Jump to content

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

After reading the Dover ruling . . .

. . . it seems even stranger that this article starts off as it does. The point of the ruling was to determine the religious content of ID, so of course there's going to be a great deal of emphasis given to whether or not it's an argument for the existence of the Christian God. That doesn't mean, however, that the defining and unique element of ID is how it's a teleological argument.

Starting off the article in this manner would be like starting of the Ralph Nader article with "Ralph Nader is a Maronite Christian who is an American attorney and political activist." Yes, it's true, it's sourced, it's probably even important, but it's not the best way to introduce the subject to an uninformed browser. It's simply not the most important and unique thing to know about him, and the religious nature of ID is not the most important and unique thing about ID. Thoughts? --Kgroover 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nescio. To state that ID is anything but a religious description of an essential scientific fact is misleading. Reading the Wedge Document, it is clear that the whole reason for ID is to formulate a scientific sounding "theory" to get it into the mainstream scientific teaching process. I think it is POV to describe ID as anything but what it is--an argument for an existence of a supernatural being. Orangemarlin 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nescio and Orangemarlin. ID's existence, its nature, and its purpose are defined by the Wedge document and the DI. The Dover ruling is merely confirmation of that. SheffieldSteel 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's not a teleological argument. I'm saying that's not the most interesting and notable thing about ID, and in the end the lead would be better structured with that moved farther down. WP:Lead:Writing about Concepts states that notable criticisms should be at the end of the lead, not the beginning. --Kgroover 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design is a design argument. It's also a tool to bypass Edwards (and McLean), hence its promotion as a scientific "theory". Both of these points are covered. The most notable things about intelligent design is that it's a design argument. What characteristic of ID do you see as being more notable? Guettarda 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What makes anyone believe the opening sentence is criticism? ID is a telelogical argument couched (masked?) in "neutral" language to (as has been mentioned 1000 times) make it worthy of inclusion in public science class. Some people here seem to think framing ID for what it is, a religious notion, is somehow being critical. That is not being critical, peeps. That's being factual, with an unending source of reliable and verifiable sources. Mr Christopher 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I just read it again, there is not a single thing in the first paragraph that is critical. Mr Christopher 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
the problem is that it is an opinion that is stated without attributing it to someone, so it is representing a particular viewpoint as "the truth" which can only be done, according to WP:NPOV, when it is uncontested fact. since it is clearly not uncontested, we must do what WP:NPOV clearly specifies: we convert this opinion to a fact by attributing it. r b-j 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The long-time editors are in agreement. The newer editors gave valued criticisms, but there is not a consensus to shift the lead to read differently. So why are we discussing this further? Orangemarlin 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
there has never been consensus for that opening sentence. to repeatedly assert as much is not unimpeachable. the fact that you do not allow toning down the initial sentence which is an opinion (that is widely held) to something akin to the definition or opening sentence from all of the other references is evidence of bias. that you just insist upon uniquely (among encyclopedias) defining ID to be equivalent to the teleological argument is hardly reasonable nor dispassionate. it is insisting that your specific and focussed POV be the Wikipedia POV. r b-j 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the first sentence is in violation of NPOV policy by stating the majority opinion as fact. The majority in this talk favor change (I count 14 for, 10 against, 6 willing to adjust). So that puts it at 20 - 10 for compromising on the lead. There are three things that can be done to fix the sentence. You can remove the declaration of fact, expand the statement, or attribute the statement. Morphh (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So many things to say. First, I don't think it's violating NPOV. You are, but I'm not. Majority does not rule, but consensus does. 14 to 10 is not a consensus. The lead tells the reader what ID is. Not sure how that's wrong. Orangemarlin 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How does it violate NPOV to call ID a teleological argument? How does it violate NPOV to start with the best characterisation of what ID is? Guettarda 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article does not state that it is a teleological argument in the first sentence. It states that it is an argument for the existence of God. Teleological argument defines "God or creator", which would be fine. The statement of if ID defines God is disputed. Therefore, you can not state it as a fact of what ID is. I have no problem with characterizing it in the lead - just do so in a way that doesn't violate the policy. Morphh (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Who determines what the 'best characterisation' is? What is POV and not? 68.109.232.53 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we are in agreement that ID is an argument for the existence of an intelligent designer. It would be perverse to argue otherwise.
The only question that remains, then, is who or what that designer might be. Some here say God, and some maintain that theoretically it might be aliens etc. From this point, doesn't WP:UNDUE tell us how best to proceed ? SheffieldSteel 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is good; so is WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. The intro paragraph (from WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view) deals with this situation very well, especially the last two sentences:
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
I wasn't a part of the prior consensus, but from some descriptions it almost seems to have been a decision that the court opinion was indeed the correct one, and that readers should just be told that instead of being left to form their own opinions. Surely there must be some way to modify the current lead to give the court opinion its due weight as the majority and unbiased opinion, while still letting the reader form his or her own opinion. -- Cat Whisperer 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is a teleological argument religious by its definition?

The defining part of ID is that is an argument, what kind of argument is it... it's a teleological one. I agree that using "teleological" in the lead is a bad idea, and simplifying it as "an argument for the existence of God" is a pretty good summary. Calling it a teleological argument is not calling it religious. In fact DI is trying its darndest (at least superficially) to create a non-religious teleological argument.--ZayZayEM 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking about "God" is inherently religious. What about "an argument for the existence of God or a creator", as Morphh has suggested? -- Cat Whisperer 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That is to say, an argument for the existence of a "creator" as an added alternative to the word "God"? Given the wide disparity of viewpoints about what's meant by "God", I fail to see the point of such an addition. ... Kenosis 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO, Creator could cover a broad definition, where God (with a capital G) specifies a personal monotheistic god. Morphh (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to what? a committee of gods? ... Kenosis 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Cat are you suggesting you can't argue for the existence of God outside of religion?--ZayZayEM 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "God" has a fairly specific religious connotation (especially when it has a proper noun capitalization). Islam, Hindu, Rasta, etc. all have different primary names for the creator. The term "God" is strongly (although of course not exclusively) associated with the Judeo-Christian God, whereas ID doesn't require the Judeo-Christian God, merely an intelligent creator of some sort. I would be more in favor of "an intelligent being" or something of that sort, that doesn't imply anything supernatural. --Kgroover 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In the modern interfaith discussion, Allah, Brahman, and Jah are all translated into English as "God". Same entity. ... Kenosis 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Kgroover expressed it very well. The term "God" has a strong religious connotation. -- Cat Whisperer 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed it does have a strong religious connotation, doesn't it? So it appears we've come somewhat full circle back to the earlier comments about ID advocates trying to pull a fast one, so to speak (which is more or less what most of the reliable sources say about ID). In light of the numerous verified, reliable sources used in writing this article, the current expression of WP:NPOV (arrived at by consensus in extremely lengthy discussions to the tune of nearly 4mB of talk) might be said to be actually rather sober and restrained in its presentation of this controversial topic . . . that would be in addition to being quite thorough in its summaries of the teleological concepts put forward by the principal proponents of the approach. ... Kenosis 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We have the most credible, neutral of sources, the court ruling from the Dover trial, itself the only notable and neutral analysis of ID to date, determining as a matter of law that ID is an argument for God, and which is obvious to any reasonable, knowledgable observer: "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child." ... "This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God. Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism." [1]
Since we a significant, neutral source, the definition is well supported and stays. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
FM, in fairness shouldn't we cite that leading ID proponent Phillip Johnson – "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God", "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", "we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology", "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." Did someone mention that the term "God" has a strong religious connotation? ..... dave souza, talk 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
FM, NPOV does not mean take a neutral source and state it as fact. NPOV states just the opposite. I don't argue that this is a neutral and significant source and it should certainly be included and attributed. It is, however, a disputed opinion and should not be stated as a factual conclusion before you even define what ID is. Morphh (talk) 22:07, 01 April 2007 (UTC)
And to whom do we attribute this dispute? ..... dave souza, talk 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't attribute the dispute - you attribute the statement to make it a fact. NPOV states "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Morphh (talk) 23:22, 01 April 2007 (UTC)
We have statements from every notable ID proponent saying to their constituents that the designer is God (I can post them here if needed) and we have every significant scientific professional organization saying that it is not science but religion and we have a federal court performing an in-depth and neutral analysis of ID concluding that it is obviously an argument for God. Considering that we have credible and significant sources from all sides of the debate admitting that ID is an argument for God, omitting such a central point from the intro would serve to only further the well documented PR campaign of ID proponents to portray ID as something else, thereby violating NPOV. I mean really, this very point has already been addressed and explained ad nauseum in the archives. Unless you have some new evidence for us to consider, it's time for us to move along to another topic, because these ceaseless and baseless objections are simply fruitless and preventing discussion on other issues. FeloniousMonk 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What proponents conclude the designer to be is not the point. What the court concludes the designer to be is not the point. ID itself does not make a conclusion on who the designer is (I can post statements here if needed). Yes - you have a neutral conclusion from a court opinion that it is an argument for God. However, policy states that you can not assert this as fact as it is disputed by proponents that ID specifies the designer as God. It is also improper to start the first sentence with a conclusion and not the definition. The archives show me the same POV pushing we're seeing here until someone gets banned or gives up. If the issue is not addressed, I will escalate it to the next level, so you can give up on just moving to another topic. I have no problem taking this to Mediation, RFC, or Arbitration. Morphh (talk) 2:42, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I know you're simply willfully ignoring evidence and policy. What all parties say is paramount: all relevant and notable views on the topic is very much the point when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Sounds like you need to read WP:NPOV again. And read the Dover trial ruling again while your at it: that ID itself does not make a conclusion on who the designer is was found by the judge to be a rhetoric device used by ID proponents in order to further their aims, meaning ID being mute on the identity and nature of the designer is a particular point of view, and a highly partisan disengenous one at that; something that the intro of this article needs to be careful repeating as fact either through statement or omission. FeloniousMonk 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I was saying that the conclusion of proponents or opponents is not the point as such points are disputed. The policy in regard to disputed points was the point. Of course these views are relevant and to be included. You make the point for me - you state the other opinion here. I never stated it was correct and believe it to be disingenuous myself. You can be careful repeating it - but that doesn't allow you to repeat the other side as fact. Reword it in a careful way that does not state one side as fact over the other. Address the majority opinion by attributing the source to make the statement a fact. Morphh (talk) 3:17, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Hi Morphh, could you please attribute the source making the assertion that it is not a fact that ID is an argument for the existence of God, so that we have a suitable citation for the counter-argument you wish to see presented? Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are two sources: New York Times secondary source - about President Bush's remarks supporting intelligent design: "Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe." Here is a primary source from the Discovery Institute. It states: Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. Morphh (talk) 3:49, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
"Address the majority opinion by attributing the source to make the statement a fact."? That ID is a restatement of the teleological argument is a fact: We have sources from all 3 relevant parties, ID proponents, the scientific community, and the federal courts, all saying just that. FeloniousMonk 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that it wasn't a teleological argument. I said the statement that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" is disputed and therefore can not be stated as factual on Wikipedia without attributing it. Morphh (talk) 3:51, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
So, combining these statements, we have ID proponents contending that "the designer" is not identified by ID and this makes their argument scientific, but that they believe "the designer" to be God. ... dave souza, talk 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well.. I'm not sure what if anything makes their argument scientific. ID is the theory (or whatever you want to call it) that argues an intelligent designer. The proponents (being Christian people) believe that designer to be God, although it is not stated in ID itself - it is their belief. Morphh (talk) 4:14, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the article's definition of ID as an argument for the existence of God to be blatant POV, since it ignores the substance of intelligent design theory in favor of the supposed ulterior motives of its advocates. Even if ID is regularly used as an argument for the existence of God, that is incidental to its nature and therefore not part of its definition. Intelligent design is more of an anti-evolutionary theory, basically claiming that certain biological structures cannot be the result of stochastic processes. As a negative theory, merely showing that random processes cannot account for the results we see, it can make use of standard empirical methodology. As a positive theory, it can at best postulate, not prove empirically, that the best explanation of biological facts is teleological. This does not imply direct divine intervention; it could be anything from space aliens to the "God" of Star Trek V. I think an attempt to define ID should focus on its anti-stochastic (empirical) and teleological (metaphsyical) components. The theological aspect is non-essential, though in social terms, it is a major reason for its popularity, so we should certainly discuss it, just not as part of the definition. Djcastel 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Design argument??

Would use of "Intelligent design is a design argument..." be an acceptable compromise?--ZayZayEM 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

first we should point out that design argument redirects to teleological argument. how does that remedy the main NPOV dispute?
NPOV dispute does not seem to be about use of teleological argument. It appears to me to be about use of "God" in the lead sentance. And whether or not being an argument from design is intelligent design's defining factor --ZayZayEM 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
it is not, by its core definition, synonymous with the teleological argument. it becomes a teleological arguement after analysis of it. at least so in the opinions of many well qualified people (and also in my opinion). but that is not the core definition and never has been (except here at Wikipedia). why must Wikipedia insert this conclusion regarding ID into its lead definition? why can't it pull back a little from that and simply state the core definition - what the term was coined as - like the other references that are known to be reputable:
American Heritage Dictionary:"the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."
Encyclopeida Britannica: "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"."
Columbia University Encyclopedia:"Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence."
why must Wikipedia put the conclusion that ID is a teleological argument right into the lead sentence? no one else does. what makes Wikipedia so much more authorative that WP alone can equate ID to TA where no one else does? just let the facts speak for themselves as WP:NPOV requires. there is plenty of room, even in the lead paragraph, to point out this connection (and attribute it) without forcing down the reader's throat in the initial defining sentence. r b-j 05:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Dispute REDIRECT on that page, not this one. This page is for discussion about improvements to this article. It is great when improvements to one article result in the improvement of others.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
no, the issue is here. the redirect of design argument to teleological argument is a different issue that you seem to be trying to distract the present issue here with...

