Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule

First paragraph of this article implies intelligent design has no merit at all; whereas, the first paragraph of evolution implies it is indeed fact.

Intelligent Design has THREE critism sections. Evolution doesn't have any critism sections.

Why is wiki Biased? You make a Change to Intelligent Design, that further riducules it and it stays. You dare to question any validity of Evolution, and its a Near-Instant Revert, and mods warning you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.141.10 (talk • contribs)

So, you've noticed that evolution is not actually criticised on scientific grounds, but are drawing the wrong conclusions. Philosophical criticism of evolution, in a sense, can be found in Social implications of the theory of evolution.

Believe me, there are plenty of editors here who would not hesitate to put scientific criticism of evolution in said article. Alas, there is no such thing. -- Ec5618 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, since evolution is all wrapped up and all problems are solved beyond any criticism I guess there won't be any more papers published in this field such as Submarine hydrothermal vents and associated gradient environments as sites for the origin and evolution of life John A. Baross, Sarah E. Hoffman Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 15(4):327 (1985) Endomion 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Discussion continues, but this is not criticism of evolution, it is debate about specific points. Since not everything is understood, it's logical that there would be discussion of its finer points. There is agreement about the more general points through. Creationist works almost invariably cite mainstream science in their attempts to discredit evolution, but the discussion is not a criticism, but a discussion. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the two articles "imply" these things to you because you yourself have a bias. No one just makes a "change" to this article, from either the scientific or pro-ID viewpoint, without considerable discussion. I haven't ever edited the evolution page, but I'm guessing that if you made edits there that were immediately reverted, they were perhaps not consensus edits... try discussing on the talk page first. If your edits are scientifically verifiable, I'm sure that consensus would be to include them. -Parallel or Together ? 11:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph says ID is controversial, but then gives its proponents case: the second para gives scientists criticism. It should perhaps be emphasised that ID (for at least its more scientific proponents) accepts evolution as a fact: their argument is how far the theory of natural selection can account for developments. I'd also like to see the intro include a link to the movement: a suggested add on to the first para -

This claim to scientific validity is the justification for the campaign by the Intelligent design movement "to defeat materialism" and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ...yours hopefully, ..dave souza 11:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, and there is a criticism section at evolution#Criticism of evolution...dave souza 11:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As well as a whole article devoted to the evolution/creation debate. -- Anon.

Dave,

Your point is valid, but I wonder if including that change to the first paragraph mightn't be just a bit too militant (although certainly no more militant than some of the edits (since reverted) made by IDists to the article). Let's see what others have to say.

Jim62sch 14:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no violation of the NPOV. Please see WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua 14:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

KC,

I wasn't saying or implying that there was any violation (sorry if you misunderstood) and as I noted, I think Dave's point is valid. Again, sorry if I didn't state that clearly enough.

Jim62sch 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To explain a little, this is an idea relating to earlier fully valid comment by KC that this page should focus on the theory and refer the wider implications to the movement article. It's closely based on part of the intro to that article, which is quoting ID proponents, though I thought the link to the reference didn't need to be duplicated here, I do think it's a worthwhile addition to avoid confusing the science with the movement...dave souza 16:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. Perhaps the comment I made earlier was poorly phrased, perhaps I was unclear. If ID were a religious movement with no claims to science then there would be no WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience issues. Evolution is a scientific subject which makes no religious claims; your comparison is inept. KillerChihuahua 16:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

KC is right on both points. And this article does focus on the theory. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

One more time for the record:

Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view", which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. That means we should present both sides to any dispute or debate. (see: NPOV, Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. (see: NPOV, Undue weight
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. (see: NPOV, Pseudoscience)
The Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory. (see: NPOV, Giving equal validity)

FeloniousMonk 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I grovel for my ineptitude: the main point is the suggestion that the intro links to the intelligent design movement and points out that ID is the (pseudo)scientific wing giving (self deluded or fraudulent) justification for the (political) ID movement: bracketed comments left by me for the reader to work out themselves, and don't forget that this sentence is followed by the science viewpoint. To me, the open ID intention to dictate a new "theistic science" fully justifies the hostile reaction from scientists. Anyway, another draft sentence:

This claim to scientific validity is used by the Intelligent design movement as justification for their campaign to introduce ideas of "theistic science".

Better suggestions for phrasing would be appreciated. ...dave souza 18:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but in what way does your suggestion improve the intro? The points made in your post above are well covered in the Intelligent design movement article, there is a disambig page, there is a section completely devoted to the movement, with link to main article: in short, what are you proposing and how would it improve the article Intelligent design? (oh, and stop groveling, it makes me nervous! :D) KillerChihuahua 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

the points made are pretty well covered in the Intelligent design#Intelligent Design as a movement section, but to me the movement is so integral to the pseudoscience that it should be linked at the outset. No one would be interested in these daft "theories" if they weren't part of an attack on the basis of science. Just my suggestion. ...dave souza 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dave, what came first? ID or the ID movement? Reflect on the question and decide if an article on ID really needs to start off talking about the movement. And also, with all the flak given for using the word "Darwinism" I would like to give some flak myself: who thought up the term "Intelligent Design Movement". I'm inclined to think it wasn't ID proponents. --chad 05:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since the concept was created by (religiously motivated) people, I'd have to say the movement and the concept were either formed at the same time, or the movement preceded the concept. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618, please, re-read the article on the movement and re-evaluate your statement. Ask yourself, is it logical to think the movement could come first? I don't. So ID was created by religiously motivated people? (By the way, why is "religiously motivated" in parentheses? It's as if the important thing is that the concept was created by people, unlike evolution wholly by natural selection, and oh yeah, by the way, the people were religious. Remove the parentheses from the thesis of your sentence before someone else sees, then you can delete my comment.) I agree they were religious, I also don't see how this is relevant. Their religion led them to criticise the notion that the universe came about without God, and well, they studied the facts, and found a lot of holes in Darwin's theroy and the things that have grown out of it. If someone doesn't believe in God, the thought wouldn't enter their head to criticise Darwin's basic idea, because its the only idea so far to explain life without the need for God. ID-ists have done more to force Darwinists into rethinking many things and finding experimental proof of autocreation than anyone I've heard of. They have taken the most difficult parts of autocreation and brought them to light. Regardless of whether you believe in irreducible complexity, the examples brought up by ID-ists have yet to be answered except for by saying "we'll answer later, when we've done some rigged experiments". But the rigging only proves ID's point, that these things could have evolved, but not without rigging. That's the premise, the movement was created as a way to spread this premise, and in the end, to have people realise the repercussions of the existence of a rigger. --chad 08:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my statement: when the concept was forged, so was the movement. That it was forged by religiously motivated people is indeed not relevant here.

Also, at one point I came into this discussion wide-eyed and willing to give ID a chance. I did everything I could to show ID in the most positive light imaginable (within the premises of the available facts, of course). Though I don't edit the article as actively now, I like to think that my adherence to NPOV still remains strong. But I'm afraid you're mistaken. ID was created out of religious zeal, not a combination of religion and a 'study of facts'. Everything suggests that the 'facts' are selected, in what I can only attribute to bad faith, to cast doubt on evolution, in the most laughable way. Many ID websites, for example, use argumentation that any biologically inclined student is able to debunk by age 17. In scientific circles this would not be accepted, but ID proponents use these arguments personally, in their books and oratories.

Did you hear that Darwin recanted and became a christian on his deathbed? (Never mind that he was born a christian, grew up to be devout, and never 'recanted')
Did you hear that the eye could not have been the product of evolution, because it is IC. (Never mind that IC can evolve, and that pathways showing how the mammalian eye could have evolved are available). -- Ec5618 09:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618: I certainly hope you weren't addressing these rebuttals of so-called ID claims at me. I have never said that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, because I never thought that it really mattered; neither have I (or Behe et al) said that the eye is IC. That's just ridiculous. And also realise, that pathways showing how something could have evolved are a way of copping out, again. Let's see a "pathway" that shows the first mutation that took place in the organism, what DNA it affected, the chances of the mutation occuring, the reason why the organism was more fit to survive, and shows the second mutation in the same light, as well as all the mutations thereafter leading to the many varieties of mammalian eye including the neural pathways that control them and make them different (e.g. whale vision and human vision require completely different neural pathways). No one has been provided with such a pathway (we won't even go into experimental proof of such radical changes). Of course its irrelevant because the majority of the scientific community knows it happened, and it won't listen to people asking "how?". Of course, it is very likely that such a thing did happen, as DNA between mammals is similar, and the eyes of various species aren't as different as they are the same, and yet, it is no surprise that the notion of IC is attacked without even thinking about it. First the Darwinists say "there is no such thing as IC" and then go to great lengths to prove it with thought experiments. Then they say "IC can evolve" as if that's fact. I mean, you might say "IC could evolve", but even that is an oxymoron, because the definition of IC is something that can't evolve, at least according to Darwin. So one of three things is true, either IC has been discredited because there is real evidence that anything can be reduced, or IC has not been discredited but it can (by way of oxymoron) evolve (without any real experimental proof), or IC is very possible and poses a problem which should be addressed. Leave god out of it if you please, but please don't say there is no problem. The eye is a bad example of IC, but there are plenty of other examples to which darwinists simply say "You are ignoring the fact that IC can evolve." --chad 10:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were an idiot, believe me. Just that many IDists (or creation science adherents) don't know, and don't care to know, what they're talking about.

The eye was definately used as an example of an organ that could not possibly evolve. The argument misquotes Charles Darwin as having stated that even he found it incredible.

As for IC, according to Behe's original defintion, the concept refers to systems that require all components to be place to function. It says nothing about the system coming about. So the eye, if it were to fail if a single component were removed, would be IC. Ofcourse, IC more often used to refer to systems that supposedly could not possibly form through an evolutionary process. Still, according to the original definition, mixed with current biological knowledge, IC can evolve, because the working and purpose of any component can change over time. You know this, surely. Are you saying you will not be satisfied unless someone explains the exact working of the process? I quite like this quote: "My country has this to say on laymen: "A lunatic will ask more than a thousand scholars can answer." (Nomen Nescio)"

Finally, importantly, even if major holes did exist in evolution, that would not make alternative concepts more valid. Or, in other words, science does not deal with the supernatural, and will always look for a naturalistic answer. Some people have tried, and they invariably feel they have succeeded in finding most, or enough, of those answers, while others have not tried, for whatever reason. Why should that latter group be heard in this matter of science? -- Ec5618 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad, thank you for asking me to question what came first? ID or the ID movement? This seems a useful source. Also, you're right to question the relevance of the argument about it being "forged by religiously motivated people": the same could be said of the theology graduate Charles Darwin when he was investigating natural history. ...dave souza 13:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

For current proof of structural mutation at the microbial level, I suggest the you look into Avian Flu. This disease, which had not been infectious at the trans-species level has mutated to become so.

Jim62sch 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Wiki Violating its own POV rule, cont.

Okay, i can't answer all your objections, haven't got the time. First of all, Nomen is misrepresenting the facts when he says that "IDists (or creation science adherents)...[misquote] Charles Darwin as having stated that even he found [the eye] incredible." First of all, what does even he mean. Perhaps it should be even He? ;-). Fact is, Darwin did find the eye incredible, but he had faith in his theory, and therefore he basically said that "the eye did evolve through small steps and I won't have it otherwise". Also, you're implying that science is intrinsically oxymoronic by these two assertions: 1. Any thing that cannot be falsified is not science 2. Science "will always look for a naturalistic answer". What if there is no naturalistic answer for some things? Is the answere "Well, that's impossible because it's not scientific."? If so, the very basis of science—that all answers can be found naturalistically—is unfalsifiable, which makes science qualify as a fallacy (if we believe what you say) and the faith put in science is very much like religious faith. And just a note, your quote about lunatics is really quite irrelevant and no one will say, "you know what, I am a lunatic, so you have a point there." It's just argument language that goes nowhere.

Dave, good point. But please, provide me with a reference of an ID-ist using the term "ID movement" originally (i.e. not as a rebuttal of an attack on ID).

Finally, Jim, did the avian flu virus mutate into some new HIV virus? It's actually still the flu and may be a distant "descendant" of a flu that effected pterosaurs, but we certainly can't say with a hint of certainty that it evolved from a herpes-like virus, or from something like smallpox. And moreover, viruses are considered by many (if not most) to not be organisms, and they certainly aren't as complex as, say, echo-location in bats and whales. Not that I'm saying avian flu necessarily didn't evolve from a completely different virus or from some proteins and nucleotides misplaced by a bacteria, I can't say that necessarily, because there's no way for anyone to falsify that. --chad 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

When the answer is not readily available, simply saying, "A deity or Intelligent Designer musta done it" is a cop out: a sign of intellectual weakness and analytical laziness. For example, we knew that the sun went around the Earth (and 20% of Americans still "know" that), until Galileo showed otherwise. We knew that malaria was caused by bad air, until the protozoan parasites causing the disease were isolated. We knew that witches floated. We knew that all of the languages spoken on Earth were due to the hullabaloo at the Tower of Babel, until linguists proved otherwise.

Saying that science is oxymoronic based on the two criteria provided is oxymoronic in itself. There is nothing oxymoronic (you really should have said paradoxical) about the relationship between falsifiability and a naturalistic explanation, in fact the two criteria are mutually supporting. Any explanation that includes a supernatural or paranormal entity is not scientific because it is not testable. There is simply no way to collect objective data to prove or disprove the theory. Therefore, any assertions based on supernatural or paranormal entities belong in the realms of theology and mythology.

Finally, you completely misunderstood what I said about the avian flu. Reread my comment. (And BTW, HIV appears to have been a trans-species mutation of a virus (SIV) found in chimpanzees.)

