Talk:Intelligent designer

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

is/are?

There's some subject-verb agreement issues in this and related articles. I appears some of the articles have the British standard (the intelligent design movement are ___), and others the US standard (the intelligent design movement is ___). I'd argue for singular verbs throughout, but I thought we might disccus this. My reson for this is because the movement is largely based in the US and has the most influence here. Thoughts? Jokestress 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go American English unless someone objects. I don't want to read the history and see who used what standard first. Dave (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Errors committed by this article:

1. It connects the identity of the designer to the Abrahamic God based solely on the religious affiliation of some ID advocates, not on their written or spoken assertions.

2. It admits ID advocates, when advocating ID, do not identify the designer (except in their "expressed views" of their personal faith) in order to maintain its status as a fork separate from the God article.

3. No citations are given from ID advocates expressing a preference for the Abrahamic God as the designer (as opposed to the generic creator invoked by the Declaration of Independence or in the Pledge of Allegience).

4. This article is a distillation of information already covered in depth in the Intelligent design article. It is as redundant as creating an article called "UFO pilots" to accompany an article called "Piloted UFOs".

Endomion 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you're an inclusionist wikipedian? Wouldn't an inclusionist wikipedian fix errors, not just delete the article?

Your arguments are specious at best, canards at worst. All leading ID have stated explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, see section below. There's no shortage of statements to this effect, so just add them to the article if you think the connection in the article is weak. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All four of your arguments are incorrect. The article needs to be kept. Jim62sch 23:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Intelligent Designer" does not appear in the dictionary, it is a redundancy like "House home". And if I thought the article for "Interior Design" was too big does that mean I get to start one for "Interior Designer"? Endomion 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are encouraged to stay under 35k - so if any article gets too big you are supposed to spin off material into daughter articles. You spin off coherent bits - this is a coherent bit. Guettarda 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I foresee a time when the Intelligent designer article gets so big we need to go to an Intelligent designerer article. Endomion 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can forsee how it would make a coherent article, I won't question your judgment. Maybe it'll be the millionth - Guettarda 03:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll add the phrase "intelligent designerer" to my vocabulary. That's an excellent term. See turtles all the way down. Thanks, Endomion! Dave (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think that the infinite regression argument was a good one. Now I see. It's so simple. The intelligent designerer was designed by the intelligent designererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererer which was designed by the intelligent designererererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererererer which was designed by the intelligent designererererererer which was designed by the intelligent designerererererererer... would it be violating WP:POINT to make an article called intelligent designerer and have it redirect to intelligent designer? Dave (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endomion's points seem to have at least some validity. We should make a distinction between attacking the theory and attacking the theory's adherents (confer the ad hominem fallacy). Note for instance this section:

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement.

Now, is intelligent design neo-creationism? It might be, depending on how one defines creationism. But if one uses the definition of creationism that Wikipedia uses, the answer is no, because intelligent design theory does not make any reference to deities, religious literature, or the supernatural (at least when it comes to life on Earth). Suppose it is true that all ID adherents believe in God and they all have unsavory religious motives for introducing ID theory into the classrooms. That would not have any bearing on ID theory itself, which makes no mention of deities (again, confer the ad hominem fallacy) and evidently contains nothing that could be considered inherently religious.

The idea that ID arose out of Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement is also a bit fishy. Behe for instance (one of the leading proponents of ID) is not a fundamentalist nor did he ever believe in "creation science." Dembski was not a creation science adherent either to my knowledge. Perhaps some citations should be given here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, is intelligent design neo-creationism? It might be, depending on how one defines creationism. But if one uses the definition of creationism that Wikipedia uses, the answer is no, because intelligent design theory does not make any reference to deities, religious literature, or the supernatural (at least when it comes to life on Earth). -- Please be more careful with your criticisms. In particular, there is a distinction between the Intelligent design movement and Intelligent design. We are very explicit here at Wikipedia in distinguishing between them.