Go to the bookstore, open Dembski's Uncommon Dissent, and look at the "Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data". What's the topic of the books? "Intelligent design (teleology). Is Dembski's publisher part of the conspiracy against ID too? Oh horror of horrors. Guettarda 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

you guys continue to sidestep the issue (is it because you don't want to deal with the real issue that i plainly put here several times?) which is what the WP:NPOV policy requires. that is:
assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
in case you haven't noticed, there is at least a serious dispute regarding the equivalence of definition of ID and the teleological argument. no other reference makes that explicit equivalence in definition. only Wikipedia. it is not an undisputed fact that they are equivalent. i put forward a couple of different NPOV definitions from other sources and multiple times it has been unjustifiably dismissed as DI propaganda. it is not. in the dictionary definition and the lead definitions in reputable encyclopedias, there is no mention of the teleological argument or of God or the existance of God. none at all.
the other NPOV policy you ignore, that i have repeatedly pointed to is:
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.
you insist on stating the widely held opinion, and as the definition no less, that ID is equivalent to the argument for the existance of God as unqualified fact, indeed as definition, when you could be converting that opinion to fact by attributing it and when there is no source of a definition of ID that so equates it to the argument for the existance of God. yes, a federal court and lots of other well qualified persons have rendered that opinion and that fact (that they say so, or have ruled so) must go into the article and even in the lead paragraph (and "my" version did do that, i didn't push it out) but it's not the definition of ID. i didn't just make it up, i copied that definition from reputable source that is not the DI. ID is not, by definition, synonymous with the teleological argument (but i think that any reasonable person can look at it and conclude that there is not much left in it to believe if the so-called "intelligent designer" is not God. but that is not the definition. the definition is along the lines of: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." that is not DI propaganda, but the dictionary. and you have no widespread and reputable reference that defines ID as the argument for the existance of God.r b-j 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said. Those that keep opposing change need to put forth some compromising language. I'm tried of giving examples and getting nowhere. Even those that seem neutral in the debate have proposed compromising language and get nothing. It is clearly a violation of policy as it is now and needs to be corrected. Morphh (talk) 12:35, 01 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The article should show a neutral tone in the first sentence or paragraph. Them each side can have their say in subsequent paragraphs. 69.211.150.60 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying it should be left the way it is then? Great. Guettarda 14:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM, and other commentators: Experience has taught that if it isn't one particular bit of minutia that incites rage among critics of this article, it's quickly replaced by another bone of contention. And if it isn't some bit of minutia, it's about the article generally ("I don't feel I like the article's tone"; "It's not NPOV"; "Who the hell is Wikipedia not to follow the Encyclopedia Britannica's approach" "It's not 'fair and balanced'", etc. etc.) In order to determine why the current form of article is a perfectly reasonable expression of WP:NPOV by WP:Consensus on a controversial topic, one would perhaps look more closely at the history of the discussion, among the lengthiest on the entire wiki, much of which is catalogued by subtopic of discussion. Attempting to enact a "compromise" of language which is already beset with numerous intensively discussed compromises and solutions to the issues involved in a complex, controversial topic such as ID would not be appropriate at this stage of the article's history. Between 2003 and early 2006, the facts and reliable sources regarding this topic were very much in flux as new information emerged about this topic, especially in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (December, 2005) and in the published material issued in its wake (most of which was issued by the Spring of 2006) . Since then, although there has been a smattering of newer published reliable sources. the basic information available about the topic has not significantly changed in approximately the past year. More recently this WP article was thoroughly peer reviewed by the broader WP community, modified in accordance with that feedback and criticism, and granted "Featured Article" rating. In light of this, seeking a new "compromise" of the language in the article in response to the current complaints at this stage would neither be in the letter nor the spirit of NPOV, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and would be diluting the utility and informativeness of the article only to be replaced by another set of tendentious arguments about something else that doesn't sit right with current critics of this WP article. It would seem that it's in the nature (or is it "supernature") of writing an objective and informative article about a topic that is inherently deceptive by design.

In short, the currently proposed changes would only diminish the informativeness of the article, and reduce, not enhance, its expression of the NPOV about intelligent design. ... Kenosis 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No way do you get off by claiming past consensus and cyclical disputes about this or that. You don't get to claim that at some point in the past, these issues were finalized and therefore don't have to be addressed. I don't care who you had reviewing - at this point in time and looking at the sentence, it is in violation of NPOV. You keep side stepping the issue. Can you prove that ID is an argument for the existence of God (and God alone) as an undisputed fact?! The answer is No, because it is disputed and the opinion of the majority and in this case the court. Don't side step it - address it! Morphh (talk) 17:38, 01 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes we do. It's called consensus. The only time long term contributors here have to readdress an issue previously settled is when new evidence is introduced, otherwise, WP:RTFA. And constantly re-raising objections while ignoring evidence and consensus is called disruption, something a good number of individuals have been keel hauled and banned/blocked for by both arbitration and the community, so let's not misrepresent the state of debate here and continue disrupting the project with yet another bite at the same apple; there is a limit to the community's patience. FeloniousMonk 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
From the consensus page - "Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." From the NPOV dispute - "The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." Your point about consensus and reading the archive are irrelevant and an attempt to distract from the issue. It appears that the sentence has been a problem since its introduction by Kenosis on January 19, 2007. I don't see consensus, just POV pushing from the same group. You have twice as many editors stating that this sentence is a problem. If anything, there is consensus of a POV violation and to change it. It is a clear violation of the NPOV policy and requires addressing. Even if (big if) it were determined to not be in violation, it is still a problem for neutrality policy and should be changed per the guidelines since there is such dispute over the wording. Morphh (talk) 20:25, 01 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, we have literally dozens of sources from the ID proponents themselves, the scientific community, and a federal court all saying that ID is an argument for God.
Per WP:NPOV the article should not present the rhetoric of the carefully crafted PR campaign of ID proponents as fact, which is what your objections and proposed omission calls for. FeloniousMonk 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Also from WP:NPOV dispute: "There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts." The writeup goes on to describe other ways to violate NPOV that require a subjective evaluation. However, this first manner of NPOV violation is a matter of straight-forward, objective evaluation, and by this unambiguous criterion, the present lead sentence clearly violates NPOV in just this manner. -- Cat Whisperer 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Specifically how does the article's intro violate NPOV policy? FeloniousMonk 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed according to both primary [2] and secondary [3] sources. The WP:NPOV policy requires that we "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" -- Cat Whisperer 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest "ID is a postulate stating that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. Many see this as an argument for the existence of a god." Both these statements are verifiable and can be sourced. I'm not sure about the word "postulate", and "a god" could just be "God", but would something along those lines be acceptable? --h2g2bob 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This is, unfortunately, something of a "red herring". The very point of ID is to attempt to sidestep the US Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguilard by recasting creationism as a brand of science so that creationism might be taught in biology classes as an alternative to evolution. The scientific community has said "no way" and so has the federal court in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which characterized ID as "essentially religious in nature". Due to the inherently controversial nature of this topic which is beset by advocacy of an agenda of this kind, there is no language the article could possibly use that would forseeably satisfy everyone's preferences and cause the arguments on this page to come to a conclusion. None of the recently proposed alternatives appear to improve the explanation provided by the WP article, and most of the recent proposals actually would diminish the extent of informativeness of the article. ... Kenosis 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your POV should not be the one that dictates the structure of the article. There should be a consensus. 209.101.205.82 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I support Kenosis' position here, and I can think of at least eight other credible, long term contributors to this article who do as well, so it's time to move along to another topic. FeloniousMonk 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FM. The only POV is anonymous user's POV along with a few others. This discussion has been done many times over, and new editors show up every few days to make the same old points. This article is NPOV. The rest is just causing problems. Let's can this discussion and move on. Orangemarlin 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
ID as presented by its proponents argues that the appearance of complexity provides "scientific evidence" for the existence of God. The present wording summarises it clearly and concisely. .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If we have to change it to an undisputed statement of fact, how about this? "Intelligent Design is an argument put forward by the Discovery Institute stating that the complexity observed in the natural universe is better explained by the existence of an intelligent designer than by current mainstream scientific theories." SheffieldSteel 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This works for me. Morphh (talk) 23:23, 01 April 2007 (UTC)
It is fundamentally less informative and accurate and more ambiguous than the current phrasing. Leaving out the conclusion of the only notable and neutral official analysis of what ID is simply will not pass muster against NPOV. FeloniousMonk 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Then state the conclusion of the only notable and neutral official analysis of what ID is as such, and not as a fact. The WP:NPOV policy writeup shows exactly how such a sentence should be worded. -- Cat Whisperer 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Felonious. This is a clumsy way of wording what it essentially says now. It puts an incorrect focus on the idea coming from the Institute (which was formed afterwards, to support the idea). It also reduces ID to merely an "argument", this vague when it has been identified as specifically a design argument.--ZayZayEM 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I think it is better. At least it is not biased. And I read above where one editor was uncomfortable with new editors showing up. I thought wiki wanted new editors. The old guard wants to be protected from new ideas and the changes in the world view. The world changes daily and new scientific discoveries are happening daily. I think wiki should welcome new thought. 68.109.234.155 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I contend, so do many others, that no change is required. I appreciate your efforts SheffieldSteel, but they aren't necessary. The article should stand as written. As for new editors, all are welcome. But they should first understand the wealth of conversation that had preceded the state of the current article. A consensus was formed long ago. To revisit the same consensus time after time is not productive. Orangemarlin 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Orangemarlin is correct about both the article content, its level of support, and the state of the debate. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I contend, so do many others (a majority by count), that a change is required. I appreciate your efforts SheffieldSteel, but they are absolutely necessary. The article must change to conform with Wikipedia policy (particularly as an FA). The wealth of conversation starts only a couple of months ago on this point and the consensus is the same group pushing the current lead. In addition, consensus policy states that "consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." So this shouldn't even be used as an argument. Morphh (talk) 2:17, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but reading the page it's clear that most credible, long term contributors here agree that your objections are baseless, failing to take into account the full spectrum and significance of evidence, and do not align well with policy. FeloniousMonk 02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We've been discussing the issue for almost two weeks and I haven't seen you turn one person around on the issue. It doesn't matter what the "full spectrum" is - that doesn't allow you to state an opinion as fact. Morphh (talk) 3:00, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
FM doesn't have to turn anyone around. The status quo stands unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary. On the facts, your points, though well discussed, have not made any headway with most of us. On the law (or let's call it rules of Wikipedia), you cannot change unless there is consensus. There isn't one, because what is verifiable is already in the lead. Orangemarlin 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
multiple compelling arguments to the contrary of lead sentence have been made and have not been refuted. it is only because you want your own personal POV equating ID to the teleological arguement reflected in the article that you resist so much a simple moderation that makes the article less POV and more accurate. ID is not,.in its definition, identical to the teleological arguement. it is a belief or assertion (that's what the dictionary says) that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes (again, what the dictionary says). it can be attributed to the dictionary if you want. but no one else (that is no other widespread reference) other than you self-appointed keepers (or usurpers) of this WP article define ID to be exactly the same as the teleological article those words are not ostensibly synonymous with the teleological argument because it says nothing about God. let the facts speak for themselves and there is plenty of space to say what the article already says about what people opine about the true agenda of ID. r b-j 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What dictionary, and what source is your dictionary using? The LoC calls it teleology, Demsbksi calls it teleology, every authoritative source calls it teleology. The article reports on the facts of the matter - the opinion of pro-ID, neutral and anti-ID sources have just a tad more weight than "the opinion of Rbj". We don't write articles based on opinions which stand in opposition to all major sources, no matter how authoritative you believe your opinion to be. Sorry. Guettarda 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
i said clearly where i got and and provided links to check. multiple times. same for the other encyclopedia entries that have a far less POV lead that makes WP look, in comparison, like it has an axe to grind with ID. also, i am not appealing to my own authority, but to other referenced, wide-spread, and reputable authority. so, once again, stop misrepresenting my position as you do repeatedly. it's ironic that lying about someone else's position gets no sanction here, but pointing out the lie gets one blocked. the hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife. r b-j 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Its teleology, according to every authority. Defining something as it is defined by authorities is not OR. I am failing to see how your persistance that you have not been convinced, in spite of the Library of Congress, court rulings, Dembski, etc - why don't you go try to get the Flat Earth editors to convince you that the earth is not flat? They'll point to authorities and you can argue that they haven't "turned around" one person - I don't mean to be rude, but that's what you're doing here - ID is teleology, and you seem to want to argue that it isn't. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I won't waste any more time on this spurious argument. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. Nobody has (until you) argued that the initial sentence of the article is OR. It is sourced, is it not? The argument is that it is POV, a totally different proposition. I'm not going to state my opinion on this argument. I will point out, however, that no person has actually put forth an argument that it is NPOV, unless the fact that the article is sourced by the U.S. Government should be regarded as one. In that case, it falls flat. The U.S. government, last I checked, can put no claim to not being biased. (It still believes that the war in Iraq was a good idea. [I'm pretty sure many other nations disagree.])
I would really like to see the argument that states that the opening sentence is NPOV. The argument exists that it is POV: that it states as a definitive conclusion what is cited in another source, thus taking the POV of that source, no matter how neutral it claims to be.
(Please note that I have not made a single personal attack in this post. Please be kind and do not make one at me either.)

--trlkly14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said that "the article is sourced by the U.S. Government"? The definition is sourced from a considered and detailed examination of the evidence by a neutral judge, who reached a conclusion which did not conform to the hopes openly expressed by ID advocates that he would be corrupt enough to tailor his decision to the demands of the US Government under a president who IDers still claim as being among their leading supporters. The fact that the ID proponents try to deny this independent definition of ID says much about their casuistry, but this legal assessment provides a significant definition which should be shown from the outset. And, by the way, KC is not arguing that the intro is OR – read her words carefully .. dave souza, talk 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
May I refer you to the wiki article on the source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Judge Brown is a federal court judge, and therefore his decision speaks for the judicial branch of the U.S. Government. If he did not, there would be no legal reason why Inteligent Design couldn't be taught as science (at least, until another legal precedent was set).
Also, Brown is a human being, and like all of us, he is inevitably a product of his environment, and is inevitably biased by that environment. Therefore, he is not truly neutral. And since he expressed an opinion, he inherently has a POV.
The problem with rbj's argument is that no other article begins with a contextual citation. However, that doesn't make the definition NPOV. As for your argument, if I understand it correctly, it does seem to have merit. However, why aren't the other (so-called) neutral sources he proposes to use as defintions usable? Might their age factor in?
Finally, I'm sorry if I misread DC's intentions concerning "OR." I don't believe I did. Since she isn't going to come back, perhaps someone else could explain what she meant. I'm sure if I misread it, others might, too, so such an explanation would be to the benefit of everybody. And if she does come back, all the better.

Oh, and by the way, what's wrong with casuistry? The world isn't black-and-white.

