Talk:Intelligent design and science

Removing or amending the Peer-Review section.

Here is a list of over 50 pro-ID papers that would contend with the statements made from a citation from 2004!

PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED).

As I mentioned on the previous page. You don't have to use the Discovery Institute link itself, but you DO have to explain why all 50+ of these aren't valid. If even ONE of these articles is valid then this section just needs to be removed I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkl728 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is ample evidence that the DI make spurious claims about getting support from peer reviewed articles. If a reliable third party secondary source has made such analysis we can report that, but we certainly can't take the DI's statement as anything other than a primary source of their claim. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pkl728, I don't think we want to remove that information because the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case was integral in the identification of ID as creationism and pseudoscience. It does seem that the list of peer-reviewed articles presented on that page were published after this decision, but as dave souza said, the DI is known for making false claims as to their intentions and specifically regarding the existence of peer-reviewed publications. I think the most we can do for you is add a prepositional phrase to the sentence in question, dating the reference. Something like, "In 2005, the Kitzmiller verdict stated that..." Would that suffice? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub, that would not suffice because it is a false claim. In order for you to say there are NO peer-reviewed papers that are pro-ID then you are going to have to explain to me why all 50 of those articles are "false claims" or "pseudoscience."Pkl728 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Dating the reference would make the statement true because it was certainly true at the time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the additions made to the last paragraph on Peer Review, so a re-added them. I find that there are many editors here that uses this article as bias propaganda, which is unacceptable. Whatever your ideas are on Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, it is an irrefutable fact that the Discovery Institute do claim that they have published over 50 peer review articles, most of them not in their own journals but in mainstream science journals. To censor this information would be misleading, creating the perception that the DI have no reply to this charge. I understand that there are some strong feelings against ID and DI, but since intelligent design is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute, it would be ridiculous not to allow the views of the DI to be reflected in the article, provided that it is clearly stated as the view of the Discovery Institute, which it is. You cannot have an unbiased article on an idea, when only the contributions of its critics is allowed. The article might state that there are critics that disagree with the idea, but it cannot censor the idea itself. Hannodb (talk | contribs) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC-2)

Please don't edit war to introduce ID spin from an unreliable source taken out of context. The other sources currently shown discuss the earlier incarnation of the DI list, and make valid points. The references shown below indicate that the same applies to the current revision of the list: if we add anything about this new list, it has to be shown in the context of mainstream views about the revised list.dave souza, talk 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are the one who is committing and "Edit war", not me. In the history, you state that the sources I provided is "unreliable". How exactly is a link to the Discovery Institute an unreliable source for what the Discovery Institute says? Note,my previous point: the edited line DOES NOT claim to be the consensus scientific view, but is clearly stated to be the view of the DI. As such, no factual error is committed. Since ID is an idea promoted by the DI, its views on the topic is relevant to this article, regardless of what its critics might think of it. When a statement clearly indicates that it represents the view of the DI, and you remove it anyway because mainstream does not agree, or because it might make the DI "look good", you are committing censorship and distorting the truth. Please feel free to add to the section that criticize this claim, but don't remove it. Hannodb, talk 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC-2)