Jim62sch 10:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SIV to HIV is not surprising, considering how close genetically chimps and humans are, but that's not the same thing as speciation and no reason for glee that more "evidence" has been found supporting darwinism. And sorry about the oxymoron/paradox slip-up, I work as a translator/editor and my English is kinda screwy now. I'll repeat what I said in a different way to make it more understandable: science posits that all answers about nature are to be found in nature; yet the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature is unfalsifiable; yet science must be falsifiable. This is the great paradox. The very basis of science is unfalsifiable by its very nature. --chad 11:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Glee? I was making a point based on your HIV example. It seems to me that you have a strong tendency towards unsubstantiated inference, which would make you not the best of scientists. (No, that's not an ad hominem attack, it's an analysis based on your posts).

Anyway, how is "the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature" unfalsifiable? It's falsifiable if one can find proof that we do not eventually find the answers in nature. The problem is, we do. Many of the great mysteries have been solved, and more are being solved every day. That many people cannot comprehend the logic or proofs behind the solutions is not the scientist's problem. True, there are still mysteries yet to be resolved, but we will get there without invoking a leap in illogic that involves the need for a paranormal solution.

Jim62sch 00:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, Jim. You have dodged the point of what I said and fact remains fact "the idea that all answers about nature can be found in nature" is unfalsifiable in its very nature. If you study its falsifiability (or lack thereof) using "science", you are not allowed to seek supernatural answers because "science" says "answers about nature can only be found in nature". So you say "the idea" is falsifiable and then turn right around and say "we do eventually find all the answers about nature in nature", a statement which is clearly unfalsifiable and rather unfair. And as far as biology being uncomprehendible, anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics can get the points that darwinists and ID-ists are making. And anyone with a brain can understand the fallacy of defining science so as to cater to a biased POV (redundancy intended). And if someone doesn't feel glee over evidence "supporting" darwinism, it's because they've already decided it's true and so it's no surprise that evidence supports it; like a young man who's so convinced all women are in love with him: he's not particularly surprised or gleeful when a girl does like him, and he ignores it when one doesn't. --chad 05:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough with your specious argument. Science is the study of the natural world. Period. Additionally, your logic re falsifiability took a left turn into illogic. Your argument about glee is rather asinine, as it is based on an assumption of my POV and my emotional and intellectual make-up, and has nothing to do with the article (which is supposed to be the main topic of conversation here).

Oh, the cute little rhetorical trick of calling evolutionists Darwinists, (which is akin to Conservatives whipping out the "bleeding-heart liberal" tag to dismiss ideas that are anathema to them) not only shows your own POV, but also a lack of comprehension of the theory of evolution which has matured substantially over the past 150 years. Creationism, on the other hand, has not matured, rather it is a wolf donning the cloak of science (although based on Creationists disdain of science, one wonders why) as if it were a sheep's coat.

Jim62sch 10:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors

This is really sad. Clearly, some of you are solely bent on knocking ID, and are using this to further your own viewpoints. Can we please get fresh editors, who can provide a breath of fresh air and stop this? Before, I asked for one other article that is structured like this one. KC, FM and others failed to provide one. So, again I ask: is there any other article that has such an outrageous structure, designed solely to mock and knock the subject? The answer is no. I researched this. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy The vast majority of scientists support global warming, and yet the global warming articles don't contain the OVERWHELMING criticism of the minority viewpoints designed solely to disprove the belief. The bottom line is that this article has been hijaaked by a group of wiki editors who have a personal grudge against ID and its proponents, as is evident by the often terse responses here. So, I implore those who have dominated this article to turn things over to different editors and to start treating ID like EVERYTHING else in wikipedia. Trilemma 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The global warming argument page presents both sides, and more significantly it;s about science, not an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion. Note that ideas for edits are being discussed here: feel free to have "different editors" make proposals within NPOV guidelines on pseudoscience. ....dave souza 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument for the format of ID is that it is held by a minority of scientists and is not provable, scientifically. Well, the exact same thing is true for the minority opinions on global warming, and many other beliefs, none of which have a comparable format. Calling ID an 'interpretation of religion' is a trite misrepresentation of the belief. Trilemma 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dave is correct, and Trilemma's comparison is inept. ID is not science. Global warming is. It might be an area of contention, but it is science and real scientists are doing research in that field. The only research scientist, and I use that term loosely, involved in ID is Behe; he has announced plans for real research and testable hypothoses (sp?) but as yet has not made them public. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, the GW pages are not balanced - they are built out of compromise with people pushing very hard for the inclusion equal treatment of minority viewpoints. They're also a bad precedent because the two chief proponents of the minority pov ended up banned from Wikipedia (in one case) or banned from climate change articles (in the other case). The GW articles are not balanced, these ones are (more or less). Bad example. Guettarda 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda is right. The Global warming article is out of step, and warrants some significant copyediting to bring it back into line. FeloniousMonk 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that with no other article on wikipedia conforming to your idea of 'balanced', this article is in fact the one that needs to be brought back in line? Trilemma 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one said there were no balanced articles on Wikipedia, just that your example is faulty. -- Ec5618 21:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It turns out that no formal process is required in order to become an editor, so nothing's stopping you from making an attempt at changing this page. Of course, not everyone's necessarily going to agree with your suggestions. Of course, given that the name you chose is a popular but deeply flawed apologetic argument made famous by C.S. Lewis, I'm going to guess that you just might have some problems with bias. Alienus 21:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma's comment "Calling ID an 'interpretation of religion' is a trite misrepresentation of the belief." is significant. I didn't do that: what I was saying is that ID, as the basis for the intelligent design movement, is part of an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion. Repeated testimony by the main ID proponents openly confirms that. The use of the word "belief" emphasises the point: ID is a religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis. ...dave souza 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alienus, you hit at a valid point: I would have problems with bias, every bit the problems with bias that current editors have, only from the opposite end of the idealogical isle. I am indeed a fan of C.S. Lewis, the greatest philosopher of the past 150 years.

dave souza, while many ID'ers also are Christians, ID is not a movement of theology or limited to one religion. There are agnostic ID'ers, Buddhist ID'ers, etc. ID deals with scientific principles, not religious dogma, which is why people from varied religious denominations embrace it.

Saying ID is a push to embrace a particular religion is like saying evolution is a push to embrace athiesm, because a great deal of evolutionists are athiests.

Finally, ec5618, I don't understand what you're getting at--did I accuse people of saying there are no balanced articles on wikipedia? On the contrary, I think a great deal of articles on wikipedia do an admirable job of attaining balance. This is not one of them. My point is that this article stands apart from every other article in terms of its format and its overwhelming sledgehammering of criticism. To say that this article has it right in format is to inculpate every other article on wikipedia. Trilemma 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

<Does spit-take> Agnostic and Buddhist IDists? name 5. --JPotter 22:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lewis the most important philosopher of the past 150 years? ROFL.

Anyway, see "Intelligent design is not creationism", - see the replies in there, I won't bother repeating them. Or are those quotes in there quote mined? — Dunc|☺ 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see verifiable proof of ONE Buddhist or Agnostic IDist, the heck with 5. As for the statement that "a great deal of evolutionists are athiests", it is not only wrong, but it would be irrelevant if it were true (besides,. you need to define "a great deal" -- it is as meaningless as "more than a few" or "a significant number" or any other such tripe.

Had your charge against Dave that he stated that "ID an 'interpretation of religion'", one would merely answer, "And?". As that is precisely what ID is, your point would of little value to the discussion. Additionally, pointing out that ID is creationism masquerading as science is hardly trite; it is part of the crux of the argument against ID as a science. In fact, in today's NYT (it's always good to broaden one's reading horizon) we have the following quote: "Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class." Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced.""

C.S. Lewis the greatest philosopher of the last 150 years? The funnier part is C. S. Lewis as a philosopher. He was no more than a theologian and Christian apologist. Your bias is showing.

Jim62sch 01:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"more significantly it;s about science, not an attack on the basis of modern science in favour of a particular interpretation of religion." Dave, can you see that this is a biased POV? Behe has a degree in biochemistry, not religion. Guillermo Gonzalez is an assistant professor of astronomy, not religion. You are, of course, entitled to your POV that ID is pseudoscience, and I, for one, certainly favor having that POV represented on the page. But it's unfair to present this as an unbiased perspective in the article, particularly when proponents of ID deny it. I, myself, am not a proponent of ID...but I would like to see the playing field leveled, and I am a proponent of fairness.

above section copied from diffs which blanked part of this section, comment by Lutepisc Alf ^melmac 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

duncan, I didn't say CS Lewis was the most important philosopher of the past 150 years; I said he was the greatest. There's a difference. You can make the case that other philosophers were more important in terms of cultural impact, but I feel that none were as great as CS Lewis, the single most articulate Christian philosopher since the time of the the writing of the New Testament.

alf, that was a tremendously well made point. Trilemma 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re "none were as great as CS Lewis, the single most articulate Christian philosopher since the time of the the [sic] writing of the New Testament": thank you for both proving my point and destroying your own argument. It's things like that that make life so much easier.Jim62sch 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And precisely how does my admiration for CS Lewis have the slightest bearing on the article? Your comment comes off as profoundly arrogant and endemic of an undercurrent of a superiority complex here. I don't mean to sound accusatory, but it's just an honest observation. Nothing personal, I just think this article has devolved into sectarian squabling and tendentious fits of might.

No one has yet to ever truly address my points, let alone those of alf, and it shows why we need new editors for this article. Trilemma 02:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Lutepisc (via Alf) misses the point. The article only presents "ID is pseudoscience" as an attributed viewpoint, not as a fact. As long as the scientific community continues to view ID as pseudoscience it will have a place in the article as significant view held by the majority viewpoint. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the archives, ID is only about biology. Someone's degree in astronomy is irrelevant. And yes Mike Behe does hold a degree in biochemistry. He also thinks that humans and chimpanzees are related and share a common ancestor that lived 5-7 million years ago.He does not have a problem with the so called "macroevolutionary theory. Behe is one of the more benign ID researchers. Steven Meyers, Dembski, Johnson are another story. --JPotter 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Trilemma". Please stop interspersing your comments within the text of others. Put your comments at the end. This is Wiki policy, and you are violating it. Bill Jefferys 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it is an honest mistake. Trilemma 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, I think you misunderstood my comment, perhaps even unintentionally, so I'll explain. The bias problem I spoke of is that you're plainly biased. This is proven by your claim that Lewis was a philosopher, when in fact he was just another apologist (as Jim62sch pointed out). The difference is vital: Philosophers seek truth, while apologists are certain they have it already, and therefore want to force it down everyone else's throat at any cost. Your role here is clearly that of an apologist, as you wish to bias this page towards your religion. I find this deeply offensive. Alienus 05:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont.

What happened:

Trilemma mentioned C.S. Lewis in a response to an attack on his credibility based on his nickname.
Trilemma stated his opinion that C.S. Lewis sought truth (i.e. was a philosopher), and in his opinion did it exceedingly well.
Various users used this statement against Trilemma, and most severely Alienus, who as far as I can tell has either never read C.S. Lewis or has read him, but forgotten what he read. C.S. Lewis was an atheist evolutionist turned Christian evolutionist. If anything, C.S. Lewis is a good example of how evolution can be believed by Christians. Why people are claiming that he "forced what he was certain to be truth down everyone else's throat" is beyond me, when he really has a lot to say for the cause of Evolution in light of widespread religion. And what this has to do with ID is even more beyond me. If you want to ask why someone has a particular nickname, fine. But I think its inappropriate to use someone's nickname or opinion of some person against them when it comes to constructively editing an article that has nothing to do with either nicknames or whether or not C.S. Lewis was a philosopher.

Further observations. I would suggest consensus on the fact that everyone (with the exception of a very few) is biased. Some people are so biased that they will claim they are not biased. That only proves my point.

The problem with this article is that it's not a discussion of ID. I can learn practically nothing about what ID-ists believe from reading this article. I only can learn that they've said stupid things (which darwinists have done as well). I can learn about a few of the issues they find with Darwinism. I learn about their religion. I don't have a clear picture of what they believe, and why they believe it. If I had no idea about ID before I read this article I would think one of two things: (1) ID-ists are idiots or (2) ID-ists are liars and con-artists. Neither of these can possibly be true, which presents us with a trilemma, because Behe et al seem to be intelligent decent people with good intentions. There really has to be some reason why people believe in ID. The main editors on this article are bound and determined to find cites of people who support their POV. A NPOV article on ID would display both POVs, making it NPOV. This article fails to do that over and over and over again. It is obvious. IMBO (in my biased opinion) this article should discuss all the arguments for ID, not just i.c.. It should include quotes from proponents arguing coherently for ID rather than making them look like idiots and liars (the former is for all intents non-existent in the article). The best strategy for making the article NPOV would be having ID proponents arguing against ID, and mainstreamers arguing for it. This approach would also assist in making the editors more objective in general, and assuming this isn't the only wp article we work on, it would help make wp in general more objective.

So let's answer the following questions about ourselves:

Am I biased?
Do my edits and discussions reflect my bias?
Do I want the article to be unbiased?
What can I do to reach this goal?

--chad 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that CS Lewis, while having nothing to do with the article was brought up by trilemma, and the statement made by trilemma re CS Lewis indicated a strong bias. Your take on Lewis as having been an atheist is interesting, although not supported -- in fact, he talks of reading his Bible in a search for clues as a young teen. His only mention of atheism entering his young life was when he called his instructor, W. T. Kirkpatrick, "a hard satirical atheist." But, more than enough on this subject.

Yes, everyone has some bias as we all see the world through the prism of our own thoughts, beliefs, experiences, etc. Moreover, while the aim of many of us is perfect objectivity it is a goal we are unlikely to reach fully. However, this does not translate to an indictment that "The main editors on this article are bound and determined to find cites of people who support their POV. A NPOV article on ID would display both POVs, making it NPOV. This article fails to do that over and over and over again." This statement in and of itself shows your own extreme bias, to which you alluded.

Enough for now.