There are plenty of citations available at the Intelligent design movement article that explains where the motivations of the movement seem to be derived. In particular, Philip Johnson has basically said that the reason to encourage the ID movement is to get a foot in the door, if you will, of mainstream science with the possibility of design so that some teleological acceptance for the possibility of God is accepted by the "atheistic" "secular" "materialists". It's all outlined in the Wedge strategy. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Designer (formerly known as God), and ID proponents views

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," --Dembski. Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4. July/August, 1999 [1]
"intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... To be sure, creationists who support intelligent design think it does not go far enough in elucidating the Christian understanding of creation. And they are right! ... Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God" --Dembski[2]
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." --Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." -Dembski, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.
"The world is a mirror representing the divine life," ... "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --Dembski, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.
"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." --Dembski, Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005
"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ." --Dembski, Intelligent Design, p 206.
"And another thing I think we need to be aware of is that not every instance of design we see in nature needs to be directly attributed to God. Certainly as Christians we believe there is an angelic hierarchy - it's not just that there's this physical material world and there's God. There can be various hierarchies of intelligent beings operating, God can work through what can be called derived intelligences - processes which carry out the Divine will, but maybe not perfectly because of the fall." --Dembski, Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" --Johnson, Church and State Magazine, April 1999 [3]
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." --Johnson, Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000
"We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." --Johnson. LA Times, March 25, 2001

And so on... I've got about 140 more quotes attributing the designer as God if this isn't sufficient. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God is an ambiguous word. If the ID movement says the designer is the Abrahamic God then put that quote in the article. If the ID movement says the designer is someone else, put that quote in the article. But regardless of whether article is speculating that the designer is either a God which is already described in the God article, or a God that is not yet described in the God article, the article is named incorrectly and should be titled Intelligent design theology. Endomion 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ID movement says two things. While they hold in faith that the intelligent designer will turn out to be their version of God they simultaneously claim (for the benefit of those who dislike creationism) that the intelligent designer could be an alien or a time traveling biochemist. --ScienceApologist 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If ID proponents indeed have beliefs in a theist God, perhaps those people should write articles about their beliefs rather than letting their political enemies define their beliefs for the public. The central point made byID critics is that ID proponents are omitting the identity of the creator in order to make it sound scientific. So this is an article about nothing. Endomion 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endo, did you read the quotes? A believer in some unnamed, could-be-anygod god would not be quoting from the Bible. And no, the article need not be called ID theology. Weren't you griping about POV a while back? What do you think a title like that would be? Jim62sch 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are quotes from ID proponents citing bible verses, then that ID proponent is by definition a creationist (not even a neocreationist). Endomion 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The individual may indeed be a creationist. That is not the official position of the ID proponents as a group, or the primary originators of Intelligent design. They postulate that the designer may be God. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, woo hoo, we have attributation. A leading ID proponent is a creationist and and IDist, and believes that the Christian God, or one of his minions, was directly responsible for the existance of the world.

Endomion, your objections to the quotes were that it wasn't clear Dembski was talking about the Abrahamic god, and that the article is named in such away that it will cover only a divine being. Both objections have been rebutted: he quotes from the bible and refers to christianity, thus he is talking about the Abrahamic god, and IDists officially hold that it is possible that we were created by the deliberate actions of aliens. Do you have any more objections? -- Ec5618 10:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a million of 'em. For one thing, this article, by appending the suffix -er to an existing article on Intelligent design, basically duplicates the POV of that one, giving it double exposure on WikiPedia (which was the First Cause, so to speak, for my suggestion it be removed). But it is apparent the AfD process will result in a 'keep' when it plays out. With that precedent established, I could write a similar article about things that ID-opponents really must privately believe in but say in the press that they dont. But I am not the type of person who uses WikiPedia as a performance art venue. Endomion 13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(decrease indent) Has it occured to you that consensus is against you, indicating you might be mistaken in your belief that this article is inappropriate? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Didn't you want to redirect this article to God? Aren't you Catholic? Why are you fighting the assertion that ID identifies god? By the way, I address your argument about double exposure above. Dave (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article is required - the information could easily be put in the ID article... However, I think it is absolutely important to underline and stress the fact that ID proponents considers IDer to be the Christian God. This is the core and purpose of the ID movement and it is what invalidates ID as a pseudoscience. It's its greatest strength and weakness at the same time - and it should be included in any article about ID. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bundhus

