Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Should Intelligent Design be capitalized throughout Wikipedia to emphasize that it refers to a specific, pseudoscientific idea related to YEC?

As someone who believes in theistic evolution, which technically means that God intelligently designed the world using evolution, I think that Intelligent Design has becone a loaded word to refer to a YEC-like idea (i.e. theistic evolutionists believe in intelligent design (lowercase), but not Intelligent Design (capitalized)). I think it's a good idea to capitalize Intelligent Design throughout Wikipedia to emphasize that it refers to this specific thinking, or refer to it as the "Intelligent Design Movement" or something like that to distinguish it from theistic evolution. Félix An (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was how ID was being treated already, and I agree that it makes sense to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No. We don't create proper nouns when they don't already exist. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitalising nouns like this is archaic in English usage, and creates an odd sense of semi-formality. It also makes it seem like this is the real thing, and other usage is lesser. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It reads to me similar to the normal capitalization one would apply to a trademark (see WP:TMRULES), and gives the opposite impression; "intelligent design" seems like a phrase that could be applied as a value judgement ("the room was intelligently designed") or a description ("Artificial limbs are intelligently designed to minimize the disadvantages of missing a limb,"), whereas "Intelligent Design" immediately makes me think of cdesignproponentsists and pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a trademark, it was meant to be a new branch of science. Homeopathy would be a good comparison. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The DI, for example, downcases it. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I said it was "similar to" trademarks. However, ID probably should be a trademark, as it's a product of the Discovery Institute that's marketed to the public and potential purchasers under that name.

I should also point out that capitalization would avoid the need for clarification about which one is being discussed in articles like theistic evolution, though that's not really a topic for this page.

As for the DI's precedent; I'm generally loathe to follow in their footsteps, given their track record for deliberate deception. They rather clearly want "ID" to be seen not as something they invented, but as a descriptive term because of course they do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying the relationship between the DI and ID, but fundamentally NPOV comes into play here. Within limits (like Judge Jones' ruling), we need to treat the DI the same way we treat any other group when we're writing in Wikipedia's voice. That's how we're different from Conservapedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that and a lot of other ways, like how we treat science. I just meant in the context of writing in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me entirely. My point was that the DI has a vested interest in spreading the term and establishing that such a thing as "intelligent design" exists, so as to better market their pet pseudoscience. Keeping it in lowercase helps that, so I wouldn't follow their example, but that of secondary sources in determining capitalization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Homeopathy is different because there is no room for ambiguity (the word cannot mean anything else). On the other hand, Intelligent Design can mean either the cdesign proponentsists or just intelligent design in general. Here are some sources that capitalize ID: [1][2][3][4] Félix An (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It isn't different because it's not up to us to make rules around these things. The rules about capitalisation don't take into account confusion - we capitalise things we capitalise, and we don't capitalise the things we don't according to a combination of external usage and our MOS. We don't use capitalisation to facilitate disambiguation. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as "here are some examples" goes - Wikipedia's capitalisation rules place us at one end of a continuum. Examples of others applying different rules doesn't really impact how we apply our rules. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if the trend in Felix's examples holds true, then it's incumbent upon us to follow the example of the sources. If the sources predominantly don't, capitalize the term, then it would be incumbent upon us to not do so, as well. And if the sources simply vary (which I expect is the case), it is up to us to decide.

I still support doing so, but I've no real attachment to doing so, so I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about it. If there's no consensus for it, then there's no consensus for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources that capitalize intelligent design, which is the basis on which Wikipedia decisions are supposed to be made. While I understand the argument that it should be capitalized, that's something best left to reliable sources.

Intelligent design refers exclusively to the theory advanced by the Discovery Institute. One wouldn't say that God intelligently designed the world, since design implies intelligence and God by definition is the supreme intelligence. The article on theistic evolution manages to explain the concept without using the expression intelligent design except when referring to the Discovery Institute.

TFD (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. TFD states succinctly and conclusively the position that a WP article should take. -- Jmc (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow what the CONSENSUS in RS say; but if they are split, I support using the proper noun as a Wikipedia standard to make it clear to which form is being referred to. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a proper noun, therefore it should not be separately capitalised other than in normal sentence case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be that the issue of capitalization is secondary to the more fundamental point that Félix An (talk · contribs) brought up: Should the article (or the intro paragraph specifically) make clearer distinction between a generic definition of "intelligent design" (possibly synonymous with theistic evolution) and the specific theory advanced by the Discovery Institute? The article treats the more generic aspects in later sections. The introduction, however, does not. Generic usage of this phrase continues to evolve. For example, the NY Times best selling book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind uses this term in reference to genetic engineering. Zukisama (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph, first sentence –
Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, ..."
That gives it more prominence than trying to merge it into the first paragraph, and explains this alternative term for the teleological argument in context. ... dave souza, talk 07:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no generic "intelligent design." If there was, then there would be books and articles about it. The Wired article is merely using the words intelligent design as a synonym for artifact, which is "an object that is made by a person." (Cambridge Dictionary)[5] The concept is discussed in the article Artificiality. TFD (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the descriptive use of the term is the "generic definition" that Zukisama was referring to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Zukisama links to a Wired article [seemingly] by Yuval Harari, who uses the term for ID creationism; "Religious fundamentalists believe that life is the product of intelligent design rather than natural selection", then uses the common phrase in discussing future genetic engineering. Which is much the same as intelligent design of kitchens, a usage that predates IDC. Writers commonly use well publicised phrases in a clickbaity way, doesn't make it a generic term. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You're drawing a distinction between "generic term" and "common term", and my last comment was to say that I don't think Zukisama was drawing that same distinction. Honestly, I haven't got the faintest clue what that distinction might be.

However, we all seem to be in agreement that in the Wired article, the term is used in a descriptive way, not in reference to the DI's pet pseudoscience. That's the use that's suggested be kept lowercase, while references to the pseudoscience be uppercased.

However, the example provided shows only that the term can be used both ways, not that ID is a properly capitalized, meaning it's not useful as evidence of a distinction between the name of the pseudoscience and a descriptive term. It's also a counter-example to the earlier ones showing the capitalized use, though the balance still supports them. So while this seemed like a good suggestion on it's face, per my earlier comment, I don't think we should be the ones to draw a distinction between "intelligent design" as a common term and "Intelligent Design" the pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The "intelligent design of kitchens, a usage that predates IDC" I think makes the point well. The term has a diverse usage in various creationism myths and now even in other literature. Its diversity and ambiguity should just be acknowledged(DI's clearly plays a very large role in the term – that is not in dispute). The Wired article was an example of the term in non-fringe use. This article is by the Yuval Noah Harari and describes the example I referred to above (search on page for "intelligent design"). Zukisama (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that both examples you've presented also make reference to the pseudoscience. That is a serious flaw in the argument that the term is used as a descriptive one outside of the context of the pseudoscience, and is a big part of the reason why I no longer support this change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually think the same observation (usage as both the pseudoscience and descriptive term) makes a point in favor of acknowledging something beyond the DI branded ID. This term is defined in several dictionaries without limiting it to the DI's agenda. Minor changes this first paragraph (such as generalizing the "argument for the existence of God") might encompass a wider array of beliefs, such as those originally expressed by Félix An (talk · contribs). We are, after all, summing (non-fringe) human knowledge. Zukisama (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually think the same observation (usage as both the pseudoscience and descriptive term) makes a point in favor of acknowledging something beyond the DI branded ID. Maybe if you had some use of it in a context in which the pseudoscience was not being discussed, but the fact that it only ever seems to be used as a descriptive term when the pseudoscience is part of the context, and/or the fact that authors always seem to mention the pseudoscience whenever they want to use it as a descriptive term does the exact opposite, and both of your links do just that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In language, it is fairly common to use adjectives to modify nouns, as in intelligent design. Sometimes the two together will describe a new concept and then becomes a compound noun. If it is sufficiently notable and becomes more than a neologism, then writers will generally avoided the adjective-noun phrase unless they are referring to the concept. For example, Irish coffee refers to a specific alcoholic drink made with Irish whiskey. But there are a number of Irish coffee companies, such as Ariosa, that produce their own brands. When we call Ariosa an Irish coffee, Irish coffee is not a compound noun, it merely means coffee blended in Ireland. And note that Irish coffee when it is a compound noun is not capitalized. TFD (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my read of the situation. I very strongly suspect that we are all talking past each other here, give the state of the conversation. Each exchange is moving off on a vastly different tangent, which leads me to believe each response is misinterpreting the comment it was in response to. Let me sum up some things that we all seem to be in agreement on before I re-state my thoughts, hopefully in a more clear manner:

• The term "intelligent design" can be used in a descriptive way, to refer to something which was designed in an intelligent manner. This usage is mostly synonymous with "artifact", but may also imply a positive judgement (e.g. intelligently designed versus stupidly designed).
• The term "intelligent design" also refers to a pseudoscience pushed by the Discovery Institute.
• There are some sources which use the term in a descriptive manner.
• There are far more sources which use the term mainly to refer to the pseudoscience (though they may use it in a descriptive manner to describe the pseudoscience).
• The sources are split on whether to capitalize the term when referring to the pseudoscience, but the large majority do not.