Jim62sch 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, read the article, and keep this question in mind: Is this NPOV? Don't keep the answer "yes" in mind, keep the question in mind. And please, address my points, not my wording. After re-reading the article, tell me if it displays ID-ists with at least a shadow of credibility? Or does it, like I suggested, seem to say they are either idiots or liars? If you disagree with my assertion, could you at least try to conclude why I would have that impression, and assume that if I had the perception, it is likely that others will as well. I'll try to make a few changes, but I've got to work. --chad 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad,

Would you prefer that the article left out any criticism of ID, failed to report that there are problems with ID's assertions regarding peer review, failed to note the connection between ID and religion, failed to note that it simply does not -- no matter how much people might tend to wish otherwise -- qualify as a science, etc.? You need to remember that ID is a minority viewpoint. (In fact this is somewhat akin to the debate in the fifties and sixties between the "Big Bang" of Gamow and the Static Universe of Hoyle. The Big Bang was scoffed at until in 1965 background radiation was found, proving that the big bang was the correct theory. However, that's the end of the parallel, both Gamow's and Hoyle's theories were scientifically sound, parsimonious, falsifiable, etc.; these same traits simply cannot be said about ID as it presupposes, nay, requires a supernatural entity.)

No matter how much ID literature I have read, all I have been able to see are objections to its major premises. But, I've been a skeptic most of my life. Look, there are even parts of theoretical physics, a discipline that is one of the most scientifically rigorous out there with which I disagree -- items ranging from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to Ed Whitten's M-theory -- but my disagreements are solid scientifically, because the science itself is solid. There is just no real science in ID, therefore to pretend there is, and to create an article without all of the caveats so IDists would feel more comfortable would be plain wrong.

In other words: no, I do not think the article says that IDists are stupid or are liars. Additionally, there are sufficient links to IC, SC and other portions of ID that one can get a good understanding of ID. But, as this is an encyclopedia, not a book by Behe or Dembski, we can hardly fit in every fact regarding ID.

In fact, I have an idea for you to try: apply Carl Sagan's "baloney test" to ID and tell me what you come up with.

Jim62sch 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Chad needs to read again NPOV, Giving equal validity, NPOV, Undue weight, and NPOV, Pseudoscience. His objections betray a flawed understanding of the policy. Wikipedia articles advocate no single point of view, but are to present both sides to any dispute or debate, per NPOV, Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?.

Also, his characterization of the article is itself a bit skewed; the statements in the article from both sides are well-cited and easily verified, per WP:V. Any review of the cites shows that they are accurate and credible, per WP:CITE and WP:RS. Since the viewpoints and their supporting cites are both significant and accurate, Chad removing them or rewriting them to present ID in a more favorable light goes against both the policies and goals of Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I was not the one who brought up CS Lewis; someone else did in precipitously questioning my possible bias.

Really, no one is addressing the points made by myself, chad, alf etc, which demonstrates the need of new editors here. The way these points are being handled, and the attitude expressed by some (not FM, who has always remained civil in discussion) shows this.Trilemma 21:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try this: one of you put forth a concise list of your points and then they can be answered, assuming your points are germaine to the article.

Also, if someone was "precipitously questioning" your "possible bias" in the anticipation that you would show your cards, it looks like they won the hand.

Jim62sch 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to ID as science. Does science not mean there has to be peer review? If so, just add the articles supporting ID that were published in the scientific journals. Should they be absent the scientific method does not apply, and ID is not science.--Nomen Nescio 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To what do you refer by 'win the hand', Jim? Why do my personal beliefs matter more than yours; why do you attempt to disqualify my points based on my personal beliefs and yet ignore your own bias?

As to my points, my number one point is that there is no other article structured like this one on wikipedia. None. No other so called 'pseudoscience' article is structured this way, with overwhelming criticism and structural bias. The fact that this article stands apart from every other article out there says that it needs significant work done on it. People need to stop working toward knocking and mocking ID and start doing a service to wikipedia, instead of a detriment. Now, that's my number one point, not involving the points of other members on the board who have posted concurring opinions. Trilemma 23:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma, the other pseudoscience articles need work, in some cases a lot of work. This article has had more attention from more editors than any other pseudoscience article, because its the only one that more than a handful of fringe thinkers take seriously. This pseudoscience, in fact, is actually being taught in some US schools, in science class not philosophy or religious studies. So the ID article has benefited from a great deal of careful attention, because its the only currently viable pseudoscience (and by "viable" I mean not completely dead.) I find it ironic, at the very least, that you use that very fact as some kind of "flaw". Your thinking is vacuous, your reasoning spurious, your issues aren't, and your "number one point" is backwards. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That, dear friend, reveals your own bias and the overwhelming bias shown by some on here, and does nothing to address the point. The fact that every other article follows a more respectable format says that this one's format is incorrect, not that every other article needs work. Wikipedia is not the place to wage a personal crusade against ideas you don't respect.Trilemma 00:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct - WP is not the place to wage a personal crusade. I'm glad you finally got that. Your bias, my bias, no one's bias nor their personal beliefs matter - those need to be set aside, to the extent we are capable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma,

Re "win the hand", I don't see a need for elaboration as my English was quite straightforward.

As for the rest of your post, it seems to me that you clearly want to see an article that shows the true glorious genius of ID. That's just not going to happen in this forum. You complain of a POV bias, and yet seek a different one. If I might suggest something, it might do you some good to do a bit more research before raising points that are inaccurate at best. The purpose here is not to "knock and mock" ID, but to balance its objectives and beliefs (the minority view) with the overwhelming body of evidence that shows it to be a pseudo-science (the majority view). This article gives sufficient space to the various books available on ID, so that someone wishing to know more on ID (i.e., the nuts and bolts) might acquire them. Trust me, the article on M-theory hardly explains the complexities of, or problems facing, that theory: one needs to read a book or ten on the subject to comprehend it fully. Jim62sch 01:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Killerchihuahua: I never did not 'get that', while on the contrary, it is yourself, Jim and others who do not understand this, and have used the article as a means to launch a crusade against ID through overwhelming structural inadequacy and saturated criticism, something which you in fact make no effort to deny and instead insist on justifying the policy. Then, you go on to assert that every other article has it wrong and you, only you, have it right.

Now, let's explore another article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

The 'Jesus myth' argument is one held by a tiny minority of academics and goes against the majority opinion of qualified individuals. Yet it is not represented as ID is here, and, still yet, I do not attempt to make it so. I do not seek to overwhelm the article with structural bias or use it as a pedastool to disprove the (silly) belief. The Jesus-myth article, while presenting a viewpoint held by a tiny majority, represents the proper format of wikipedia articles.

And Jim, I am in no way attempting to make the article into one 'uplifting' ID, nor has a single comment made by me come anywhere close to suggesting such a statement. On the contrary, you take the sectarian outlook of: If you're not on my side, you're trying to bias it to the other side. This is a cheap rhetorical trick. I don't want the ID article to 'affirm' ID, I just want it to present it without overwhelming structural bias, saturated criticism and subterfuge mockery. Trilemma 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. I understand WP:NPOV. I am not on a "crusade." I do not appreciate your continual hostile accusations. Your tone is becoming more and more strident and your accusations more inaccurate. Please make a concise and clear suggestion, with cites, for improving the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, I think you ought to reread the article before accusing me of hostility. I find far more hostility in statements made by yourself and Jim, amongst others, such as your 'vaccuous' comment and Jim's digression into attacking CS Lewis. The far more harsh, accusatory tone has come from those in defense of this current format and in vehement personal opposition to ID.Trilemma 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma,

Please provide your ideas, with citations, of what could be done to improve the article.

Jim62sch 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'll repeat that my primary goal in bringing this up was, as the title suggests, demonstrating the need for new editors in this article, not particularly myself. This is not out of laziness; rather, particularly given my extensive discussion on these pages, I believe that the followers of this page would react better to others involving themselves in the process, particularly those who have had no prior role in the article.

Additionally, I sought to provide evidence of structural and personal bias overwhelming the article, which I feel I have done succesfully. I have pointed out that no other article uses a format remotely similar to this, even those that stand on little or no academic merit and stand in the face of widely held professional opinions, such as the 'Jesus-myth' article (which, while I disagree with the theory absolutely, I also absolutely endorse the structure of the article, which is proper--note that it contains a format similar to the one I initially proposed, which is neither confusing nor giving de facto bias to the theory, as some accused). Secondly, Jim and KC, amongst others (notably excluding FM), validated the second element of my complaint by engaging in ad hominem attacks and going so far as to insert and then attack CS Lewis in the discourse surrounding Intelligent Design. The digressions, hostility, disrespect and unwillingness to listen to points show the clear personal bias in the current ID wiki community, to go along with the overwhelming structural bias.

Now, I will return to direct, specific reccomendations. The structure of the article should conform to the generally practiced format of wikipedia articles, such as the Jesus-myth articles. Introduce the belief, discuss its followers and its status in America and worldwide, make the points for, make the points against. Show that a large majority of scientists do not agree with ID. Link to sites of both sides of the argument, and end. The article should be that simple.

Note that I in no way wish to make the article pro ID, nor have I ever said anything of the sort. I fully expect that the article should explicate the status of ID as a viewpoint held by a relatively small number of scientists, as the Jesus-myth article states that the viewpoint is held by a very small number of academics. That, dear friends, is an example of an article being proper. This is not. Trilemma 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Small note: If your goal was not to insult everyone who has edited this article, perhaps you would have done better to choose a less agressive header than the one you chose.

Small request: When you edit, would you please edit by section and leave a useful summary? I have the hardest time finding where you've added new comments so I can reply.

The structure is fine. There are thousands of articles on WP, with many differences, and this one conforms to WP:STYLE.

One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, I'll take note of that request, though I'm not sure what you mean by edit by section...I do reccomend checking the history tab and looking at the difference link, which is the way I cover new additions. I find it to be much easier than wading through the huge discussion page. In any case, I'll fill in the edit summary box for future edits.

While my title could be misinterpreted, my intent was not to insult anyone. By pointing out your bias, I'm not trying to insult you. I think that you're a very good member of the wikipedia community, but also that this is an article you should recuse yourself from, and allow fresh voices to set it right

And, you continue to claim that the format is acceptable, when I have showed that it is far different from all other articles on wikipedia, and much different from comparable articles. Simply put, I don't think there's veracity in your claim, and I hope that the community sees this and moves to reform it. Trilemma 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the following before asserting that there are no other articles like this on WP:

Ufology

Biblical scientific foresight

Dianetics

Graphology

There are many others...I just thought I'd share a few.

Jim62sch 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

fixed the links -- Ec5618

Jim, some of those aren't even remotely comparable in format. The only one that really is set up to voice both the points for and points against, is the Biblical scientific foresight article, which is structured much more like my proposition for this article, and much more like the Jesus-myth article, which, strangely, no one has criticized as being improperly formatted. The point stands: the format seen in the Jesus-myth article, along with most if not all other comparable articles, is very different from the format here, and ought to be practiced in this article, too.

And, is it not true that roughly 90% of your own activity has occured on this article, Jim? I think this is a prime example of using wikipedia as part of a personal crusade against something.

If I had registered and spent 90% of my time editing the Jesus-myth article and attempting to overwhelm it with criticism and structural bias, I would hope it wouldn't have been accepted. And, this structural bias shouldn't be accepted. Trilemma 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma - thanks, it will help to have an edit summary.

With all due respect to Trilemma and Jim62sch, there are no "comparable articles" on WP, because there is no other pseudoscience which is currently being presented as "science" in the same way. It makes this a different situation than reporting on Alchemy. We don't have to worry about stepping on toes when we describe Alchemy as protoscience and not science, and mention the mysticism and mythology involved. No one has launched a serious effort to put Alchemy in place of Chemistry, or "teach the controversy" between it and Chemistry. Alchemy is Old News, not current, not taken seriously by anyone other than a few crackpots. The Alchemy article probably needs attention, but it is not that important to have the positions of notable proponents entered, because they are all dead and either forgotten or better known for something else. There is less data on their positions as well. Some day, ID will be Old News also. Not today. When it is old news, we might very well edit this down to a much briefer, and less sympatheic, article.

Dianetics could certainly use some work. No one is suggesting psychiatry school teach that instead of psychiatry, though.

Quite frankly, the Jesus myth is irrelevent to this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Jesus-myth is most pertinent to this article. Just like ID, it is a belief put forth by a small minority of people qualified in the field. They put forth this theory the same as Behe, etc. put forth ID. You can not argue for permeated structural basis on the precept of "new" vs. old news, and your statement about having to "worry" about ID seems to only further my statement that this article serves as a means to a personal mission held by some editors to discredit ID.

Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where 'worrying' about current issues affects the approach to the structural format and delivery of article content. If you worry about ID, then the thing to do is to join an anti ID group like the ACLU, not to use wikipedia to further your personal agenda.

There needs to be more uniformity to articles in this area, as there are for articles relating to other fields. And, I think it's plain to see that the best format is the one used for the Jesus-myth article: Simply document the belief, its genesis, its points, its counter points, and link to pertinent websites. Going beyond that basic format does a disservice to the wikipedia community. Trilemma 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

the Jesus-myth is completely irrelevent to this discussion. It is not pseudoscience, so Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience does not apply.

I don't worry about ID, do you?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC,

Good points. You're correct that there are no other articles like this one; I just selected a few that were vaguely similar. (Can I use the excuse that it was late and I was tired?)

Anyway, the bottom line is, as you said, ID is not old news -- in fact, it is a hot-button issue. And that is precisely what has led to both the length and structure of the article. Reading through the archives, one can see that every effort has been made to address the concerns of IDists within the bounds of the NPOV guidelines. However, it is beginning to seem as if an entire rewrite is being suggested, and that to me seems ludicrous, at best.

Jim62sch 11:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, it could be said of the Jesus-myth that it is pseudo history: that is, it is not accepted by the vast majority of historians, and it stands against much historical record. The reason it is directly analogous is because it deals with the treatment of a belief not accepted by the majority of qualified individuals. Despite its lacking in historical merit and status as a minority belief, there is no movement to overwhelm it in structural bias, including none by me. That is not the job of an encyclopedia, that's the job of a special interest group.