I have now removed this from the article twice, on the grounds that it is badly written, fails to make a point, fails to introduce this 'Tony Bundhus', fails to introduce this 'theory', etc, etc.

"The Theory of Reproductive Thought gives some insight to what this intelligent designer might be. Tony Bondhus explains in his Theory of Reproductive Thought, that the process of thinking is simply the process of combining two pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is also a process of combining two or more pieces of information and producing a result. The process of sexual reproduction is therefore a thinking process. Tony Bondhus combines this theory with Gaia Theory and Evolution Theory, to create Highlife Theory, which shows the existence of a super intelligent super organism, which is the "intelligent designer" of probably all life on Earth." -- Ec5618 11:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible designer

This is original research - hence, it's on the talk page and not just a straight edit.

One possible explanation for the designer is that the designer is not irreducibly complex.

If a non-complex designer is capable of designing an irreducibly complex entity, then all the paradoxes are resolved. Indeed, it's a perfect explanation for some things that are irreducibly complex, like an automobile, which is designed by a non-irreducibly-complex human auto engineer.

Of course, it doesn't require a supernatural being, which will put off most of the proponents.20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the criticisms already included on irreducible complexity. --ScienceApologist 20:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort. But in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God.

This is an argument that ID proponents are lying or hiding something. Should be labeled as a POV and attributed to its advocate. --Uncle Ed 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a statement which is fully supported by sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered reading the Dover trial ruling, Ed? Here it is: [4]

And there's plenty of cites here and in the ID article and ID movement articles that support just that, as you well know, Ed. This is just yet one more of your bogus objections in your well-documented campaign of disrupting ID articles. It need to stop. I'll be adding supporting cites presently. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, WP:OR forbids drawing this sort of conclusion. Check the rules:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

I'm not disputing the position of pro-Evolution or anti-ID advocates. I'm just saying we shouldn't do their arguing for them. Cite needed. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where specifically is a conclusion being drawn here: "Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort. But in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God."? Where is the conclusion Ed? There isn't one. Again, another bogus objection. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ed drew the conclusion...and if it happens in Ed's head, it must be valid. I guess. Jim62sch 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious implication which advances the POV you are pushing. It wouldn't hurt to quote a published source which explicitly makes the charge of "say one thing, mean another". Looking forward to the supporting cites you offered. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you claim the passage you object to was drawing a "conclusion." Called on that, now you're saying it's just making an "implication." Whichever one it is Ed, now it's supported at this article as well as it was in the other three articles that cover this material.

This is something like your 5th objection to points you already know are well supported in two days; none have proved to well-founded. Stop wasting your time and ours with these. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be tendentious, you know the words are synonymous.

And this is not a legal proceeding; nothing has to be 'well-founded'. We all edit articles to make them better, that's all.

Thank you for adding ref's which support the conclusion or implication, i.e., the POV that IDM contradicts itself.

I actually dislike contradictions quite intensely, if you want to know what I really think. For example, the Russian Communists who would talk 'peace' (in public, to the West) while actually preparing for war (to defeat the West).

Now if admins around here would stop accusing other people of wikilawyering and gaming the system and edit warring (while doing all of these themselves), I'd be a happier Wikipedian. Cheers! --Uncle Ed 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion and implication are synonymous?

Conclusion: "A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. See Synonyms at decision." (where one notes that implication is notably absent)

Implication: "The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated. The act of implying or the condition of being implied. Something that is implied, especially: An indirect indication; a suggestion. An implied meaning; implicit significance. An inference."