So what I have noticed is that, in both examples in which the source used the term in a descriptive manner (meaning, not in reference to the pseudoscience), they have also made reference to the pseudoscience by stating directly that they're not referring to it with their descriptive use of the term. What this suggests to me is that use of the term in a descriptive manner is not common.

In addition, my (admittedly brief) search for "intelligent design" among reliable sources found almost entirely results that were about the pseudoscience. I did not find any use of the term used prior to it's adoption as the name of the pseudoscience, and extremely limited uses of it in a descriptive manner since. I do believe that there are sources discussing the teleological argument which use the phrase in a descriptive manner, and sources discussing genetic engineering, architecture, interior decorating, etc, which use the term in a descriptive manner, but I haven't found any (beyond those already linked here). This suggests to me that they are relatively rare.

Therefore, while my initial position was that this was a good idea which we should adopt, I have changed my mind. I do not wish to see all references in article space to the pseudoscience capitalized, while all other uses put in lowercase. My preference is to use lowercase entirely, as that seems to be the preference of most reliable sources. Instead, we should be clear in the context of each usage of the term whether we are referring to the pseudoscience or using it in a descriptive manner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I concur that all WP articles should use lowercase entirely (as well as making "clear in the context of each usage of the term whether we are referring to the pseudoscience or using it in a descriptive manner").

Surely this can be the end of the matter. -- Jmc (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs) for this detailed summary. Your point about additional references is, perhaps, the most salient – both regarding upper casing and the more prominent separation of the descriptive sense. Regarding the descriptive sense, I bring various definitions of intelligent design, most of which are descriptive, and the book mentioned above which, which is (as I think you mentioned) a play on the pseudoscience, but I am out of research bandwidth. (Others can bring references at a later date if they feel it's worthwhile, at which point maybe the discussion can continue). I still contend a subtle wording change would make the definition more inclusive of other world views, but I see the consensus among the others in the discussion here, I see the value in citing additional references, and I see the point about leaving it lowercase. Zukisama (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Zukisama, I strongly suggest you go to that link and check each of those sources. Not a single one gives a descriptive definition that isn't particular to the pseudoscience.

The only one that comes close is the thefreedictionary.com definition which gives the same description as both the DI's axiom and as a theological statement. They even link to an encyclopedia entry at the same site, which discusses the DI's pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand the disconnect. Let me step back and define the terms as I interpreted them:

• "the pseudoscience" – The Discovery Institute's specific Judeo-Christian brand of creationism where the Abrahamic God (capital "G") is seen to have some role in evolution, trumping Natural Selection. By extension, their political and institutionalized efforts are associated with this term. It is specific, sponsored and organized. This is what I think Félix An was suggesting to capitalize.
• "descriptive definition" – A more generalized definition which permits other "creationism" beliefs which have some notion "intelligence" and "design". This includes the majority of the definitions linked to above, other belief systems and worldviews which may have their own creation story. Interestingly, the Intelligent design (disambiguation) page provides such a definition: "Intelligent design is the belief that nature shows evidence of being caused by an intelligent creator, not an undirected process such as natural selection" Note the absence of God (capital "G"), allowing for a more diverse set of world views.

Does "the pseudoscience" deserve emphasis, I think yes. Should the first sentence exclude the possibility of other beliefs? I think not. Zukisama (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, now you're drawing a distinction between the pseudoscience and the teleological argument, and the fact is that many RSes have opined that the pseudoscience is nothing but a repackaged version of the teleological argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the distinction and probably the crux of the matter: "the pseudoscience" (DI's branded, institutionalized effort) is a member of the teleological argument, but not all members of teleological argument belong to "the pseudoscience". Most definitions of intelligent design permit both. Interesting to note is this paragraph from the Teleological argument article: "While the concept of an intelligence behind the natural order is ancient, a rational argument that concludes that we can know that the natural world has a designer, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes, appears to have begun with classical philosophy.[4] Religious thinkers in Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam and Christianity also developed versions of the teleological argument. Later, variants on the argument from design were produced in Western philosophy and by Christian fundamentalism." Zukisama (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I should add that I am not in disagreement about leaving the term lowercase, only that a distinction should be made regarding DIintelligent design which encompasses a wider set of beliefs. Zukisama (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a link to the telelogical argument already. The teleogical argument is not referred to as intelligent design because those two words have now been adopted as a compound noun used to described the DI theory. Note that the teleological argument is philosophical, not a science or pseudoscience, and therefore adherents do not conduct detailed examinations of living creatures to determine if they could have evolved without intelligent intervention. No amount of evidence can prove or disprove the argument. Similarly, in ethics and aesthetics, philosophers do not conduct experiments and change their opinions on what is right and what is beautiful. They wouldn't say "after further chemical analysis of the Mona Lisa, we have determined it is actually an ugly painting." TFD (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add to TFD's point here the fact that there was no association between the term "intelligent design" and the teleological argument until the DI started doing pseudoscience under that name.

There's a difference between the two, yeah, but that difference is not this phrase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth reading the footnotes to Intelligent design#Origin of the term where there are early instances of the phrase, but the term tends to be design – as Darwin capitalised it in a letter, "The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure". . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dave souza, Great find, that. That's the first instance of a usage that predates 1987 that I've seen. I agree with you about how Darwin was using the term; his capitalization is rather clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting find re the Darwin letter Dave souza. In sum, about 6 of dictionaries linked to above permit a general philosophical/teleological/creationist definition of the term (Noted, TFD that you are referring to this aspect as well). This article relies on the disambiguation pretext to make this distinction. It is clear to me that the term has be co-opted by DI for a specific agenda, and that the focus of this article is DI's specific specific usage. Given this, the introductory sentence could simply make it clear that this article is specifically about DI's co-opted use of the term: Ex: "...is a pseudoscientific argument introduced by the Discovery Institute for the existence of God...". Zukisama (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Since intelligent is an adjective and design is a noun, it's not significant that someone somewhere once put the two words together before the DI coined the term intelligent design. In comparison, the term modern art refers to a type of art popular from the 1860s to 1970s. But since modern means today, it is not inconceivable that someone before the 1860s put the two words together to describe the art of their time. And were it not for "modern art" becoming a term with a specific meaning, we might be calling art produced today modern art. This misunderstanding occurs with the etymological fallacy, where people confuse the meaning of a term with what it would mean if the words would otherwise mean. So while Irish coffee is a term referring to an alcoholic drink, the straightforward meaning is a coffee from Ireland. TFD (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, it should be lowercase. -Roxy . wooF 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not looked at this talk page in a while, but would it be a good idea to turn the page Intelligent design into a disambiguation page where the reader can choose to read about either the Discovery Institute's idea of "Intelligent Design", the telelogical argument, theistic evolution, etc.? Félix An (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have intelligent design (disambiguation). Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Craig on YouTube

Providing a counter-argument to the God-of-the-gaps argument with relevant citation properly fits the context irrespective of whether the counter-argument is considered correct by a fraction of the viewers. Hence, in the spirit of this platform, please uphold the latest edit:

The God-of-the-gaps argument has been countered by Christian apologists including William Lane Craig. However, the argumentation is not performed for the intelligent design hypothesis but rather against the general use of the God-of-the-gaps argument. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Your edit was reverted because another editor said it's meaning was unclear.[6] Also, while you mention that Craig and Lennox countered the God-of-the-gaps argument, you don't explain how they did this. TFD (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Since Craig's argumentation is not performed for the intelligent design hypothesis, it's offtopic, and Youtube isn't a suitable source. The spirit of WP is to promptly remove badly sourced or offtopic material. . . .dave souza, talk 21:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll quibble on the "Youtube" part (no opinion on offtopicness). Assuming this is what it looks like, it's about equal to if William Lane Craig wrote it on his blog. Being on YT is not by default problematic per WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, good link – as it says on the YouTube page, "The speech comes from Dr. Craig's debate with Dr. Garrett Hardin" which shows no evidence of a reliable publisher. While we could use content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, this is at best selfpublished, and not usable for anything other than an article about William Lane Craig. So not of use here. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that could depend on if "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." fits the context. Since this article doesn't mention Craig or vice verse, that doesn't seem to be the case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