--Trlkly 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Judge Brown?? Judge Jones is indeed a federal court judge, and my understanding is that the judicial branch has a clearly distinct role from the executive branch, which is what people usually mean when they say "the U.S. Government". The legal reason why Intelligent Design couldn't be taught as science was already set by the legal precedents of the Endorsement test and Lemon v. Kurtzman: what Jones did was to carefully and impartially examine ID and find that it infringed these tests. As requested, he set out his judgement as to what ID is, and whether it is science. A good read.
WP:NPOV is multicoloured, not black-and-white or grey. ID produces ingenious theological or philosophical arguments putting their POV to justify their claim that it's science, which from the outset of the article have to be set in the context of how mainstream science and the law define ID. Both POVs have to be shown in a proportionate way.
KC (not DC) stated that point about NPOV when she wrote "Its teleology, according to every authority. Defining something as it is defined by authorities is not OR". You wrote "Nobody has (until you) argued that the initial sentence of the article is OR." Spot the missing "not", and it's probably a good idea to read WP:NOR carefully. That's me done, back to the foot of the talk page now. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A More Clear Picture

Intelligent design as have come to know it is not close to much of what this article remarks about it. I desire to present a more concise view. There are three views regarding the origin of the natural Universe: 1. Creationism, 2. Intelligent Design, and 3. Blind Watchmaker arguments. Creationism arises from Christian fundamentalist who take the literal understanding of the Bible as the origin of the universe and have little interest in scientific discovery. Intelligent Design originated from William Paley making an analogy of God who designed the universe as a watchmaker. The Blind Watchmaker includes soup kitchen theories, evolution, big bang theory among others and originated when David Hume refuted William Paley's watcher maker analogy.

The underlying event that both the Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design employ follows:

"One is strolling along somewhere in the universe when they happen upon a complex object. Curious, a scientific discovery is launched to investigate the order behind this complex object. Once the discovery is complete an ascertation is made regarding the complex objects origin."

The science used to study the order behind the complex object is consistent for both the Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design. However, when the ascertation is made regarding origin the two diverge. Intelligent design proponents remark that God is the origin of all things natural and is willing to review new discovery in the context of God's creation. However, the Blind Watchmaker proponents relegate origin to another discovery that is not yet known.

Other problems arise in fundamental science as proponents of the two arguments are often unable to agree on the basic nature of the universe. The most controversial premises stem from at least two concepts:

1. Randomness. Blind Watchmakers, Evolutionists, rely on unbounded random natural selection and unbounded random events or otherwise known as true randomness as an underpinning to their theories. Meanwhile, Intelligent Design proponents view randomness as not a natural phenomenon but instead a convention that is used to explain that which appears to be random but is not. Instead of being random the universe is perfectly ordered according to Intelligence Design proponents.

2. Scientific principles and axioms are consistent, durable, and uniform throughout the universe. Intelligent Design proponents hold this to be true. However, Blind Watchmaker proponents contend that certain processes no longer exist or have ceased to operate. This is the case with evolutionary processes which acted on a protoplasmal globule billions of years ago beginning the evolutionary chain of events for biological life. However, these evolutionary processes for some unknown reason have not acted upon any other protoplasmal globule since that time. Thus, under this view scientific principles and axioms are not durable since only a single evolutionary thread is currently known to be running.

The honest problem is not whether Intelligent Design is a science as the science should be consistent. Instead, the root problem is the issue of origin. By objectively structuring the concept of Intelligent Design the more controversial elements can be isolated and dealt with in a more effective manner than the current obfuscation. (MrMiami 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

  • "[R]ely on unbounded random natural selection" - mmm, no. Natural selection is highly non-random.
  • "Scientific principles and axioms are consistent, durable, and uniform throughout the universe. Intelligent Design proponents hold this to be true. However, Blind Watchmaker proponents contend that certain processes no longer exist or have ceased to operate" - I think you have this the wrong way round. Guettarda 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Evolution remarks that random chance events spark life into existence and mutate DNA.
Clarify. The way I see it if evolutionary processes are consistent and durable then every protoplasmal globule since the first one would have evolutionary processes acting on it. Hence, there would be multiple evolutionary thread lines and no need for a fossil record. In short, neanderthal, cromagnon, and homo sapiens would co-exist as these evolutionary processes would be at different stages. But that is not the case. I know of no Intelligent Design arguments that do not embrace ordinary science when relating to the behavior of the natural universe.(MrMiami 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
It is not the case because the way you see it is incorrect. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
remarks of this nature with no supporting strength are purely emotional and do not belong in this discussion. (MrMiami 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
KS is right - you appear to misunderstand both evolution and intelligent design. Guettarda 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you need to clarify your position and not simply point to an ethereal misunderstanding. BTW you are conversing with an individual who has an extensive background in aerospace engineering, physics, and mathematics.(MrMiami 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
With your background, I would heartily recommend "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan as a rewarding and informative read. Although it does not cover creationism per se it contains invaluable expositions of the principles and methods of scientific, rational thinking, which cast this debate in a very definite and clear light. SheffieldSteel 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I am familiar with Carl Sagan's work. Sagan's work has been greatly reduced in importance over the years as he has been proven to be many things other than a scientist. He was good story teller for one. He formed SETI that is far from being a scientific research organization. He also rushed to the media with his political position on nuclear warfare masked as science research. There was no such research and those claims he made are laughed at today. Above all he was an atheist thus his worldview and subsequent science were relegated to this notion of origin. Please focus on the topic at hand. Let us discuss ID. (MrMiami 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
I'm sorry if you perceived my comment to be emotional, though I'm afraid I don't see the emotion in it. If you do not understand aspects of evolution, I would be happy to explain them to you on our talk pages, since article talk pages are not the proper place for this sort of this discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see your comment to be that emotional but Carl Sagan was not the thinker the media spun him to be. (MrMiami 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
Richard Dawkins popularized the term "Blind Watchmaker" recently in his book of that name. The emergence of this book begins to clearly demarcate that Evolution and other Blind Watchmaker Theories are truly atheistic in nature. What we really have is two arguments about origin in which one comes down to God and the other one comes down to atheistic beliefs of a God that is a NULL. The science should be consistent and apart from the two arguments. (MrMiami 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
This position is OR and POV.--ZayZayEM 03:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I am attempting to establish the correct position the ID and Blind Watchmaker arguments in relation to science. This places the two arguments on the same plane establishing a NPOV for the science that both use. I have established that Blind watchmaker arguments relegate origin to another discovery and nothing more. This is the position of those who are Atheistic such as Carl Sagan who promoted Blind watchmaker theories. The science of the two should be equal and the ascertation on origin is a POV for both arguments. (MrMiami 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
Science would be better described as agnostic rather than atheistic. Atheists assert that there is no god. Science states there is no evidence for God, and that natural processes can be used to explain the universe. In particular, evolution certainly does not imply that God does not exist: it says nothing about the origin of the universe, the formation of Earth, or the origin of life, for example (explanations for which fall in other areas of science). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree science does not remark on God. Science deals expressly with complexity and order. Origin is philosophy and cosmology. (MrMiami 03:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Restoring my deleted comment: Are trying to make a specific point about the article's content? Because if not, this is not the place to discuss ID's relative merits vs mainstream science.

Also, MrMiami, do not delete the comments of others, [4] please read our policy, WP:TALK#Others.27_comments. FeloniousMonk 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I regret your comment was deleted. I was unaware of that. As I recall it contributed nothing to the discussion. In the future please ensure positive contributions. :-) (MrMiami 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Nice to know your background. I have a PhD in biology, while Knowledge Seeker is an MD. All of that is irrelevant, of course - no one gets deference on the basis of credentials.

  1. Natural selection isn't random...it's the opposite of random.
  2. "[I]f evolutionary processes are consistent and durable then every protoplasmal globule since the first one would have evolutionary processes acting on it" - No, not really - evolution depends on such things as heritable variation, differential survival and competition.
  3. "Hence, there would be multiple evolutionary thread lines and no need for a fossil record." - I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Of course, the fossil record is only one of many independent lines of evidence supporting evolution.
  4. "In short, neanderthal, cromagnon, and homo sapiens would co-exist as these evolutionary processes would be at different stages." Again, I don't know what you mean...Cro-Magnons were Homo sapiens, and they did coexist with Neanderthals.
  5. "I know of no Intelligent Design arguments that do not embrace ordinary science when relating to the behavior of the natural universe." In that case, you don't understand evolutionary theory.

By the way, you are Raspor, right? Guettarda 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making my point about agreeing on the science. I posted my background because the conversation was tending to become dumbed down. I am glad you possess these esteemed distinctions. Perhaps we will observe your scholastic reasoning abilities when you provide supporting strength to your itemized ethereal list of rebuttals and projections. Raspor?
3. I realize that there was overlap on the genre of evolutionary mankind. The point is that if there were order and a consistent process it would be reproducible and observable at all levels of maturity - today.(MrMiami 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

My objective in this talk session is to establish a far more objective view of Intelligent Design as I found the Article is heavily to the bias and unclear. In order to establish Intelligent Design and its opposing views in a more objective light the arguments must be properly constructed.

1. The science of both arguments should be the same. Science is based on complexity and order only. Science does not include cosmology, theology, or philosophical worldviews. Scientific notions such as randomness and irreducible complexity could be discussed in a more clear light.
2. The three principle arguments regarding origin are: Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Blind Watchmaker. Intelligent Design is the intermediate between creationism and the Blind watchmaker.
3. On issues of origin, Intelligent Design relegates ultimate origin to God and Blind Watchmaker arguments relegates ultimate origin to nothing. Both are willing to review scientific discovery in light of their cosmological beliefs.
4. Both Intelligent Design and Blind Watchmaker arguments are not science but use science to justify their cosmological beliefs.

If we can establish a more objective and clearer delineation between the two principle arguments then grander understanding can be achieved. Wikipedia should consider the proposed approach in order to establish a more NPOV. (MrMiami 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

D'you have any suggestions for improving the article? SheffieldSteel 17:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes establish a framework that is a more NPOV. Perhaps closer to the framework I discussed centering on Complexity, Order, and Origin. (MrMiami 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Change wikilink?

{{editprotected}} Can the link to Summa Theologiae be updated to Summa Theologica? We've had a change of article name. Thanks ... David aukerman talk 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the link destination, although the link text remains the same. CMummert · talk 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can a {{POV-assertion}} tag be placed after the first comma in the first sentence, since this is the main dispute and why the article is protected. Morphh (talk) 2:46, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Two editors, yourself included, have argued without convincing anyone. There is no POV in the lead. Orangemarlin 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny - I count 15 editors (a majority) that dispute it and you haven't convinced any one of them. Nice how you minimize the issue to push your POV. Morphh (talk) 3:22, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I've been saying the same thing about your objections. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been convinced from my initial query into the articles clarity. The current lead is appears to the best in terms of being conscise, NPOV and clear when compared to any of the alternatives being proposed by the people disputing it. This doesn't mean its perfect. All articles are open to improvement.--ZayZayEM 03:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So you find that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" (and only God) as fact without dispute? This is what NPOV requires, otherwise, this majority opinion must be attributed. Morphh (talk) 3:36, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
We have notable neutral sources that say it is, that is all that is required for it to remain. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We have notable sources that say it is disputed. That is all that is required for it to change. Morphh (talk) 3:58, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
What sources? Didn't we settle this issue a week ago? Are you back to claiming that intelligent design isn't teleological? Guettarda 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching most of this discussion (not had much time to edit) but I don't recall seeing the presentation of any neutral sources that disputed this claim in any way shape or form. If you had them then there might be an issue, but as it currently stands this meets NPOV. JoshuaZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not neutral sources, only partisan. That's where you run afoul of NPOV, relying on partisan sources over neutral. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How is the NYT not neutral? Anyway - They don't have to be neutral. In fact, it states that "all sources have biases". It is only required that they have been published by reliable sources. While neutral sources are strongly encouraged, bias sources are needed to address both POV in many cases. It is the article that must be NPOV, not the source. Also, a neutral source does not negate other sources, as your trying to do here by stating this source as fact. Morphh (talk) 4:59, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest adding at least this reference to the end of the first phrase (not sentence) in the current article [1]
If it isn't enough that the DI themselves say it's an argument for God, I suppose we can get other sources of info direct from the horse's mouth. A great second sentence idea would be to document the apparent disagreement between public and private DI communications. SheffieldSteel 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The additional cite is good and necessary and should be added, but I'm not convinced about the additional sentence. It may be a bit much for the intro, which should be concise, and the point is already brought upon and dealt with further down in the article. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are two sources: New York Times secondary source - about President Bush's remarks supporting intelligent design: "Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe." Here is a primary source from the Discovery Institute. It states: "Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." The article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is clearly disputed. Morphh (talk) 4:35, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
None of these say that ID isn't teleological. It's there in the name - intelligent design. The DI makes the point that, since ID is scientific, it cannot answer questions about the nature or identity of the "designer". It's an argument for the existence of God, but it does not address the nature of God...intentionally because (a) it can't dodge Edwards if it addresses the nature of God, and (b) because ID was crafted to provide a big tent for creationists (according to Johnson). Of course, it's an assertion that almost collapses under its own weight, but that's beside the point...even though ID (supposedly) doesn't address the nature of God (although the major proponents all say that it's the Christian God), it's still an argument for the existence of God. Guettarda 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, a selective use of sources. The NYT article already cited in the article, Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive, is a more complete analysis of ID, whereas the one you insist on citing here is cursory at best. FeloniousMonk 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would we use a source that does not make the point that we're debating? You seem to be under the illusion that if you provide a "better" source, a neutral source, a more complete source, it somehow dismisses any other source that shows an alternate viewpoint. Morphh (talk) 5:20, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't a teleological argument, as this argument does not require God as fact. Of course proponents say it's their "God" - they're not going to conclude it's someone elses God or other form of intelligence. This is a conclusion based on ID itself, not a definition of ID. Personally, I think it is an argument for God as well - but my opinion does not matter and if it did, I would have to attribute it as ID itself does not define God by your own definition. Morphh (talk) 4:41, 02 April 2007 (UTC)