More spin from Ed. Stop wasting your time and ours with this stuff. FeloniousMonk 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out the part about the Communists. I need to go find my bong. Jim62sch 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statements about the identity of the designer

No time to look through them all, but there's a problem with this one:

"But ID opponents argue that in statements to their constituency..."

This suggests that the existence of these statements is disputed. If you are making that allegation, please provide a source for the dispute. As it stands it introduces an implication of doubt that really doesn't exist. It's also very poor form to use the "critics argue" style. Guettarda 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one

"Dembski calls this the problem of "infinite regress"."

Dembski and a hundred other people - why attribute this criticism to a proponent? Guettarda 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my language was unclear, please help me by clarifying it. I did not mean "the statements don't exist". I mean that critics use the existence of these statements to make an argument. They imply or state that, since the intelligent designer can ONLY be God, ID is essentially a religious argument, not a scientific one.

They also insinuate the idea that proponents are CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES, which is tantamount of saying they're full of crap. It is a well-known principle of argumentation, rhetoric and "proofs" that any argument which contains contradictory statements is flawed.

I am proposing that Wikipedia not conduct OR by saying ID's arguments are flawed, but simply report the research of opponents. Surely there's some source we can quote who says:

They say that the Designer can be left out of the ID discussion, but actually (1) they have God (or Christ) in mind, and anyway (2) ID implies a Designer which could only *BE* God. So the whole thing is really dishonest.

I wouldn't mind having something like that, weaker or stronger (or even both!) in the article - provided it is treated as a POV rather than as a fact. --Uncle Ed 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FM cut out this well-referenced Dembski quote: [5]

Let’s cut to the chase: Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature. [6]

He may perhaps have forgotten this principle:

Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

But I'll assume good faith. Perhaps it was accidental. FM? Care to comment? --Uncle Ed 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, I moved it and put it in context.

That leading ID proponents tailor their rhetoric to their audience and that they ultimately believe the designer is God to a man is already covered at the ID article. Dembski verifiably contradicts himself many times on this very point, depending on which group he is addressing, as they all have; this is verified at the ID article. That ID proponents are talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue is well documented in court records and the press and seen in their own statements, and already addressed in the ID article. Saying that they are not is a documented part of their platform and campaign, also documented in the ID and ID movement articles. Your change obfuscates the issue and promotes their viewpoint over an objective presentation of the facts. To the issue that they say that the Designer can be left out of the ID discussion is already dealt with in both the main ID article and here in the criticism section. I've put Dembski's statement you added in context with his other published contrary statements on the issue to put the problem of talking out both sides of their mouths in perspective. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Designer Section

I feel there needs to be a section describing the "common designer" argument...the creationist answer to universal common descent. The concept that all life is made of DNA because DNA is the most logical means of producing life and not because all life diverged from a gene pool made of DNA. Hovind likes to use the example the just because a Honda uses nuts and bolts doesn't mean it evolved from a lawn mower. This should NOT give undue weight but rather inform and possible correct misconceptions about the view. Pbarnes 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, there was only one internal combustion engine. SheffieldSteel 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments mv'd from article

I moved the following insertions by Djconklin (talk · contribs) from the article to here, since commentary of this sort doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critique: the above is more of a philosophical argument than an analysis of ID. ID says nothing about who or what the designer is. It is simply "a method of analysis which can be applied to various lines of information [ranging] from mathematical concepts, to writing, to DNA ..."A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature," by R. Totten (1999); see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

Critique: While Sober makes a logical point about the nature of the designer any foray into that would exceed the bounds of any scientific method of analysis that is available today.

Critique: "lazy way out" is analysis?!? ID says nothing about who or what the designer might be (see above critiques).

Willed and self-consciuos

Time, accident and necesity are also "entities". To fit with the definition this entity must have will an be self-conscious. --Igor21 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomism

Isn't there intimations of this in Thomism, in the arguments that natural reason can lead to the realization there there IS God, but not tell us much about God?

