designer, so ID is correct" is an argument. "ID is correct" is not a view, it's an assertion. That ID is correct is a view (cf. "one view is that ID is correct"). "ID" is an abbreviation. ID is not an abbreviation (for reasons far more serious than those for it not being a theory). Likewise it's not a sentence, nor an assertion. –M^T 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Big tent

Intelligent design is a "big tent" accommodating a range of creationist arguments and beliefs that empirical evidence can demonstrate a supernatural cause. It is defined by its proponents as "The theory 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."

Stripping it down to less informative basics,

Intelligent design is a "big tent" accommodating a range of creationist arguments and beliefs, defined by its proponents as "The theory 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."

My preference would be for option 1, but 2 would probably be ok. Note that it doesn't say that ID is creationism, merely that the "big tent" accommodates creationism. . dave souza, talk 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We can just say "ID is a range of creationist arguments and beliefs". This still leaves the question of whether it is a range, and whether it's a range of arguments and beliefs. –M^T 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it's "mere creation" designed to accommodate a range of beliefs as a common subset or substrate of these beliefs, without aiming to replace or replicate the whole of these beliefs. It's a "science consonant" with such beliefs, creationism redux as a framework to open the way for the full range of beliefs. Similarly, it doesn't include all creationist arguments, but all the arguments it presents have creationist precedents. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of TDI quote to introduce

Editors have expressed the concern that the introductory quote is (heavily) biased, since it comes directly from TDI. The original quote calls ID a theory; our partial quote still furthers the creationist misconception that evolution is undirected. There are several arguments for its removal - it being incorrect (evolution not undirected), the questionable practice of using the interpretation of ID-advocates (we wouldn't trust a dictator to describe her government), copyright violation (putting quotes around another encyclopedia's definition of ID and using it as our lead is not fair use). The question then is whose definition we should use. The response is that we, like in all other articles, don't have to use some specific formulation. We know certain things about ID:

it's based on the old teleological argument
it's being (mis-)presented as a scientific theory
the primary claim is that complex universe-features are best explained by design by intelligent agency
proponents offer a very wide variety of (fallacious or empirically falsified or empirically unfalsifiable) arguments to support this claim
proponents claim that a) complex features cannot arise "randomly" or through an undirected process (this is true) and b) evolution is undirected [note how this is actually one of the arguments]

And so on. As with any article, the challenge is to find the most essential facts and legibly compress them into the first sentence. We must answer the reader's question "what is ID?" without injecting anything extra or leaving anything important out. So with this option open to us, can we please get rid of that pov-pushing, probably copyvio quote that we start the article with, and build up our own intro in its place? –M^T 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors have previously expressed the concern that the article is based on criticism of ID, and the negotiated opening with the DI's own "definition" avoids the problem of original research in picking a third party definition, if one can be found. Do you have a source or sources in mind for each of the arguments you put forward? The first two can be cited from Kitzmiller, but the others involve considerable interpretation which should come from a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

3 and 5 are directly from that quote we're using now. The teleological argument is one for 4, and there are quite a few creationist 'papers' that offer more. –M^T 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You claim that using the Discovery Institute's description of intelligent design is biased - presumably in favor of the DI's position. As someone who is likely to take everything they say with a grain of salt, I see nothing wrong or biased with their definition of DI. Nor do I think anyone else here does. And given the great lengths the ID creationists have gone to obfuscate exactly what ID is, I think it makes perfect sense to the DI's definition as the authoritative source for its defintion. You claim that It reinforces the misconception that natural selection is wholly random. NS is, in the relevant sense, highly directed. This is wrong in many senses. First, the quote does not say natural selection is random; it says it is undirected, which is true. Nobody "directs" natural selection - it is a wholly natural process, without anyone else overseeing it. Furthermore, your claim that natural selection is "highly directed" shows that you think being directed and being non-random are the same thing. They are not. (Example: If I drop magnetic filings next to a magnet, they will line up in an orderly pattern without any direction on my part - e.g, Non-random, non-directed) Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has brought up the same point as I have. I'm very certain that the vast majority of readers aren't aware of the fine scientific (do you have a cite?) distinction you're drawing. Keep in mind that "undirected" might mean not having a director, and also not having a direction. When most people (especially those who lean creationist) see that phrase, they see "evolution is random" not "there is no God that directs it". This isn't the sort of article where that ambiguity is welcome. –M^T 05:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ambiguity is in the source and it's very likely intended to be unclear in order to allow as many as possible in the "big tent". Creationists (not only ID:ers) do obfuscate the difference between random and undirected, so to try to intruduce stringency where it doesn't exist in the first place is to misrepresent ID.Sjö (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Direct" in not precise scientific terminology. They are using the common english meanings of the word - To show or indicate the way for... To give commands or directions - as in the sort of actions that a designer would undertake. There is nobody that does this with natural selection, yet natural selection is non-random. Which is to say that, as Darwin originally observed, the best-adapted species are the ones that tend to survive and procreate. So, in summary - the article is perfectly accurate and non-confusing as is. Raul654 (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's intended to obfuscate then why are we using it as our lead? –M^T 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What sort of thing ID is