So you find that "ID is an argument for the existence of God" (and only God) as fact without dispute? This is what NPOV requires, otherwise, this majority opinion must be attributed. Morphh (talk) 3:36, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
(sorry I had to copy it) No Morph. I find it undisputed that ID is a teleological argument. This jargonistic term needs to be simplified. As ID and English Wikipedia both exist in the anglosphere - I find "arguemnt for the existence of God" an acceptable compromise given that 1)Ywh/God is who DI readily associate ID with, 2)Ywh/God is who ID opponents readily associate DI with, 3)Ywh/God is who neutral parties readily associate ID with 4)Those points aside "God" in English readily means various parties beyond Ywh/God
I have repeatedly suggested, and agreed with comments that point out perhaps "God" should be changed to something else (namely design argument) - but it really does seem that the dispute is over the wording here (i.e. don't use "God" as an encompassing term) not that ID's definition is a Teleological argument--ZayZayEM 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not disputed nor would I object to the definition of a teleological argument. We agree here and on the point that "God" should be changed to something else. I'd also be fine if they used God but attributed the opinion to make it factual or just state that "it has been found to be" instead of "is". I have to disagree that using "God" is an acceptable compromise in the current form. They are clearly stating, as a matter of fact, that it is God. I don't see how this is acceptable for policy to state this as fact, when the other side states that it does not define God. I understand that it has been found to be a deception campaign, but this in itself is an opinion. Wikipedia should not dismiss one side in favor of the other - this is the point of the NPOV policy. I don't see what the big deal is with adjusting the sentence to encompass these points. I'm not trying to remove the statement or decrease its authority. Morphh (talk) 13:44, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has been disputed from many different angles, none of which have offered a resolution to the various issues presented in a way that has been able to be consensused to be an improvement to the current form of the article. Moreover, the change currently advocated by Morphh and two or three other WP users rests on the notion that ID is not necessarily an argument for the existence of God, when in fact it is, on the evidence available in the verified reliable sources, an argument for the existence of God that pretends or at least attempts to be something else in order to attempt to achieve its principal advocate's objectives. Because of this inherent component of ID which acts as a strategy to wedge creationism and theism into science and science education (not to even mention here the various socio-political agendas that may also be involved), I would not expect the vociferous objections to cease soon, if ever. This element of deception and controversy that is inherent in "intelligent design", however, does not mean anything in the WP article, including the current first sentence, is a "violation" of WP:NPOV, as Morphh repeatedly has alleged, nor does it mean it's a violation of any WP policy. ... ... Kenosis 07:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


A suggestion

So, we agree that ID is the teleological argument, and we have ID proponents contending that "the designer" is not identified by ID and this makes their argument scientific, but that they believe "the designer" to be God. Here's my suggestion:

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a "desgner",...Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God, but assert that intelligent design does not identify the designer, and is a scientific theory...

... dave souza, talk 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Morphh (talk) 4:23, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that what "Intelligent design is a design argument..." says. I'm beginning to udnerstand certain editors issues with circular debates.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The problems, as have been well set out above, are that both Teleological argument and design argument (which redirects to the same page) don't mean much to the uninitiated reader, and the ID proponents use denial that it addresses the issue to present it as an argument for God which isn't [necessarily] an argument for God (depending a bit on who they're speaking to). The Wikipedia page defines it as "an argument for the existence of God or a creator", which can accommodate the non-God creator sometimes postulated by ID proponents (without any conviction). It also links its definition to Existence of God which includes design as one of several arguments.
In the CSC-Top Questions article including the definition of ID as cited in our article, "3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?" says no, then refers as "early versions of design theory" to the usual proponents of the teleological argument. (4. denies it's creationism, but doesn't deny that it's an argument for the existence of God)To get an idea of the normal definition, some googling brought up numerous versions of the "God definition", as at philosophyofreligion.info, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names at foldoc. A number of options including the "designer" version are given at Apollos. Interestingly, the Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, published in 1973-74, starts "The design argument in theology is often immediately identified with the “argument from design,” i.e., the argument that from evidences of intelligent planning found in the world one may reasonably infer the existence of a purposeful Intelligence responsible for the world." and goes on to discuss at length "a deity as cosmic Designer".
Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of a "designer" has the problem which, as I recall, Candy was concerned about of relying on the reader relating this to a second sentence some way further on to appreciate that the ID presenters are clear that it's really God with the caveat that it theoretically might not be. Better options might include "an argument for the existence of a "designer" (usually God or a creator)..." or "an argument for the existence of God or a creator...". ..... dave souza, talk 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I would be fine with any of these. Morphh (talk) 13:19, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Until I read a positive comment about these changes from the long-time editors, I won't even consider the compromise. Short of their buy-in, I still think it's POV and does not use verifiable information. There is no need for a compromise Dave Souza. This is a couple of editors railing on some mysterious issue that ID only secretly depends on a god of some sort. That's disingenuous of them, and it is highly POV.Orangemarlin 13:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of this couple of editors junk. Morphh (talk) 14:16, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell... These editors have objected to the statement in the first sentence:
  1. Morphh
  2. Cat Whisperer
  3. Erkin2008
  4. r b-j
  5. 71.57.90.96
  6. Tomandlu
  7. 216.52.235.101
  8. Wyatt
  9. Intelligent Desinger
  10. CSTAR
  11. AmiDaniel
  12. James;Lagbria e adio
  13. 68.109.232.53
  14. Mdsats
  15. Kgroover
  16. Everwill
From what I can tell... These editors have suggested changes for compromise or appear to be neutral:
  1. SheffieldSteel
  2. dave souza
  3. Adam Cuerden
  4. JoshuaZ
  5. Wikipediatoperfection
  6. Philip J. Rayment
  7. ZayZayEM
  8. Petesmiles
From what I can tell... These editors are opposed to a change in the first sentence:
  1. Kenosis
  2. Orangemarlin
  3. 151.151.73.167
  4. Ronabop
  5. FeloniousMonk
  6. Jim62sch
  7. 35.9.6.175
  8. Mr. Christopher
  9. Nomen Nescio
  10. Guettarda.
Confusion - the above list is, I think from User:Morphh. What follows is from User:Tomandlu. Clear now? Tomandlu 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't one possible solution be to change the opening sentence to read "Intelligent design is a teleological argument (i.e. an argument for the existence of a creator) , based on the premise that...".

It seems to me that, whilst it might not be a common term, teleological is a more accurate description than God. The short "i.e." would clarify the matter for anyone unfamiliar with the term who didn't want to read the linked article at that point. Tomandlu 14:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Morphh (talk) 14:07, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me too.--Kgroover 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"[T]eleological is a more accurate description than God" - do you have a source for that? As the degree of support - don't put words in people's mouths. If you want to know what people think, ask them, don't guess at their opinions. I have no opposition to change if it improves the quality of the article. As for the people proposing change...change to what? Rbj denies that ID is a design argument, while who knows what Raspor/Everwill and his socks are arguing for, while I rather doubt that CSTAR is ready to go for the DI party line. If you want to figure out what people think, ask them. In addition, why are you leaving out the people who argued for the change to "argument for the existence of God" in the first place? Guettarda 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Source? The source is that it's the minimal, basic tenet of ID that everyone can agree on - ID and 'darwinist' alike, and has the added advantage of being pretty accurate. I have no problem with the article being slanted against ID - ID is a load of creationist bull and its proponents are a bunch of lieing deceitful scumbags who've hung themselves - how could the article not be slanted against them? But to start from that reasonable conclusion just seems a bit the wrong way round. IMHO. Tomandlu 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Rbj denies that ID is a design argument,..." only as definition. this is an example of where you misrepresent and/or misunderstand a position that is not identical to your POV.
"...while who knows what Raspor/Everwill and his socks are arguing for..." i hope you are not counting me among such. that would be even more evidence of misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding a position that is not identical to your POV. r b-j 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the teleological argument page states that it "is an argument for the existence of God or a creator", why does this page leave out the "or a creator" part if the two arguments are essentially one and the same?--Kgroover 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
because wikipedia can't be used as a source.--BMF81 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - there should have been an "IMHO" in my comment somewhere. Look, I don't have much of a problem with the current version - mainly because I believe it to be fundamentally (sic) true, but also because this is wikipedia, so to arrive at anything even vaguely authoritative and NPOV on a controversial subject is probably the best anyone can hope for.
That aside, the problem with the current version, as others have stated, is that it treats an eminently reasonable conclusion (creator = god) as a starting point. Consequently, and this makes no difference to "darwinists" such as myself, the ID loons can justifiably view it as slanted. In the end, big deal. And please assume good faith - especially when there's no reason to assume otherwise. Tomandlu 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"...the ID loons can justifiably view it as slanted. In the end, big deal." they've already (unjustifiably) rejected that point. it was made clear to them several times. r b-j 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. I note that I am not mentioned, although I am an active editor, with 91 edits to this article over the course of about 3 years. The list Tomandlu Morphh has compiled seems unbalanced to me, in the sense of "picking and choosing who to include" in addition to the above mentioned concern of one editor stating what another thinks.
  2. I fail to see the reasoning for calling concerns raised by experienced editors who have been researching this topic for years "junk" - perhaps you'd care to rephrase, Morphh? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not my list, btw - although it's worth noting that the list was compiled in order to refute the suggestion that only 1 or 2 editors had qualms about the current lead.Tomandlu 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, it appeared that you had added it. If I understand correctly, Morphh added it? However, my objections still stand. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I did just a quick glance at points made by editors to create a list of what I thought were the positions to refute the point that one or two editors have an issue with the lead. I didn't call the concerns junk - I said that it was junk that it was being stated that only two editors objected. I prefaced the list with "From what I can tell...", which means that it is my perception. In addition, it is a wiki... add yourself to the list or change your position if you feel that I misread your statement. It only says that these editors have raised objections to the intro being debated. It is not a comprehensive list on all the archives and this and that position. Again, it was to only point out the editors that seemed to be involved in the discussion as I was tired of this being singled out as only one of two editors with an issue and everyone else was fine with the current lead. I didn't see your comments on this particular issue so I did not list you - sorry. Morphh (talk) 14:26, 03 April 2007 (UTC)

"Source? The source is that [teleological is a more accurate description than God] is the minimal, basic tenet of ID that everyone can agree on". To begin with, we don't have the option of picking things that we can agree on - we have to go with what's accurate. So, do you have an assertion that "teleological" is more accurate than God? As far as I can tell they are the same. You are saying they aren't the same - do you have a source to support that assertion? Guettarda 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since 'creator' is a less restrictive term than 'God', but also includes 'God', why do we need a source? If 'creator' is wrong, then so is 'God'. It's as though the current lead for Water said "Water is wet and cold", but you asked for a source before changing it to "Water is wet". But for what it's worth: [5].
It's also worth adding that this isn't really a debate about accuracy - both 'creator' and 'God' would be accurate (since the DI is apparently - who'd have thought it? - a very stupid organisation, and is quite happy to admit that creator=christian god). It's a debate about whether the lead should be making that point. ID as generally expressed does not include the word 'God' - it talks about an undefined creator. 'God' is not a requirement of ID, it is a requirement of christians. C'mon guys, one of the things wrong with ID is that it creates unneccesary entities - which is what we're doing in the current lead... Tomandlu 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we still discussing this nonsense? I doubt we'll ever get consensus on a change, so in law, the status quo usually stands. Orangemarlin 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The list appears to be an exercise in frustration at the accusation that "This is a couple of editors railing on some mysterious issue", and while it's fair to say the accusation is "junk", I'm sure Morphh is well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are evil. dave souza, talk 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I only meant that the accusation that only two editors had an issue with the lead was nonsense or "junk". It was repleadly pointed out that many editors had issue with it but the claim of only two editors kept being repeated, so I created a quick list to make the point. Morphh (talk) 14:31, 03 April 2007 (UTC)
"Since 'creator' is a less restrictive term than 'God'" - huh? Are you replying to my comment? I don't see how this fits. As for your reference - I find anything there that addresses the difference between a teleological argument and an argument for the existence of God. Guettarda 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. My problem is that "God" implies the christian god - I'd be happier, for example, if the article said "existence of a god" (small 'g' and an 'a'). Creationist nutjobs notwithstanding, the ID supporters at least understand that ID does not support the existence of a particular god - and we shouldn't be claiming otherwise. The fact that they have faith in a christian god's existence is not part of any formal definition of ID. Tomandlu 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." – the Wedge Document. Our source for the explicit definition of what theologians call the teleological argument is Kitzmiller, which explicitly and repeatedly calls it an old religious "argument for the existence of God", and it must be confessed that choosing other definitions not directly related to examination of ID could be classed as Original research. .... dave souza, talk 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors here have referred to creationists as 'nut jobs' and 'loons'. Are they really unbiased enough to edit this article with those negative attitudes? And they quote the wedge document and other documents from the DI when it can be interpreted negatively but refuse to consider the DI a reliable source when the text can be interpreted positively. I really think they should start using the term 'bible literalists' instead of creationists. There is a big difference. Those opposed to ID trying to paint all IDers as Bible literalist evangelical Christians which simply is not the case and is POV. 68.109.234.155 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately your mischaracterisation of the above editor is wildly inaccurate – please read WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. ... dave souza, talk 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe Martin Luther King was a bible literalist. To categorize all persons who believe in the literacy of the bible as 'nutjobs' and 'loons' to me is unkind. African-Americans are very represented in the bible literalist population. I do not think anyone here would be able to refer to atheists as 'loons' etc. You honestly cannot see the bias? 68.109.234.155 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My contempt for biblical literalists/creationists/whatever notwithstanding, I'm somewhat amused that my attempt to support greater balance in the opening lead incurs criticism from that group... actually, not that surprising. I'm sure that the current opening lead is a nice strawman for IDers... Tomandlu 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) 68.109.234.155, either post a link to a dif where someone called creationists "loons" and/or "nutjobs" or drop the subject. Everyone else: until s/he does, consider this trolling and ignore it. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah found "nutjob" - Tomandlu please be more civil. Address the content not the contributor, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if an editor on this page advocates softening the article's criticism of ID, then they are assumed to be an ID supporter. So, I try to make my position and opinion of ID clear. However, I will try and find a more polite form of contempt in future... apols to any offended parties, but surely the eternity I will spend in hell offers some comfort? Tomandlu 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If they are assumed to be a supporter or an advocate or whatever, whoever is doing the assuming is very probably wasting everyone's time: the injunction applies in reverse as well. It doesn't matter to me, and certainly shouldn't matter to anyone else, whether you are a loon, a nutjob, a creationist, an atheist or a follower of the Invisible pink unicorn - it is simply irrelevant unless there is a COI involved. One puppy's opinion (which coincidentally is resoundingly backed up by policy.) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I assume he/she means me - I have referred to creationists as both loons and nutjobs on this page, but never in the article itself. Tomandlu 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Same applies - please focus on the content and avoid using pejorative terms for contributors, thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The puppy is absolutely right, but can I just say that I find nothing pejorative in the terms "loons" an "quines". Furraboots ye fae? .. :) ... dave souza, talk 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah dinnae ken ocht aboot the Scots, lad, ye'll have ta taak Inglis - and if you correct my Scots I'll be much obliged. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Your Scots is admirably correct, and were you in Aberdeen you could substitute loon for boy with no offence being taken. To be absolutely clear I was just wondering where our anon friend was from..... dave souza, talk 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just about use of "God"?