First, meeting RS is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion. Second, just because expert's blogs are considered reliable sources for facts does not mean we can include the opinions they express unless they are shown to be significant by reporting in secondary sources. Third, we would need to establish that Craig is an expert on the topic. His writings appear to have been mostly published outside academic publishing. Fourth, youtube videos posted by third parties are not reliable sources, because they can be edited. Fifth, generally interviews, speeches, etc. are not reliable sources because the speaker does not have the chance to fact check them. Even minor slips of the tounge can drastically change meaning. TFD (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

---

• Intelligent design → Intelligent Design
• Intelligent design movement → Intelligent Design movement

– Capitalizing "Intelligent Design" emphasizes that it is a specific kind of young-earth creationism and not a general argument from "intelligent design" (see my reasons above). Félix An (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons above. Félix An (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't care but correction: ID is not a kind of YEC. Its fans include mainly OECs and Catholics and only occasionally a YEC. The whole point is hiding such details behind silly pseudophilosophical reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I believe Catholics are proponents of theistic evolution, not Intelligent Design. That's what it said on Wikipedia. Félix An (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Christoph Schönborn sympathized with it, got a new one ripped. See de:Intelligent Design, where this is mentioned. This shows that ID does appeal to Catholics. Not all Catholics, of course, but still. Nowadays, since they lost the political power to crush scientists, Catholics support science, but only with an unnecessary God sticker on it that achieves nothing but make them feel better about it. As you say, theistic evolution. ID helps them pretend that the sticker is needed. They definitely like it better than they like YEC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per sources like this that show it is a proper noun._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In one place that NCSE link says "Intelligent Design", and in another, it says The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief... If it were a proper noun, one would think they'd capitalize it consistently. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, even young Earth creationism (which I just edited for consistency) isn't capitalised. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• oppose per WP:LOWERCASE. How does capitalizing emphasize that?—blindlynx (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• oppose - that's a cute idea, but we don't get to make editorial capitalization decisions for the world. Reliable sources don't put it in caps. Red Slash 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Relevant policy is WP:NCCAPS, which in turn references MOS:CAPS. Is this term consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of RS? Nope. Colin M (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Rarely capitalized in reliable sources and belief systems are rarely capitalized unless they are named after an organization, such as the Catholic Church. TFD (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons. Propose we call it "unintelligent design" to match the thinking ability of proponents. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• A part of me rather likes the idea of portraying it like some sort of trademark, but alas, I must listen to the voices in my head, who say "Oppose this proposal. And then go burn down an abandoned home. Oh, the flames, how they spark and crackles so beautifully!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, we've discussed this already, and that was even before the defining analysis of the "concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID") page 24 used lower case – no good reason to change. . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The term intelligent design is not a proper noun and is hardly ever capitalised in RS and even when it is only inconsistently. We should follow the MOS and NCCAPS and keep it in lowers case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Groundhog day! Flogging a dead horse! -- Jmc (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  That is old! I didn't dig that far up the archives. Félix An (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not good enough I believe that the proposer has not gone far enough. I propose that we go further and use INTELLIGENT DESIGN as it really hammers the idea home. /s No but really, oppose on grounds of both capitalization variants being used, and there being no good reason to switch. BirdValiant (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a trademark, no need for capitalization. Nothing has changed since last time this was attempted. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC
• Support. Solely on the basis that the consensus appears to be to keep this article dedicated to a specific pseudoscientific movement. If this article were to open with a definition which acknowledges the teleological nature of the term (as is done in the Intelligent design (disambiguation) and most dictionary definitions, I would agree about it being lower case. Zukisama (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikipedians do not get to decide the rules of grammar. Intelligent design is not a proper noun. End of story. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia has a policy that says no personal attacks. The article violate Wikipedia's own policy. The word "pseudoscientific" should be removed from the lead because it is a derogatory term much like we don't allow the word "nigger" to be used in Wikipedia articles. 172.58.171.229 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious. Who do you think has been personally attacked? -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP belongs to the usual WP:PROFRINGE trolls. Nothing new to see, nothing actionable. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We do have Nigger (disambiguation). See also [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove the term ‘pseudoscientific’

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whoever wants to use the term ‘pseudoscientific’ to describe the concept of intelligent design has not done their homework. The many books written by authors in the Discovery Institute should also be cited on this WP page. Please avoid references to religion which have no bearing on the subject. Instead, read ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’ by Stephen Meyer and leave any atheistic bias out of the WP entries for intelligent design. Intelligent design is grounded in science, not pseudoscience. 2600:1003:B021:B5C8:4407:C061:2E4D:821F (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No, we wont be doing that. We use reliable sources independant of the subject of an article, WP:RS, rather than in-bubble ones like those you suggest. -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the homework is reflected in the cited sources. - DVdm (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no atheistic bias in saying that creation science is pseudoscience. TFD (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Intelligent design is aptly described as "pseudoscience" because its proponents want it to replace science while refusing to demonstrate how Intelligent design is science, or how one can do science with Intelligent design.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"or how one can do science with Intelligent design" Are you even supposed to do science with intelligent design? Its proponents reject both the scientific method and the usefulness of human logic. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this parody? BirdValiant (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Any attempt to describe ID as anything other than a textbook-perfect example of a pseudoscientific "discipline" will necessarily fall foul of at least one of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:POV, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:CIR. More than likely, all of them. This perennial suggestion, as with any suggestion that WP not resist the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans, is flatly incompatible with the fundamental policies and objectives of WP and as such it has literally zero chance of success and is dead on arrival. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

ID starts off with a conclusion (that the universe is intelligently designed by God) rather than ending with a conclusion as is required by the scientific method, therefore, ID is pseudoscientific. X-Editor (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the argument for intelligent design is pseudo-scientific. But is does it make for a good article to add such value-judgements without qualification? Let us suppose that the article began by saying "Intelligent design is an absurd argument..." Even though a lot of people would agree, it would certainly be an unacceptable example of bias in a supposedly neutral article. In the same way, it would be improper to start an article: "The Parthenon is a beautiful temple..." even though it is. It would be more neutral to say: "Intelligent design is an argument, judged by most scientists to be pseudo-scientific, that...". Even supporters of Intelligent Design would agree that that is true. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that Intelligent design isn't an argument, it's an example of the "appeal to ignorance God" logical fallacy, and whose proponents insist that we use it in place of actual science curricula, preferably under legal penalty and pain of eternal damnation. Describing it as a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific "argument" is a very fair and neutral assessment, especially since not describing it as a pseudoscience would be unfairly implying it has weight or worth in the scientific community, which it does not. Then there's the problem of how your example qualifier statement, "judged by most scientists to be pseudo-scientific," obfuscates the fact that those scientists who do support Intelligent Design don't use Intelligent Design to do or promote science, but instead maliciously deceive and misinform people about science with it, and are, at very best, extremely limited standing and positive influence within scientific communities.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You would have a point only if WP:PSCI gets dropped as website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• pseudoscience means pseudoscience! That means it presents itself as a science but doesn’t follow the scientific method! This isn’t baised, this is a statement of fact! Why are we arguing about this? Dronebogus (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Footnotes

Can someone explain to me the distinction between the references and notes sections? Is there even one? I would have guessed it was citations including vs. excluding quotes, but there are ones with quotes in the references sections, and there are also references that serve the function of footnotes, like #8. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Compassionate727 I think you are right that there is no hard distinction. The references are usually simpler cites without quotes to WP:VERIFY a line, but exceptions exist. The notes are usually longer collectives of multiple cites with quotes, but exceptions exist.