Hannodb, this type of language is not helpful. Please tone it down, and concentrate on article content, not on editors. You are attempting to make a change to the article which has been reverted. Please discuss it here and establish consensus before introducing it again. There are a number of problems with your proposal, not the least of which is that you're using wikipedia as a source. You also changed neutral language to words we avoid. Both of these are against policy. If you have an objection to the current wording, please state it here, preferably with sources, and we can discuss it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see it has been reverted again without any good reason provided. That's too bad, as I tried to get a little bit more balance into this heavily biased article. Jess, you accuse me of using Wikipedia as a source, but I did not. I used the Discovery Institute website as a source to back up the claims I made of the DI, which I clearly stated as the views of the DI. You also say I used "loaded terms" such as "pointed out". Though I don't see how that could be a loaded phrase (English is my second language) I don't see why it was necessary to revert my contribution, rather that to just change the sentence to say "The DI says". It seems to me that there are people here that are determined to remove any statement that is not does not paint ID in the worst possible light, and we are expected to find "consensus" with them. I find the Intelligent Design articles in Wikipedia to be hopelessly biased, distorted and one sided. While it is true that the mainstream scientific community condemns ID, that should really be a topic on its own: "Criticism of Intelligent Design". I find it preposterous that an article on any topic should spend more time on discrediting the idea, than to just neutrally state what the idea is about. (The paragraph in question was originally under "Intelligent Design", and consequently moved here after I made alterations) Since the idea of ID was originally created and promoted by the Discovery Institute, the DI version of it should be authoritive when it comes to explaining exactly what ID is. NOTE: By saying the DI view is authorative, I do not mean that ID is true, or is acceptable to mainstream science, I mean that the DI provides the authorative definition and description of what ID is about. I have no problem with a fair criticism of ID, but what is happening here goes way beyond this: It creates a strawman caricature of ID and then knocks it down. For instance, ID does not claim to be an alternative to evolution, but rather to abiogenesis. ID does not oppose the idea of evolution per se, but reject the Darwinian notion that mutation and natural selection is sufficient explanation for it. Though some ID proponents uses the idea to promote religious ideas, ID is not a religious argument, and ID proponents did not came to the conclusion of ID through religious presuppositions. ID certainly have nothing to say about the natural/supernatural nature of the designer, just as the Big Bang theory makes no claims about the natural/supernatural nature of its cause. And then ID scientists ARE conducting research based on their ID views, for instance Douglas Axe is conducting research on the empirical limitations on protein fold evolution. ID scientists HAVE published their ID based ideas in non-ID peer review scientific journals, but it seems that even mentioning that the DI makes this claim is unacceptable, even though it's factual. And though I am not allowed to make a neutral, factually accurate comment that the DI do present a list of peer reviewed articles in non-ID journals - in order to counter the false statement that it does not exist at all, it seems perfectly ok to compare ID to the "flying spaghetti monster theory", as if that is a factual statement rather than someone's opinion. With this amount of blatant hostility towards ID, I'm afraid will be impossible for Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the DI and ID actually states. Such intolerance is regrettable. Hannodb, talk 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC-2)

I'm sorry, but that's TLDR. I'm telling you in order to be honest, not to be mean. Rants about how wikipedia is biased fall under WP:SOAPBOX. Your edit did, indeed, use wikipedia as a source, under the very first paragraph you changed. I also didn't say "pointed out" was problematic specifically (though it is); I referred to WP:W2W, which lists a large number of problematic words, from which you used quite a few. Unfortunately, I'm not sure your proposed changes can be decoupled from the problematic language. You're going to have to make a new proposal which addresses these concerns before we can make any headway.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that what the DI says about themselves should not be taken seriously nor considered reliable. SPSs from the DI are necessarily unduly self serving in the same way that a pedophile group making such statements would be. For instance, if a pedo group claimed to have "50 peer reviewed articles" stating the lack of negative effects on molested children we would not publish that, we would instead turn to a secondary source to comment on their claim, which is what we do in this article regarding DI claims. They are an organization that exists essentially to obfuscate the truth of the state of science (see teaching the controversy) and to promote non-science as science, so anything they say has to be considered in this light (or dark for that matter). N^oformation ^Talk 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was a source to wikipedia, then it must've been someone elses link which I merely copied from a previous version. I'm pretty sure that I linked my sources to the DI. I even opened up the link everytime to make sure I have it right.

So, now the Discovery Institute is compared with Pedophiles?? Of all the examples you could use to illustrate your point (911 truth movement, moon landing deniers, Young Earth Creationism,etc), you used pedophiles?? I rest my case. To some people, when it comes to ID, a "reliable source" is anything and anyone who criticize ID. These critics are using their numerical supremacy to ensure that falsehoods are being propagated against ID and the DI. The fact of the matter is, whether you agree with ID or not, ID proponents HAVE published peer review papers which is based on their ID views in MAINSTREAM journals. Those journals I mentioned should count as secondary sources, and people deserve to that they exist. Unfortunately, some people have a vested interest in keeping people in the dark about ID. What is happening here is about the same thing as when only the communist version of capitalism is accepted as a source on an article on Capitalism: The odds of getting a fair representation on what capitalism is about is virtually zero. Fortunately, when I look at the long lists of comments in the talk sections, it seems there are enough people who realizes what's going on. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time and patience to continue fixing this article, only to be reverted within a couple of hours. So, you'll be pleased to know that you're rid of me....for now at least. Hannodb, talk 08:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC-2)