Your idea, too, that the subject matter's relevance to contemporary affairs dictates the size of its aritlce is off base: many of wikipedia's largest and most thorough articles involve subject matter not relevant to contemporary affairs, such as old wars.

However, if you insist on adjusting the size of the article to the current state of it in contemporary society, then I can at least see its merits. But, there we are talking about a quantitative approach to article design. What I am bringing up here is the qualitative approach. Simply put, it's acceptable to have a large article, but it is not acceptable to overwhelm the article with structural bias. I have no problem with explicating ID's status as not being accepted by the mainstream scientific community, but this may not infringe on the structural integrity of the article.

The fact that you talk of 'needing' to provide bias against ID because of its state in American society shows that you're allowing yourself to edit on a personal bias. It's editorial vigilanteism. Dividing things into simple sections of "arguments" and "counter arguments" works, as the Jesus-myth article shows. That is the most effective and most concise format.

And, some of the editors that work on this are working on a personal mission to debase, dimean and mock ID. When 90% of an editors edits come in one article, with a clear point of view, this speaks of obvious POV. It is not wikipedia's place to attempt to disprove ID, as the article does now in its structural bias.

And Jim, rewriting the article is hardly ludicrous. I'd be more than happy to. Trilemma 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont. 2

Jim, you seem to be terrfied of the article becoming a pro-ID one. No one has even implied this. No one has suggested giving ID undue weight. No one has suggested moving the scientific majority assertion that it is a pseudoscience. This is all hogwash. If Trilemma seems upset, that doesn't mean everyone should ignore the points he's making (she's making?). Seriously, take a look at the Jesus-Myth article for insights. The arguments for both sides are equally convincing to the reader, even though by majority opinion Jesus-Myth is pseudohistory, i.e. the idea doesn't represent history the way most people agree it unfolded. Just because people choose not to believe that Jesus didn't exist in light of the evidence for his existence, doesn't mean he necessarily existed. Same goes for ID, just because people choose to disbelieve in a designer, because they feel there is evidence against him, doesn't me he necessarily doesn't exist. That's the point of NPOV: neither of the POVs is necessarily true, but there is evidence for both which causes people to believe in one or the other. We can say most people believe in one or the other, but not in a manner that suggests that that makes the particular POV necessarily true. Also, the main criterion given for ID not being science is that it isn't falsifiable, but somehow the article goes to great lengths to show that i.c. is falsifiable, s.c. is falsifiable, the idea that the universe is fine-tuned is falsifiable, which basically means that ID is falsifiable, making unfalsifiability an irrelevant "proof" that ID is not science. Why is is that people do not go to such lengths to disprove the notion that the Earth is flat? I mean, it's natural to believe it is round. Obviously it's not so natural to believe that there was no designer. The very rigour which goes into this ID article proves that ID has something to say which does one of two things: it either fills people with zeal to falsify it, or it answers questions people have been asking about how this complex universe came to be, and the fact is, most people out there are theists, not deists, atheists, or agnostics, meaning that ID fits in very well with the majority's opinions on the supernatural and evolution. The article should leave the reader open to make his or her own decision about whether or not ID is true. This article first says its not true because it can't be falsifiable and therefore is not science (which apparently is the only thing we can say "true or false" about) and then goes on to falsify it. The article shows the perfect example of fallacy --chad 04:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well spoken! My personal bias is for ID but I've contributed to articles on both sides, and to both sides of the same article. NPOV is good, but I'm mainly interested in making articles flow better when they are read. Less is more. And with all these eyes the thing should be constantly improving, like a Zen rock garden. Not everyone who comes in here has an agenda. Endomion 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet many do. The more vexing problem is not everyone who comes here has a clue about Wikipedia's goals and policies. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chad, with all due respect, you're mistaken about what the goal is here. Wikipedia's goal is not to present an ID article that's sympathetic toward ID. Wikipedia's only goal is to accurately describe the subject and the related viewpoints. If ID's critics have presented damning evidence, written scathing reviews or made a more compelling case than ID's proponents, that's not our concern. Our only concern is to accurately and thoroughly present both sides of the topic in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's, and this the article does. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FM, first of all, I'm not saying the article should be sympathetic to anything. I've said this before: "No one has suggested giving ID undue weight." Please don't say that I vie for making the article pro-ID anymore. Further, I'm not sure you have your statistics straight. You say "the majority viewpoint [is] the scientific community's [viewpoint]." Are you aware of how that sounds? Read it, re-evaluate, and I hope that this was a typo, because if it isn't it shows you are biased and simply trying to make your point by what appears to be deliberately misleading (albeit unsuccessful) statements. If you support the current status of the article, than the article must be biased. This is my conclusion (perhaps deluded, perhaps incorrect, but certainly in line with the discussion here): you share Jim's terror that the article will become pro-ID, and in protecting yourselves (the world?) from such a ghastly turn of events, you do everything, to keep the article anti-ID, pro-Atheist (I'm not saying you or Jim are necessarily Atheists, but for agnostics, atheist POV seems preferrable to theist POV, hmmm...), although, I say it again, boldly, confidently, the majority of people are theists, and 60% of Americans believe in either ID or Biblical creationism (perhaps not in so many words, but they believe God had a hand in creation). You may say such a majority is not significant. I say it certainly is significant enough to make a change in the article, along the lines of "ID is considered by the majority of mainstream scientists as a pseudoscience, but many lay people find it more compatible with their beliefs and experiences than other alternatives." This would be far more descriptive of the matter at hand, and what the controversy is about. --chad 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view." Neutral point of view: Pseudoscience FeloniousMonk 23:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been said that the views in this article should be weighted "in proportion to the majority viewpoint, which happens to be the scientific community's". A nationwide poll of 1,202 American adults was conducted by Zogby International from Saturday, August 25 to Wednesday, August 29, 2001. [1] The results of the question "Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: 'The universe and life are the product of purely natural processes that are in no way influenced by God or any intelligent design?' Strongly agree 12% Somewhat agree 12% Agree 24% Somewhat disagree 13% Strongly disagree 56% Disagree 69% Not sure 7% I look forward to help bringing this article into better agreement with the majority viewpoint. Endomion 14:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, ID claims to be science. The scientific community says it's not, but pseudoscience. The scientific community is the majority being refered to here ("The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view."The NPOV policy on pseudoscience Endomion is confusing the general public with the scientific community. Were what is science decided by popularity in the general populace, astrology would be taught alongside astronomy. FeloniousMonk 23:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, FM, I must disagree. If what the general public believes were the litmus, astrology would be taught instead of astronomy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Endomion, the examples and perspective in your post do not represent a worldwide view. Please improve your thinking. A majority in the US does not indicate that there is a worldwide majority. Apart from that, the poll is obviously rather biased: no religiously minded person would suggest their deity had no influence to wield in the beginning. Furtermore, the opinions of lay people should be given less credence than the professional opinions of scientists active in the field. Evolution remains the majority viewpoint. May I look forward to you contributions also? -- Ec5618 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE restoring this entry after act of censorship

Ec5618, the Intelligent Design article itself puts the focus on America when it says, "The Intelligent Design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing Intelligent Design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States." For your second point, are you saying that any poll of the general population is biased because religious people might actually be polled? For your third point, all scientific orthodoxy is the "majority viewpoint" until challenged. Copernicus overthrew the Aristotleans, Newton overthrew the Copernicans, Einstein overthrew the Newtonians. Endomion 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you going to offer any concrete suggestions or are you content to complain? If it's only the latter, then we can move along now. If you do intend to come up with some suggestions, keep in mind that the majority opinion of laymen on a technical issue is of little value. I bet non-plumbers have some pretty silly ideas about plumbing, but we don't let those ideas dominate the entries for pipes and toilets, now, do we? Alienus 08:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the talk-pages on plumbing-related articles don't seem to be so active, and I would hardly call describing biology including cells and RNA and the like is in any way parallel to repairing toilets and drains. If we were talking about medicine for instance, I wouldn't be keen to argue either, as doctors know how to treat people, I don't. But when it comes to the opinion of the majority that God had a hand in creation, and that opinion resulting studying nature to see if God exists or not and finding that it appears (as far as we can tell now) that some things can't be explained from a purely natural standpoint (although I'm sure an explanation will be conjured up soon enough), I have to argue for displaying the point of view of the majority. Scientists have admitted that the complexity of some things is too great to be reduced using our current knowledge of science. Lay-people hear that, and being the theists they are, are quite upset that scientists cannot explain certain things with just the natural, but vehemently deny the supernatural, as if the very idea is a heresy. Theists are upset because, they feel God in their bedroom at night, when the pray, they find comfort in Him when they mess up and feel the need for forgiveness and acceptance, among other things. Theists are at a loss. I personally am confused when it comes to the fact that mainstream science hasn't been able to answer most of ID's questions except like this: "First of all, you aren't doing science so we could just ignore you like we do ufologists. And secondly, we'll have the answers sooner or later, we'll prove you wrong at some point, so you already are wrong." There has really been no reply to the actual point made by ID that I've heard of. There was a rigged experiment that showed that if you keep flagellum-less bacteria in very unnatural conditions for a while and manipulate them, they'll take unused proteins to form a flagellum. If the conditions aren't controlled very carefully, the bacteria die before anything can happen. The funny thing is that people know this happened naturally without assistance from a lab technician. Ask why they think such an improbable thing happened and all they can say is that it did happen. Ask about all the other improbable things and they say they did happen. Anything else is pseudoscience or blatant religion. But let the thought enter your mind that maybe there was a designer, how would people ever find out about him if they're not allowed? So I can summarise by saying that this article does not show that 1. the majority of people believe God had a hand in creation, 2. the scientific community has copped out of addressing the issue at hand. --chad 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

chad, the examples and perspective in your post do not represent a worldwide view. Please improve your thinking.

Also, are you saying creationism is a subset of ID, and that support for creationism is support for ID? That's just comical. If 60% of Americans disbelieve in purely naturalistic evolution, that doesn't mean that they all believe in ID, nor that the majority of people in the world (yes, I'm including countries outside the US in that) believes in ID. In fact, I'm sure many Americans accept evolution, and still find themselves believing in the influence of a deity in everything. -- Ec5618 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I wasn't saying Creationism is a subset of ID, I'm saying given the choice between godless evolution and ID (being taught in schools, for example) the majority would choose ID. Also, how can you believe in evolution and that a deity influences everything without believing the deity influences evolution? And if these people were asked how they might envision the deity influencing evolution, what might their answer be like? I think it would be very like ID. I had thought about the question myself, ID gave me a very good answer. And I believe that's what people are afraid of. If ID becomes even moderately well-known, people will start believing it, because it answers their questions, and we were so close to dividing God from his creation. Oh #$*%! --chad 09:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Science is no democracy. You can not vote, but you do need to apply the scientific method. Besides there are many psychosociological reasons for adhering to the supernatural. They are all valid but do not address the lack of scientific reasoning in ID. They belong in another discussion, i.e. religion.

Also, history has shown science is increasingly capable of explaining things religion could and can not. Nevertheless, some feel the urge to cling to their magical thinking, which they should, but that is not the same as negating what science has uncovered.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why non-scientists presume to know more of this subject than scientists. --Nomen Nescio 09:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(Edit comflict. Nomen Nescio makes some good points though)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread. I said that many people believe in a deity, and believe that deity created or helped shape the world in some way, but that belief in such 'creation' doesn't preclude acceptance of evolution. ID however, does, as it holds that unspecific 'design' is the reason we exist, as opposed to some form of guided evolution.

And, you're right, ID does address a great philosopical need within many people. If anything, that suggests it's philosophy, and not science. Science is not meant to be comforting, while ID is clearly designed (hah) to be.

As for the scientific community copping out on this issue, I'm afraid that's simply not the case. When one studies a scientific field, there comes a point when it is no longer possible for one to explain the intricacies of what one has learned to laypeople. If you wanted to you could question the reasons given by the scientific community to explain why the sky is blue. I assure you, it would take a team of scientists a long time to make the case convincingly to a person determined to disbelieve. Scientists don't have that sort of time. -- Ec5618 09:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My country has this to say on laymen: "A lunatic will ask more than a thousand scholars can answer."--Nomen Nescio 09:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I expect any change in the cabal here but an important point about NPOV policies such as pseudoscience, undue weight and equal validity on view-comparison articles is that the majority view is to be presented as such - not as evident. This article fails since the majority view is presented generally as fact, rather than as the majority view. It also fails NPOV policy because the minority view of ID is not well presented here, but is given only severely limited space. It is briefly presented followed purely by criticisms at great length. Critique should include both the majority view and the minority view. Nowhere does Wiki policy state that the relative views should be given article space in proportion to their popularity, particularly not in an article dedicated to a single view. In fact by its title this is not a view-comparison article at all, and so the many heavily detailed criticisms should really be at a summary level rather, with details given in a debate article. That would be the view-comparison article.

Moreover the very fact that many intelligent and reasonable scientists find ID credible suggests that, policy aside, the majority viewpoint is in not actual fact evident, but rather only easy to assume so, and it is not so simple a matter to call ID pseudoscience as some here would like. This is reinforced by the many criticisms which are puerile or logically fallacious (such as the 'circular argument' claim, which a) is based on a faulty assumption that the designer must be IC, leading to an infinity of designers, but more clearly and importantly b) confuses an infite regression with the logical fallacy of a circular argument [in which a conclusion is assumed for its own proof - clearly not the case here] - please don't argue this example here, go read my unrefuted posts on the archives) ant 14:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement .... the very fact that many intelligent and reasonable scientists find ID credible ... is most certainly incorrect. The majority of scientist reject ID as pseudoscience. Please show which leading scientists support ID! To be sure, not any obscure scientist, but scientist that frequently publish, give seminars, et cetera. More to the point, are internationally regarded as experts in their field. Which of course has to be relevant to this subject.