There are a variety of things that ID might be, listed below with distinguishing features, and reasons to reject. In order of worst to best:

-Assertion - category mistake, see above. (Same goes for Statement, Sentence, etc.)
-Theory - pov. It's true if we're talking common-language "theory", but we're not and shouldn't.
-Hypothesis - pov. Better than theory, but falsifiability not met.
-Argument - category mistake. There are arguments for ID, but ID itself is not an argument.
-Premise - category mistake, the term is logical (cf. "assumption", which isn't). A premise is a part of an argument, and not a conclusion.
-Conclusion - It can be seen this way (in a broad sense), but its essence is not "as-conclusion" (cf. 'thesis' below, which has the reverse focus). (It's not a person or a robe-wearer that hands down a sentence, but a judge.)
-Assumption - pov.
-Opinion - pov.
-Big-tent, umbrella term - wording can be altered to omit this
-Doctrine - pov. (militant?) plan of action
-Postulate - pov. A bit too 'assumption'-like
View - a way of seeing something, a perception.
Belief - a thing accepted as true/correct/right/actual.
Position - that which is posited, put forward for consideration. Mild emphasis on "strategically put forward".
Proposition - as position, emphasizing "put forward" / proposed / for-your-consideration. Has alternate linguistic meaning similar to "sentence".
Thesis - a position put forward with argument

Anything else? Those with '-' in front I think are clearly inappropriate. Guettarda had some objections to view, belief, and position - I'm not sure I understand objections to the first two, but the third: you might not know that people actually hold a belief, but you can be pretty sure that they're advancing a position. I would reject them for different reasons: they're pov against ID. There's a connotation of "opinion", just something they passively think, just a way to see it, maybe not the right way. Doctrine? No, goes a bit too far. I believe Thesis, though not a common word, is most appropriate. You can question how valid, sound, or sane the arguments they present are, but arguments are definitely provided for their position that the best explanation for extreme complexity is intelligent agency. –M^T 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right, someone proposed "proposition" in the earlier discussions. But the consensus, after lengthy discussion, was to go with "assertion", which replaced the then-longstanding word "concept". No one word had unanimous support, but "assertion" had the most support and the least opposition. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with view, belief, and position is that their "big tent" one size fits all approach means that all of the possible definitions of their position can be held by people who don't support creationism in its anti-evolution sense, and we wind up with arguments claiming people support ID when they don't. The term "thesis" is in common use as meaning "dissertation", and while a dissertation on roast pig comes to mind, ID doesn't. The Kitzmiller finding noted that ID is a version of the argument from design, but I recall there being some objections to that as the opening definition. . dave souza, talk 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In most dictionaries the primary meaning is that of position, and wording like "is the thesis that x" would remove any ambiguity.–M^T 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How about notion? I think that would work, defintion is "a belief; opinion; view; general idea"--Patton 123 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

pov connotation. "They have this notion that", "silly notion", etc. –M^T 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Assertion" is fine. M's criticisms of it are without merit. Raul654 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, and do you understand the distinction between "ID" and ID? "ID" is an abbreviation. ID is not an abbreviation. Likewise ID is not a sentence or assertion. –M^T 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You above claimed that ID itself is not an assertion. An assertion is an act. One asserts. The dictionary disagrees. Assertion (noun) 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion. 2. an act of asserting. Your claim is, essentially, that the only correct definition of assertion is the latter. You are wrong. "Assertion" can refer to the act of asserting something, or the actual idea that is being asserted. Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(Even if ID were a statement, your definition means that our calling it an assertion is pov.) You are very seriously not reading me correctly. I've argued for it being neither. See how the first definition says "statement" or "declaration"? Is ID a statement? No. "ID is wrong" is a statement. ID is wrong is making this sentence ungrammatical. ID itself is not a statement. What kinds of things are statements/assertions? Usually formal mathematical theorems, most popular Latin phrases, and so on. Bodies of belief-ish things? Not so much. –M^T 05:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing nonsensical semantic games. ID is a statement AND an assertion. Specifically, it is the statement/assertion 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." And you can try to dance around this all you want, but you are convincing nobody. Raul654 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Comparing usage in describing some specific thing:

thesis: 76 hits. Things described in the first 2 pages of results include: logicism, externalism, solipsism, eliminativism, determinism, egoism, trivialism, essentialism, mentalist postulate, false consciousness. There are 4 'misfires', where the phrase is not used to describe a thing.
assertion: 188 hits. First 2 pages: Goldbach's conjecture, Intelligent design, Quantum indeterminacy, Atheism?, Panatheism, Sola scriptura, Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Gossen's Second “Law”, van Kampen's theorem, Riemann hypothesis. 10 misfires including 3 talk pages.

All things described as being a thesis are 'position'-like, or extremely similar to what ID is. The majority of things described as being assertions are in fact assertions, though the wording here has spread to Panatheism as well. If you think semantics (maybe you should look that word up) is useless, there are plenty of other arguments against assertion. First, by your definition, our use of "assertion" is POV against ID. I know you're attached, but it's a poor word to use. We should use thesis. –M^T 04:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the content includes some parenthetical debates. For instance, the article touches briefly on peripheral debates about what, if anything, is the "scope" of religion, God, gods, supernatural, consciousness, the second law of thermodynamics, theism, deism, panentheism, etc., and of course there are indications in some of the positions of ID opponents of, as you say, panatheism (not to be confused with panentheism)-- all this has indeed crept into the discussion about ID. All these parenthetical conceptual squabbles are part of the published literature about ID, reflected in many reliable sources. The central point remains the strategy of ID proponents to attempt to teach something that isn't science in science class, and this article fully reflects this by discussing at some length the views of reliable sources about what is the proper scope of science.
..... Whether the definition of what ID is, as represented by its proponents, is termed a "concept", "proposition", "thesis", "premise" or some other descriptor of this general class of things-in-the-world, the word "assertion" adequately captures the type of "thing" that the Discovery Institute's definition of ID is. Due to NPOV issues, the consensus has long been to put a descriptor on that statement. Originally it was termed a "concept", then briefly a "proposition", and ultimately the editors settled on "assertion". A number of editors have (pardon me here) asserted that a different class of descriptor should be used, such as "strategy [of deceptively renaming theological apologetics as biological science]", "legal strategy [of renaming creation science with a more secular-sounding term]" and numerous other offerings. But, "assertion [of the DI's definition of what ID is]" was where the consensus settled. To change "assertion" to some other descriptor of what the DI's definition of ID is would change nothing significant or substantive about the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been made aware of this, though it seems like consensus is being taken to mean "well, it's been decided, so now we use it". Would you be accept 'thesis', or some other word above? –M^T 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and yet many debates rage across Wikipedia re descriptors. Calling ID a scientific theory certainly would change the tenor of the article, but so would something less drastic like "thesis", or even proposition. The sense of the word does matter, but then I'm approaching this strictly from a linguistic viewpoint. Roget may classify assertion and proposition and thesis as synonyms, but as I've noted afew times before, all thesauri should carry a caveat lector warning that the classificationsare broadin scope and that a good dictionary should be consulted before accepting the thesaurus' classification. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I am deeply confused. It's surely my own fault, but the essential point I make is missed. DI asserts this: "ID holds that X". This is a mild personification of ID - "ID believes that X", based on persons holding (defending) some position (land). Anyway. When you say a thing is X, certain things follow. One thing that follows is that you can make up simple sentences that flow well when treating the thing as if it really were X. Some examples:

Bill asserted Goldbach's conjecture.
Carol asserted Gossen's Second law.
Dave asserted van Kampen's theorem.
Emily shouted "...". Emily's outburst was a Denial of the Armenian Genocide. [note 2nd def of assertion]
Fred, who speaks Latin, asserted "Sola scriptura"

Contrast these uses with:

Alice asserted lamps (??)
Bill asserted arguments (argued by way of making assertions?? asserted the arguments were sound, valid??)
Carol's outburst was Atheism (result of her atheism?? Carol was atheism embodied??)
Dave asserted Atheism (proclaimed himself an atheist??).
Emily asserted externalism (said that she accepted externalism?? argued for it?? )
Fred asserted Intelligent Design (the core assertion of ID? proclaimed ID to be accurate?)