Convenience break: date of DI source

Looking into this, the reference Discovery Institute. Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated); 2007 July [Retrieved 2007-07-17]. was misleading as the link goes to February 2012 list by the DI. We've no reason to think that this list is any better than previous lists, but we don't have a reliable secondary source giving a majority expert view commentary on this list so I've removed it and the new claims based on this revised list. Once we find updated references we can review this, but we clearly can't give undue weight to untested claims from an unreliable source. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Copying my reply from Talk:Intelligent design: We have reliable secondary sources saying there are no (or few, questionable) peer-reviewed articles on ID: TalkOrigins; Washington University Law Quarterly. The only source you've presented to the contrary is an unreliable source, which lists several (primary) papers considered and rejected by our secondary sources. This is apparently for good reason; looking at your source, the first paper listed discusses biology and never mentions ID. We need a reliable secondary or tertiary source, independent of the DI, which says otherwise in order to include this information. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what your saying.... but can we have better sources than websites who are spinning opinion? I would think secondary sources wouldn't be enough. What you're saying is that.... some website, who took a scientific paper, or journal or something and pastes his opinion all over it is counted as a credible source. But it wouldn't be right... if you disagreed with it? That's why I'm thinking perhaps only the main sources should be used. Pkl728 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. In fact we prefer secondary sources over primary sources and rarely if ever allow primary sources to contradict findings of secondary ones. Again, there are relevant policies here regarding sourcing and I have directed you to them. If you disagree with them that's perfectly your right but all that really matters is whether the article meets the policy requirements or not and it certainly does as far as sourcing is concerned. So one said anything about whether I, Jess or anyone else here agreed or disagreed, it's about whether it's inline with the mainstream of scientific thought. Me and Jess may be in a position where we understand mainstream scientific thought and can easily point it out, but that's just to help clarify for people who may not understand this. The bottom line is: do the majority of scientists in the relevant field accept or deny a particular idea? There's really no contest here, ID has been soundly rejected. N^oformation ^Talk 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources commenting on revised DI list