There was mention in Archive_61#Minorstructural_change about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

WP:NOTFORUM. Yet again, if reliable sources can be found to show that ID follows the scientific method, then bring them. Otherwise the (many) sources in the article must prevail.

change "Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God" to "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God" and put somewhere else "Intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community" CrocoDIilios (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)  Not done, as all reliable sources indicate that ID is indeed pseudoscience (indeed, it's probably one of the best examples). See also the discussion two sections above this one. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) I don't agree with this outcome. The "all reliable sources" in the first sentence of the article are not particularly impressive...Intelligent design follows the scientific method, and thus by definition can't be pseudoscience. That a view which is supported by so much scientific discussion, including being spoken of favorably by physics Nobel laureate Charles Townes, would be pseudoscience is fantastic. Subuey (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC) A) Please read the boilerplates at the top of the talkpage about not being a forum, B), if you have new information about Intelligent Design magically becoming no longer pseudoscience, please WP:CITE your claim with reliable sources instead of engaging in gossipy name-dropping, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Not gossip. Yet, it's not a scientific study, just his personal opinion, and it has no experiments or research that still demonstrate Intelligent Design, demonstrates how Intelligent Design follows the scientific method, nor demonstrates how Intelligent Design is anything but pseudoscience. So, yeah, "name-dropping gossip."--Mr Fink (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Nah, gossip would be saying he supported it with no source available to prove the claim. And the question isn't has it no longer become pseudoscience but when did it magically become pseudoscience? The above request is how the article used to read.Subuey (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC) That's covered by the FAQ--McSly (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC) The FAQ is wrong. It says intelligent design can't be tested or disproved. But if organisms were shown to not have Specified Complexity, it would disprove ID work. So it hasn't been disproved, but not because it is functionally impossible to do so. There are other examples as well. Subuey (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Also, read the discussion archive pages as this article has already been discussed. --McSly (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC) It doesn't follow the scientific method, but pretends to, which is why it is pseudoscience. TFD (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC) IP, read your source. It says science cannot answer everything. But ID says it can, which is why it is pseudoscience. TFD (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Commonly considered by scientists to be pseudoscientific

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Commonly considered by scientists to be" should be added before the "pseudoscientific" in the lead. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia works on the basis that whatever scientists commonly consider to be true is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't recommend the insertion of weasel words.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request

In the ref "teachernet" (group="n"), please link "God-of-the-gaps". This footnote appears after the second-last sentence of the lead, and is therefore the first occurrence of the term in the article. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:55A6:58C1:F494:199E (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is the bibiliography?

I can't see it even when I click on the links? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bottom of the page, same as always. Happy (Slap me) 05:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Intelligent design#See also bonus list of works on intelligent design and bonus bonus Category:Intelligent design books. . . dave souza, talk 05:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education as a compulsory subject

Under the section "Status outside the United States - Europe" in the first line of the 2nd paragraph it states:

"In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education as a compulsory subject"

This is incorrect. Religious education is not compulsory. Pupils have a right to opt out. R.E. is one of two subjects where parents have a legal right to withdraw their children from class. The other being sex education. This recent Parliamentary Briefing explains it within the first paragraph: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0182/ 2A02:C7C:C030:7400:15F3:2B9A:FBF4:F659 (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed the "as a compulsory subject" part. The rest is still unsourced but probably uncontroversial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias template

Please do not remove! The first sentence gives an evaluation rather than simply a presentation. Name another WP article that does that! It is not WP policy.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God is one pov that belongs in the article - in an evaluation section - but it does not belong in the first sentence. Articles about hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists. And there is scientific debate. Martin Reeses Just Six numbers is not about God or creationism, but it does raise the question of design - without asserting a conclusion. Even if one could conclude there is design, it would not prove God. That discussion is an application, a derivative. Tangling this up with, and defining it solely as, an argument about the existence of God precludes mention of any of any debate on the science itself. Simply present the concept being discussed without evaluation in the first sentence.

The fact the first sentence continues as presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" shows that the evaluation presented as universal, is not actually universal. This sentence says it is one thing, then says it is another, carefully wording it with "proponents" - although the term "opponents" was not used. Neither actually have a place here. Leave God out of the lead.

"Proponents claim" is a dead give away of bias. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Except that proponents of Intelligent Design don't actually have any evidence to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origin" to begin with, and to not mention this fatal flaw would be giving WP:UNDUE bias towards Intelligent Design proponents.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: After all these years of editing, I thought you knew that Wikipedia is biased for WP:RULES such as WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is NO SCIENTIFIC debate about ID, so "...if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists." is not true in this case. Here's another article that presents the scientific facts about a subject: Chemtrail conspiracy theory. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Your use of Martin Rees (I assume that's whom you mean by "Martin Reeses") to justify your claim that "there is scientific debate" doesn't hold up. His Just Six Numbers in no way explicitly presents an argument for design, intelligent or otherwise. -- Jmc (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, our article is biased, as most our articles are: biased for mainstream science and for mainstream scholarship. Reporting everything "unbiased" would violate WP:GEVAL. Our bias is a feature, not a bug. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WTW: To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Based on the sources, "disregard for evidence" is not inappropriate framing. Today we'd call the tools they were using standard disinfo tools, and we'd dismiss several of the key publications as whataboutism. But the 1990s and 2000s were a simpler time. The DI folks were ahead of the curve when it came to misinfo.

We could label certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection as an assertion. We could also label it as a statement that runs contrary to the evidence that was put forward to create doubt where none exists. What we can't do is present disinfo as if it were a simple, neutral statement. Guettarda (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gentlemen, none of these responses address my actual complaint. The first sentence offers an evaluation of ID according to one POV, identifying it as an argument for the existence of God. As every logic student knows, one’s motivations for presenting an argument have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that argument. Evaluating a conclusion by questioning one’s motivation is an ad hominem attack. That's what is being defended here.

As to the rest, scientific debate does in fact exist. Here is an article that does so: Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry [8]

And another: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: ON THE EMULATION OF COSMOLOGICAL SIMULATIONS [9]

And another: The Revenge of Pythagoras: How a Mathematical Sharp Practice Undermines the Contemporary Design Argument in Astrophysical Cosmology [10]

And another: Darwin’s Perplexing Paradox: Intelligent Design in Nature [11]

And another: Seeking God in Science An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design [12]

This one: TWO BAD WAYS TO ATTACK INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND TWO GOOD ONES [13] says: Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. acknowledging that there is a debate.

Interestingly enough it begins with the very complaint I have posted here: First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value... [but] Placing the black hat on one’s opponent is no substitute for an argument. Yes indeed.

ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms - none of which should involve ad hominem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"ID comes in multiple forms" Indeed. See the italicised introductory statement: "This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism".

And I'm at a loss to see where the perception of an "ad hominem attack" comes from. Jmc (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence gives an evaluation rather than simply a presentation It gives a presentation of an evaluation. And that evaluation is that of the scientific community.

none of these responses address my actual complaint Not true. The link WP:GEVAL would have told you, if you had actually read it, that we include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship.

I checked the first of the links you gave. It is a criticism of intelligent design and confirms that ID is rejected by science and philosophy.

The second link is about software design. It uses the combination "intelligent design" in the title as a pun, and it has nothing to do with ID, evolution, or biology. After this, it is obvious that you did not actually present evidence that ID is debated within science, you just collected Google results that would convince only someone who does not read beyond the title, but I still looked at the third one: like the first, it confirms rejection of ID by science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were a bit joking, I would say: Gentlemen, no one has ever seen the hypothesis of intelligent design, and till then every such discussion is premature. The logical order of doing science is: formulate a cogent hypothesis, test it against empirical data, do science with it, and then see if it explains the real world better than its competition. The step of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis has never been made, so discussing it as a scientific hypothesis is premature. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My interest in the topic is rather minimal, but the lack of empirical data is not the only flaw in the intelligent design argument. Proponents have featured philosophical arguments and speculations on the motives of a designer, but have not produced any innovative research methods. Lets say that some kind of E.T. did design lifeforms. Would it have any meaningful effect on scientific fields and their practical applications? Probably not. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"The second link is about software design" Not exactly. It is a paper about developing emulators able to provide estimates based on "simulation results for arbitrary locations". Basically a cosmology paper, that sets a requirement for more accurate estimates. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My interest in the topic is virtually nill, but my interest in the quality of WP as an encyclopedia can hardly be greater. All of this is a discussion of the validity of ID, which can surely be discussed in the body, but should not be presented in the first sentence. Hob Gadling that comment is just rhetoric; I did read it, had read it before, do not agree that the first sentence does what it says, which is the point here. Yes of course the articles conclude ID is flawed! That is not the point. The point is that it has been claimed there is no debate, and the existence of these articles - whatever they conclude - shows there is debate. Dimadick correctly assesses the link you call software design. Whatever the conclusion, it demonstrates the existence of debate.

tgeorgescu The step of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis has never been made, so discussing it as a scientific hypothesis is premature. Yours is the most on target comment here. The absence of a formulation of the argument is a huge part of the problem. That should probably be right up front in defining it, don't you think? This article begins with a definition of something that isn't clearly defined.