The first set has no problems. All those things work out great when treated as assertions. In the latter set, the sentences make no damned sense, and we end up invoking pragmatics. "I suppose the speaker means this instead". I get this from 1-6. I'm sure most people would be alarmed by 1, and hopefully by 2, but somewhere along the line from 3-6 it becomes ok. Note that I'm not talking about style - all 6 of those work fine in poetry, some as metaphors, and most in everyday speech. What these are, however, is a test for "is it really X?" The question of style is another matter (though I think it follows that calling a thing something it's not for lack of a better word is poor style). –M^T 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion here about the use of the verb "to be", the often troublesome verb of which the third-person form is the word "is". The Discovery Institute says, contrary to what User:M says, not that "ID holds that X" , but that "[t]he theory of intelligent design holds that X" , where X = the DI definition of ID. The DI's usage is, quite arguably, technically incorrect grammar. And the statement "ID holds that X" is definitely an incorrect representation, because "intelligent design" cannot itself hold anything, except in the loosest possible usage of the word "hold". Proponents can "hold that ID is X" but the theory itself cannot "hold" anything, at least not in the sense the DI appears to be using the word "hold". Nonetheless, we're responsible not for criticizing the DI's grammar, but for representing their representation in some reasonable way for the reader(s) of the article.
.....The editors here have chosen a completely reasonable, grammatically correct way of representing what is asserted to be "intelligent design". The DI calls it a "theory", but the WP editors have called it an "assertion" in order to differentiate it from a "theory" in the scientific sense, as would be relevant to any discussion of something that's asserted to be a theory suitable for teaching in a science class such as biology. Thus, to say that "intelligent design is the assertion that X" (where X = the DI definition of ID) is a correct and reasonable way of expressing what "intelligent design" is.
..... As to the sense in which "assertion" is used, User:Raul654 already gave a standard dictionary definition of the word "assertion", one major sense of which is the sense used in the article. Whatever misapprehensions may have led to this confusion about one particular word, I must say that to try to contradict the already clarified, widely accepted use of the word "assertion" by forcing upon it the wrong sense of the word is, well, just plain wrong. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

("ID" and "the theory of ID" are in this context different in no relevant way, but if you think they are just assume that I said the latter. DI's mistake is not grammatical, but categorical - but actually it's not a mistake, but a turn of phrase. What we're responsible for is not presenting their words, but the best words we can find - potentially even make up our own, as is done in every other article I've seen.) The quote is an assertion. Intelligent design is not an assertion. ID is not "somepropositiongoeshere". Contrast with something like Goldbach's conjecture, which is, simply and completely, "somepropositiongoeshere". Which other sense am I forcing upon the word? –M^T 10:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there seems to be some confusion about the word "is". This verb is used, with equal validity, to reference both word or phrase used to describe something, as well as to the "thing" or "class of thing" itself. "A tree is a perennial woody plant." cf . "Intelligent design is the assertion that [insert DI definition in quotes]." It's a totally legitimate usage, whether one uses "concept", "proposition", "assertion", "belief", "idea" or another similar class of entity to which ID arguably belongs. The editors of this article chose to use "assertion". When the article was parsed by many skilled editors in both FAC and FAR, those editors too found the syntax to be quite reasonable. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

<undent> (I'm really very sorry for the length). That's because words "tree" can be replaced by complete descriptions "perennial woody plant" and vice-versa, or replaced by broader categories "plant" ("the tree is dead"->"the plant is dead" - though not the other way). For compound descriptions "a dinette is a table and chairs" this is not possible "a dinette is not chairs". So yes: because ID is just "fabebic", and "fabebic" is an assertion, we may call ID an assertion, or even do both at the same time. (Nor is it possible for "X is a fake diamond"->"X is a diamond", and there are many more interesting examples.)

The problem is that ID is not "fabebic". If it were, then it would be an assertion. If it were an assertion, we could treat it like one. But we cannot, so ID is not "fabebic". Rather, "fabebic" is one of many ways to assert that intelligent design is an actual phenomenon, a useful explanation, a correct hypothesis...

Why can we not treat it as an assertion? Is-an-assertion works with things that may be properly true or false. For example, Goldbach's conjecture. "GC is true". But "Capitalism is true" is ridiculous. "ID is true/false" is just as bad. ID is not true or false, but rather actual, hypothetical, correct, explanatory, grounded, backed-up-by-evidence, verified, or not. "ID is t/f" is fine if we're speaking loosely - like calling someone's hypothesis their theory. We know what we mean. We're not doing that here though.