Is the current dispute about the lead only that it uses the word "God"? Please try and keep your answer to simple 'Yes' or 'No' about your personal dispute, and if you aren't disputing the lead's current wording maybe put something like 'Undisputing'. I think a lot of editors are confused about what the current editors disputes are, and (maybe with good reason) are failing to assume good faith.--ZayZayEM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you are asking here. Guettarda 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are disputing the current lead, are you only disputing the use of "God" (capitalised)?--ZayZayEM 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No. i cannot just yes/no this without being clear: the teleological argument or design argument is "an argument for the existence of God". ID is "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." (and that is the American Heritage Dictionary definition, not the DI propaganda. but since someone likely with DI relatively recently coined the term "Intelligent Design", it's unlikely that the dictionary definition will be incongruent, to a large extent, to the originally minted definition.) these are not semantically identical and, as required by WP:NPOV we should leave it to the reader to let the facts speak for themselves. so Yes, i dispute that ID is defined to be "an argument for the existence of God," nor is it defined to be the Teleological argument. the definition doesn't say either. but it's very reasonable to come to that conclusion, but conclusion are where one ends up, not where one starts. by starting the Wikipedia reader with that conclusion, especially as definition moreover one that is unascribed in the definition, is a clear and naked injection of POV and a violation of WP:NPOV. no one has refuted that. r b-j 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes/No would be a no. You are not only disputing the usage of "God" (I changed your first word. I would appreciate you deleting the rest of your commentary).--ZayZayEM 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, for me at least. Capital G "God" is too Judeo-Christian, whereas ID doesn't inherently require the Judeo-Christian God, even if that's one of the common beliefs of many of it's proponents (though not all -- I'm thinking of Antony Flew).--Kgroover 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - Though I agree with RBJ's point, however, I'm not sure I would call it POV and would not make a big dispute of it - just that I think it would be written better if the definition came before the conclusion. Morphh (talk) 14:40, 03 April 2007 (UTC)


Using "God" (and other terms) is not being clear, it's actually misleading

The use of "God" with a capital G is misleading way of defining ID - it is term most identified with the Jude-Christian monotheistic god, Ywh. Whether or not individuals (even collectively) support the viewpoint that any "designer" is so obviously Ywh in all his supreme great benelovence and infallibility - can be further explained later in the article. As ID proponents, even if possibly ina duplicitious manner, have conceded or put forth that ID doesn't necessarily mean Ywh was the designer, the initial defnition of ID should reflect this.

"Design argument" solves this problem of incorrectly identifying the designer and misleading the reader towards a POV, because, like ID it doesn't implicate any specific entity in the design process.

The use of the word "god" should be avoided as it specific refers to deities. "god" is preloaded word with a specific religious and spiritual meaning for a worshipped being of great power. "creator" should be avoided as it refers to a being of specific role: i.e. someone who creates, a cosmic engineer, the entity in question may actually play extra roles beyond creation; and additionally through virtue of being a "designer" may not actually be involved in the engineering or manufacturing process and therefore the term "creator" would still be much a misnomer.

ID is bunk pseudoscience that provides a thin veil for religious doctrine pushed forward by tiny minded people with even tinier attitudes - and this article accurately portrays this. As much as we find ID a stupid, nonsensical, petty, ridiculuous and/or dangerous idea, when writing a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject we still have to be serious about how we go about it.

This means that we can't let ID proponents define ID for us (especially when they aren't clear), but we also shouldn't define ID for them. We have to be a neutral source. ID has been neutrally identified as specifically a teleological argument, this is it's defining point. However leaping from there to being about "God" and other specifically identified beings is adding individual synthesis. Discover Institute fellows are the ones identifying the designer, why should we trust them on that one. ID opponents are identifying the designer, why should we be pushing an opposing peoples viewpoint as fact? What does our neutral source identify the designer as? (AFAIK it doesn't identify any - it does what we should do - it identifies what individuals identify the designer to be[6], which about 99/100 times is Ywh)

Neutral stance: totally an unambigiously avoid implicating any specific entity in creation. That's what ID does. "Intelligent design is a design argument..." </rant> Whew.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well stated - If this change were made, it would satisfy my objection. Morphh (talk) 2:50, 04 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that design argument redirects to Teleological argument which opens by saying 'A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order,' - i favour the current wording because in my opinion it's a way of saying the same thing in clearer english - would you also drop your objections if we added 'or creator' after God to match the Teleological argument wording? - Petesmiles 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
See my paragraph why any descriptive noun describing the designer as God, a god, a deity, a creator, force, alien or "... or something" really produces uneeded ambigiouty about the subject. Issues with teh wording of teleological argument page are not relevant here. Wiki should not rely on wording of other pages to word pages (that's being self referential).--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

In my opinion it's a fair point that the intro doesn't fully show that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God, though its proponents believe the designer to be God and, in claiming that ID and science cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy, explicitly concede that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science.pages 24 - 26 It's a complex point to pack into the intro, and the present opening paragraph is accurate and concise though it begins with the ID movement's description of ID as a religious argument rather than their protestations that it isn't one. ... dave souza, talk 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

...and mine

just a few thoughts on the current discussion......

rbj objects because he argues that for us to define ID as an argument for the existence of God is moving too far into original research, and that we should start out with a sourced non-contraversial definition of ID, not what he feels is a derived conclusion.

My feeling is that others have been less consistent than rbj in their arguments (but that might just be me not getting it) - i'm afraid i feel that some here are rather annoyed by a good encyclopedia article on ID, they will just always feel that it's somehow not fair / shouldn't be allowed - it's hard to engage everyone usefully with this as a backdrop.

I think the article is good as it is, with few of the suggested alternatives offering much useful improvement. I wouldn't object to the 'argument for the existence of God' moving a little - and thought rbj's proposal was worth thinking about constructively - I also seem to remember Felonius way way back proposing an intro that was really 'just the facts' - p'raps someone cleverer with the archives than me could find it...?

anyways - everyone should have a nice evening. That's an order.

Petesmiles 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

Why? The public definition is just as stupid as the 'private' one. Besides, the intro contains accurate and appropriate criticism of ID/DI in other paragraphs. Tomandlu 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Because ID has been (publicly) defined in a duplitous way. It wouldn't be a big issue if everyone didn't realise (consciously or not) that the first sentence is the most important one in the article - and we wouldn't even be talking about the difference between public and private definitions if it weren't for the DI's decision to deliberately misrepresent ID to the public. Uncritically repeating untruths or partial truths, when we know what they are, feels wrong to me. Hence my position. SheffieldSteel 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Being the sole source of ID and its movement, the Discovery Institute's definition, duplicitious as it is, is necessary per the part of WP:NPOV which says: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." we can't violate the undue weight clause of NPOV and drop the most prominent ID view just because it is intended to mislead the public, using that reasoning, we wouldn't be able to cover the topic at all since it all flows from that one source. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking up Petesmiles' suggestion of moving the God point back a bit and covering just the facts:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is distinguished from earlier arguments for the existence of God by the assertion that it cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy, and is intended to provide “theistic and Christian science" redefined to include the supernatural. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God, but assert that intelligent design does not identify the designer and is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

The term proposition is used at Kitzmiller, and the various points are summarised there with references to the original sources. ... dave souza, talk 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me Morphh (talk) 14:55, 03 April 2007 (UTC)
Why should we start on something other than teleology? If the LoC calls ID teleology, if the second word of the name proclaims teleology, then isn't the fact that ID is teleological a fundamental feature, really the defining feature, of what ID is? "Allegedly scientifically verifiable teleology", or "An argument for God which claims to be scientifically testable". The whole "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" doesn't say how ID differs from other forms of creationism or pseudo-scepticism. ID exists to get around Edwards. The "scientifically testable" assertion is central to ID. The "certain features..." explanation makes neither of these issues clear. Guettarda 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As for using "official" definitions uncritically - see Fox News Channel. It starts out with "The Fox News Channel (FNC) is a United States-based cable and satellite news channel. It is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, and is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation". It does not start out with "The Fox News Channel (FNC) is Fair and Balanced". We are here to write an encyclopaedia article, not to quote slogans. Guettarda 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda's point here is good--ZayZayEM 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the analogy and I think it makes the opposite point to me. The FNC starts out with facts that defines what it is. "Fair and Balanced" is an opinion so it could not be stated as "FNC is ...", though it could be attributed to state "The slogan of FNC is F & B". Again, F & B is not a definition of what FNC is though. What is ID if you strip away the opinions? If I were to read it today without any opinion on God, Religion, past arguments, court trails, etc... what is it? Does it tell me that ID is an argument for the existence of God? No - this is a conclusion I would reach based on my beliefs. This group needs to think about how they are presenting the conclusion (asserting as fact an opinion on that conclusion) and then defining what ID is about. My main point is the assertion of fact but I think it would be better written if the conclusion was after the definition. It is a little off topic from the main dispute but I thought I would respond to the discussion. Morphh (talk) 14:55, 03 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - "fair and balanced" is a slogan, as is "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". Guettarda 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
you still fail to show the equivalence (here is another good example of serving dog poop to your guests and calling it "caviar"). and you're attempting to straw man by changing the language from the dictionary definition: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes" to something else that might have come from DI and then labeling it "a slogan", still a point which is neither proven nor widely accepted. that ZayZayEM thinks it's a persuasive point i cannot account for (but i can guess that he/she likes it because it is congruent to his/her own POV), but it's a pathetically weak and unpersuasive argument and an incommensurate comparison or analogy.
nonetheless is "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." the slogan of the American Heritage Dictionary? is "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"." the slogan of Encyclopeida Britannica? is "Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence." the slogan of Columbia University Encyclopedia? you guys keep tossing up pathetically weak arguments justifying a clear violation of NPOV because ostensibly you want your bias and POV to be prominant in the article. so prominant that you insist on putting in for a definition of ID, a definition that no other widespread reference book makes (it has no semantic content in common with the other encyclopedias/dictionaries), that a well-research and common opinion is put in unattributed and stated as uncontested fact (when it is contested) and no less as the very definition. your bias is obvious. it's nakedly flapping around for everyone to see. when several alternatives have been floated that would disarm this whole thing, the only motivation for such obstinance is intellectual dishonesty. r b-j 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."[7] The difficulty we have is that NPOV requires us from the outset to state the various views proportionately: the advocates of ID state that it is evidence for the existence of God which can be called scientific if it ostensibly does not define or identify the "designer", the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists and of a neutral judge asked to review the evidence for the definition of ID is that it is a version of the teleological argument for the existence of God. At present the intro provides both views from the outset, in my opinion we should find a way of clearly noting the ID claim that it doesn't identify the designer. ... dave souza, talk 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. And I think that, to write an NPOV article, we should start with what ID is. It's a design argument. That's really a function of its name. A design argument is a teleological argument. And, as far as I can tell, a teleological argument is an argument for the existence of one or more (g)God(s). If that's the case, then we should use more direct language and call it what it is. If "teleological argument" =/= "argument for the existence of God", would someone please provide a reference for this? If it isn't the same, then we have something to discuss (I'd say it's still accurate because that's the way the proponents of ID have characterised the designer...). So far, I don't think I have seen that distinction made by any reliable source.
The other stuff...about "certain aspects..." is a slogan, a catch-phrase worked out early on by several DI-ists. It's very incomplete - it leaves out the fundamental idea that ID is supposed to be empirically testable. And, of course, it glosses over the fact that ID is teleological. Guettarda 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO "God" means the christian god, so the essential problem is that the first sentence of this page is either very close to, or is, original research - it conflates the pure ID argument with the particular religion of the people promoting it.

The ID argument, whatever you think of its claims to any scientific standing, cannot logically claim to characterise the nature of the creator - anymore than Paley would have claimed that he could deduce the morals or the shoe-size of the watchmaker. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the article can imply or even state that the supporters of ID believe that the creator is God, but I just don't see how we can justify it in the lead. I understand the arguments, and, as I've said, they deserve a prominent place in the article (well, the DI wrote the wedge doc - they can't blame us), but God (capital G, singular) shouldn't be used to characterise the basic argument of ID.