Even if your statement were true, it constitutes a logical fallacy by claiming that the number of supporters is relevant to the veracity of their claim. As I said somewhere else on this page: science is not a democracy. Votes don't count, scientific evidence does, see next point.

Aside from that, for ID to possess even a hint of science it must do more than just suggest there is a designer. The scientifc method, as you know, requires an explanation regarding this designer and how the design came to be. Furthermore, it must be possible for such a "theory" to be tested, falsified, through peer review. All of which is absent in ID which means it is unscientific. --Nomen Nescio 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Many scientists support ID? You do know that there are a greater number of scientists named Steve who support evolution, right? -- Ec5618 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget "The Four Day Petition: A Scientific Support For Darwinism"[2] It generated 8040 verified scientists signatures in four days, representing a 1,200% increase over the Discovery Institutes "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" at a rate 640,000% faster. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Endomion's report on the Zogby Poll: did a lot of people vote twice? How can the total reported percentage exceed 100% (the numbers cited add up to 193%)? It is just this type of sloppy work that casts significant doubt on both ID and its adherents.

Re "many scientists support ID", please define "many".

As for what 60% (or 100 and something in Endomion's example) believe, I offer the following:

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06kristof.html

Note that 20% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth and 50% think humans and dinosaurs were co-existent. 'Nuff said?

Jim62sch 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio, Ec5618 and Jim all make valid points here. If ID proponents were to decide to withdraw their claim that ID is valid science, then the scientific community's response that ID is pseudoscience would be moot. The percentage of the public that believes in creationism/ID is irrelevant to the matter at hand. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for new editors, cont. 3

I don't like to say this, I really don't, but it appears FM, Nomen Nescio, Ec5618 and Jim are being obtuse in this long drawn out discussion when fact remains fact: "many scientists support ID". Endomion never said "the majority of scientists" or "most scientists" or "a number of scientists that is significantly larger than...". He said "many". Which is true. Which makes all your refutations baloney. --chad 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Color me very obtuse then, because I don't even know what you are talking about. Clarify pls? KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your not going to get too far with that tone, hair-splitting semantics, nor repeatedly calling for responsible, longterm editors to be run off the article. I think it's time to reevaluate your strategy here Chad, instead of ranting at your fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 04:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one would not object to having new editors. The entry on ID seems to violate Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV and original research on a number of occasions, and the article has proven very resistant to correction. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article's history tells a different story; it is edited daily by many different editors. Those edits that show an understanding of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR among many editors who choose to contribute to the project through constructive editing, as opposed to other means. FeloniousMonk 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the article's history tells a different story from what you perceive it. Note the section I added below regarding suspected original research, for instance. Note also some misleading representations of intelligent design (remember, Wikipedia policy is to present the minority view as the minority view) even when the problem is brought to attention to the editors. For instance, the ID claim is that the fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life (e.g. if the proton to electron mass ratio would be different, there would not even exist sufficient chemical bonding)--not just life as we know it. Yet the entry ignores this position and puts forth the objection "a different sort of life might exist in its place." Even if the ID position is wrong here, it should at least be accurately represented. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

KC, read above to understand what I'm talking about. FM, I'm not saying anyone should be run off the article, I was replying to everyone ranting about how the majority of the scientific community disregards ID as science, and about how therefore Endomion was wrong in saying that "many" scientists agree with it. It's as if some of you feel personally insulted that someone would say such a perverted thing and so you try to refute it with irrelevant statements. Who cares? The discussion page isn't to discuss the merits of ID (or lack thereof, I presume). I would ask you, does majority viewpoint equal scientific viewpoint? If wikipedia policy is "inspired" then we can just shut up right now. But fact remains fact, the US (a relatively liberal society) can be assumed to be fairly indicative of the rest of the world. Even if it is not totally indicative, we can still safely say that the article misrepresents the fact that ID would be fairly attractive to many many people (we might be bold as to say the majority of people) by giving way more critique than support. Wade is correct in what he says, we can say, "he's correct, but in this case it doesn't matter for such-and-such reasons," or we can admit he's correct and do something about it. --chad 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The majority viewpoint is the viewpoint of the majority of scientists because ID purports to be science. Simple enough. Most people misunderstand lots of scientific phenomena. Twenty percent of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. Should 20% of articles related to that surface matter reflect this pov? As for the US being a relatively liberal society (I assume you don't mean this in the political sense) - as far as evolution goes, US views are totally out of step with the rest of the world. As for your assertion that "ID would be fairly attractive to many many people" - that's meaningless as per any Wikipedia discussion. Utterly unknown and unknowable, totally OR, and in no way something that could go into an article. Guettarda 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, first, I'll assume this is from some source: "Twenty percent of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth". Next, I'll wonder how the question was posed in the survey that led to such an answer. Finally, I'll ask you to seriously evaluate the following: run these puppies through a 10 minute discourse on elementary astronomy, and see what the result is. Describe using diagrams or whatever how the movement of the earth affects seasons and tides and stuff, then ask your question again. I'm sure that the majority of the people who answered the question incorrectly the first time will not be so pig-headed as to answer it wrong again. ID-ists for some reason (including scientists) are so pig-headed. --chad 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, a 1000 scientists represent "many." However, compared to 1000.000.000 it constitutes a minority. Therefore using "many" as argument seems to be another logical fallacy. Majority and minority are the key words, not "many."

ID-ists for some reason (including scientists) are so pig-headed. Could you tell us what the percentage of proponents is in relation to the total amount of scientists? Furthermore, could you name these scientists and show they are reputable within their field?--Nomen Nescio 10:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another point Chad, Wade and others are missing: this is an encyclopedia. As such, it relies not on the majority viewpoint of the masses, but on the majority viewpoint of experts. The editors have done a good job of presenting this viewpoint.

Chad: the 20% figure re geocentrism as it relates to the sun is derived from a link I provided yesterday -- seek and ye shall find.

Jim62sch 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were a billion scientists out there. Majority and minority are the key words, but Endomion didn't say either, s/he just said "many" which makes the rant about majority and minority beside the point s/he was making. Nomen Nescio, instead of changing the subject, answer my point that 20% of americans "believing" that the sun goes around the earth is by no means parallel with people believing ID. And as to scientists, I'd name Behe as the perfect example (you know the others I'm sure). --chad 11:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Billion was to make the point, as you of course know. So, how does the number of supporters validate the ID statement? "Many" is clearly a distraction. What is the point of advancing this term!? Since "many" believe ID is true this is comparable to those believing the sun goes around the earth. However, you do have a point. Those who have been shown what we know of astronomy tend to change their view. ID believers continue to believe even when shown a mountain of evidence disproving it. Even the lack of evidence in support of ID does not persuade them. This phenomenon of not changing your opinion, contrary to evidence presented, is known as a delusion.

And why are you not telling us who these reputable scientists are, and what their percentage is?--Nomen Nescio 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the article to find out who the scientists are. And it's really beside the original point I was making: that Endomion was saying "many" not "majority", and so the rant was irrelevant. I haven't seen a mountain of evidence disproving ID, I've seen one study which involved a "rigged" experiment to prove bacterial flagella were not i.c. (strange, considering ID is supposedly unfalsifiable, and therefore it's "fundamental assumption" would also be a likely candidate for unfalsifiability). READ DARWIN ON TRIAL and other works by Behe and Dembski. I'm assuming your assumption that there is a lack of evidence is based on limited knowledge of the debate, knowledge comparable to the limited coverage wp gives to ID. And no, I'm not deluded, because I haven't seen any evidence presented. Wait a minute! You're saying so much evidence has been presented against ID that it is unreasonable to believe it ("delusional" in fact), i.e. enough evidence has been presented as to prove it's false, which means...I think we're getting to something here! I disagree that "a mountain of evidence" has been presented, but the very notion that that is possible goes against one of the "fundamental assumptions" of why ID isn't science. The strange thing is that people buy into all that absurdity. Now that is delusion --chad 14:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You misrepresent my words. Mountain of evidence showing: 1 ID does not qualify as science regarding the scientific method, peer review, et cetera, as you well know, 2 current theory (evolution) can explain the diversity we see around us and adheres to the scientific method. So, no suggestion that clearly is not capable of doing at least the same should be discussed, 3 that no reputable scientist supports ID, or "many" would not be needed as distraction, the percentage of these scientists would be to the point, 4 limited coverage is the result of point 3, 5 there is no debate (peer review!) among reputable scientists.

As to disproving IC, this does not make ID falsifiable. ID states there is a creator, whereas IC is supposed to be created. To show that something did not have to be artificial is a lot easier and different than disproving or proving a creator exists. Which of course is the real issu in ID. You are well aware of this and by asserting IC and ID are equal once again you are misleading us by introducing a logical fallacy. --Nomen Nescio 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'reputable' by definition excluding those who find ID credible!

BTW I'm curious - what research is there on evolution (other than adaptation which ID accepts too)? ant 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomen, showing that a creator is not needed would indeed falsify ID. From an origins.org web page:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles (irreducible complexity and complex specified information are often used as examples) that would disallow the naturalistic formation of those structures (since intelligent design is allegedly needed for that sort of thing). Applying it to the origin of life, if a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance) because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary to explain it. Similarly, if a known means to naturally evolve a certain IC system were demonstrated, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't. ID doesn't hang it's hat on any single phenomenon. Disproving any one anecdote does not disprove an hypothesis. Guettarda 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what the "hypothesis" is. Obviously, many hybrid theories could be made regarding ID and naturalistic evolution. In part that's already been done. For instance, nearly all creationists have accepted speciation. An ID adherent isn't bound by a law to say that everything is designed. Still, this theory can be tested and falsified. For instance, I believe that ID is true regarding the origin of life (though not necessarily so with the rest of evolution). Can this theory be falsified? Absolutely. If a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary. Note that this sort of thing can be done for all design hypothesis. If that is done, ID itself is falsified.

In contrast, it is interesting to note that abiogenesis is not falsifiable. Any obstacle that comes up and one could say "There's a way to overcome it and we just haven't discovered it yet" (indeed, so far that has been the case with the known chemical problems of abiogenesis). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Experimental demonstration of a means for evolving life from non-life would not falsify ID. If you show that it is possible to evolve life from non-life, it is not evidence that design was not involved. That's what you have to show to prove that ID is falsifiable, not that it could have happened some other way, but that it could not have happened by design. And that can't be done, because some kinds of designers ("Gods") can do anything. Thus, that such designers did the designing can never be disproved. Bill Jefferys 21:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting something: ID says that intelligent causes are necessary. As I said earlier (you might want to read what I said again, perhaps a bit more carefully this time) this is what allows it to make testable predictions. If you show that artificial intervention is not necessary for the origin of life, bye-bye ID theory (at least in this instance). And again, note also that ID's rival here, abiogenesis, is not falsifiable. Think about it. Can you conceive of an experiment that would falsify it? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable because it is not an hypothesis. There are hypotheses of abiogenesis, which are falsifiable. As for the rest of it - the problem with ID is that its proponents have not tried to supply falsifiable hypotheses. And while, I believe that ID is true regarding the origin of life is a testable hypothesis, the testable part here is "I believe that..." One can try to determine whether you actually believe the statement. But it is not an hypothesis regarding ID. Guettarda 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis (the belief that life arose from non-life) is a legitimate scientific theory. It certainly fits the definition at least as much as naturalistic evolution (the belief that all life on earth evolved via naturalistic processes) is. ID in regards to the origin of life is both testable and falsifiable. I gave an example of how the theory could be falsified, remember? To test the theory further, one can simply examine the predictions. Is it the case that there are serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life? A minority of scientists say yes, most scientists (as far as I know) say no. Abiogenesis is plagued by chemical problems (e.g. in getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions), though it can be disputed whether or not these are "serious" enough to warrant a design inference. In any case, ID does put forth testable and falsifiable predictions as demonstrated by my example. Can we agree on this?

It is noteworthy that anticreationists have recklessly put forth the “non-falsifiable” charge against creationism, a charge that has come under attack by other anticreationists. Many anticreationists say that creationism is not only falsifiable but the evidence convincingly refutes it. Saying that creationism is non-falsifiable, after all, robs one of the power to falsify it and be consistent. Similarly, one cannot say, “ID is not a scientific theory because its fundamental claims are not falsifiable. Coming up next, demonstrating the falsehood of ID’s fundamental claims.” Strangely enough, I'm almost given that impression with this Wikipedia entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, abiogenesis is not a theory - legit or not, and not an hypothesis. It's a word that expresses a process which has been inferred. There are hypotheses of abiogenesis. Problems are in the hypotheses, in the proposed mechanisms. These hypotheses and models are testable and falsifiable - if they weren't, then you could not be speaking of problems with them. Guettarda 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, is abiogenesis not a theory? The process of abiogenesis may be inferred, but then again so is evolution; so it's not clear why abiogenesis isn't a theory. It certainly fits the definition of a theory (it is a belief that purports to explain data). Consider this definition of evolution, "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Is this a theory? Obviously yes. I would even go so far as to say that it is a legitimate scientific theory. Similarly, we can define abiogenesis as the theory that "life on Earth has its origin in inanimate matter and that the differences are due to naturalistic modifications (as undirected chemical reactions) thereof" and this does seem to fit the definition of a theory. Tell me, why is evolution a theory and abiogenesis is not? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is gravity a theory? Is time travel a theory? Is predation a theory? No. "A belief which purports to explain data" is most definitely not a theory. To begin with, a theory is an hypothesis which is overwhelmingly supported by the data. It's logically untenable to call something a theory and call it untestable.