This is substantiated by usage, as I linked above. Note also use of 'assertion' to describe a thing. The vast majority are misfires: "most/equally/particularly remarkable/flawed/dumb is the assertion that". Each page has 10. Page 1: an argument, a conjecture. P2: the essence of fundamentalism, a conjecture. P3 has nothing. P4: a fallacy, Positive atheism (wikianswers). P5: an argument, essence again, a theorem. Use of the phrase: P1: ID, Riemann Hypothesis, Magical Thought, one key to verification, a consequence of the Riemann Hypothesis, LOC1 (logical), a warrant. P2: Godel's second incompleteness theorem, the statement ψ(m), a thing at the center of a theory, an atheist's final resort, a starting point for discussion, a keystone for a philosophy, the prosecutor's fallacy. P3: a point to bring up, an argument, ADR (logical), Isbister's bullets (conjecture/assertion), something endemic to a literature, a mark of a syndrome, the kernel of truth in something, something central to an argument, something at the heart of something. 80 (50+30) uses of the phrase with 32 relevant uses: 16 proper mathematical/logical assertions, 13 "essence/key/at-heart of/to" uses, 1 unknown (Magical Thought?), 1 questionable (positive atheism) - and the last is this article. These two searches are much more convincing than "we decided on it in past discussions" or "other related articles do this too".

To summarize, that phrase is used extensively for math/logic statements and for describing the core statement of a theory/discussion/model, which is exactly what I'd anticipated and recommended. Our usage is both sloppy or semantically incorrect and highly uncommon. I'm guessing it's the result of a bunch of us "voting" on something that sounded ok and wasn't getting that many complaints.

I've proposed thesis, which is a well-suited and somewhat common use. Here's another proposal: why not take evolution as an example? It avoids the problem entirely. "Intelligent Design is the hypothetical creation of complex (forms of life) by (a god)[, which creationists/proponents advance as the only/a possible explanation for that complexity]". –M^T 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Category mistakes

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.[12]

To "hold" something in this context means to state or assert it. "Assertion" is therefore not a category mistake.
Specifically, this is a holding/assertion/statement about a purported 'explanation' for "living things", but does not contain any purported explanation itself. Therefore to call it a "Theory" or "Hypothesis" (both of which are explanations) is in fact a category mistake.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The category mistake is with treating ID an epistemic agent. ID doesn't 'hold' anything - creationists do. I agree with your second point, but to clarify a bit, the point is that since ID is not an explanation*, it's not a hypothesis (making that move is a category mistake). Agreed. Keep in mind though that some do see it as a 'common sense' explanation ("how?" "a man made it"; "an intelligent agent made it"; "a god made it"; "through magic") - though scientific* (this is what is missing in ID) explanations stop at about the second. My problem is with "ID is an assertion". –M^T 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit was a substantial step in the wrong direction. I have reverted it. In the future, get consensus on the talk page before changing something that has been so substantially discussed and agreed on previously. Raul654 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I will. Though I'll avoid making frequent changes and I won't revert you, I will periodically edit in a way that you don't like. This is part of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. It is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to edit even the most entrenched articles, and I anticipate a more informative response than "I don't like it" when a revert is made. –M^T 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether ID is an "assertion" or a "proposition that IDers assert" is far too fine a distinction to be quibbling over. The important distinction, at least to my mind, is between a bald assertion ("ID is the best explanation"/"the designer did it"/"the butler is the best explanation"/"the butler did it") versus something with sufficient (and preferably testable) explanatory detail (e.g. claims as to means, motive & opportunity) to be called a "hypothesis" or similar. Given that IDers have never offered the slightest level of explanatory detail (and in Dembski's case, has given a blunt refusal to offer such), I would object strongly to any word that implied that this explanatory detail exists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an assertion - which by definition is an asserted proposition. ID is not the following things: a word, a sentence, a quote, a logical proposition, a statement, a question, a commendation, nor an assertion. "Thesis" does not imply any explanatory detail. An assertion is something extremely specific. It's a) the act of asserting and b) something asserted. ID has never been and can never be asserted. –M^T 00:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As defined in the cited source ID is an assertion/'holding'. All assertions are by their nature (at least vestigially) a thesis. The ID assertion "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" has been asserted repeatedly by IDers. If ID is a (non-vestigial) "thesis" rather than a mere assertion, what are the contents of that thesis (and what WP:RS states these contents as being defining of ID). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A "holding" isn't an assertion. Yes, the ID assertion "fabebic" has been asserted thousands of times. You're confusing ID with a (generalized) assertion that 'sums up'(?) ID. A car is the noun phrase "a wheeled motor vehicle" - no. A thesis is a position-that-gets-argued-for, with some implication that the position has not advanced beyond that stage (hasn't been 'proven'). The contents are what we have there now. Great word, I think. –M^T 06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to quibble about fine points, a "holding", by its dictionary definition, is an "opinion". An opinion can be, and in the case of the quoted ID holding is, a bare assertion. To call this a "summary" is inaccurate, as there is no more that is essential to ID than the "the designer did it"/"designer is the best explanation" assertion -- the "summary" is all there is. To compare with the scientific viewpoint, ID is equivalent to a 'natural evolution' assertion that 'nature did it'/'nature is the best explanation', without offering any details (e.g. whether nature did it by Lamarckian means, Darwinian mechanisms, etc). It is a largely vacuous position that simply acts as a coathanger for various arguments why evolution (and methodological naturalistic explanations more generally) can't explain everything. But none of these arguments are in any way essential to ID (plus are too numerous, vaguely specified and/or equivocated to go into any core ID definition). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're making claims about what sort of thing the quote is - my claim concerns ID. An opinion is never an assertion, they're of mutually exclusive subclasses of speech act: I opine X, I assert Y. (I didn't like the word 'summary' either. Beyond this, you make some claims that I don't think you intend. I don't think that what's beyond the 'bare assertion' is good or right or actual, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there. Serious energy has been expended in the debunking of what's there.) I don't think I'm quibbling, nor do I think you're intentionally evading my point. It's probably the case that you're having trouble understanding a point that I'm having trouble making. To help clear things up, would you mind telling me what you think my objection/point is? –M^T 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful reading