IMHO "teleological argument" (with an "i.e.") or "a god" would be more appropriate. Or is "God" not considered to imply the christian god? Tomandlu 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"God" means the "Christian God"? Well, I'd say that's probably true for most of the ID proponents, your reading reflects your own cultural construct. "God" is the English word - capitalisation tends to mean "God(s) I believe in" while use of "god" tends to mean "God(s) I don't believe in". "God" means the same as "a God or Gods". "A God" is not the same as "God". Guettarda 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda this is your opinion. I would suspect a large number of editors and readers get an Abrahamic god when they see the word "God". As I understood it was capitalized because it was a proper noun (i.e. a name). Deities who had actual namesget referred to with a lower case "god" term.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia for all, not the US or Western countries only. We can't say that "our" God gets a capital G, while their "God" gets a common g. Did you look at the Arya Samaj article, for example? Drawing a line between "the Abrahamic God" and everyone else's isn't ok. Guettarda 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"God" is Ywh's English name. Names get capitilsation. This isn't about superiority. Zeus is a "god". Allah is God. Using "God" with a capital G is a direct reference to monotheism (which is it's usage in Arya Samaj). ID proponents follow monotheism, but even they occasionally admit ID itself doesn't. Why should we support your opinion on capitalisation over my opinion on captilisation (which isn't based on superiority). --ZayZayEM 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
""God" is Ywh's English name" - No. The word has an ancient IE root. Given the dominance of Christianity in the West, the "true" God was distinguished from the pagan "god" or "gods". But that's archaic usage. According to the OED: " When the word is applied to heathen deities disparagingly, it is now written with a small initial; when the point of view of the worshipper is to any extent adopted, a capital may be used." We aren't writing an encylopaedia from a Christian POV, we aren't writing an encyclopaedia from a Western POV. The usage of "god" or "God" is only a function of one's own personal bias. We can either work from the perspective that we should treat all religion as "pagan", or we treat all from the perspective of worshippers of that deity. Guettarda 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view, God states monotheism - with the article having systemic bias toward the Christian God as that is what the proponents believe and the court rulings address. However, such excludes polytheism, forms of nontheism, or non religious possibilities. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, which would seem to be excluded by the definition. ID does not define such aspects itself, yet the article concludes it to be the definition of what ID is as a matter of fact. Morphh (talk) 19:15, 03 April 2007 (UTC)

Some define Hinduism to be monotheistic, a view which I find somewhat suspect myself. Nevertheless, the internal documents of the DI, the public pronouncements of the DI fellows and supporters and advocates, and the court ruling all demonstrate that clearly ID is concerned with God. So why are we arguing?--Filll 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet they state that ID itself does not define God. I think we're getting confused on the beliefs and statements (the opinion) of these groups, and ID itself. They are treated as one in the same in the first sentence. However, the statement of ID as an argument for the existence of God (and God alone as the designer) is disputed. I don't think anyone disputes that DI thinks the creator is God. The lead should include the fact that ID does not define who such a designer is - and with doing that, you can't state that the designer is God as factual without attributing the opinion. Morphh (talk) 20:53, 03 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, at the minimum it references an Abrahamic G_d, that being Judeo-Christian-Muslim. Anyways, the argument continues, and we're still getting nowhere. The article should not be changed. Orangemarlin 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If the entire purpose of ID is to forward creationism by not mentioning the J-C God in order to get around the establishment clause (as Guettarda suggests), how can it be defined as an explicit argument for the J-C God?--Kgroover 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not ignoring Hinduism (I grew up in a society that's 40% Indian and about 25% Hindu). In my experience, the word "God" can be used (in a generic sense) by Hindus, quite aside from the issue of whether there is only on God is Hinduism (see, for example Arya_Samaj#Doctrines). Guettarda 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, our most neutral and authoritative reference which directly relates to ID uses capitalisation to refer to this "argument for the existence of God"[8] so we'd need an equally good reference for alternative terminology. ID is explicitly presented as Christian and theistic by its proponents, though they also (at different times) present it as agnostic. .. dave souza, talk 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"explicitly" is, IMHO, exactly what it is not presented as, hence my problem. I really think that the majority of legitimate concerns could be dealt with by replacing "God" with something less restrictive. Tomandlu 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Phillip Johnson, a senior fellow at the Institute, stated last year on a Christian radio talk show that "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.""[9], "My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."[10] and in Darwin on Trial has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence" Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999. Pretty sure there are many more examples available. ... dave souza, talk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh. Among all the Philip Johnsons in the world, that would be the same Philip Johnson that is regarded as the "father of intelligent design", would it not? ... Kenosis 04:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many many examples of proponents stating Intelligent Design to be an argument for God. It is no doubt the purpose of ID to be an argument for the existence of God by its creators. However, the fact remains that ID does not define God and it is argued that it does not specify the designer. So anything that defines the creator of ID must be an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief. Morphh (talk) 0:43, 04 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should repeat all partisan rhetorical devices used as thought-terminating clichés in their article's intros as if they were fact. I could also just as easily argue that ID not specifying the designer as God is also an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief that doing so furthers their goal. We need to be circumspect here about allowing the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic; doing so would not be an improvement to neutrality. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: A reply to this comment was made in the section below entitled Scientific version? --Sapphic 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My objection is to using the word God in the first immediate sentance that originally defines ID in a neutral unpartisan manner. (Morph can agree or disagree with me on this). Both the viewpoint that ID proponents identify ID's designer as God and ID detractor's identify ID's designer as God should and is discussed further in the article (even in the lead paragraphs). However their partisan description should not be included the initial description of ID, as it is simply a design argument with no identified designer, despite any individual's specific beliefs.--ZayZayEM 05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
this is sorta encouraging. i am still at a loss to why an opening sentence that puts forth the initial definition of ID along the lines of the dictionary definition: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes" continues to be rejected since it does not use the word "God" or "god" or "G-d" or "a god" (making this issue moot, at least until later in the article where such a word might come up) and this does not preclude identifying ID's designer as whoever by whatever proponents and detractors later in the article, even in the lead paragraphs. why does such a neutral and cited definition continue to be outright rejected? what is the justification for such? r b-j 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrarily reduced indent> rbj, not sure why you're encouraged, unless you're of the belief that we should keep the lead as is. FM is not indicating anything more than the move to change the lead is an attempt to be disingenuous. Dave Souza and Kenosis are being somewhat sarcastic (or maybe not) but it's clear that they don't think a change is necessary. So, I guess you're on board on not changing the lead. Good!!!! Orangemarlin 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

why do you guys continue to misrepresent nearly everything i say? how does one continue assuming good faith (without lobotomizing one's self) when nearly every time one's position is restated by the other side they mispresent it? read what i said in response to whom i was responding to (not FM). i'm not repeating it. you guys do not act in good faith. assuming good faith is reasonable, continuing to believe it after it has repeatedly been violated is just stupid. r b-j 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does "God" (capitilised) mean Monotheism

From Wikipedia God

The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality. God is generally regarded as the sole creator of the universe.[1] As of 2007, a majority of human beings are classified as adherents of religions that worship a monotheistic God, usually the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I've already detracted that other editors should refrain from using wikipedia article descriptiions (i.e. that teleological argument says it "is an argument for the existence of God or a creator..."). So I recognise my hypocrisy.

This quote however does show that confusion over usage of the term "God" (capitalised) will most certainly occur. It is term most easily associated with a deification of "the supreme reality".

This confusion is easily avoided by using the term design argument which means exactly the same, but does not provide this confusion. I am not arguing for a content change (I see no shift in meaning, do you?). I am arguing for a wording change that will improve the clarity of this article to readers.

ID proponents admit, that even despite their own personal beliefs, hopes and/or agendas, ID does not necessarily implicate their version of a supreme deity, or even a dupreme deity at all; even though this is (and has been) the most likely conclusion by any adherent, audience or critic. These facts should all be made clear in the article.--ZayZayEM 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have omitted the dablink:
This article discusses the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See Deity, God (male deity) or Goddess for details on polytheistic usages. See God (disambiguation) for other uses.
KillerChihuahua?!? 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your POV ZZM. "Design argument" does not mean the same thing, it is a method to make ID seem to be a non-religious or possibly even scientific "theory" to describe how life evolved. It almost appears to be a legal argument to get around the falsifiability portion of Scientific method. What you and others are trying to do is remove the reference to G_d as method to walk through a loophole of science. That's POV plain and simple. Orangemarlin 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional (?) Quote mining in lead

If you look at the context of the quote text used to source the lead here [11]

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

The currently used quoted text is not the words of the judgement. It is the words of John Haught being quoted by the judgement. This is a form of quote mining.

Wouldn't it be better to use or add "The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID" This is a statement by the decisors agreeing with Dr Haught's assessment. Dr Haught's assessment should not be utilised as neutral, but the judgement's agreement can.--ZayZayEM 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining? I doubt it very much. Here's the entire relevant quote from Kitzmiller v. Dover: Kenosis 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Page 24 of 139 ]The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful [Page 25 of 139] arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a [Page 26 of 139] direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. [End of the most relevant passage from the Kitzmiller decision] 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Maybe we should let the article definition as it is, and expand the text of the first reference/note to include a summary of this discussion: (1) this is the most reliable and neutral source (2) the other less reliable sources are ... and argue that ... --BMF81 09:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion taking account of the above

Taking the points that the "design argument" needs to be mentioned at the outset and that Jones' judgement states "The only apparent difference... is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God" as well as "ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity", here's a suggested rephrasing:

Intelligent design is a development of the design argument, which is traditionally an argument for the existence of God, reframed with the assertion that it cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy. It is presented as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God and have described their aim as “theistic and Christian science" which includes the supernatural. They claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Citations for all the points are shown in earlier posts. .. dave souza, talk 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good shot, but it reads like a legal document. Personally, I think starting the article off with a reference to traditional teleological arguments is a bit pejorative -- like starting off the abiogenesis article with "Abiogenesis is a modern form of spontaneous generation." Yes, that is true, but you could argue that abiogenesis and intelligent design are both modern forms of old theories using modern information, and even though their roots might be in very old ideas, their modern forms are very dissimilar to those roots. --Kgroover 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it would be like saying that abiogenesis is the generation of living matter from non-living matter (and hey, that's pretty much how that article starts out). A- = "without"; bio- = "life"; -genesis = "origin". Intelligent design is made up of two words - "intelligent" and "design" - as the name says, it's a design argument, which is a teleological argument, which is an argument for the existence of God. So both articles currently start out with a definition of the term which stems from the meaning of the word, rather than with a marketing slogan. Imagine that! Guettarda 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The first step, intelligent design argument = teleological argument, uses the broad sense of teleological. The second step, teleological argument = argument for the existence of God, uses the narrow sense of teleological. So I don't think going all the way to claim intelligent design argument = argument for the existence of God really works. -- Cat Whisperer 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, not all teleological arguments are arguing for capital-G God.--Kgroover 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Kgroover, please provide citations supporting your assertion that the modern form of ID is very dissimilar to its roots. Secondly, what part of "A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity" don't you understand? ..... dave souza, talk 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How is ID different? I'll use this article (which is linked to from the teleological page.) Aquinas believed there was a designer because:
1. Things are in motion, so they must have a non-moving counterpart to guide them.
2. Everything we know is caused by something else, so there must have been a thing to cause them.
Maybe if you're extremely cynical you can equate that with Behe et al's work, but from my standpoint they are fairly dissimilar. Second, simple logic tells you that if someone argues that the complexity and interdependence of nature is evidence of a creator they are not necessarily saying that Moses crossed the Red Sea, a serpent talked to Adam, the Earth was created in six literal days, or that Jesus rose from the dead after spending a lifetime of healing people and walking on water, regardless of what Barbara Forrest says. Again, I'll point to Antony Flew. --Kgroover 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> So. On the one hand, we have your original research giving your personal opinion that facts about Aquinas show ID is very different from its roots, and on the other we have a reference explicitly examining evidence provided by proponents and opponents of ID, noting that "expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID... is the same one that Paley made for design", and concluding that "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID... is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God." (see above for the full statement) As for Flew, from the linked sources in that article he now rather coyly and obscurely seems to believe in some form of God (note the capital), has been hailed in America and given an award by Johnson, and has assured us that he's "not 'one of them'." Certainly not a leading proponent of intelligent design, and it's hard to seem him as any more of a proponent of it than the Pope – an argument we've had already, thank you. You think my suggestion "reads like a legal document", which seems pretty appropriate for an argument developed by a retired lawyer and a bunch of theologians with some scientific or mathematical credentials. I'm content with it or with the present intro. .. dave souza, talk 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you think Aquinas' version of the design argument is similar to ID? In what ways?--Kgroover 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, before you say "it doesn't matter what I think", I just want to comment that this whole circuitous route of discovering that a fairly liberal and un-fundamentalist teleological conjecture is actually a plot by American fundies to get kids to handle snakes (or something like that) seems to be a large stack of quotes taken slightly out of context, amplified in importance, given the status of fact, and arranged into a very complicated (maybe even irreducibly complex?) stack of cards. If I have time, I'll come back to this tonight to expand further.--Kgroover 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Before you do, please read WP:A, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I was just accused of being in cahoots with fundies. That's a new one!!!!! Orangemarlin 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I had one too many parenthetical clauses in there for my point to be clear. Don't worry, OM, you're not a fundie!  :) --Kgroover 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Best yet Dave. This is a great non-ambigious lead. Reading like a "legal document" should not really stop it going through (I don't agree with that assertion either). I think possibly the second and third sentance could be switch intermingled, in order to illustrate that the quoted presentation of ID is also coming from the Institute. But abopve that I'd really like to see this version inserted into the article so we can get rid of the narrow view of "argument for God" out of there.--ZayZayEM 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I also find this version to better then the current and it resolves my issues. Morphh (talk) 1:57, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Following the suggestion that we really need to work to improve the article instead of just criticizing it, I took Dave's version above, rearranged it a bit and reworded some things I thought were pejorative, and came up with this:

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents are part of the Discovery Institute, a think tank which promotes "theistic and Christian science". They believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Thoughts? --Kgroover 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great lead - I think this is probably the best one yet. Morphh (talk) 13:26, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
I like Dave's better. It manages to incorporate mostly text from the current lead (already agreed on by consensus) and changes mostly only that which has come under dispute here. The phrasing of "certain features...best explained..." NEEDS to be in quotation marks. I also think "primary proponents are part of the DI" is less strong c.f. "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute".--ZayZayEM 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I took the quotations out because it had the ring of finger quotes, kind of a sarcastic rolling-eyes "this is what those guys say it is but they're liars" feel to it. Maybe it could be reworded but still say essentially the same thing if you're uncomfortable with quoting the DI. As for the alternative to "its leading proponents, all of whom etc." being less strong, yes it is, and that's why I changed that. The current wording makes it seem like there is no one in the world who is a proponent of ID besides members of the DI, which is untrue. There are politicians, community leaders, etc. who are proponents who are not part of the DI. --Kgroover 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific version?

I had always thought it odd that ID wasn't considered science, but after reading some of the statements cited in this article, I have a better understanding as to why. My question is this — is there a scientific counterpart to ID? I had previously considered ID to be scientific because I thought it included the claims of groups such as the Raëlian Church which, while religious in nature, are not based on the beliefs of any Abrahamic religion (and are actually quite naturalistic, if outlandish). Although in reviewing the articles on the beliefs of the Raëlian movement I think my assumptions there may be wrong as well, the point still remains that it's at least possible to construct a purely naturalistic theory in which humanity was designed by alien beings or some other non-deity. This also seems to be a perfectly testable hypothesis, since one could conceivably detect markers of some sort in our genetic code (or some other indicators) that demonstrated the influence of design. Mind you, I don't believe any such things, but I think such ideas would indeed be scientific. There's no reason to assume that the "designer" of ID needs to be the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or indeed any god at all.

Now, I understand (at least assuming the article is correct) that ID at least implicitly assumes that the designer is God (or a god) — but are there alternative formulations that don't make such assumptions? I'm asking both out of curiosity and because I think a lot of the energy that some ID defenders put into their work could be more productively focused (from a mainstream point of view, at least) on a more scientific variant. For example, I have on occasion defended ID in the past (in person, not here) on the grounds that it was scientific, albeit unlikely to be true. I think I misunderstood ID, but I do think it's important to recognize that scientific theories in opposition to evolution are indeed possible and important to consider (if only to help us determine more fruitful directions of research in strengthening our understanding of evolution).