The long tradition of rational theology in Christendom, as well as in Islam and Judaism, should put the kibosh on the notion that Intelligent Design is a modern invention of Christian fundamentalism. The term "fundamentalism" was invented in the early 20th century, as a religion to religious modernism (usually in Protestant garb, not the type of modernism that appeared in Catholicism).

24.61.16.25 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC) vegetarian[reply]

Design and the designer

Intelligent design theory detects design by looking for the very general tell-tale signs that a designer was at work. The tell-tale sign that is usually looked for is a form of information produced only by the action of intelligence called "complex and specified information." When we find complex-specified information (CSI), all we can infer is that the object was designed by an intelligence. The mere presence of CSI does not tell us anything about the identity of the designer. The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory. This question is thus left as a religious or philosophical question outside the scope of intelligent design theory. IDEA Center

Let's stipulate that (1) every ID advocate believes that God designed life and that (2) therefore they believe He is the intelligent designer.

Even so, is it possible to consider ID simply (or purely) as a critique of naturalistic evolution? Has anyone ever requested this consideration?

The quote above (from a website associated with Behe, Dembski and Johnson) seems to assert that the identity of the designer is unrelated to ID theory. (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "outside the scope".)

Yet, every critique of ID I've seen begins with the point that ID implies a designer who must be God (or a god). From this point, they conclude that ID argues for the existence of God. This implies that ID advocates a religious idea (duh! that God exists!!), and so on.

What would happen if a scientist simply examined the "signs of design" part of ID? Has any scientist done this? Or only scientists who already believe in God and/or that "God is the designer"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have done so, long since -- the "signs of design" are "written in jello". ID has not put forward a single 'critique of naturalistic evolution' that hasn't been completely demolished scientifically, completely independently from the ID-advocates' blatant religious motives related to the fact that the designer=God. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original reason that this argument from design was introduced was to argue for the identity of God. And it has been attacked and dismissed for about 1500 years or more, long before sophisticated mathematical and scientific tools were brought to bear on the question.
The current incarnation has failed to make its case, but still wants to introduce this unproven hypothesis as a sensible alternative in secular public school science classes, basically to promote a religious agenda.
I have no problem with people looking for signs of design, if they can convince someone to give them money to do so. However, I think it is not reasonable to declare victory before they have made their case and succeeded.
Most of the Discovery Institute arguments fall back on creationist and even young earth creationist arguments that were dismissed decades or even centuries ago. Lies, misrepresentations and dishonesty are their stock in trade. They claim that there are only two alternatives; intelligent design or evolution.
Scientists always look for any possibility. However, so far no evidence of design has emerged.
Focusing on design, or deciding that design is the only answer ahead of time, destroys science. The Discovery Institute Wedge Document implies that therefore magic must be operating in the natural world. And all science will stop because the answer to any question can and will be, "magic did it". Flush all your science and technology down the toilet (which the Muslim world did in the same way, 1000 years ago with publication of Incoherence of the Philosophers). Also, if you take this to the logical conclusion, all prisoners should be let out of jail, since all the evidence can be put there by magic.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hrafn and Filll, for taking my queries seriously and giving me plenty of food for thought. Happy New Year to you both! --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jay Gould and intelligent design

I've always been rather curious (and perhaps here is not the place for such discussion) as to why it seems so many detractors of ID seem to dismiss the concept outright as not even worthy of consideration for a moment, while the concept is in many ways the focus of Stephen Jay Gould's famous essay on The Panda's Thumb. In that essay, he states that "[I]deal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator." Gould's essay--a very insightful one, in my opinion, for people on both sides of the issue--is really only notable if the concept of intelligent design is at least worth considering. BBrucker2 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is given full and serious consideration under its usual name of the teleological argument as a theological argument which is not within the remit of science. ID is a specific presentation of that argument as though it was science, and is rejected as such. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're saying it boils down to more of a philosophical argument in the end than a scientific one? That makes sense. Thanks. BBrucker2 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BBrucker. In the past, I've had Gould swimming around in my muddled head. You've encouraged me to dig my copy of Panda out of storage. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major difference between scientific disagreements and philosophical ones is that scientific ones are generally settled by evidence (comparing to existing evidence and doing experiments to gather new evidence), and thus tend to be of far shorter duration (years or decades rather than centuries). A philosophic argument that wanders into the scientific realm has a reasonable chance of getting spanked and sent home crying therefore. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move For Deletion