Sulloway, Frank J. (2006), "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design" (PDF), in Brockman, John (ed.), Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, New York: Vintage, pp. 107–126, retrieved 2008-12-08 . . dave souza, talk 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Theological opponents

If there is a subsection on proponents, there should be a subsection on opponents. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw these recent edits, and I think it's a valid section to have. Although IIRC it came entirely from one source, and I think we should use more. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's the text of the section proposed by DRosenbach, immediately below: ... Kenosis (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

===The theological problems of intelligent design===

Natan Slifkin, in his work The Challenge of Creation, condemns the intelligent design community as presenting a theologically problematic perspective of God, and which, is thus, surreptitiously very dangerous to religion.<ref>Slifkin, Natan, ''The Challenge of Creation'', (New York: Yashar Books, 2006) page 288.</ref> Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it.

Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. He asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system, but that he is not in control in respect to things which can be explained by scientific theory, such as planetary motion and the formation of the world.

“

There is a risk in undertaking such a project, of course, as the theistic evolutionists constantly remind us by referring to the need to avoid resorting to a "God of the gaps." If the naturalistic understanding of reality is truly correct and complete, then God will have to retreat out of the cosmos altogether. I do not think the risk is very great, but in any case I do think theists should meet it with a preemtive surrender.

”

— Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, page 169

Slifkin challenges Johnson's statement that "God will have to retreat out of the cosmos," because he asserts that a "complete explanation of the celestial bodies by astronomy, or an explanation of the formation of the mountains by geology, or of rain via meteorology, does not paint God out of the picture, but instead means that He works through science," something that Johnson denies.<ref>Slifkin, ''Challenge'', page 289</ref>

Slifkin concluded by emphasizing that intelligent design is no friend of religion, in that it "denies the role of God in 99% of the universe...and implies that He was only able to engineer processes that would accomplish 99% of His objectives. Postulating the intelligent design of organisms means postulating the unintelligent design of natural law."<ref>Ibid.</ref> This point is built on comments made by Kenneth Miller in his work, The Flagellum Unspun:

“

[T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.<ref>Miller, Kenneth, "The Flagellum Unspun," in ''Debating Design'', (Dembski, William and Ruse, Michael, eds.) (Cambridge University Press 2004).</ref>

”