Dimadick Cogent, fair and accurate. The flaws in the ID argument should all be discussed in the article, but not until the article presents an accurate definition of what the ID argument is and says. Without ad hominem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

... until the article presents an accurate definition of what the ID argument is and says. Without ad hominem. Which is what it does. No further action required. -- Jmc (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

it has been claimed there is no debate Debate means that there are conflicting opinions. Within science, there are no conflicting opinions. There are only voices which all say the same thing. Which means that within science, there is no debate.

You have no leg to stand on. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling Stop any time you wish. No one is forcing you to show up here and make bad arguments. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I am used to debating pseudoscience proponents, and I am used to them claiming that my arguments are bad without bothering to explain why. There is nothing wrong with what I said, and you are bluffing. And no, I am not letting fringe proponents determine what Wikipedia articles say. They all claim, like you, that Wikipedia is biased for disregarding their silly ideas. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling First, I am not a proponent of ID. You have made that assumption, everyone made that assumption, but it's wrong. Only bad arguments rest on assumptions not in evidence.

Second, I explained what was wrong with the logic of the first sentence from the start. No one has said my reasoning was wrong because it wasn't. There was no need to explain further. There is no bluffing, this isn't a game, I am not playing.

Now I have been told by Just plain Bill that this article is solely about the religious aspect of ID, which means it is not solely about the science, thereby invalidating your limitation on what the debate should include. It's fine to limit the article to the religious view as long as that is made clear, but then limiting all debate to exclude religious views and say its solely about the science is not fine. That screams agenda. Surely someone here has had a logic course at some point in their lives and can see the problem.

I am not a proponent of ID, but that is beside the point. Whatever the topic and pov of any article on WP, beginning an article with ad hominem is not copacetic. The beginning needs rewording to better reflect the religious topic without denigration. No one else here may see it, but that doesn't prove me wrong. Indeed, it supports the idea of bias. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are a proponent of not treating ID as the pseudoscience it is. Not much difference to an ID proponent, since it is the goal of ID proponents that it be treated as science and not as the pseudoscience it is. Actually, fence-sitters are often even worse because of their dogmatic "everybody must sit on the fence, because science" approach.

No matter. Here are some refutations of your reasoning.

• You claimed that the first sentence is POV, but it is actually WP:NPOV because it represents the scientific consensus. You are wrong.
• You claimed that there is a scientific debate, justified by Martin Rees (an astronomer and popular science writer) mentioning it but not mentioning the scientific consensus about it. That is not evidence that there is a scientific debate. A scientific debate would be evidence of there being a scientific debate, and a statement by a reliable source saying that there is a scientific debate would be too, but you did not present either. You presented something from which you personally concluded that there is a scientific debate. That is called WP:OR, and we do not do it. You are wrong.
• this article is solely about the religious aspect of ID That is not what Bill said, especially not the "solely". You are wrong.
• What you call "ad hominem" is still not ad hominem. Please read the article to find out what the term means. You are wrong.

The leaked Wedge document shows that the actual motivation of the people who invented ID was to use it as a tool to replace materialistic science by goddy ideas. There are some non-religious people who fell for that tactic, but that does not change the basic fact that ID is in its core a religious PR action. You will not succeed in removing a statement that represents the fact-based scientific consensus about ID. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: The burden of not discussing it prematurely rests upon both houses. The Discovery Institute should not brag about the greatness of ID before it gets formulated as a hypothesis. Phillip E. Johnson was at least sincere that in the world of science ID is not yet ready for competition. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, but what does that have to do with the first sentence in this article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777:Your accusation of bias is misconceived. You entirely overlook the introductory italicised prefatory statement: This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. -- Jmc (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if the elephant in the room was ever going to be pointed out. The first sentence, as it now stands, should be no cause for concern regarding bias. This article is about the form of ID used in an attempt to sneak religious doctrine into public school biology classes, as opined by a US federal judge. That it was a rhetorical attempt to get around the First Amendment merits plain description early in the article. Treating ID as a lofty philosophical question in a vacuum, shorn of its social and legal context, would be a mistake. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I did not realize this article was limited to the one aspect of ID. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Everyone, please note that this discussion has closed with my acceptance of your descriptions and definitions. The discussion has now moved on to the logical application of this agreement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Rather than "logical" your actions here have become tendentious. You are refusing to acknowledge that your concerns are not shared by the majority of editors, and you are charging ahead regardless. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Majority is not a factor in anything on WP. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus The Talk pages section says In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I have been nothing but polite and focused in spite of personal attacks, assumptions about my motives, allusion to my beliefs (which are wrong) and other accusations like this one. Please refrain from commenting on what you think of me and my concerns, which are purely for the encyclopedia that I hope are shared by all, and focus instead on the article and WP policies. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest this article needs to be retitled for better precision, less ambiguity and less confusion for our readers. Everyone agrees this article covers one aspect of a larger subject, specifically it's on the effort to push creationism into the public schools in Kentucky. Leaving this article titled as it is, with the Common name of the broad topic, implies it is a main article when this is actually a sub topic. That creates ambiguity and confusion. Per WP:Precision, this article needs retitling to represent its actual scope. Intelligent design creationism or Intelligent design in Kansas or Kansas schools fight Intelligent design or Intelligent design and pseudoscience - anything that isn't simply "Intelligent design" by itself. For that we need a main article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. By far the greater number of references to this topic in the literature use the formulation "Intelligent design" rather than the suggested lengthier alternatives. Concision is also a goal in article titles. It is false to consider this topic as limited to Kansas or Kentucky; it is generally American, with some international interest. It is not limited to one or two states. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; not broken, doesn't need fixing. If there is a parent article to be written, other than Teleological argument, nothing is "preventing" that article from being created. In the (IMO unlikely) event that such an article becomes more than a placeholder stub, the titling issue can be revisited. In the meantime, the existing hatnote on this article guides the gentle reader to other possible search targets. Just plain Bill (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose pre COMMONNAME. Meters (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the present article is too narrowly focusing on a couple of US "K" states, than that is an argument to expand the article text with more sources. None of the suggested retitles is an improvement. And WP:RFC is not the process for retitling articles; WP:RM is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consider the very common (even perhaps most likely) use case of someone coming across the term 'Intelligent design' who wants to learn more about it; qualifying the title as proposed would be a barrier to their enlightenment. -- Jmc (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article contains the relevant facts about ID. Renaming the article would suggest that there are other relevant aspects to ID and would invite others to make a new article "Intelligent design" containing those aspects, whatever they are. And that would be a POVFORK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously, per reasons, comments by editors above and my previous comments on this page. -Roxy the dog 08:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose [as commented in the previous section] – though the phrase had occasionally appeared referring to the "argument from design", per intelligent design#Of Pandas and People, "The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard". The term is now the unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME for the topical scope of the article. The alternatives suggested are less common, and introduce ambiguities contravening WP:PRECISE, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The first systematic use of the term, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism, was in Of Pandas and People, and that's the modern usage. As discussed above, it's related to the design argument / teleological argument, but isn't a sub-topic of that. If anything, it's a sub-topic of creation science creationism, but is also distinct from that topic. . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As per my previous comments and per WP:COMMONNAME. The calls for additional precision are not helpful, either, as the proposed changes are intended to fight bias that doesn't actually exist.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, a requested move, not an RfC, would be the appropriate way to raise such an issue. That said, I would oppose that as well. If the article is currently too narrow in focus, that demonstrates a need to improve the article, not rename it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my comments in the previous section, and per Binksternet and Dave souza's arguments in this section.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per dave souza. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per dave souza's comment above. No evidence has been presented in this RfC yet that there is any broader topic that is also commonly known by this term such that extra precision/disambiguation is required. Bennv123 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given above, I can't think of anything new. I agree that a move request would have been the way to do this, but that's a minor issue. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• This is not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title change