• On look! A secondary source on this exciting new list, including an aerial view of the major new intelligent design research lab!!! Not sure if we want to treat this as a reliable source for a paragraph commenting on the new list. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And, helpfully, a review of the first article on the DI's list :-) . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so you are telling me that your "Source" is just some website? Isn't this just as bad of a "Source" as you are claiming the ID link is? This whole website just seems like opinion. I see no sources... its not a "peer-reviewed" anything. How can this be treated as a source? I'm seeing a double standard here Pkl728 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Scienceblogs is considered an RS on WP because it is written by experts in the relevant field and has a good reputation for accuracy. On fringe and pseudoscience topics we are not required to use peer reviewed literature to balance the claims of the fringe because most scientists don't spend their time debunking what is obviously crap. See WP:PARITY for the relevant policy. Further, any DI source is only reliable for what they say about their own organization and not about science, see WP:SPS. Almost anything they say is going to be unduly self serving. N^oformation ^Talk 22:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the other source Dave presented, "Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology." This is more than enough to establish pretty much anything he writes on the subject of evolution as reliable. Yes, there is a double standard, mainstream scientists are taken seriously and fringe/pseudoscience is presented exactly as the mainstream sees it, that's the definition of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 22:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I find this a confusing line of reasoning. So... I can pick out a scientist who works in the particular field who believes what I believe but ignore scientists in the same particular field because.... I disagree with them? Or... they are crap because I disagree with them? Adam Wilkins, a molecular geneticist (and for full disclosure a non-Darwinist and non-ID), had his book reviewed here: Oxford University Press journal Genome Biology and Evolution An interesting bit being: "The book's contention that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated represents a point of view that has a growing set of adherents. (A few months ago, I was amazed to hear it expressed, in the strongest terms, from another highly eminent microbiologist.) My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a "creative" and crucial role in evolution and, on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as incapable of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of trivial importance: the "right" variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes! The two contemporary groups, divided over this point, are not so much talking past each another as ignoring one another. This cannot be a constructive situation though whether it has the makings of a full-fledged Kuhnian paradigm-crisis is too soon to tell." Do I get to put this up somewhere and cite it because I believe what it says regardless of what you believe? Its clearly not pro-ID, but it is obviously anti-Darwin. Is this rubbish too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkl728 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular book but if it's an expert in the field published by a reliable publisher then it's probably an RS. It would of course depends on what it was being used to support and it would require WP:DUE weight since it's still not the mainstream. There is also the matter of WP:REDFLAG; essentially, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Since the absolute majority of biologists have yet to accept the aforementioned theory then it has to be presented in that way. This is nothing like ID, ID is just lipstick on the pig of creationism (not my quote but can't remember to whom to attribute it) - it's not science by any normal definition of the word science. There are plenty of aspects about evolution that are still unsolved and there's no issue with those things being discussed as long as they're published in reliable sources. It has nothing to do with what I or you think, it has to do with the sources meeting WP policy. WP:PARITY was written because crackpots and POV pushers commonly come up with the Next Best Idea™ and most scientists don't write about it because it's not worth the time. Rather than let crackpots write uncritical articles about things they believe in we came up with a way to allow WP to still present the mainstream take on a subject without requiring the normal stringent peer-review policies. Of course peer review is preferred, but sometimes this isn't possible and so we use the closest thing possible. N^oformation ^Talk 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't quite understand what the DI is all about. I've been monitoring their posts just to see what they are all about and they seem reasonable enough to me. Hell, they even OBJECT to the Indiana Law which wants to teach Creationism in school. DI Condemns Creationism Being Taught in Indiana Schools ID is not Creationism. They clearly state their differences from creationism: What is IDPkl728 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you a biologist? Have you been published in reliable sources? If not then it doesn't really matter what you think about the subject. I have at least half of that, being a biologist in training, and I can tell you for a fact that DI is creationism. But my opinion isn't really relevant either. We have many, many sources describing ID as creationism; many, many biologists and even the supreme court. This is not contentious at all in the scientific community. No scientist is lying in bed at night thinking that ID might have merit. N^oformation ^Talk 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Pk1728, the DI says a lot of things... such as claiming there's controversy where there is none, or saying their goals are different than they clearly are. This is one of the reasons the DI is not considered reliable. They are a political organization, explicitly and objectively aiming to spread disinformation to promote their political agenda. Anyway, this is all off topic. If you have specific proposals to improve the article, please list them with sources. If you have questions about the reliability of a source, WP:RSN may be able to help.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jess brings up a good point regarding RSN. If you ever think that it's just the local editors of a talk page who disagree with your take on sources then you can always go there to get outside opinion. N^oformation ^Talk 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the recent DI list of 50+ papers they consider peer-reviewed is a primary source for what the DI considers to be peer-reviewed papers, should be given: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640. While many are in Bio-Complexity, a journal specifically for ID papers, and others are conference proceedings, and some are arguments or opinion pieces, there are a few empirical papers in actual scientific journals. I think the DI page should be given as a source (new to this, don't know how to do it), and the page made consistent with the Intelligent Design page. Elizabeth Liddle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Liddle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, the problem is that, as you note, the DI website is a self-published primary source for their views which have a track record of being unreliable. In policy terms, WP:PSTS requires us to be very cautious about using any primary source. In this case we need to give due WP:WEIGHT to how their claims have been received by mainstream science, and should base the article on secondary sources rather than on the primary source. So, we can use the scientists' comments linked above to give an overview of the latest list and in that context link to the list itself, but we would need a secondary source to support any suggestion that the list includes "a few empirical papers in actual scientific journals" to avoid "synthesis" in producing our own evaluation. This and the main ID page should both be consistent and each should be fully supported by reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure looks like a duck