Abiogenesis is not a theory. More germanely, it is not an hypothesis. An hypothesis requires a "how". Abiogenesis is a "what". True or not true, it's a what, not a how. So it isn't an hypothesis. There are various hypotheses related to abiogenesis. But it's neither a theory nor is in an hypothesis. Oh, stupid me. I'm talking to Wade. Have you even read a word I said? Well, I suppose you read the first six words. If you had read beyond then you would not have asked the question you did. Oh well. Guettarda 23:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gravity is what is known as a phenomenological theory in the philosophy of science. So technically gravity is a theory. Your definition of a theory (“a theory is an hypothesis which is overwhelmingly supported by the data”) is not quite correct, at least among the majority of philosophers of science and dictionaries. There are many theories in science that are no longer accepted (the caloric theory of heat for instance) but are still theories. Incidentally, abiogenesis includes a "how": naturalistic processes (e.g. undirected chemical reactions).

I have read what you said Guettarda, but be aware that an individual can still read what you say and disagree. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Talking out of both sides of your mouth now? Hair splitting? Your point here is to "win a point" by hair splitting? So you are just here to waste every one's time, huh? As for the second point - "be aware that an individual can still read what you say and disagree" - so you disagree with the assertion that "abiogenesis" is not a well-established hypothesis with a large body of supporting experimental evidence? Sure, people can disagree on issues, they can disagree on interpretations - but I to disagree here requires a total divorce from reality. Upon what evidence do you base your conclusion that abiogensis is a scientific theory? And if you feel that way, how can you hold the diametrically opposed opinion that it is unfalsifiable? Mind-boggling contradictions. Guettarda 14:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

<"I have read what you said Guettarda, but be aware that an individual can still read what you say and disagree."> Hopefully Wade will also keep this in mind when his objections and claims fail to gain traction here. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting anything. ID says simply that there was an intelligent designer. It attempts to prove this by showing that naturalistic processes cannot do the job (that is, it claims to be able to falsify the hypothesis that naturalistic processes can~~not~~ do the job). However, ID does not, as you claim, entail that naturalistic processes cannot do the job. There could very well be an intelligent designer even if naturalistic processes can do the job. Bill Jefferys 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "I'm not forgetting anything. ID says simply that there was an intelligent designer." Okay, it seems you did not take my advice to read what I said carefully. Looks like I'll have to rebeat myself. From an origins.org web page:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [My emphasis]

Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles (irreducible complexity and complex specified information are often used as examples) that would disallow the naturalistic formation of those structures (since intelligent design is allegedly needed for that sort of thing). Applying it to the origin of life, if a scientist experimentally demonstrated a means on how to evolve life from non-life without artificial intervention, ID would be falsified (at least in this instance) because it shows that intelligent causes are not necessary to explain it. In short, ID does not “simply say” what you claimed. ID instead has a rather fundamental claim to make here, one that is very falsifiable (confer Dembski’s explanatory filter). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one take on it. As Guettarda point out ID doesn't hang it's hat on any one notion, though. FeloniousMonk 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Saying that intelligent intervention is necessary allows ID to make predictions; e.g. the prediction of serious and significant obstacles". These are not predictions. To say that "intelligent intervention is necessary" is meaningless - necessary for what? Necessary to overcome obstacles? If so, then the obstacles are not predictions of the hypothesis, they are an integral part of the hypothesis. Or do you mean necessary for something else? Guettarda 22:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "hang it's hat on any one notion"? If I my guess on its meaning is correct, you are re-iterating the fact that many hybrid theories between ID and naturalistic evolution could be constructed. Even if true, this doesn't seem relevant, since any instance of an ID claim ("artificial intervention is needed for X") can be disproved (as I said earlier), and by disproving all of them all such hybrid scenarios can be disproved. Certainly at least ID in the case of the origin of life is quite falsifiable (even though abiogenesis is not). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, suppose you're right, Wade (you're not, but I'll humor you). How does showing that abiogenesis could happen naturally disprove ID? For example, abiogenesis might be possible, but flagella might not be possible naturalistically. In order to falsify ID (as you define it) by this route, one would have to make a list of every possible complex system and show that each of them can arise naturalistically.

Falsification in science is different. All you have to do is to show that one predicted consequence of a theory is experimentally wrong, and the theory is dead. You haven't provided a falsification procedure. If someone shows that abiogenesis is possible, ID-ers will simply move the goalposts again.

This is an example of how ID doesn't hang its hat on any one notiion. Bill Jefferys 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, many hybrid scenarios of ID and naturalistic evolution could be made. One could believe ID is necessary in one case (as the origin of life) and not others (the evolution of other species). But even if true, this doesn't seem relevant, since any instance of an ID claim ("artificial intervention is needed for X") can be disproved (as I said earlier), and by disproving all of them all such hybrid scenarios can be disproved. So, here we have a falsification procedure to falsify all hybrid scenarios. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's say we fallsified (in your sense) every single scenario. What's to prevent you from coming up with another one ("Oh, but what about this new one I just thought of?") You can always move the goalposts, so ID is not falsifiable. Bill Jefferys 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What's to prevent me from coming up with another one? Simple. If every single scenario has been falsified, there just aren't any more "other ones" for me to come up with. ID and its hybrid scenarios would be falsified, and so ID is falsifiable (unlike abiogenesis). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please give me a list of all possible scenarios. Then we can go at it.

I assert that such a list can't be made, because there are infinitely many such scenarios. Bill Jefferys 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this. A hybrid scenario would be combining one or more instances of an ID claim ("ID is necessary for X") with naturalistic evolution. To disprove all hybrid scenarios, one could show a means how life and its various types could have evolved naturally without artificial intervention. This would disprove all hybrid scenarios. ID--hybrid and otherwise--is falsifiable (using the definition of ID I have described). --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. You don't understand falsification. But I am out of here. FM is right, I am feeding a troll, and I won't do it any more. Bill Jefferys 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I was under the impression that theory being falsifiable meant that it must be possible in principle for empirical data to falsify it. Pray tell, if it is not this then what does it mean? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From the Discovery Institute website:

What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design holds that the universe and its living things are not simply the product of random chance; an intelligent cause is behind their existence.

Nothing here about a designer being necessary. Bill Jefferys 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From the same article:

One useful definition of Intelligent Design can be found in the book, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. The definition presented in this book holds that Intelligent Design is “the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism.”

Just "best explains," nothing about a designer being necessary. Bill Jefferys 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, please read what I say carefully. If you did that, you might have noticed that I was able to cite a source that included the fundamental claim of intelligent intervention being necessary. I can do so again. From this web page

Question: "What is the Intelligent Design Theory?"

Answer: The Intelligent Design Theory says that “intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.” (William Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1999, p. 106)

The quote is apparently accurate, as this seems to be the fundamental claim of ID. Elsewhere, Dembski himself says

Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Another source

Intelligent Design simply states that undirected, natural causes are not sufficient, and intelligent causes are necessary, to explain the complex, information-rich structures of living systems.

And again:

Intelligent Design is the view that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are detectable through observation and scientific inquiry.

Oversimplified descriptions of ID aside, can we establish that the fundamental claim of ID is what I have claimed it to be?

It appears that ID experts are not in agreement about what ID is. Just another way that it is not falsifiable. You can't falsify a moving target. Bill Jefferys 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that ID experts do not agree with what Dembski said was the fundamental claim of ID? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did. Bill Jefferys 23:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you did, unless an argument from silence counts as evidence. Just because a person doesn't mention the claim doesn't mean the individual disagrees with its existence. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments do not illustrate a hybrid scenario. They show simply by example why ID is not falsifiable. Bill Jefferys 23:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But, I explained to you a procedure how ID could be falsified, did I not? Can you at least explain why think the procedure would not work? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. Bill Jefferys 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Let's not feed the trolls people. FeloniousMonk 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Are insults really necessary Felonious? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. (Although I'm disappointed that no one pointed out one of the greatest flaws in Wade's reasoning, but doing so now would just spawn another never-ending debate.)

Jim62sch 00:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade, can you not insert comments in the middle of a thread, please. And do not tell me it was an accident. The likelihood that you hadn't considered that someone might see my "agreed" comment and think it related to your post renders an accident unlikely.

Jim62sch 02:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was I not allowed to respond to FeloniousMonk? The fact that you made a reply isn't a good enough reason. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And another flock flew over.

Let's try this more slowly: we've been adhering to a standard of posting at the end of the thread. By inserting your comments in the middle, you break the flow of the thread. As your post mentioned FM by name, it could easily have gone at the end of the thread, with no diminution of the content and context of your comment. It's really quite simple.

Jim62sch 11:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert of Endomion's Intro edits

I reverted a different version of the intro by Endomion, as it wasn't discussed on the talk page first. I gave my reasons as "revert to last version by FeloniousMonk -- intelligent design movement isn't as important for intro, maintain balanced pro-ID paragraph one and scientific critism paragraph two structure". I didn't want to just revert it without putting Endomion's version on the talk page, in case there are others who feel this way. I don't feel his version violates the NPOV policy, just that the previous structure had been agreed upon by everyone to be a good compromise, and perhaps there are some who feel it might be POV. Here is Endomion's version:

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from "an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."^[3] Proponents claim that Intelligent Design stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.^[4] Opponents counter that intelligent design amounts to religious doctrine shrouding itself in the trappings of junk science.

The modern Intelligent design movement coalesced in 1996 at the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. After a decade the CRSC has published no data in peer-reviewed journals to support their claims. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[5]

By the way, this isn't an invitation to start debating endlessly about the merits of intelligent design! I am just trying to be courteous to Endomion. This page is already too long (no matter how frequent the archiving, it just fills right back up). -Parallel or Together ? 05:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My change to the first paragraph added a summary of what the opponents felt about ID to balance the statement about what the proponents felt, if you delete this, fine, my personal bias is towards ID. My change to the second paragraph attempted to show specifically why the "The scientific community largely views Intelligent Design not as valid scientific theory but as neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science.^[6]" rather than making a blank statement. Since you like it better that way, that's fine too. Endomion 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually not bad. --JPotter 07:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that it introduced a factually incorrect factoid, that ID movement started in 1996 at the CSC (it actually was in 1992 at SMU, according to Johnson[7]), into the intro of the article, which is for the concept. As well as being inaccurate it also made an already long article longer. The existing intro is accurate, focused, and concise. FeloniousMonk 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Even here you misrepresent the creationist (my) side. I didn't say it started in 1996, I said it coalesced in 1996. "Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science" [[8]. Endomion 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You may not have said so, but the difference between "started in 19XX" and "coalesced in 19XX" is trivial to the average reader. Guettarda 12:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I needed to establish a time baseline to demonstrate that the movement had not published anything in an accepted journal for about a decade, in order to make a dispassionate statement about the shortcomings of the movement, rather than have the original paragraph make an unsourced value-judgment on behalf of the whole "scientific community". Elsewhere in this article I have tried to remove what appears to be an independently-researched opinion poll of scientists and statisticians that fine-tuning was not valid, but this was restored. I'm taking my dog out of this hunt. Endomion 14:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Endomion, I wasn't saying I liked the other way better. I just reverted your additions because there was no discussion on the talk page and there are some editors who might not like the changes you included. I was trying to make sure that everyone had a chance to see the edits first. As I said before, the version you changed was agreed upon by nearly everyone. I put your version here to see if it garnered the same consensus. I, for one, tend to side with the scientific community on the issue of intelligent design, but I don't want my bias to show through by not giving everyone a chance to discuss things first. Like I said, I am trying to be courteous to you: I didn't just erase your contribution: I am making sure everyone else agrees to it. As you can see, FeloniousMonk doesn't, and people from the pro-ID side might not either. -Parallel or Together ? 08:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point FM. Here's a suggested improvement to the second paragraph....dave souza 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Intelligent design movement seeks to promote this as "theistic science". The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[9]

Disagree. Pseudoscience stays in the intro, do not take it out. If it were up to me I would change intro to "Intelligent design is a pseudoscience..." Its been discussed ad nauseum and there needs to be a very strong reason for changing it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed this, find I have to agree, and the opening should basically stay as it is, but the addition of The intelligent design movement seeks to promote this as "theistic science". at the end of the first paragraph would, in my opinion, clarify the context. ...dave souza 13:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would concur that would be a valid addition to the intro, if it doesn't confuse people about science, theistic science, and pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding the neologism 'theistic science' only muddles the issue. ID proponents are clear that they believe ID to be actual science, not some subset of it. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about The intelligent design movement promotes in the guise of science what leading researchers insist is unscientific on the grounds of being unfalsifiable ? Endomion 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is the ID article, not the ID movement article, there's a small issue with focus. Also, unfalsifiability is only one of several grounds for ID not being science. I appreciate that you're trying to find a compromise, but IMHO this is going in the wrong direction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well at any rate I will only participate in this Talk page, I don't like revert wars. Endomion 03:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"not all proponents are religious" needs an example

From the article, in the "Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents" section: "Though not all Intelligent Design proponents are motivated by religious fervor,...".

I seriously doubt there's a prominent proponent of this theory that isn't religiously motivated... please either remove this assertion or add an example. Jules.LT 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The tricky part is proving a positive i.e. that all are religiously motivated. Certainly most are. The problem comes when some of them keep their cards close to their chest and pretend that it's not important. — Dunc|☺ 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the burden is on the other side, since all known ID proponents are avowed theists, and the ID movement, when speaking to its natural constituency, freely admits to religious motivation. Alienus 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga he postulates a race of aliens so advanced they are moving to collapse the universe and tune the natural laws and create a new, improved one. ID proponents may very well exist who subscribe to intelligent design without having a supernatural deity in mind. Endomion 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question: the possibility that a designer might be an alien does not have anything to do with id proponents, their beliefs and motivations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - raelian intelligent design -- the problem is though none of those is a member of the ID movement (who rather hypocritically consider them absurd) so that's really something else entirely (the IDists don't take seriously their suggestion that it could be space aliens or time travellers or multiple gods) — Dunc|☺ 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But the Raelians are still religious, theirs is still religious ID. Guettarda 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations is a religion, someone better get the courts to stop government funding of SETI research on church-state separation grounds. Endomion 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The beliefs of the Raelians goes a little beyond believing there may be some vague form of alien intelligence in the universe. The Raelians attribute our existence to specific aliens. -- Ec5618 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See Raëlism. They are a religious (or "quasi-religous") group, and they base their beliefs on specific revelation. Since they provide specific mechanisms they are a little more scientific than traditional ID (I could see some of their ideas as being testable/falsifiable), but they are still clearly a religious group. Guettarda 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What does Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga have to do with anything? Isn't ID out there enough without getting into bad science fiction? Besides, by putting aliens into the loop, one just moves the search for this mysterious designer back a step (I think I noted that somewhere else).