this appears to be a “one against all” situation devolving into WP:BLUDGEON. The RFC below shows a strong consensus against title change. Hatting as unproductive. Dronebogus (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Since, as Jmc says, there is a prefatory statement: This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism., and since Just plain Bill has written that This article is about the form of ID used in an attempt to sneak religious doctrine into public school biology classes, and Hob Gadling says ID is in its core a religious PR action, I am about to ask for an RFC on a title change that more accurately represents content as you all describe it here. Leaving the title simply "ID" is misleading since this is a limited topic article. As tgeorgescu says Our bias is a feature, not a bug. That qualifies it as a sub-article, not a main article, but it is titled as if it's the parent article, and that is misleading to readers. The title should reflect actual content. This article should, therefore, be retitled Critique of Intelligent Design creationism or just Intelligent Design creationism. Does anyone have a preference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC) First off, the article is titled "Intelligent Design" because that's what the thing was originally named. Secondly, the article isn't a critique of Intelligent Design just because it tells the reader what it is, i.e., an attempt to gradually sneak religious propaganda into science classrooms to replace the teaching of science.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC) You seem to not understand how Wikipedia handles fringe topics. We do not have one article about homeopathy (or climate change denial, or holocaust denial, or flat earth, and so on) and one about criticism of it. That would be a WP:POVFORK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC) This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. - Roxy the dog 08:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) What she does not understand is that this article is biased for WP:PAG; all our articles should be biased for WP:PAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC) "Intelligent design" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC) The reference to Teleological argument at the top of this article, with that article's section on ID which says A version of the argument from design is central to both creation science and Intelligent design, indicates versions of ID not rooted in creationism. Is it not correct that there are non-creationist views of ID? I think it is correct, at least according to the book Seeking God in Science An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design [15] If there is a broader view that is not creationist, and if this article is on ID as creationism, which is clear and agreed upon by all, then the title should reflect that. In the Teleological argument article, both sections on "Recent proponents" and "Criticism" are really beautifully done. If this article looked more like that one, then leaving it simply ID would be appropriate. But this article is about one aspect - a section of one section of that article. No one has argued otherwise. This article is not a full discussion of the topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but the title should reflect it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång Common name is not what applies here, Precision is: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article [16] The scope of this article is limited. The title should reflect that. Hob Gadling We do in fact have articles about Flat Earth, Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, and Homeopathy. We even have one on Creationism in which intelligent design is mentioned 51 times. They do not constitute pov forks, and neither would this one if it were titled more accurately. Mr Fink Grandfathering it in is not WP policy. The title should reflect the content. This article is about ID as creationism. There has been no argument that it is anything else. The title should precisely reflect that as concisely as possible. Intelligent design creationism should probably therefore be the title. There is really no argument to be made for not doing so. Perhaps a merger is called for instead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC) I repeat: We do not have one article about homeopathy (or climate change denial, or holocaust denial, or flat earth, and so on) and one about criticism of it. Maybe this time you will read not just the beginning of the sentence but also the end. I made the end bold to help you do that. I am running out of patience with you. The fact that you keep alerting me contributed to that. I have a watchlist, and this article is on it. So I will notice new contributions anyway. But mainly it's your Teflon attitude. You just won't accept when people tell you how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Please note I did not suggest that. I suggested an either or. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC) The title is well sourced, and correct. As noted in the lead, "Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, ... From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM) .... advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula." The section intelligent design#Origin of the term goes into more detail, and makes the specific point that "Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms [Pandas] introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.[38] It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,[18][39] and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[40]" That's the usage covered by the ID articles, not the generic argument from design, no matter how much proponentsists try to conflate the two. . . .dave souza, talk 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC) I agree with dave souza; naming it "Intelligent Design..." would be referring to it like a Trademarked term, which is more accurate, but the creators of it did not want it to be their term, they wanted it to appear be a natural or generic term, so they used it in sentences as "intelligent design"; thus how it appears in sources, which is what we follow on Wikipedia. It would have worked against their agenda to have used it as Intelligent Design and trademarked the term, clearly showing the world that they claim creatorship over the term, and that it is an artificial term. Adding "creationism" onto the end would be needlessly redundant. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) dave souza, what is "the generic argument from design"? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Hatnote saith This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. Specifically, see Teleological argument#Creation science and intelligent design. That cites Padian & Matzke (2009), who state "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI takes some elements from ‘Paleyism’, but is much more ambitious than Paley’s deist-friendly argument. Contrary to Paley, the whole point of ID is to establish that miraculous supernatural intervention was required in the history of life. The possibility of a lawgiving God is not good enough; what is desired is scientific confirmation of an Old Testament God, actively and personally interventionist. ID is not a generic religious apologetic for the existence of God; it is a specific apologetic for the existence of ubiquitous miracles, i.e. the sort of God that fundamentalists believe in." . . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC) That's not generic, that's fundamentalism. That section is a summary of this article basically, and the coverage of that nonsense is complete and thorough in both places. I find no fault with it beyond this one not being titled in such a way that this: This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. is precisely clear. In order to "conflate two arguments" there has to be two arguments. So what is the generic form with which this article is being conflated? Where might I find an article on it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) As already stated, for generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. You seem to have veered offtopic . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC) I apologize if I have gone off topic, but I am still trying to get a handle on this while dodging all the personal attacks. You are saying the article Teleological argument is the parent article. Okay. But when a reader googles "Intelligent Design", Teleological argument does not come up as an option. Only this article - the sub article - comes up. Doesn't WP indicate the best way to fix that is retitling to more precisely reflect content? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Regrettably, the reader's google-fu seems to have failed them. A search for "Intelligent Design" brings up this wiki article, then Glick, Thomas F. (17 August 2006). "Intelligent design - History & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica.. Second sentence; "Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God advanced by the Anglican clergyman William Paley". Which is another name for the teleological argument, which Paley presents in Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Differing thus from the ID version which pretends it's just science, folks, and the Attributes of the Deity are unknowable so don't talk about them. As Padian & Matzke duly observe. The #Origin of the concept section of this article discusses this context, worth reading. . dave souza, talk 13:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) In fact, Britannica is also biased against ID, but this is not seen at Intelligent design but at Intelligent design and its critics. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Be fair. I have said more than once that I don't think this article is biased against ID. I thought the first sentence was problematic because I thought this article was the parent article because of its title. Comparing it to other first sentences in other articles made me think we could do better. Something like Brittanica's first sentence argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” seems better to me. But I do understand this is a one POV article, and that the first sentence here conveys that pov, and since I do know that bias is allowed in sub-articles like this, that discussion is done as far as I am concerned, and has been done for a while now. We can stop talking about bias. Please. I have not requested input on retitling because of bias. This is my thinking. Brittanica has multiple articles, as do we, and they have apparently categorized, and therefore titled them, differently than we have. They have an article on "Kansas: education of Kansas" that is very like this one. "Argument from design" is like our Teleological argument. But their "Intelligent design" (which is a really good article) is that broad - generic - overview that I would call the parent article that we don't seem to have - at least that I can find. It's what I expected to find when I came here to this one, because of its title, which is why I tagged it. It is the main article for Brittanica that comes up on Google. The sub articles then all become available including the excellent articles "evolution: Intelligent Design and its critics", and Kansas, and teleology. This sub article is what comes up for us. IMO, that means Brittanica has done a better job than we have organizing and titling its articles on this topic. That bugs the shit out of me. I want us to be the best. If everyone would stop being defensive for a bit, maybe we could fairly and reasonably discuss if, and how, we might improve our encyclopedia for better coverage of this topic. WP articles need to be titled with at least as much precision as Brittanica has. That means some retitling and maybe a new parent article. Does it not? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Could someone explain to me in simple words what is being discussed here? Since I no longer get what is being discussed. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC) You have my sympathy. I know the feeling. I am asking about retitling this article. It is the first step in creating a better set of articles on this topic for WP. Others seem to be more interested in other things - such as my personal views and defending this article against the imagined attack of change. I say, set all the hoorah aside and let's discuss precision titling. Once that's done, eventually, perhaps, we can get around to discussing a parent article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I'm interested to see how more precisely an article about ID could be titled other than "Intelligent Design". But perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) No it's not just you. It's a perfectly reasonable and intelligent question. I originally suggested Intelligent design creationism - which is used out in the world and is part of at least one book title. Brittanica uses "Kansas: education of Kansas" though I think this one is a little broader. This article is a limited pov and wp policy says the title should reflect the content. Any ideas? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC) The way I interpret it, Jenhawk777 is upset that this article is so clearly dismissive of ID, with the text immediately saddling it with its cultural baggage. Jenhawk777 would rather have the article lead with a description of the ID belief system, much the same way as the treatment of teleological argument. I don't agree with that viewpoint—I don't think there is anything to be changed here, as ID is properly described within its cultural position, one of falsehood and deception, the attempt to force religion into science. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Please refrain from commenting - incorrectly - on what I think and feel and what my motives are. I have plainly stated them. Since no one here reads minds with any accuracy, and since this particular aspect of the discussion ended some time ago, this comment amounts to more bludgeoning and WP:Casting aspersions. Please stick to discussing the current question of retitling for better precision. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC) I offered my interpretation for tgeorgescu who was asking the community, of which I am part. To answer the question, I accurately conveyed my impression of the situation, which is not a positive review of your involvement here. I will not be swayed in my view unless I see evidence to the contrary. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Oppose changing the article name, or retitling. The current name as intelligent design fully meets WP:COMMONNAME, is in widespread use for exactly this topic. Many years ago some critics of the movement preferred to call it IDC (intelligent design creationism) but this usage did not become widespread, and would be too specific as an article title, making it overprecise. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Please stop linking "overprecise" as if it were an actual link. This is misleading. What you have linked to is WP:Precise. It would be good to be reminded of what it says: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Horowitz would not be precise enough to identify unambiguously the famous classical pianist Vladimir Horowitz. Italics are mine of course. The first question then is whether the current title unambiguously defines the topical scope of this article. It doesn't, because there is the larger topic which this article points to. The second question is whether changing the title would, in fact, be exactly the same topic. This is a sub topic, so it can't possibly be the same as a parent article. Titling this article ID prevents the writing of a parent article that would require that title for itself. The title for this article falls into the category of 'Horowitz'. It may be how he was commonly referred to, but it is not precise enough because it allows for ambiguity. Intelligent design is too broad a title for a limited scope article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 04:46, January 23, 2023 (UTC) Your premises are false, as abundantly shown in detail by sourced statements in the article. .. .dave souza, talk 09:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC) User:Jenhawk777 - my sympathies on trying to get calm discussion here and getting what you got. I think the article is irretrievably biased but at least obviously so, so in a two wrongs make an almost-right sense, folks will see how it is and go to Britannica or Google if they want. As to subdividing... long ago I tried breaking the pre-1900s usage into Intelligent design (historical) and it just got deleted. I think editors here would just want to repeat all denunciations in any sub-article. For that reason I think it better to just have the one article and avoid duplication. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Walter James ReMine