@Dave souza this sure looks like a Peer-Reviewed paper to me: Dissecting Darwinism This is published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012). Or is this a fringe journal now because they would DARE to publish something pro-ID.... Pkl728 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "Intelligent Design" appear nowhere in that paper. What part of that paper do you feel is relevant to this article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Now we're just being ridiculous. It has to explicitly say "Intelligent Design?" By this logic, I can say Darwin's Finches doesn't support natural selection because it doesn't say the words "natural selection." Darwin's Finches. The paper I described above is using many of the arguments that Intelligent Design makes, therefore Pro-ID peer-reviewed paper.Pkl728 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the term "natural selection" didn't exist in Darwin's day, so that comparison isn't exactly apt. The paper you linked is attempting to discredit Evolution, not advancing a new position (namely ID), and that's precisely the point being made by some of our sources; there are no peer-reviewed publications advancing an ID hypothesis. If you're claiming that a single paper which makes no mention of the term it's supposedly endorsing deserves equal weight to multiple reliable secondary sources, including a respected court case, then we need strong secondary sources discussing it in that way.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor quibble, Darwin did indeed use the term "natural selection" in OtOOS of 1859, but not in the linked 1845 Journal of Researches so we would need a secondary source to say that primary source had anything to do with natural selection or indeed with "Darwin's finches", a term which was not introduced until 1936. Pkl728, please study WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, we have a reliable secondary source commenting on this specific paper. That describes it as "merely a cobbled-together list of canards from the Discovery Institute" and it sure seems to pass the quack test. As an aside, as a recent visitor to the Hunterian in Glasgow I'm offended by Dr. Kuhn's presumption. However, if you'd like us to add to this article based on this secondary source and any other reliable secondary sources you care to present, do please start the ball rolling with fully sourced proposed wording. . dave souza, talk 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I wouldn't call that a "reliable secondary source". It's a wordpress blog.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A good point, but one we discussed above with reference to WP:PARITY and the fact that Jerry A. Coyne is published expert in the topic area (e.g. [1]) as required by WP:BLOGS. So in this instance it's a good source, of course if better expert secondary sources are published elsewhere we should also look at them. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I missed (or forgot about) the discussion above. I'm not sure this qualifies his blog as a RS on the topic of ID generally (as distinguished from Biology), but this proposed paper does not discuss ID, its goal being only to shoot down Evolution, and so Coyne is definitely a reliable expert to dismiss it. Thanks for the clarification.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that he discusses ID in his book and other writings. The linked pdf actually gives a remarkably good overview of ID considering that it was written before the KItzmiller trial had reached a decision. Coyne rightly anticipated that ID and Dover would lose, and that "We can also expect that, if they lose, the IDers will re-group and return in a new disguise even less obviously religious. I await the formation of the Right to Teach Problems with Evolution Movement." Worth checking if there are other points for which it would be a useful source. . . dave souza, talk 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dave souza Nice find on the article however I will agree with Man_jess's first point. I wouldn't call this a reliable secondary source. Jerry makes assumptions here which are not provable (RNA world and etc.) and then uses those to attack the article. Jerry provides no evidence what-so-ever. This website is just a soap box for him to rail against articles he doesn't like without having to provide much in the way of evidence. So the standard "OOOOOO Jerry talked about this paper on a blog, therefore its been refuted" doesn't hold much water. As far as I can tell, the article conflicts with his world view therefore it is false. Pkl728 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Pkl728, you do not reserve the right to evaluate the sources. Coyne is an expert in his field and his field is relevant to the article. It doesn't matter if you think his assumptions aren't provable, or conflict with his worldview, or whatever. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. It is a reliable source for the reasons previously mentioned. You are absolutely free to take this to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you feel it's not reliable, but the users there will evaluate it on these same criteria. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, Dave is right. I was not aware that Coyne was a published expert in his field; that qualifies him, per WP:SPS, to be used as a source. It's not the strongest possible source, but it is sufficient to support the claim that the paper is not scientifically rigorous, and its findings have not be accepted by the scientific community. Without further secondary backing, that's enough to disqualify the paper from inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub I don't understand... this particular source was evaluated and added because it agreed with that particular person's world view. They are secondary sources, someone has to evaluate it right? @Mann_jess "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." You consider ID to be a "tiny minority view" but as this is a page ABOUT Intelligent Design then I think these articles should be added. (Although it is not a minority view as 83% of Americans identify themselves as part of a religious denomination [[2]]) Thank you for pointing me toward the right wiki-rule to interpret. Pkl728 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pkl728, we have to evaluate whether the source is reliable and pertinent according to WP policies, but we do not get to evaluate the content of the source and admit/dismiss them according to our own beliefs. We cannot add a source because it agrees with our worldview; we add it because it is by an expert in the relevant field. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And Intelligent Design ≠ every religious denomination: see the Clergy Letter Project and say three Hail Marys before checking RC doctrine on antievolution creationism. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW Pkl728, you've missed the memo: claiming that Intelligent Design "is not a minority view as 83% of Americans identify themselves as part of a religious denomination" kinda messes up the claim that it's science oh no not religion we wouldn't dream of teaching religion in science classes why that would be against the Constitution ;-) . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also misleading, and on top of that it's irrelevant. Regarding the former, being part of a religious domination is not equivalent to being an ID advocate. Regarding the latter, fringe is not defined by what percentage of the masses accept an idea but rather by what the experts accept. Most Americans believe in astrology but astronomers and physicists don't and that is the POV from which we write the article. N^oformation ^Talk 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a peer-reviewed paper which argues against the theory of evolution, but doesn't mention ID, then shouldn't it be used in the Theistic Science article? There are other opinions and philosophical movements behind theistic science than just ID, aren't there? Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Islamic science? What about the Mormons? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists? What about Buddhist philosophers? What about Christian Scientists? They don't support ID, but have their own philosophies to explain the universe. Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I just read the paper, and it doesn't mention ID, so I don't think it can be used for this article. It does, however, provide information on Irreducible complexity and Transitional species, so I think it can be used a source for those articles. It can also be used as a source for the criticism section in the Darwinian evolution article. Cla68 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear keen to push unreliable fringe sources about the 'pedia, don't do that. . . dave souza, talk 12:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dave souza Back to the original point... I was looking at the "Secondary Source Page" and I find this little snip-it to be relevant. "In the sciences, a review article or meta-analysis are both examples of a secondary source. However a book review that contains the personal opinion of the reviewer about the book will not be a secondary source for that opinion." WP:Secondary source. A review article is defined as: "A review journal in academic publishing is a periodical or series that is devoted to the publication of review articles that summarize the progress in some particular area or topic during a preceding period." WP:Review article (This is what I get taken to when I click on the article, even though that appears to mean review journal?). And a meta-analysis is described as: "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." WP:Meta-analysis. As this article that you've provided is basically Jerry attacking the author of the paper (he provides no actual evidence or analysis to back up what he says) then I don't think this is a valid secondary source, especially since a personal blog post does not appear to fall under the above two definitions. And to add further, Jerry suggests that any Journal which allows ID papers are no longer credible and should retract the article. How is ID supposed to publish a paper when the gate keepers cannot get past the words "Intelligent Design" and actually look at the content of the papers? Pkl728 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@N^oformation "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." WP:Fringe theory. "Mainstream is, generally, the common current thought of the majority.[1] However, the mainstream is far from cohesive; rather the concept is often considered a cultural construct[citation needed].