Also, I agree with Alienus regarding the burden of proof.

Jim62sch 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Guilty" until proven innocent eh? Obviously you think the concept is entirely a political ploy and don't care one whit about the content. Good luck with that.--Ben 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you know what I think. Good luck with that.

In any case, it is the movement that is theo-political, not necessarily the alleged science, so your post should be on the ID Movement page.

The content, were you to read through the various posts, is what we have been discussing all along. The content of ID boils down to this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Period. No matter how much camouflage is used to reshape and remake the premise, ID has no basis in science (as has been shown, repeated, stated, re-stated ad nauseum on these pages).

Jim62sch 23:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be clear by now that not all ID scientists believe in ID theory because of religious reasons. Behe for instance is a Roman Catholic, a religion that has no theological objections to evolution (and Behe himself had none). Right or wrong, he honestly believes that ID is scientifically superior. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And you know what Behe "honestly believes" how? If he "honestly believed" in ID, why has he done no research in that field? Guettarda 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read of Behe's work. Unless you have evidence that he's lying, I suggest we take him at his word. Additionally, he has done some research into the field (at least in terms of a college student reading up for a presentation, e.g. here).

I'll be right back, I have to go type up Behe's nomination for a Nobel.

Jim62sch 00:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the term

In the light of current research I propose that in the Origins of the term section the statements about Of Pandas and People and Darwin on Trial be modified as shown in the following draft paragraph:

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture. Meyer, who was present at the conference, attributes the phrase to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton.^[10] Early drafts of the book which date from 1983 onwards used the terms creation and creationism, but following Edwards v. Aguillard the phrase intelligent design was substituted[11] in 1987, and subsequently appeared in the first edition of Of Pandas and People of 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial in which he wrote that the Academy of Science "does define science in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment" and argued that "Definitions of science... could be contrived to exclude any conclusion we dislike or to include any we favor". Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

This more clearly shows the timing and context of the introduction of the term. Linking of years is now deprecated, and should be reviewed throughout the article ...dave souza 13:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I just need more coffee - pls let me know if I followed this correcly, the clarification in sequence from what is currently in the article is that the earlier versions of P&P did not use the term? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to come back earlier. The clarification is that early drafts of Panda referred to creation/ism, the Edwards verdict ruled out teaching creationism, then the next but one draft of Panda changed the term to "intelligent design". In Johnson's book, developing at the same time, he argued that the definition of science excluded the supernatural explanations he favoured, so that definition should be changed. See the Dover trial transcript for the evidence. ...dave souza 16:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's covered in the Of Pandas and People article - sorry, but the main difference I see in your proposed change is making this article (Intelligent design) longer - and its already very long. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to say it isn't relevent - I concur that the changed text is highly relevent to the origins of ID. I'd just like to see a much shorter way of incorporating that,if it is to be included. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA," according to Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who attributed the phrase to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton.^[12] Drafts of the book which used the term creationism changed this to read intelligent design after Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism in 1987. The first edition of Of Pandas and People of 1989 is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

Shorter version: Johnson's references and trial link could go in footnotes. As the conference postdated use of the term in a 1987 draft of Pandas, that whole bit could be deleted so the paragraph starts – The term appeared in drafts of Of Pandas and People, editor Charles Thaxton. Earlier drafts used the term creationism, but when Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism in 1987 the term intelligent design was substituted. (and then the rest of the paragraph) ...dave souza 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Still too long, how about this with a footnote?:

The phrase, as a replacement of the original term “creationism” subsequently appeared in the first edition of Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book.

01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All the suggested rewrites fail to illustrate the central role the Discovery Institute played in the term's modern usage. Omitting Johnson, the institute, or Edwards v. Aguillard, or shuffling them off to a footnote has the net effect of bowdlerizing the passage. The current passage in the article is accurate, complete, and not onerously long. FeloniousMonk 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

FM,

I wasn't suggesting removing the rest of the text; I was merely suggesting adding that ID was originally referred to as creationism (i.e., just adding the text I italicized in my original post). The footnote would only have applied to that specific addition. In addition, you're correct, all of the rest of the info is necessary, thus I would never suggest removing it. I suppose I could have expressed my edit better.

Jim62sch 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All good points. The following draft puts things in sequence better:

In 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruled out teaching creationism, and that word was changed to intelligent design in drafts of Of Pandas and People. Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1888 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.^[13] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989 and is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture, and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.

It’s slightly longer than the original which doesn’t mention Edwards v. Aguillard, but if space is critical it can be brought down to about the same length by omitting ", called Sources of Information Content in DNA" and " which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation". ...dave souza 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationist POV fork, take 4? 5?

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biological_evolution_(disambiguation) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You'd think that after the first two or three... FeloniousMonk 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

or 11 or 12...

Jim62sch 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Intelligent Design Controversy article

The Creation article is brief and to the point. The Evolution article is somewhat longer but not unduly so. Both articles do not contain extensively footnoted objections from either side, because these issues have been relegated to a Creation-Evolution Controversy article. I propose that this article be radically trimmed down to something on the order of the Evolution article with only the most important notes and references cited. But since I am an Inclusionist Wikipedian, I propose that all of the trimmed information be transferred to a companion Intelligent-design_controversy article. Endomion 02:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to spin off a sub-article that is not a WP:FORK, you will have lots of friends on this talk page. Unfortunately, ID and IDMovement, Teach the controversy, etc have all already been spun. Putting the criticism in a different article would be a POV fork. Have any other ideas? (that aren't POV splitting?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As if extensively cited and supported content is a bad thing. It's not as if Wikipedia isn't under fire for spurious content or anything (Jimbo on CNN and Talk of the Nation within the last 24hrs defending its content and method).

The footnotes are so 'extensive' because ID proponents have constantly raised specious objections to the article's content being 'original research' and the like.

I don't see a need to bifurcate the article, and doubt it could be done without negatively affecting the article's completeness or accuracy. And any attempt to actually bowdlerize the article with a POV fork would face wide opposition in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

An 'Inclusionist Wikipedian'? So that why you recently nominated Neo-Creationism for deletion... Hmmm. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A POV fork is when someone creates, oh, say (just for giggles) an article called Neo Zen Creationism to get around the Wikipedia-mandated neutral point of view established at Zen Creationism. The current ID article tries to do too much. There is a handful of good information immersed in a sea of rhetoric railing against ID's pretensions to be valid science. The concept of Intelligent Design itself needs to be separated from the controversy, in precisely the same way an article about the Iraq War references separate articles about the Criticism of the Iraq War, Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, American popular opinion of invasion of Iraq, Protests against the Iraq war & Popular opposition to war on Iraq, without including all the information from those articles in the main Iraq War article. Endomion 03:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning offered here is as flawed as the reasoning offered by for the deletion of the Neo-Creationism article. As is your definition of what constitutes a POV fork:

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." from: Wikipedia:POV_fork

ID's proponents have created much of the controversy through their duplicitious aims and methods, which are implicit in their arguments for ID the concept. You can no more separate the concept of ID from the controversy surrounding than you can separate the concept from its proponents. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research (again)

The "who designed the designer" objection is a popular one for anti-ID adherents and should be mentioned. But I do not believe original research should be mixed in here. For instance, it is true that the objection of the "infinite regression" of designers has been made, but do critics really call it circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it might be useful to provide a citation here, considering that the claim seems to confuse what circular reasoning is.

Circular reasoning is an argument where a premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, e.g. "X is wrong because it is wrong." Circular reasoning is not a recursively applied solution (e.g. the idea that all effects have causes, and all causes have effects).

Additionally, previously I raised questions and criticisms regarding this statement:

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every complex object requires a designer

I pointed out that this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and gave citations to support my claim), encountered stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. Next (21 November 2005) there was this

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer

I pointed out this was false; this was not a fundamental assumption of ID (and again gave citations to support my claim), met stiff resistance, but eventually it was removed. It was replaced with this (2 December 2005):

the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object

It has not escaped my attention that the format of the argument is very similar. Have there been prominent ID opponents who have actually made these arguments? Or are they, as I suspect, original research?

I will admit my bias here: I do believe the arguments are non sequitur. How does an uncaused causer of complex specified information (CSI) contradict the assumption that a designer is needed for CSI? We are not told, and the article gives no references of anyone making this argument. Can anyone give a citation of a prominent ID opponent making this argument? Or is the argument what I suspect it to be, original research? To the very least, can someone explain the reasoning behind this argument?

I suspect there are more cases of original research in the Wikipedia article, but for now this will do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not this again... The only original research has been the repeated, specious objections.

But if supporting cites for the passage are provided, you'll likely just reject them again based on your own personal understanding of WP:V.

Your last three claims of original research failed when it was shown the content was original research. I'm not inclinded to entertain further objections in this manner or on this particular content. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing why objections failed given that I was the one who provided citations to support my claims. I gave a clear example of a prominent ID adherent (Dembksi) demonstrating that not all complex objects entities needed to be designed. I gave another prominent ID aderhent (the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity no less) regarding the irreducible complexity claim.

And now I have noticed the similarities between all three arguments. Felonious, did you just make up these arguments? Or can you cite a prominent ID adherent who makes them (at least, the one under discussion now)? To the very least, can you explain your reasoning here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'd rather not get into it again with you. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "again"? This is the first time I've talked about this argument. The fact that it's similar to previous ones only raises the suspicion that you've been making these up. Can you at least explain your reasoning here behind this new argument? Do you have any evidence at all that prominent ID adherents have actually made the argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Again" because you ignore or dismiss all evidence provided against your claims. What evidence do we have that you have suddenly reformed and are willing to deal in good faith with your fellow editors? AGF should not be a suicide pact. Guettarda 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You do recall my reasons for rejecting the "evidence," right? I asked for a prominent ID opponent making argument X to show that argument X was not original research. None of the citations that were presented to me did that. For instance, regarding the claim that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning, many of the citations didn't even mention irreducible complexity. So of course I am going to dismiss such citations! Additionally, haven't you and Felonious dismissed evidence to the contrary, e.g. when I gave a citation of Behe flatly contradicting an alleged fundamental assumption of ID?

Additionally, even if you think that the citations were somehow sufficient evidence (despite the fact that did not mention the argument) for previous cases, that still doesn't give you or anyone else a free pass to ignore Wikipedia policy regarding citations. You should at least attempt to provide a citation here. If the citation works, the argument stays. Agreed? Presumptuous whining won't get us anywhere. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember you rejecting citations despite the fact that they were adequate to support the statements made, I remember you saying "I am just asking for X" and when you were given that you changed to "not good enough, it doesn't answer Y"; I remember you repeating something irrelevant about p. 249 over and over, and saying that it doesn't matter what logic says, if Behe says it isn't so, well, it isn't so; I remember that I answered a question of yours about Y, and you promptly saying "yes, but what about Y" when my comment had quite specifically dealt with X. I remember that you appear not to even have the manners to read people's answers to your questions - I remember answering a question and you then promptly posting the exact same question further down the page in reply to something Felonius said, after I had replied. Based on my observations I think you are trolling. Guettarda 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Really Guettarda? Please give one specific example of the "I am just asking for X" claim. I suspect you won’t do so because your charge is false. For the most part I recall repeatedly requesting a citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X, and this request was repeatedly denied (is history repeating itself here?) rather than being granted. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Guettarda. This is why I am reluctant to engage with Wade any longer. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should also be reluctant to put such arguments in the Wikipedia entry if you're too reluctant to provide relevant citations when original research is suspected. Your personal feelings are not a license to ignore Wikipedia policy here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that he mischaracterizes both the sentence in question and his record in raising past objections. Read the entire passage: "Unlike with religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, this creates a logical paradox in Intelligent Design, as the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. The sort of logic required in sustaining such reasoning is known as circular reasoning, a form of logical fallacy." The sentence Wade objects to, the statement on circular reasoning, merely describes the statement before it. Not the sort of thing that requires a cite to support. FeloniousMonk

How did I mischaracterize the argument? You did not explain how. And the accusation of "circular reasoning" does not simply describe the sentence before it. Why? Circular reasoning is when a premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion (e.g. "X is morally wrong, therefore it is unethical"). It is not, repeat not the same thing as a recursively applied explanation (e.g. the idea that every event has a cause, and every cause is an event; an event has a cause, that cause has a cause, which also has a cause...). If you think the charge of "circular reasoning" merely describes the infinite regression argument you have badly misunderstood what circular reasoning is. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, guys, what difference is there between the first two arguments admitted to be inaccurate or original research and the 3rd? Stop playing the fool and provide a citation which mirrors the argument or remove the line! Surely the best way to put an end to this is to provide the citation Wade is requesting?! Why resist it with irrelevant citations or sighs about 'not this again' when you are the ones not providing a citation which mirrores the argument? Or is this original research? Tell you what, put up the most accurate citation now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ant 14:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not recall that any of Wade's referenced statements were admitted to be inaccurate or original research. I recall many cites being given, Wade not accepting them, and the wording being changed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tacitly by implication in my opinion but the main question is, let's stop this. Let's have the most accurate citation presented now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If not, the line goes. If accurate, the line stays. End of story ant 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Will any of this nonsense ever end? Wade writes and writes and writes and says the same (no)thing the same way sideways 200 times over. The never-ending requests for citations have been supplied and then rejected more times than a millipede could count on its feet. The terms specious and spurious seem to have no meaning as the same specious, spurious arguments keep spawning themselves in a continual stream of slightly revised and reworded drivel. Thus the objection of "not this again" is valid.