I think the book The Biotic Message by Walter James ReMine probably deserves a mention somewhere. Watch this space, I'm finding it hard to search the archives of this talk page without saving this topic. It may have been discussed previously. Please reply if you can tell me of any previous relevant discussion. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Does [17] help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My browse through the archives (thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång) hasn't brought up any RS that identifies ReMine as a proponent of ID. Jmc (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference #4 is "Pigliucci 2010", but there's no source or cite with that.

Reference #4 in the article is to "Pigliucci 2010", but I don't see any source or cite with that.

Please add this info. Thanks.

- 189.60.49.251 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Intelligent_design#Anti-evolution_legislation

The second paragraph does not seem to fit the heading, afaict not legislation and not obviously anti-evolution. Should we move it or remove it? Also, first paragraph should have some decent cites, FA and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty unsatisfactory section. It makes only peripheral (uncited) reference to Intelligent Design. I'd be for its wholesale removal. -- Jmc (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And the first paragraph, which is under-cited, can be cited using the references in Anti-evolution legislation. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please align with reliable sources

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design 174.62.129.125 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100006119 174.62.129.125 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Britannica does explain intelligent design, this is where it is explained in full detail: https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

user:tgeorgescu - that’s a good article, I particularly liked the mentions of Fisher or Hardy-Weinberg more than the focus on Paley and IC. But from the OP briefness I cannot tell what they meant by “align”. Perhaps from the brevity they didn’t get very far in the details and are just talking the lead here versus how what they pointed to starts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that they are referring to the much more neutral tone of other encyclopedias. E.g. The lack of the term 'pseudoscience' in the linked articles. Similarly, Intelligent design - Citizendium does not make such a definitive conclusion. Stating much more objectively that "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, in its present form, ID cannot be regarded as scientific because the claims made by its proponents are not testable." BeLikeBritannica (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is one of tone, not of meaning. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The meaning is different. Labeling ID as pseudoscience is a conclusion, not universally agreed, nor objectively measureable, nor even adequately supported by referenced expert opinions. Stating that the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that in it's present form ID cannot be regarded as scientific is a neutral objective statement of a fact. Nearly all statements from organizations rejecting ID don't use the perjorative term 'pseudoscience' BeLikeBritannica (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ID pretends it is scientific AND ID cannot be regarded as scientific, therefore ID is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

BeLikeBritannica, this is covered by the FAQ. The goal of the FAQ is to avoid wasting time on useless discussions, like this one. --McSly (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