As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media." WP:Mainstream Not to be nit-picky, but your comment seems to disagree with the Fringe Theory definition. Pointing out that most of the population of the United States is Christian != teaching ID in the class room. "The majority of Americans (60% to 76%) identify themselves as Christians" WP:Religion in the United States. It does however provide a large basis for Intelligent Design. You say being Christian != ID but I would disagree with that point. "Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent design. To be a Christian you must believe that we were created by a Creator, God. If you're trying to say that Creationism (in terms of the derogatory term that you use to describe people who believe the world is 6000 years old and that jazz), you would be right. ID is creationism if you restrict the meaning to be the belief that we were created by an intelligent being, which also falls in line with the Christian view point.Pkl728 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pkl728, first off... please stop evaluating the content of the source. As I've said multiple times before, you do not get to do this. You only get to evaluate the source using the WP policies. We don't care that the author is attacking someone, or that he made a statement about not allowing ID papers in academic journals. Again, stop evaluating the content of the source.

The relevant policy in this case states: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis added). I'm fairly certain we've already told you about these criteria, and Coyne certainly meets them. That makes the source acceptable according to WP policy, which is all we care about. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you need to read WP policy on fringe theories, not the Wiki page on them: "For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Also, see the In-text attribution section of that page which uses ID as an example of a fringe theory.