— Kenneth Miller, "The Flagellum Unspun", in Debating Design, page 95

02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to DRosenberg's friendly note on my talk page, I've reviewed this proposal, briefly at least, I think it has some potential but would need significant work before seriously considering inserting it into the article. More sources would be needed, I think, to present a reasonable sampling of opposition to 'intelligent design" from various religious perspectives. Representatives of other faith-based perspectives have offered criticisms of ID roughly akin to what Slifkin asserts. A bit of this basic slant is already briefly touched upon in the present version of the article, e.g., in the last paragraph of the first section of Intelligent_design#Creating_and_teaching_the_controversy. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

That's Rosenbach. I don't seem to understand why more than one source in necessary. Verifiability is the key. I've read Slifkin's book, this is what is says, and it's properly cited. Even his source, Miller's Unspun is sourced, and both Miller and Slifkin are notable enough to have their own articles, let alone have their texts published. With all due respect, if you'd like to look up similar sources who make similar arguments, that's fine -- but how does that have anything to do with what I wrote, it's justified verifiability and its relevance to the article in that proponents have been overtly mentioned in their own section yet opponents have not. An honest challenge to the intelligent design proposal should be allowed its equal time and space -- especially when written in a civil and neatly formated way. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with organization of the article as a whole, WP:SS, and appropriate breadth of perspective. IMO, as proposed it's a discussion of Slifkin's slant. As I mentioned, similar expressions of theological disagreement with ID can be found in other major faiths. Please also keep in mind that this article has "FA" designation, so whatever might be added will need to be consistent with that standard. Also, one of the concerns expressed by FA reviewers has been length-- basically, it's already very close to current limits of tolerance about length for FAs. But I'm just one user-opinion. I'd sure like to hear from others about this idea of another section of this type, including long-time contributors who are closely familiar with the present content of this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to protest the notion that the status quo should trump such important guidelines as Giving "equal validity" and Undue weight, as noted above. If the proponents are mentioned, so should the opponents, and it's terribly unfortunate that their absence is being regarded as a protected form of this article. Let's hear these long-time contributors speak their part. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. But in the meantime, I must resist the insertion of a new section based entirely on the work and perspective of one author. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is an important subject for the article and this is a good start, in my opinion, though it may be better to have one section on theological views giving both pro and anti ID views rather than having two separate sections. The important thing is to gather together the available views, some of which may already be in the article. "Religious Action Center - Texas Jewish Leaders Fight for Students' First Amendment Rights". gives a useful additional view. . .dave souza, talk 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to preliminarily propose either: (A) adding a brief note about Slifkin to the last paragraph of the first section of Intelligent_design#Creating_and_teaching_the_controversy, or (B) Creating a separate subsection using some or all of the material in that paragraph, adding to it a very brief sentence or two about Slifkin, leaving room to add other religious views in opposition to ID. The paragraph I'm referring to presently reads as follows: ...Kenosis (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views.^[1] Many religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world^[2]—a position described by the term theistic evolution.^[3] As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.^[4]^[5] The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,^[6]^[7]^[8] and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.^[9]...01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you then propose a condensation of my addition? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DRosenbach, IMO, all the substantive content that could reasonably be added to the article can readily be found in the first two paragraphs you proposed. For example:

Some religiously oriented commentators, such as Natan Slifkin, have more directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to religion.<ref>Natan Slifkin (2006). ''The Challenge of Creation'' (New York: Yashar Books) 288.</ref> Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also sasserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to things which can be explained by scientific theory.

IMO, this would be a bit more to the point. And, TBH, this basic slant is already dealt with in the article by reference to God of the gaps. Nonetheless, as I said, speaking as just one more WP user I'm not opposed to a brief mention in the article of Slifkin's slant on things. I personally don't think such an approach would deviate substantially from WP:Featured article criteria, and perhaps would also allow further possibilities to develop, ... `Kenosis (talk)

OK, I added it, tentatively, pending possible further comments/edits. DRosenbach, perhaps you could check the page numbers in the refs to make sure they reflect the placement in Slifkin's book. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's wonderful. Initially, I felt that mentioning Slifkin's quote of Miller was integral, but seeing how Miller's view is delineated not 5 lines up from the new paragraph on Slifkin, the two are duly portrayed as sharing some perspectives. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you also. I hope it's a meaningful additional insight for readers of this article on a very complex and rather unusual topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important for two reasons. It highlights the utilization of Kenneth Miller's argument by a major religion and it highlights a religious view that opposes intelligent design on the grounds of religion yet embraces evolution. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Miller sums it up fairly well. It also seems unfortunate how it got so tangled up in the culture war in the US. C'est la vie, I suppose. On the positive side perhaps, many more people know what the teleological argument is than was the case previously (along with a number of other basic theological slants as well). Same with scientific method and evolution. Many have been forced to think seriously about how these realms of inquiry might reasonably fit into the scheme of things, what are the limitations of each, and so forth. I guess that's progress. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"cdesign proponentsists"