An article unworthy of Wikipedia.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article, as currently conceived, exhibits a significant bias aimed at discrediting the Intelligent Design theory rather than offering a comprehensive explanation of its principles. While it's reasonable for any theory to include a section critiquing it and presenting opposing viewpoints, the article appears more focused on criticizing Intelligent Design rather than providing an impartial overview of it. It appears that any theory suggesting an alternative perspective to the established norms of scientific materialism is met with apprehension by certain Wikipedia users. There is nothing more unscientific than consensus ;-) Sergeant Batou (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) We don't do impartial on this website per the WP:NPOV-policy. It may seem strange, but it's how it is. WP favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. In every written discussion, ID proponents fail miserably against science proponents. All their reasoning is crap. They have nothing, not even a theory. This is reflected in reliable sources, and that is what we report. If you read only what IP proponents say, you will obviously have a distorted view at odds with reality, at odds with reliable sources and at odds with the Wikipedia article, and you will attribute "bias" to the article. You should read the sources linked in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "Wikipedia favors the mainstream scientific view, so we're partial in a lot of places" This, my dear wikipedian, is perhaps the most unscientific thing imaginable, and history provides us with countless examples; science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them. My point here is why some entries on Wikipedia seem to receive such radically different treatment in tone and form depending on their content. It doesn't seem fair to me... Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Anybody who believes that ID is science has no business telling others about what is scientific and what is not. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say ID is pseudoscience. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Yeah, that sets science apart from religion, science can change it's mind, annoying politicians and other people. If ID ideas get the post 1950 Alfred Wegener treatment at some point, we'll deal with that when it happens. As a Swedish comedian once said, "Oh well, I never did expect to be appreciated during my own lifetime anyway. But other times will come!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) "your reasoning is crap" "End of story. Bye" Please refrain from using overly sophisticated arguments that nearly persuade! If ID is as absurd and surreal as the flat earth theory, I fail to comprehend the aggression towards it. it's simply a wild notion! Who cares, then? Or perhaps, radically different ideas from our own simply evoke FEAR? :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Intelligent Design is as absurd and surreal as the Flat Earth theory because no Intelligent Design proponents have ever bothered to demonstrate how saying "DESIGNERDIDIT" is supposed to be science. In fact, it's thoroughly documented that its creators, the Cdesign Proponentsists at the Discovery Institute, only devised Intelligent Design as an excuse to sneak in Young Earth Creationist anti-science propaganda into science classrooms with a minimum of legal fuss. Furthermore, please remember that Wikipedia talkpages are for discussing actionable requests for improving articles, and are WP:NOTAFORUM nor WP:SOAPBOX from which to scold and whine about how Wikipedia is so evil for not kissing the ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus. Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Maybe you should remember what talk pages are for. They aren't intended for you to use them to give your personal opinions on ID, insult other editor's religious beliefs or generally act condescending to someone who hasn't been discourteous to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Indeed, though it is a waste of everyone's time arguing that ID is not a pseudoscientific theory, because it clearly is. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Sergeant Batou: "... science may establish theories as certain and gain massive support from the scientific community, only to later dismantle them." Yes, that's the nature of science, and Wikipedia goes along with it, always open to recording the current state of scientific knowledge. And in the current state of scientific knowledge, intelligent design is a pseudoscience. -- Jmc (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I am quite surprised, truthfully, by all the interesting responses that my comment has sparked – some quite intriguing, and others unfortunately overly condescending and openly aggressive. But well, there have always been different ways and means of debating, and sometimes fanaticism and visceral reactions overshadow constructive exchanges of opinions. That being said, I believe there is some confusion regarding my viewpoint: I neither defend nor believe in Intelligent Design. My text refers to the fact that the way it is currently portrayed on Wikipedia seems more like a biased opinion piece than a neutral article in a supposedly serious encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article should present facts objectively, and it is up to the reader to determine through reasoning and intellectual evaluation whether it is a serious theory, pseudoscience, or utter madness. However, an article should not openly begin with terms that clearly sway the reader's opinions in one direction or another. In this case, the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, while equally critical of the movement, shows enough intellectual respect for the reader to define it as an "Argument" and not a "Pseudoscience" Honestly, I entered Wikipedia to look up the concept because I had read it mentioned in an article out of sheer curiosity. But seeing the belligerence, dogmatism, and lack of manners with which I have been treated, I now have a thousand times more interest in the theory :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) @Sergeant Batou: See https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/Intelligent-design-and-its-critics#ref247559 tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Perhaps some of the archived discussions will interest you as well:[18] Britannica, though a little shorter, does use different words: "Meanwhile, intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Thank you for providing the sources; I intend to read them thoroughly and engage in the intellectual exercise of forming my own conclusions based on data, arguments, and humility. Minds are not swayed by condescension and hostility, but rather by thoughtful consideration. I believe Wikipedia entries would maintain greater intellectual honesty and fairness if they employed neutral terms such as "argument" or "theory," rather than the inherently negative term "pseudoscience," which is often chosen with bias. This marks the conclusion of my participation in this conversation, as I wish to prevent it from devolving into a forum-like exchange. I extend my gratitude to those who contributed meaningful arguments and sources, and express my deepest disdain for those who resort to digital barbarism (they know who they are). Kind regards. Sergeant Batou (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) And if you wish to comment further on this talkpage, consider "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligent design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Next time, try to suggest a specific change to the article, based on on-topic WP:RS. Or be WP:BOLD and see what happens. If you want to suggest changes to WP:NPOV, that page has a talkpage too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) You should also remember to remind WP:PA users when they use expressions as constructive as "ring or tuchas of your favorite Pseudoscience for Jesus," "All their reasoning is crap," or "End of story. Bye," if I may add my two cents :) Sergeant Batou (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Those are not PAs because they are not about people. They are about the quality of reasoning. Stop misusing this page as a forum. I think we can close this waste of spacetime. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) You've consistently attempted to silence me from our very first interaction, lacking even basic courtesy and resorting to aggressive and highly unpleasant behavior. It's regrettable that expressing a calmly and politely held opinion is met with such extreme hostility from you, a tone I've noticed you directed towards anyone not aligned with your intellectual views.I also find it amusing how a common tactic on the talk page (just take a look at the history) is to engage in lengthy debates, only to quickly resort to the trump card of 'this is not a forum' when an idea doesn't sit well. Anyway, from this point on, it makes no sense to continue a conversation that you've tainted with hostility from the start. Best regards to all Wikipedians Sergeant Batou (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Sergeant, if you think that Hob violated the Wikipedia:Civility guideline, you may need to consider a Dispute resolution request. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Everyone should remember that Intelligent Design, in its current iteration, did not arise in a vacuum. The context here, as laid out in the article, is an attempt to shoehorn divine creation into US public school science classes, disingenuously framing ID as an alternative scientific idea while concealing its religious basis, as litigated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, with the judge describing the school board's action in that case as breathtakingly inane. Anyone opening a discussion on this talk page using language like "unworthy" and "significant bias" may expect vigorous pushback. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I just came across this page and was surprised at the incompleteness of the content as well as some of the rationale used throughout to make definitive statements which are clearly biased opinions. First and foremost, the source references used for anything related to Intelligent Design are 2008 or earlier. There has been a bit of progress in this field in 15+ years and this page should represent that if trying to be honest (otherwise some might think this lack of update is for other reasons). You can no longer call ID "pseudoscience" based on the number of books and scientific articles that have been published since 2008 by plenty of PHDs from every field of science. ID is NOT creationism since at it's core it is using scientific methods, data, and experiments to demonstrate that there is evidence in nature that points to some intelligence as a casual power as opposed to purely random gradual mutations over long periods of time (ID does NOT identify the intelligence in question). ID uses the same method of historical scientific reasoning as Darwin did, so if one is pseudoscience, they both are. Also, ID did not arise "to shoehorn creation into US public school classes" at all since the creators of the movement did not start or encourage what happen in the schools in Dover, PA (it's great that we had a Judge to tell us what qualifies as science and what does not). Science should be the search for TRUTH using competing theories and this evolves over time the more we know (it is NOT static consensus by a few). Please realize that religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive since in the end, all world views believe in something outside of space, material, and time (i.e., pre-big bang). ID makes the scientific case for a designing intelligence. Scientific materialism (i.e., atheism) tries to makes the case for the beginning of the universe, first life (abiogenesis), and Darwin's common descent, but there is plenty of room for other theories in these areas at the present time based on their blatant weaknesses. Suggest the authors of this article actually catch up on the latest in ID and revise the article from a position of knowledge versus planned ignorance (and take a look at Günter Bechly's story in the process). T NorthStar (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) You may or may not find something that interests you at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the link to that page. Actually, that FAQ essentially validates all of my points. This Wikipedia article essentially stopped doing real revisions to the page for anything on the side of ID in 2008. Using the judges ruling in Kitzmiller from 2005 based on words from the opposing sides legal brief can hardly be the final word. Stating "a majority of scientists" is consensus-based scientism, not true science. There are now over 200 peer-reviewed and mainstream scientific publications supporting Intelligent Design (see [19]) in addition to many published books from PhDs in Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Astrophysics, Paleontology, etc. It might be time to revise the FAQ and the Article if the objective is to be unbiased. T NorthStar (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) From the Introduction to the cited Discovery Institute list of publications supporting ID: "Collectively, this research is converging on a consensus: many complex features of life and the universe cannot arise by unguided processes (e.g., Darwinian evolution), but indicate an intelligent cause." Consensus? Sounds like scientism, not true science, to me. -- Jmc (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) The Discovery Center is an unreliable source notorious for its anti-science bias. Furthermore, talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) I see, so since the list of scientific publications is listed on the Discovery Center site, all of those scientific publications are now unreliable sources as well? Suggest that the authors of this page actually look at the references and progress made in this area before dismissing and clinging to blanket statements. Answer #2 on the Talk FAQ page no longer applies as there is more being tested and predicted in ID today than can be said of neo-Darwinian Evolution theory. There is only so much that can be tested and predicted in regards to historical science anyway but that applies to both theories equally and one is making continuous progress while the gaps in the other continues to widen (fossil record, complexity of simplest cell, biological information, bacteria evolution studies, etc.). Can you really hold to this article being from a Neutral Point of View if it is 15+ years out of date? T NorthStar (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Certainly, a list published by The Discovery Institute of what they say are "peer reviewed scientific publications in support of ID" is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Even if they are peer-reviewed (and peer-reviewed in a manner which would make them reliable), what is their link to ID? Which part of ID do they "support"? Anyway, this doesn't matter because, I can see straight away that a very large number of those "peer-reviewed scientific publications" originate from BIO-complexity, which is run by the Biologic Institute. As its article says, the BI was "created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute". On this basis, I would assume that the other articles in the DI's list are equally worthless. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Ok, so the list "is of absolutely no use whatsoever" because ~ 40 of the 200+ references are from one source that you distrust? There are a lot of "assumptions" being made here without anyone actually looking at details of the work being done by PhDs from all fields of Science and Math. But people that come to this page or Wikipedia in general are supposed to believe it is neutral. Got it. T NorthStar (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) No, let's be clear about this. If I came to you and said "here is £200 in dollar bills", and the first 40 you checked were all fakes, would you trust the provenance of the other 160? Let's face it, The Discovery Institute has a history of doing this (see talk page archives ad nauseam) so it is unsurprising that in a list of "200 peer reviewed scientific publications", one can write off 40+ of them as neither peer-reviewed nor scientific with a bare 5 minutes research. We haven't even started on the others, but per the dollar bill analogy I would be surprised if any of them were scientifically and properly peer-reviewed and were also "in support of Intelligent Design". Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) For starters, your insistence on clinging the false equivalency logical fallacy is noted, especially considering the origin of your claim, an anti-science propaganda mill, and how all of the alleged 200+ papers are either irrelevant, or misinterpreted, all ignoring the output of pro-science, pro-evolution peer-reviewed research is greater by several orders of magnitude. Mr Fink (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) There has been a bit of progress in this field Do they have a theory of ID now? It was always sorely missed. The progress is probably just "we found more things we cannot explain." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) You should actually catch up on the last 15+ years for yourself and understand how it should impact the article to remain objective. There are plenty of things today that scientists "cannot explain" including the big bang, fine tuning of the universe for life, abiogenesis (first life), the human mind/consciousness, dark matter/energy, etc. ID uses all fields of science and math to prove a casual agent for some of these unknowns. Defining "science" as requiring "material" is a non-sequitur since we know there are things (mind, math, information, etc.) and times (pre-Big Bang) that are/were not material. I will end it there as I know this page is not a forum but the article should be revised and updated to be remotely considered neutral. T NorthStar (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) If this thread is just going to be yet another forum thread for more angry whining about how this page isn't pro-Intelligent Design propaganda, can we just hat it?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)