And finally, this is not a forum. The percentage of the population who are Christian or even ID proponents is not relevant to WP policies, and therefore ought not to be discussed. WP:FRINGE states, "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Notice how it doesn't say, "... depart significantly from the views of most Americans" or even "most people." It's about science. Mainstream science and scientific support; not most people. This is irrelevant, unnecessary, and, frankly, against WP policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub Thank you for the link, in that definition then ID is indeed considered Fringe on this site. I wasn't advocating that the fact that most people believe in Christianity in the U.S. should show up in the article some where, I was using it more for my point that my previous definition (which looks to be incorrect) would include that so I apologize about any confusion as I got that definition wrong. That being said... I'm not evaluating the content of the source myself, I'm comparing it to what the DEFINITION of a Secondary Source. If that includes Self-published sources then OK, but the Secondary Source page doesn't talk about those at all. With that being said, I still believe that counts as a peer-reviewed paper that has been published in a peer-review journal, in which case the text about not having ANY peer-reviewed papers need to change. Jerry may disagree with what the paper says but it doesn't change the fact that it was published and I don't see how ranting on a blog post changes that fact. Pkl728 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Pkl728, indeed it was published but it's not research, it doesn't support ID as it doesn't mention ID, its focus is attacking evolution rather than proposing any positive evidence, and what makes you think it's peer reviewed? My understanding is that the journal also publishes editorials. p.s. Tiktaalik :-) . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pkl728, can we please stop this? We've given you several secondary sources that state ID had no peer-reviewed papers at the time of their--the sources--publication 1, 2, 3. And much earlier in our discussion, this source, casting doubt on the new list, was posted:

“ In fact, the Discovery Institute just bragged about all their peer-reviewed scientific publications, and there, in their list of over 70 works published over the last 25 years or so, which includes papers by such famous scientists as William Lane Craig and John A. Davison, and prestigious journals like Rivisti di Biologia and their own in-house pet journal, BIO-Complexity, and also seems to include books that were not peer-reviewed at all, are twelve papers by Mr Fancy-Titled-Suburban-House. 17% of the Intelligent Design creationism movement's 'scientific' output comes out of that dwelling in Maryland. ”

PZ Myers concludes the article: "[f]or your edification, I've included the official complete list of Intelligent Design creationism's publications below the fold. It's an impressively short list of hackery." Furthermore, we have Coyne's article explaining how poor one of the sources on this list is. In other words, it is well known that ID has published such lists; that these lists, as primary sources published by a disingenuous entity, cannot be trusted; and that the papers within the list are notoriously bad, snuck into journals, published in journals with little-to-no peer review, or completely lacking mention of ID. In the complete absence of secondary sources to support the claim that ID articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and due to the many secondary sources supporting the claim that no article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal without circumventing the peer review process, there is no reason to remove the statement in question. I said before that I don't have a problem qualifying the statement with a date, and even in spite of the fact that we have a reliable secondary source commenting on this new list, I still would be okay with this solution. But we cannot remove it from the article entirely. Not only for the reasons I've just expounded, but because this lack of peer-reviewed publications was significant in the decision of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision. Please respect WP's consensus and drop this.

PS: I was doing some searching and found this post on an ID blog that discusses our recent conversation... it made me smile. :D -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"You appear keen to push unreliable fringe sources about the 'pedia, don't do that- Dave Souza". Did I just get a warning for advocating using a published source to improve the 'pedia? What's going on here? That paper is published, so I will be using it in the articles I mentioned, and I suggest that the editors here act a little more supportive about accepting and improving thses articles. Anyway, is there a reliable secondary source which actually says, "There have been no peer reviewed academic papers published supporting the ID theory?" Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Normal course of events: (i) read source, (ii) understand source, (iii) determine source is relevant to article, (iv) suggest inclusion. Your course of action here: (i) advocate for inclusion of source; (ii) advocate for inclusion of source some more, (iii) read source, and realise it isn't relevant, (iv) push for inclusion of source. Oh, and don't forget about (v) ask questions of an editor that they have 'just answered'. I believe we even have a magic abbreviation for this kind of behaviour: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And no, it's not a "how to" guide. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What I find really strange about this whole discussion of the Kuhn paper (that's what you guys were discussing here, right?) is that even if it were that mythical creature, a scientific article about intelligent design, we'd still need a reliable secondary source to tell us that. We can't "do our own research", come to conclusions that contradict sources, and use that to overthrow sourced content. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda, that Kitzmuller cite is from 2005. So, are we sure that no peer-reviewed papers on ID have been published in the last seven years? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, as noted above the so-called paper is fringe nonsense, and it's very questionable if it's been peer reviewed. The DI's list has no credibility, please find a reliable secondary source and stop trying to push this] – your editing is becoming disruptive. . dave souza, talk 08:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dave, has any source since 2005 stated that there has been no peer reviewed papers on ID? Please answer the question instead of insulting me. Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter Cla? What matters is what we can source, not what the Truth is. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it matters that the source we use to state that there are no peer-reviewed papers about ID is almost seven-years old? Cla68 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we should throw out WP:NOR if a source is more than a certain age? Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) [And while I realise that pedantic facts can be inconvenient, "not quite six years and two months" ≠ "almost seven years". Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)]