I'm brand new at this so forgive me if I've made any mistakes but I think the article ought to be deleted or at least substantially atered to the point of unrecognizability(in which case what's the point?) Thought I'd discuss it with you guys first though.MitchellAsburySims (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, new posts at the foot please. The first thing to do is to set out and discuss your reasons for thinking the article should be deleted or extensively altered, and note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. So is this article about "intelligent designer" as an idea poposed by various ID groups or is it an article discussing the concept of an intelligent designer and proposed identities of said designer(s)?149.166.177.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The latter would appear to be a legitimate part of the former, so I'd answer "both". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article as it stands shows significant prejudice against the article's topic. I feel as though the arguments against evidence of an intelligent designer should be entirely in the criticisms section. As it is now, each reason for evidence of an intelligent designer is directly followed by a reason against. If this article is about an intelligent designer exclusively in relation to the recent intelligent design movements as opposed to an intelligent designer in the larger context of history perhaps this style is appropriate. Still, wasn't this article a spin off from intelligent design? Shouldn't ID movements then be disscussed as only an aspect of the article instead of as the central focus of the article?

Appreciate your thoughts:) MitchellAsburySims (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism template

{{Creationism}} is out of date, and this is now the only article still employing it (I've been making an effort to replace it with {{Intelligent Design}} and the more up to date {{Creationism2}}). Can anybody give a good reason for retaining it? Is there any reason why this article requires both an ID and a creationism nav-template? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusatory tone

This article takes a negative, accusatory tone as though the personal opinions of leading Intelligent Design advocates were somehow being hidden, or that the claim of the Intelligent Design movement that it's position neither includes nor excludes those opinions is somehow disingenuous. This really needs to be cleaned up so it's not tripping over itself to berate the idea even before the actual idea is explained. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think that this article is poorly written, that ID advocates are disingenuous about the identity of the Designer is well-attested. E.g.:

Hoping to distance themselves from the intellectually marginal creation scientists and to avoid endless niggling over the meaning of the Mosaic story of creation, design theorists carefully avoid any mention of Genesis or God, although, as one of them confessed to some fellow Christians, referring to an intelligent designer was merely a "politically correct way to refer to God"
— The Creationists, Expanded Edition, pp 380-381, Ronald L. Numbers

The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world.
— Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why two articles?

I don't see why there should be two articles: Intelligent Design and Intelligent designer. Is there any information in this article that is not, or should not, be in the other, main, article? BigJim707 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of what engineering is also includes the generalized definition of an engineer, but there is also a page discussing the specifics of what an engineer is. VT 64.56.31.130 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. 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:

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) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligent designer. 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:

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) 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious: Michael Behe line.

"Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, suggested the designer might be a time traveling cell biologist."

In the cited source - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Simon and Schuster. p. 249 - the author does not make that suggestion. Instead, the author is discussing a speculative scenario as an explanation for scientist Francis Crick's unorthodox theory that aliens planted biological seeds on Earth. At the end of that same paragraph, the author states: "Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." [Emphasis mine.]

Should be removed or rewritten. NunnyRosary (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. Maybe, WP:ONEWAY should also be applied to adding even crazier ideas to articles about crazy ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sincere discussion about the topic

I am willing to engage in a sincere and/or formal discussion about the topic at hand. VerifyTruth01 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should go elsewhere. Read WP:TALK to find out what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]