That, is the end of the story.

Jim62sch 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recall that this is the first section in where I have asked for citations regarding this particular argument I suspect to be original research. So far, there have been precisely zero citations of a leading ID opponenet making the argument.

Have I asked for citations before? Yes, in other cases. The syntax goes "Please give me a citation of a leading ID opponent for argument X to show that argument X is not original research." What happens is that the requests are repeatedly denied, and the request is called "specious" and such even when I cite Wikipedia policy to support the appropriateness of my request. But apparently Wikipedia policy doesn't matter much (at least in the short run). --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Since my request for such a citation to show that the argument is not original research is apparently an outrageous one (for some people), let me try to appeal to reason. Why should the existence of an uncaused causer contradict the idea that a designer is needed for CSI (complex specified information, a.k.a. specified complexity)? No explanation is given, but I'll take a stab at why some people seem to think so. One assumption is that any uncaused causer must possess CSI, but this assumption is not justified. CSI, almost by definition, requires a designer. But if it is possible for intelligent life forms not to require a designer, then an uncaused designer is not necessarily CSI. Also, let's take into account why Dembski and others make a design inference. The design inference (cf. Dembski's explanatory filter) is only applicable to entities that have begun to exist and thus a design inference for an uncaused, atemporally timeless CSI entity cannot apply by intelligent design theory's own reasoning.

There, now can we get rid of the original research argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We aren't really here to debate the merits or faults of ID (although, to an extent, we've done that to a point that defies reason). We're here to discuss the article. BTW: your entire statement is OR, so how that ends the argument is beyond me.

Jim62sch 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was appealing to reason (note: not entirely OR, since I did base a significant part of my response on Dembski) because apparently appealing to Wikipedia policy isn't working. The anti-ID argument I'm responding to ("the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object") is itself OR (original research) evidently, and I am trying to get it removed on the grounds that the argument is original research (again, unless a citation from a prominent ID opponent who makes the argument can be given). If Wikipedia policy matters, the OR argument should be removed on that basis. For those who don't care much about Wikipedia policy, the above reasoning suggests that the argument be removed on that basis. Either way, this nonsense has got to stop. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you concede that Jim, as you yourself have done so, such as saying, "ID seeks not to expand upon biological evolution but to bury it.", amongst other things. It does seem to me that you only bring this up when you feel it timely to cease discussion of a topic. Furthermore, it appears to me that you are completely unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn't share your disdain for ID, and, on a different note, religiosity.

I'm not trying to attack you in saying so, so please don't it as such, but rather only to establish documentation of your bias, which I have been trying to get at. As partisan as you may say Wade is, you are every bit the partisan, and I feel that the way you are handling this is detrimental to the article. Trilemma 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Trilemma,

Read up on the Wedge, Teach the Controversy and the statements of a number of ID proponents and then you can tell me if ID seeks to expand upon evolution or to supplant it.

As for your erroneous assumption regarding religiosity: I do not care what a person believes so long as they do not attempt to use those beliefs in a theocratic manner.

If new points are made that are logical, absent hyperbole, and have scientific merit, I'll be glad to listen. However, the posts of the past week has been a regurgitation of the same stuff we've been seeing on this page for some time.

As for a bias, yes I have a bias: I prefer logic over paranormal flights of fancy, especially when one is dealing with science, or something that deals with science.

As for your last comment, I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat discussion on who is being detrimental to the article.

Jim62sch 13:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please let's not digress. We need not make this a long story (both sides). It should only take a few minutes to give Wade a citation.

Let's have the most accurate citation presented now, and let's confirm it is appropriate. If it is not, the line goes. If it is accurate, the line stays. ant 13:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Content moved from the article

Added to the article by 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs):

Proponents of intelligent design respond as follows. First and as noted, they argue that the question of the designer's identity crosses from science into theology, leaving the purview of design theory. Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer." Design theorists would say, rather, that complex, specified entities that came into being are best explained by intelligent design. And thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology, and our consensus understanding of the earth's origin no more than a few billion years ago, methodological materialists and design theorists alike agree that everything in our physical world came into being. However, if a complex, specified being existed that had not come into being but rather always was, it would, by definition, not have been brought into being by a designer or anything else. Second, philosopher and design theorist Jay Richards argues that the "who designed the designer" objection not only doesn't refute intelligent design, it doesn’t even address it. It merely changes the subject, like asking "Who designed the designer's mother." Non sequiturs are not refutations but fallacies. Finally, design theorists note that the 'who-designed-the-designer' objection, if applied consistently, would invalidate all design inferences, a clear reductio ad absurdum. "Was Stonehenge designed?" "Yes, we can safely infer this from such-and-such features of the structure." "Then who built the builder? Who designed the designer? Ha! Q.E.D." Such an objection is ludicrous, design theorists argue, and not merely because humans built the ancient structure.

I've removed this because it was misplaced in the "What (or who) designed the designer?" criticism section and nested criticisms are not the wiki way. If someone can think of a way to work this back into the section describing the ID position, feel free to take a swack at it. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>That was a close one FM, I hope no one saw that in the article, it might have given the wrong impression. As we all know the question "who designed the designer" is very relevant as IDists sincerely believe the designer to have evolved from a more simple form via natural selection! The designer is an organism. The fact that 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs) would right-out deny that ID-ists believe that is not only ridiculous, it's just wrong. He's being so incredibly misleading about what the controversy is really about. It's people like 63.224.61.216 (talk · contribs) that prove that "teaching the controversy" is impossible, because ID-ists always misrepresent it by saying things like "the designer didn't evolve" when the actual point of their argument is that s/he did evolve from simpler forms, but at the same time s/he (it?) is irreducibly complex. Can't they see that their argument is a fallacy? The wikipedia community (the world?) should thank Felonius Monk for this act of unbiased objectivity. He has removed an outright lie from the article! </sarcasm> As for why it does belong in the "What (or who) designed the designer?" section: it can logically go nowhere else. Leave it there. It would be funny to put it higher in the article. It's like FM arguing that he is unbiased before anyone has even suggested that he is biased. The paragraph is too relevant and contains too many direct quotes to be left out. FM, you say it should be moved or removed, and I think you are aware it can't really be moved, which leaves us with one option. On another note: I suggest that Mr. (Ms.?) IP address register. In doing this, s/he will raised his/her credibility another notch. --chad 07:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK, sure, my moving the content out of the article had nothing to do with the fact that nested critisisms make for poor articles, or that the content was not up to wiki standards for grammar or logic.

Nested criticisms are widely frowned upon at wikipedia, and soon to be part of the NPOV policy: NPOV: Nested Criticisms, Proposed wording "The use of nested criticisms is strongly discouraged under the NPOV policy. Nested criticisms often occur when two editors who support different viewpoints about an article's subject. When one editor adds a source criticizing the article's subject, the other adds a criticism of the critic. This pattern often continues with responses adding "critics of critics" and "critics of critics of critics" and so forth. Often criticisms of the critics stray substantially from the original article's topic. They can make the article difficult to read and create a source of bias." While your busy reading, you may want to brush up on WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 08:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the "personal attack". But I noticed you removed a very readable and comprehensive description of the origin of the movement from the ID movement article some time ago. This was also made by our good friend Mr. (Ms.?) IP. How about accepting that there indeed are good arguments for ID, and bad arguments against it (and vice versa)? Let's just do that, and all together try to show this fact in the article. --chad 08:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, apology accepted. I don't consider arguments for or against ID in terms of "good" or "bad" here. Such distinctions are irrelevant to Wikipedia's goals. I only consider content in terms of being informative, accurate, verifiable, and necessary. Any other criteria is beside the point in relation to this article and the project's aims. Instead of assuming I'm here promoting some anti-ID agenda, try assuming that I'm trying to maintain a factual and balanced article. You can add WP:FAITH to your reading list. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was surly and peevish [14]. As you and I both know that was not nested criticism, despite what you claim in your edit summary. Along with WP:NPA and WP:FAITH please read WP:POINT as well. FeloniousMonk 08:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point, you yourself said that the information needed to be put in a different place because it was in the criticisms section and amounted to "nested criticism". You yourself removed it from there and suggested adding the information, but in a different place. You should have just deleted the content you didn't like and hoped nobody noticed instead of what appears to be pretending to be democratic. It seems to me that you have no intention of allowing that bit of information refuting the ridiculous "who designed the designer" argument"to stay in the article. The argument is ridiculous and it has been refuted time and time again. A reasonable thing would be to add a note that there was once an argument about "who designed the designer" but that that has been debunked. Or, even more reasonable would be to remove the embarrassing argument from the article altogether. --chad 10:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion about the "who designed the designer" question being "ridiculous" is irrelevant to the article, as is mine or any other editor's here. What is relevant is that the question has been raised by critics of ID and many find it find it to be compelling and significant. The fact that so many ID proponents even respond to the question is proof enough of it's significance [15]. That they dismiss it is expected, considering their goal is to duck the issue of God while promoting a form of creationism by positing an unnamed 'designer.' Interestingly, other, more forthcoming theists, Jehovahs Witnesses no less, recognize and raise the question as well [16]. FeloniousMonk 16:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He could have just deleted it, with the edit summary "Removing unsourced undiscussed content - please discuss major changes on talk page prior to making them".

KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I do commend FM for moving this to the talk page. And it is sourced, with quotes. I just wish Mr. IP would join the discussion :-)--chad 12:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I conur, however he gave us his ideas, now its up to us to go through them and determine how to best utilize them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another POV fork (Intelligent Design and Creationism)

headsup boys - this is the 7th or 8th from the same contributor... — Dunc|☺ 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the article doesn't contain a single source, reference or link. In fact, prior to becoming AfD it contained the {{unsourced}} boiler, with good cause. -- Ec5618 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Will zero pro-ID representation on the ID page be sufficient?

Even sourced pro-ID edits are immediately reverted. This isn't worth my time. Endomion 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. It really has been getting ridiculous. I mean for crying out loud, this Wikipedia is supposed to be about ID! The majority view should be represented, but so should the minority view. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To which souced pro-ID edit do you refer? -Parallel or Together ? 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of areas that have room for improvement. For instance, the ID claim is that the fine-tuned physical constants are necessary for any kind of physical life (e.g. if the proton to electron mass ratio would be different, there would not even exist sufficient chemical bonding)--not just life as we know it. Yet the entry ignores this position and puts forth the objection "a different sort of life might exist in its place." Even if the ID position is wrong here, it should at least be accurately represented. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. I was just confused as to what sourced pro-ID edits Endomion referred. I wasn't making a judgment on any edits, and I have no problem with you wanting ID accurately represented here. Any NPOV article would have to accurately present its topic, even if that topic is blatant pseudoscience. I support the scientific community in their view on ID, and FM, KC, Jim, etc. often exhibit opinions close to my own, but I agree that we must be accurate in our presentation of ID's views -- or as accurate as possible given the constant redefintions and lack of consensus within the ID movement. There is no need to misrepresent ID, as long as the explanations for why it isn't valid science are also not misrepresented. On this basic level, Wade, I agree with you. However, you do love to play the "orginial research" card, and I hope you can see the overuse is driving everyone further from consensus. -Parallel or Together ? 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read my objections, I hope you can understand why I play the "original research" card as often as I do. I suspect argument X to be original research. I request a citation of a leading ID opponent who uses argument X to show that it is not original research. My request is (rather repeatedly) denied. Several rewordings later and still no granting of my request regarding the citation. Maybe I should just give up. In the grand scheme of things, how important is an internet encyclopedia policy anyway? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your requests aren't repeatedly denied. Cites are given and you disagree with them. I know that you have your reasons for rejecting these citations, often claiming that they aren't precise enough, don't use the correct wording, etc. Please don't fall into this trap of misrepresentation yourself by claiming your requests are denied. This talk page grows at a considerable enough rate, mostly attempts to answer your critisms followed by new critisms by you followed by attempts to answer... I think you see the pattern. Again, I don't disagree about the need for cites, but just suggest your incessant harping of "no original research" isn't helping the problem. Instead, say what you would replace it with, give alternate citations and rewrite the sections (posting them on the talk page first for consensus), and apply the same kind of hawkishness to everything that might be OR rather than just the things you would like struck from the article due to your own POV. ID the movement and ID as a pseudoscience are both encyclopedic, but they must be treated as exactly that... a movement and a pseudoscience. To that extent, I will repeat that I do feel that we must be accurate about ID. Again, this means presenting accurate statements about what ID proponents argue while at the same time marking them as unfounded pseudoscience. Don't give up, though. There are ways in which the article can improve, and I think that you have at least made everyone more aware of the need to cite new additions to the article. Even if not everyone agrees with your specific arguments, there is now a strong motivation to include good cites from the start when adding (or subtracting) new material -- no one wants to have to go through this nonsense every time. -Parallel or Together ? 05:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hours later and no answer, and all this time the world waits with bated breath.

Jim62sch 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone just look at the history. --chad 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here be a long-time reader of Wikipedia but first-time poster on the discussion pages. (God, I hope I'm doing this the right way.) Since the Wikipedia article of Intelligent Design is currently the #3 link in Google, I can understand the ID people's wish that the article presents a more positive light about Intelligent Design.

However, since Intelligent Design is being presented by the ID community as a scientific theory, and since the majority of the scientific community currently disagrees with it even possessing the basic qualifications of a scientific theory - it's just simply more appropriate and honest for ID to be presented in a more or less negative light, for now.

Now, if Intelligent Design were being presented as a philosophical theory, that's another case entirely.

Yes, yes, I know it's difficult for one's favorite scientific theories to be treated so (I was quite disappointed that the Memory of Water wasn't as I hoped it would be), but that's just the way it's always been with scientific theories. It's only proper for a scientific theory to go through a scientific gauntlet.Lovecoconuts 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)