Ah, ok, you have acknowledged that the source is more than six years old. I am saying that we need to tell the reader that, "As of 2005, according to a court ruling regarding ID, there had been no papers on the philosophy published in any peer-reviewed, academic or science journals." Or something like that. Any objections to us telling the reader how dated our source is? Cla68 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that in this article if you don't in others? If you look at the the first article you claim credit for on your user page, its sources are 10-50 years old, and yet you don't say "As of 1961, Tameichi Hara reported that most of the remaining Japanese warships in the Combined Fleet were stationed at ports in Japan, with most of the large ships at Kure, Hiroshima". I looked through several of the articles in your brag list, and I found only one reference any newer than this one. If you don't use that (clumsy) style in other articles, despite the age of the sources you use, why do you want to do that here? Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

User Alan Liefting has removed this article from the Pseudoscience category. According to his edit summaries, it appears that his reason is that the parent category is under the Pseudoscience category and therefore this page doesn't need to be, per convention. I'm not familiar with categorization enough to say one way or another (I reverted the edit once, prior to his informative edit summaries), but I figured I would get this conversation recorded so we could avoid an edit war. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Creating a new section for @66.213.14.116: to discuss his recent edit: [3]. 66.213, please read WP:OR. Original research is not permitted on wikipedia. We need a reliable source which documents the content you're trying to add. Feel free to post here, on the talk page, with your proposal and sources that back it up. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

An often overlooked area dealing with the equivalences of gnomonic projections in the arena of relativistic physics is the matter of what would happen when one’s frame of reference has a disjointed directionality. In certain geometries, this is the case. We are used to objects always falling downwards. We have sensed such since our birth. This is only part of the universe. In outer space, in free fall, and to some extent underwater, one’s coordinate system is relative to one’s relative up-ness or down-ness. Up and down here are relative. One can just as easily view a person as walking on the floor as on the ceiling. In Nullo space, one can walk on the ceiling or on the ceiling. nullo space applies to two Independent systems of observation offset by an angle, and the splinching that occurs when they compare their reference frames.

Copernicus said that the earth is not the center of the universe but the sun. we know today that the universe has no center, but is infinite in 3 dimensions and finite in 4

Also in Nullo space, we can have what is called the Bam-Bam effect. A small object can pick up a larger in Nullo space. Nullo space also exists when ambiguities occur in ring theory. Ring theory is based upon the idea of transcribing a number from a dial like object. There is no unique zero in ring theory. Thus there is a redundancy.People have used ring theory for ages. The Aztecs, the Babylonians, and the Hindus are some examples. Ezekiel’s wheel (Ezekiel 1:1, 4-5, 15-16) can be thought of as being a ring theory. binary numbers use ring theory. Y2k was due to the redundancy of 99 going over to 00 with a trailing 19. Then there is sphere theory, which Michael Crichton’s novel Sphere seems to say is a more complete version of ring theory. Genetic drift appears to be a form of ring theory. Nullo space is often brought up by intelligent design people because of the Copernican controversy that evolutionists bring up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.116 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I combined these sections. IP, can you read what I wrote above, and let me know what source backs up the change you'd like to make. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Intelligent design and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902030147/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm to http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051007161950/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf to http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intelligent design and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927094546/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf to http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf to http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103072800/http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806232139/http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Re: "I find the Intelligent Design articles in Wikipedia to be hopelessly biased, distorted and one sided", Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[4][5][6][7]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)