"while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists"." This is incorrect there was many "cdesign proponentsists" in one of the versions of People and Panda, its the missing link version between creation and "design proponents"--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there was only one passage with this "missing link", as you'll see, other versions were changed to "design proponents" and this was an isolated error.[13] . dave souza, talk 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ID is creationism and should be joined

We know its a fact, two articles is like having two pages on here "African Elephant" and cAfrican Elephantss" Both covering the exact same animal. --Johnnysmitthy (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ID is a form of Creationism, and as such is mentioned in Creationism as well as having its own article -- as does Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, Progressive creationism and numerous more minor variants. It is like having articles on Elephant and African elephant -- which, lo and behold, wikipedia likewise has. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that in fact it's the other way around--- Creation is a form of ID. Because ID lets you know there is a designer...then you get to choose between aliens seeding the earth or a God creating it. ;) Petrafan007 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a WP:RS to support your position, and given a large number of RSes to the contrary, your argument doesn't hold any water. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So logic doesn't count anymore? Just reliable sources? Who makes the decision on what's reliable? Am I asking too many questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use logic to get published then you must do your own, original work on a subject you are interested in. An encylopedia is a collection of verified and accepted facts. As such it will change over time, but it will always - yes - be dependent on reliable sources. Reliable is defined as being either primary source (the person or institution that actually said it) or accepted gatekeepers (learned journals, respected news outlets, for example). Creationism existed first, then the creationists themselves developed ID, therefore the definition comes from a primary source. raining girl (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) (ps: personally, I agree with you, it's all tosh, but that's not the point! :))

High quality sources identify ID as a subset of Creationism, not the other way around. See, for instance, s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 18 of 139 ff. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ID is as Scientific as Astronomy

Behe admitted this in the Dover Trial. This should be included in the article for the obvious reasons.--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As scientific as Astrology, actually. Slight difference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow so he conceded to one point, so that somehow counts for something and destroys his entire argument? If you weren't implying that then why bring it up? Petrafan007 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this was only one of a number of issues that destroyed his credibility in that trial. But regardless, this is more appropriate for the article on Behe or the court case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly Important

This is a topic of the utmost important, thats why I put it at the top. The definition of ID used in the article is from a biased ID source an out right lie and its unsuitable. The definition used should be real.

"Intelligent Design" is the renaming of "Religious Creationism" by Christian Fundamentalists in an attempt to get around court USA rulings and defy the 1st Amendemnet of the USA Constitution!

Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Can be added if needed.--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

New threads (whether you consider them to be "Highly Important" or not) belong at the bottom of the talkpage. Read WP:TALK#Layout
The standard is verifiability, not what you consider to be "real". If you want us to consider a different definition, then please cite a reliable source containing that definition.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Watanabe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Schönborn, Cardinal Christoph (October 2, 2005). "Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna" (Reprint). Bring You To. Retrieved 2007-07-22. Purpose and design in the natural world, [has] no difficulty [...] with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory.
^ Scott, Eugenie C. (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
^ Resseger, Jan (Chair) (2006). "Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes" (PDF). Committee on Public Education and Literacy. National Council of Churches. Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" (Reprint). Creighton University. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
^ Sheppard, Pam S. (February 4, 2006). "Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
^ Ross, Hugh. "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
^ "The "Intelligent Design" Distraction". Harun Yahya International. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
^ Wieland, Carl (August 30, 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-20.

[Watanabe-1] Cite error: The named reference Watanabe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Schönborn, Cardinal Christoph (October 2, 2005). "Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna" (Reprint). Bring You To. Retrieved 2007-07-22. Purpose and design in the natural world, [has] no difficulty [...] with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory.

[3] Scott, Eugenie C. (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-07-22.

[4] Resseger, Jan (Chair) (2006). "Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes" (PDF). Committee on Public Education and Literacy. National Council of Churches. Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[5] Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" (Reprint). Creighton University. Retrieved 2007-07-21.

[6] Sheppard, Pam S. (February 4, 2006). "Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-21.

[7] Ross, Hugh. "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved 2007-07-21.

[8] "The "Intelligent Design" Distraction". Harun Yahya International. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-20.

[9] Wieland, Carl (August 30, 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]