--Sapphic 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I also have read that some are considering searching the DNA for some sort of signature in the way SETI searches outer space. For instance if we are able (and soon will be) to create new genetic structures we would want to put some sort of identifier in them to distinguish them from natural ones. Life looks designed and it is likely that if it is the designers put some kind of code to indicate that. Can we look for prime number sequences in the code? 68.109.234.155 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sapphic, you make some good points, but I think in the end what you state is outside of science. Throughout history, when people didn't understand something, they went to the supernatural, whether it was the Judeo-Christian-Muslim G_d, or the Nordic or Greco-Roman gods, or aliens from outer space. Science doesn't default to the supernatural when it can't find an "answer" to a hypothesis. Evolution, the start of life on Earth, etc. etc. all have solid scientific theories, generally called Evolution, that accounts for it all. Yes, there are questions or gaps here and there, but more or less, we know what has happened. And where we are stumped, such as the K-T extinction, we eventually figured it out. From a cosmological standpoint, the only thing that troubles me is the big bang, because what was there before it? That's another question for which we have not figured out the answer, but I assume some day we will. There are no scientific theories that would cover ID, because it is not a science. It defaults to some designer, which cannot be tested scientifically. People who believe in ID won't believe in falsfiability (that is that we can test the falseness of a scientific theory), because that would mean that a supreme supernatural being does not exist. It's hard for a religious person to accept that. Evolution does not presuppose the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being, so that should work for you. There might be a scientific theory that "opposes Evolution", but ID isn't going to one of them, because ID by its very nature is not science. As for the anonymous users comment about DNA from outer space--that is just as nonscientific. Orangemarlin 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is it unscientific? We can search the DNA for signatures. Its a long shot, just like hoping we will get a signal back from outer space like SETI does. And how can one falisfy that life exists somewhere in space. I do not see how that can be falsified either. And I heard discussed here that falisifiablity it not necessarily needed for a theory to be scientific. Not everyone agrees with Popper. 68.109.234.155 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, from a scientific point of view, the first question about "Life looks designed" is why? Is it a cultural or genetic tendency to see design in things, in the same way as we see faces in anything with two dots and a line :) ... Occam's razor cuts away the alien / supernatural explanation unless there's more convincing evidence....... dave souza, talk 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Biological living entities are the only thing in nature that have very much in common with man-made machines. Thus the logical inference that they are designed. Occams razor does not apply in every case 68.109.234.155 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


And second, please read Scientific method. I'm not sure who said anything about falsfiability not being a part of science, but in fact it is. As for any design, whether it is aliens or not, assumes something so complicated that it is not within the realm of science. I don't see design anywhere. If someone did design life, then I'd demand a refund. Why is that a delicious marbled steak eaten every day can lead to heart disease (OK, it can't by itself, but I'm trying to make a point here). You see, if someone was designing that beautiful steak, then they should have designed the coronary arteries to not clog up.Orangemarlin 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Many philosophers of science do not feel that falsifiablity is necessary. The theory that there is life somewhere in the unviverse other than earth is not falsifible yet most would not say that the work SETI is doing is unscientific. Much of what we consider scientific is not falsifiable. 68.109.234.155 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just now realized that the topic I wanted to discuss (if there are scientific versions of ID) is being discussed in threads higher up (but under potentially misleading section titles) so I'll move my discussion up there. I do want to make a few points, though:

  • The theory (as I understand it) put forward by the user at IP 68.109.234.155 — that human beings are the product of deliberate genetic engineering that might bear a "signature" design pattern of some sort to indicate authorship, just as commercial genetic engineering performed by human scientists will quite likely use similar techniques... think how we currently tag certain parts of the genome with radioactive markers of various types — is perfectly scientific, and is indeed analogous to the situation with SETI.
  • I, personally, do not consider such a scenario very likely.
  • There are indeed theories in the philosophy of science that question the need for falsifiability (for instance by substituting things like having a self-correcting mechanism, to get the same effect) but I don't think that represents the mainstream view among philosophers, let alone scientists.
  • In any event, 68.109.234.155's theory is perfectly falsifiable by finding a natural history for the development of the human genome that doesn't include any unnatural "signature" element. We could approximate this by tracing back from humans to their closest more primitive ancestor, showing that the differences could have reasonably developed from some natural process (possibly by means of some computer simulation or other mathematical model) and thus that no unnatural element has been introduced. 68.109.234.155's theory is different from ID in that the signature pattern ("irreducible complexity" or whatever mark) isn't allowed to be in the laws of nature or design of the universe itself or whatnot – it has to be in our genome, and it has to be obvious (once you know the "language" of our genes).
  • Simply because something is a valid though as-yet-untestable scientific theory, that doesn't say anything one way or another about its truth or falsity. Science can take care of itself without us having to label theories as unscientific when they're really just wrong. Their wrongness doesn't tarnish the image of science.

--Sapphic 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. actually after reading over the comments more closely, I think I just read into 68.109.234.155's words what I was already thinking, since as written they say that all of life would bear the DNA "signature" and not just humans. I thought the Raëlian movement believed that humans bore some sort of mark in their genetic code as proof of our alien designers' handiwork, but I can't find anything about it now. Anyway, I ended up at this article because I thought such ideas might fall under the category of ID, but apparently not, or that kind of thing gets in the way of the feuding religious and anti-religious camps that seem to like to fight here. Anyway, now I'm wondering if such theories (however crazy they may be) actually belong at this article, and the religious stuff belongs at the Intelligent design movement article. At the very least, I think there needs to be an article describing theories that actually do fall into the category that the ID movement pretends to believe in for their own purposes. --Sapphic 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from above)

Yes, we should repeat all partisan rhetorical devices used as thought-terminating clichés in their article's intros as if they were fact. I could also just as easily argue that ID not specifying the designer as God is also an opinion - a conclusion based on their belief that doing so furthers their goal. We need to be circumspect here about allowing the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic; doing so would not be an improvement to neutrality. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we do need to let the ID movement's rhetoric define the topic of Intelligent design, barring other work in the field done by some different group. I think that's fine for neutrality, because everything we want to say about the ID movement can be said in the article on the Intelligent design movement which would necessarily be linked to (possibly as a disambiguation) right at the top of this article. --Sapphic 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Can Intelligent Design be scientific? Only to the extent that it modifies and corrects its position in the light of empirical evidence and regardless of faith. Can it be religous? Certainly, provided that it maintains a constant position, based on faith, regardless of empirical evidence. Can it be both? Only if there is no conflict: only if the evidence, on careful and rational evaluation, does indeed point to an intelligent designer. And if that is indeed the case, the evidence can be as well evaluated by an atheist or agnostic as it can by a believer, provided they each approach the evidence with an open mind. The irony is that if there is an intelligent designer, faith is not a requirement to discover that; it becomes irrelevant to the truth of the matter. SheffieldSteel 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here in what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that the goals of the Intelligent design movement might be met through their support of a genuine scientific theory (though I like the rhetorical device you use there, it is very clever) but rather that there are theories put forth by groups that have nothing to do with Christianity, some religious and some not, that would fall under the category of Intelligent design theories, if it were to be taken seriously. Not all of those theories are unscientific (assuming some normal definition of "scientific", including Popper's).

The belief that our entire universe is actually a simulation in some cosmic computer (or the Matrix?) and that we could scientifically discover that fact could be considered a form of Intelligent design. I think most variants will be religious in nature, but since they're not limited to Christian fundamentalists, we shouldn't let that dominate the article just because of the movement that introduced the term.

--Sapphic 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design Movement of the Discovery Institute has repeatedly failed tests of its scientific integretity. As it stands presently it is run by a bunch of men intent of pushing forth their religious dogma as science while simultaneously attacking teh very fundamentals of natural inquiry responsible for science. The Discovery Institute has shown virtually zero interest in pursuing any possible avenues of science produced by the generic design argument, instead it has applied more resources towards religous sycophancy, advertising, distributing misinformation and fallacies throughout the world. If the Discovery Institute, or a splinter group of them, actually decided to get down do some science, present it honestly and cease attacking science as a bunch of bigots who hate God and therefore must be wrong, I'd really hope the scientific community would warm up to them and put them in the same boat of "misguided kooks, but hey at least they are trying and maybe possibly one day they might have some vindication" as Homeopathy, SETI, and Aquatic Ape theorists. --ZayZayEM 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about them, nor do I care about them. The closest thing to a religion that I have would be Buddhism, I suppose. I understand that they introduced the term and are using what appears to be a scientific theory as a means to push their own agenda — but I'm more interested in the theory, whether or not it accurately describes the beliefs of the movement. I was looking for information on other groups that have similar theories to the Christians, but perhaps more explicitly scientific. There are other groups that believe that humans were either engineered (Raëlian movement) or otherwise modified from a natural state (Scientology.. I think) and there are even non-religious ideas such as computer simulation or your standard brain-in-a-vat type stuff. These ideas should really get to fall into the category that the Intelligent design movement is using as a "cover story" or whatever, because it's a legitimate category of scientific theories that we're just letting them co-opt. --Sapphic 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design (disambiguation) should help you out to find this information. The term "intelligent design" has been decided by wikipedia consensus to deal with the Intelligent design movement of the Discovery Institute. Perhaps this should be reexamined?
[{Teleological argument]] covers the more generic claims of a design inherent in nature by various factions.--ZayZayEM 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: lead

Taking this to the next level of dispute resolution. Submitted Request for comment on the current lead sentence. Morphh (talk) 1:15, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw this at RfC page, but I'm an active editor of other articles related to Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, etc. I don't think using "for the existence of God" at the very beginning is useful. It obviously disagrees with the POV of proponents of ID, and I think the ID=God/creationism issue would be better mentioned a little (but not much!) later, where it could be specifically attributed to the Supreme Court. Better, in my opinion, is to just start with
Intelligent design is the argument that "certain features...."
Gnixon 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here so I don't know a lot of the background but one thing I immediately notice after reading over the other threads is that there are several different entities that are being confused for each other. As I see it, the term Intelligent design can refer to:
  1. An arguably scientific hypothesis that claims that the universe, or perhaps just life or even just human life, is the product of an intelligent designer that might be aliens, time-traveling descendants of humanity (in some causal paradox no doubt) or any number of things other than the God of Abrahamic tradition.
  2. A religious movement that admittedly uses the aforementioned arguably scientific hypothesis as a cover story for their own more overtly religious agenda.
  3. A hypothetical theory that represents the actual ideas held by members of the movement.
As a non-Christian who is only somewhat interested in the second two items, but who finds the first notion utterly fascinating (if implausible), I'm bothered by the fact that all three of these things seem to be lumped together and that the ensuing confusion serves to provoke and prolong endless debate by groups that are just talking past each other, since they're referring to different facets of the composite entity rather than the individual entities by themselves. The end result is that nothing useful gets said about the first item, which is ironically the only one that both the religious and non-religious groups ought to be able to agree on (though each for their own reasons).
I think it would be useful to draw the distinction between these three things in the very beginning of the article, since Intelligent design is really acting as a name for the whole topic in the article title, not any of the particular entities. It's almost like a disambiguation or summary page, but since the movement is probably what everyone is looking for, it should be the body of the article. Earlier I'd thought it was a good idea to just move the current page to Intelligent design movement and replace Intelligent design with one describing all such theories, whether they're Christian-based or not. However, given the prominence of the name, the fact that this is a featured article at the current name, etc. I now think an early link to Intelligent design theories or something similar, which could serve to describe the ideas of the various non-Christian groups with similar ideas – as well as the aspects of the theory that the DI claims to be their true beliefs, irrespective of their actual belief (which is discussed in detail here in relation to the overall topic).
--Sapphic 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What would be needed is a reliable source postulating that scientific hypothesis for a non-god "creator" of the universe or of life on earth. It's been a common theme in science fiction, and could be argued to be the Raelian approach, but as far as I know the term intelligent design is not used by them to describe the concept. It would then be appropriate to add a disambiguation to that concept, but this article is needed to explain the term intelligent design as co-opted by the DI. ... dave souza, talk 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually came to this article looking for whatever concept it is that includes the Raelian beliefs (or what I understood to be their beliefs), and barring some better term I still think they should be called "Intelligent design theories" or something similar. Just because the DI has co-opted that term and uses it to advance their own religious agenda, that doesn't mean that the concept referred to by the term isn't a valid one or isn't scientific. Like it or not, the DI has popularized the term "Intelligent design" to the point that it would be strange not to use it to describe these other non-Christian beliefs. I realize that this may have been part of their plan since it could undermine their opponents' position that ID == Creationism, but I don't think that allowing other non-Christian beliefs to be labeled under this category would mean that suddenly we have to teach Raelian creation stories or Scientology or whatnot in science class. --Sapphic 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that persons now associated with the Discovery Institute (DI) have coined the term Intelligent Design (ID), and that these persons have a clear religious agenda to somehow make God scientific, and that there have been some subterfuge committed by this organization to get legislatures and school boards to introduce ID alongside of Darwinian evolution in school biology or science classes, and that this belief has been (rightfully, in my opinion) labelled as a psuedoscience by nearly everyone in the bona fide science community, and that this effort to put ID into the public school science class has bee (rightfully, in my opinion) struck down by a federal court and identified by this court as another "old religious argument for the existance of God", there is no other widespread dictionary or encyclopediac reference that defines, as a start, ID as an "argument for the existance of God" or as the teleological argument (which is the argument for the existance of God because of observed order in the universe is best attributable to design by God).
Indeed, above I have cited three other widespread online references (encyclopediac and dictionary) that define ID as:
American Heritage Dictionary: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."
Encyclopeida Britannica: "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"."
Columbia University Encyclopedia:"Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence."
whereas the present (and protected) Wikipedia version opens with:
Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God.
The linking of Teleological argument with the words "argument for the existence of God" is appropriate because that is what the teleological argument is. It is an argument for the existance of God. But there is no defining reference that ID is either. None at all. The reference given for this definition is that of the court ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is fine for an attributed opinion for what ID means. Indeed, it is important to have such an important legal opinion referred to and referenced in the article (and even in the lead paragraph), but this is no evidence of the definition of ID. It is an opinion, an important opinion, but one that must be attributed as required by WP:NPOV guidelines that state:
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth..." (emphasis mine)
" ...assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion... Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. ..."
This last example in the policy is easily analogized as:
"So, rather than asserting, "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" we can say, "A federal judge, John E. Jones III, has declared in his decision that intelligent design 'is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God'," which is a fact verifiable by record. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second instance we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.
So what we have here is an encyclopedia that purports to have neutrality in its POV paramount ("A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006) and where "stealing is wrong" is an opinion (that few dispute) but "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" is portrayed as unattribued fact (when this opinion could easily be converted to fact, as the guideline requires, by attributing it to the federal judge who said it), even as definition (one that dozens of editors "seriously dispute") which has no cited defining reference that supports this as definition, and when multiple NPOV alternatives have been suggested.
This whole dispute could be disarmed if these obstinate and truly POV-pushing editors (who reasonably believe that ID as put forth by the DI is a load of crap, as I do, and reasonably believe that the DI and its allies have launched a dishonest campaign to get Creationism put back into the science class by renaming it "Intelligent Design" and changing the language) would stop playing power politics and simply allow a cited NPOV definition for the lead (i.e. "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes") and deconstruct the falsehoods of the ID proponents in the body of the article. Instead, this conclusion that one reasonably gets to by examining the facts around the ID issue is stated as uncontested fact and moreover as the very definition of ID when niether is the case. Pushing this POV, using their role as admins (there are at least two admins that are doing this, maybe more) to protect the article in the version they prefer, and repeatedly misrepresenting my position, even though I had been more than clear about it, is indicative of intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, they even had me blocked for pointing out such. The dishonesty is "okay", but pointing out such will get one blocked. r b-j 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
r b-j, please read WP:NPA. .. dave souza, talk 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
as i said, it's okay to repeatedly misrepresent (that's the nicest word i can find that applies) someone's position, but it's not okay to identify such. pointing that out gets one blocked (or threatened to be blocked.) r b-j 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To summarise the dispute: Intelligent design is a design argument, which is a teleological argument. ID is described as being teleological by just about everyone:

  • the Library of Congress
  • William Dembski, the person who has done most to shape ID
  • Robert Pennock, a major opponent

ID is clearly a teleological argument. Based on the fact that a teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God, the current language was adopted after discussion. The statement has been made that the teleological argument is not the same as an argument for the existence of God, but no references have been provided. The opening proposed by Rbj is a slogan agreed upon by ID proponents over a decade ago as part of their "big tent" strategy...it was meant to be as vague as possible, and does not accurately reflect what ID is. Guettarda 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(pathetically weak argument you continue to repeat, G.) classification is not the same as definition. i should hope that LoC would not classify ID as any biology or science (in the Q's). but, given the definition of Teleology (not the "teleological argument"), it's a perfectly appropriate LoC classification: BD530-BD595: Speculative philosophy: Teleology, causation, etc. that is precisely what ID is at its root. still doesn't mean that it is defined to be the "teleological argument" for the existance of God by definition.
how about BD493-BD701 Cosmology? think that's the same as what astrophysicists think about?
or BD430-BD435 Life? is that the LoC classification for biology?
how about BD411-BD417 Finite and infinite... is that about mathematics?
the fact that LoC properly put ID in the B's and not the Q's offers nothing support your blatent POV and OR definition of ID as an argument for the existance of God.
that mutual opponents Dembski and Pennock both "describe" ID as teleological is fine and good, the article should say so and attribute the opinion thus converting it to fact as required by WP:NPOV. r b-j 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
also, you (G) still have provided no evidence at all that the opening i have proposed is or has a "slogan" from anyone, unless you are saying that the definition in the American Heritage dictionary is a slogan. all of the other text in my proposed opening paragraph is from the existing opening with the exception of the last sentence in the first paragraph that said something like "opponents understand ID to be a disguised stategy to reintroduce Creation science back to the science classroom after being banned from public schools by the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling." whose slogan is that? (repeating a weak and untrue argument does not make it stronger or true.) r b-j 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
and one more thing: i have never argued that the "teleological argument is not the same as an argument for the existence of God". it most certainly is and i have repeated the definition of it as such. what i am saying is that, by definition, ID is neither but by examination, it is certainly reasonble to conclude that ID is (and was meant to be by the originators of the term) an argument for the existance of God. but that's a conclusion, not a definition. to redefine the term according to such a conclusion that a court, the science community, or a group of WP editiors have made is the blatent injection of POV. it violates Wikipedia NPOV policy. r b-j 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
References have been provided that ID does not define the designer, which is more direct then a source stating a teleological argument is not the same as an argument for the existence of God. I think Cat said it well above - "The first step, intelligent design argument = teleological argument, uses the broad sense of teleological. The second step, teleological argument = argument for the existence of God, uses the narrow sense of teleological. So I don't think going all the way to claim intelligent design argument = argument for the existence of God really works." But this section is not for us to redebate it.. it's for others to comment. Morphh (talk) 13:14, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think Morphh and Guettarda are talking past each other. "ID" in the sense of the body of beliefs actually held by the DI is both a teleological argument (in general) and a teleological argument for God. "ID" in the sense of just the more restrictive, arguably scientific theory that the DI claims to hold, is only teleological in the more general sense. They're two different things. I don't think Guettarda would argue that the second use has any reference to God, because the whole point of it is that it does not. I don't think Morphh would argue that the first use isn't exactly what Guettarda says it is – a teleological argument for God. But maybe I'm wrong.. I'd like to know what each side thinks of my attempt to describe their positions by distinguishing differences in reference. --Sapphic 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes most sense to let the first sentence be a definition of ID offered by its proponents, i.e., the Discovery Institute not objectionable, just saying what they say. A second sentence could describe it as a teleological point of view, probably defining the termnot objectionable, just using a word both sides can accept. A second paragraph in the intro could discuss the history in an NPOV way, only saying when it arose, who put it forth (without a lot about their motivations), and how much notability it has gained. A third paragraph could cover the controversy in an NPOV way, saying how mainstream science rejects it, how the courts called it creationism, and discussing the motivations of its proponents in an attributable way. I suggest the body of the article follow the same plan. Seems to me that anyone impartial wouldn't have a problem with any of that. Gnixon 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a big improvement. In general, I don't think the lead complies with WP:LEAD and FA criteria 2a. Morphh (talk) 13:43, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that sounds reasonable, and isn't too different from what I'm suggesting. I just think that each of those things (the view claimed by the DI, the DI (or Christian ID movement) itself, and the view actually held by the ID including their possibly disingenuous use of the first view) is really a distinct entity that people refer to using the term "Intelligent design" and should thus be distinguished.
I don't believe that anyone here is saying that the first view (the view claimed by ID proponents, whether or not they sincerely believe it) is religious. It's explicitly non-religious in fact, because that suits the agenda of the DI better. What's being claimed (with cited references) is that the DI (or Christian ID proponents in general) actually believes something different than what they say they believe, and it is this "hidden" theory that's being called teleological and religious.
Basically I think the very discussion that's played out here on the talk page (that the ID movement admittedly uses an arguably scientific theory as a "cover story" to push their own agenda) should be explained in the article, and that different terms should be used for the various conflated entities.
--Sapphic 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, although I'd say it a bit differently. ID is an idea that we can introduce simply. Soon after that, we should give the response of science and the courts, and then the arguments that its proponents have religious motivations. The truth of those arguments will probably be patently obvious, but let's make sure they're attributed so Wikipedia isn't making them. Keep faith in the readers! (To address a specific proposal, I would not recommend treating "the view actually held by the ID" as another meaning of ID. Separate what IDers say (which is by definition ID) from their motivations and "true" beliefs, the latter only if attributable statements can be made.) Gnixon 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't get this line of reasoning. The stance of the Discovery Institute is that it is a teleological argument, in fact, that it is a teleological argument for God. --ZayZayEM 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What, specifically, is "it" ? --Sapphic 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
ID is inarguably a teleological argument, by the definition of the word. It also inarguably avoids identifying the designer---logically, the designer could be God, aliens, or my third cousin. Separate the statement from the motivation, and trust the reader. Gnixon 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
GN, please check your definitions. and please differentiate between "teleology" (in general) and the "teleological argument" (specifically). from all of the dictionary definitions i came upon, the teleological argument is an argument for the existance of God or a god to specifically speak to a question or issue in teleology about things "exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature". r b-j 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, as noted below, I've been using the term loosely because I was ignorant of the difference. Given that, I'm not sure how to use "teleological" in the lead without confusing our readers. Suggestions? Gnixon 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I also apologize for not reading carefully enough RBJ's earlier comment in this long thread, where he explains the issue clearly. Gnixon 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gnixon, but this time I was asking ZayZayEM. I really do think a big part of the problem is that nobody here really seems to agree what the term "ID" refers to. I think ZayZayEM is talking about the "motivations and true beliefs" of the DI and you're talking about the statement they officially support. I understand that you don't think the first entity deserves its own term (or that we need to be careful about discussing it) but I think that's what a lot of other people are actually referring to. --Sapphic 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to him.  :) Gnixon 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the rfc: Whilst I agree that ID as an explanation in biology is most commonly raised as a teological argument, it could potentially also cover other non-natural explainations or non-monotheisistic explainations. For that reason I think the intro as it stands is impercise. Jefffire 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Y'know guys, there's a forest in there among the trees. You are (knowingly or unknowlingly) parroting the tactics of the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Strategy: introduce enough ambiguity re the designer to get the "theory" accepted, and slowly move to the reality that ID is a teleoogical aregumant. The opening sentence dismisses the ambiguity and bait-and-switch tactics and hones in with marked precision on what ID truly is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

I've noticed above the assertion that "teleological argument" means an argument for the existence of God. That's simply incorrect. See www.m-w.com or www.dictionary.com. I think this issue is confusing the debate. Gnixon 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

i beg to differ. from dictionary.com:
the argument for the existence of God based on the assumption that order in the universe implies an orderer and cannot be a natural feature of the universe.
from whatever else Google drugged up:
an attempted proof of God's existence based upon the premise that the universe is designed and therefore needs a designer: God.
An attempt to prove the existence of god based upon an observation of the regularity or beauty of the universe.
and on and on. (it's not in m-w, but the root words are.)
now, what is different (and this difference is being repeatedly conflated by Guettarda et. al.) is the strict definition of "teleology".
r b-j 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I beg to double-differ.  :-) Typing www.dictionary.com sends me to "dictionary.reference.com," which gives results for "teleological" from dictionary.com, american heritage, and m-w, none of which mentioned God, but instead used "design," "purpose," "goals," "final cause." Searching for teleology gives the same. Not sure where you got your definition. Obviously Creationism is teleological, but the term is much broader, including, for example, Plato's forms. Gnixon 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooh! Interesting. Searching instead for "teleological argument" gives the definition you quote. Thanks a lot, dictionary.com for sucking enough to confuse this issue. Gnixon 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
GN, it's not confusing the issue. it's differentiating two different points or ideas. teleology is, in and of itself, not about God but is about the general philosophical issue "exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature ". "The teleological argument" is a particular teleology that argues that there must be a God (or god) because of all of this observed order and beauty or ostensible design in the the universe. do you see the difference? r b-j 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I was ignorant of that point, which is obviously correct after a few Google searches. But what an abuse of language! "Teleological" means one thing, but a "teleological argument" is always something more specific? What if I make an argument that is teleological in nature, but does not argue God exists? Apparently, that's not a teleological argument. Specifically, ID is teleological, and is an argument, but it is not a "teleological argument"! I recognize there's a close relationship, and I'm no philosopher, but that sounds pretty nuts to me. I'm not sure how to handle it in the article without confusing our readers. Gnixon 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I could understand if people referred to "the teleological argument" or the "Teleological Argument", but that doesn't seem to be the practice. Gnixon 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A "teleology" is a "logos" (-ology) or account, description, etc. of a "telos," a goal, end, etc. Teleologies are used all the time, not necessarily in reference to God - e.g., Aristotle calls the teleology of the acorn the fact that it becomes an oak tree - i.e., the goal or end of an acorn is to become an oak tree. Teleology is also one of Aristotle's Four causes (the others are efficient, material and formal). Here is where ID comes it. In modern science, only the efficient cause is in play - the other three are not considered scientific. ID is a clear example of an argument by design - which is a teleological argument (an argument which, in the course of making its demonstration, employs a teleology, an account of an end). Modern science rejects such an argument, as it rejects the type of cause it relies upon. So, ID folks have 2 choices: either say ID is not a science, or say that science has mistakenly rejected 3 of the 4 causes. (BTW, I think ID is not a science - it is a rhetorical strategy, and one not in good faith - and I also think that science should allow the other 3 causes to come into play. That is neither here nor there, but I couldn't resist.) Editor437 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Editor, that's useful information. Sounds like we finally got an honest-to-goodness philosopher in the mix. Gnixon 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The question that a teleological explanation answers is "What is the purpose of the object, such as an acorn, or the goal of the activity?" The main question for this article is, "how do we recognize Design?" The ID proponents, following Paley and Dawkins, look to complexity as the sign of design. Richard Dawkins claims in The Blind Watchmaker that there is no purpose or design in the universe because the complexity we see can be produced by evolution alone and does not need a designer. However, there are other criteria by which to recognize design. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Part One, Question 2, article 3, uses the argument from design to prove God's existence. (See footnote 20 of main article.) But his criterion for design is that an unintelligent being, such as a natural body, acts towards a goal or end, always or for the most part. Therefore it does not act by chance but by design. Hence there is a designer, etc. The complexity of the acorn is not mentioned; the fact that acorns usually grow into oak trees, that army ants do anything and every thing to protect their queen (an example from Dawkins) reveal design. ID picks complexity as the mark of design rather than acting toward a goal. Dawkins' book is full of examples of design that meet Aquinas's criterion while he is showing that complexity is produced by evolution alone.75.21.92.219 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion or science?

I noticed that Morphh raised this discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. Since part of the argument is that ID proponents portray it as science rather than religion, I've added it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Biology and related. ... dave souza, talk 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) fixed erroneous attribution 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to post it both places. Gnixon 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
agree. r b-j 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stay focused on the article

I'd encourage other editors to stay focused on the article. Commenting on the merits of ID or engaging those who do so only distracts us from writing a good article. It should be easy for everyone to agree that proponents of ID argue it is science, not creationism, but that mainstream science considers it pseudoscience and a federal court has called it "a mere re-labeling of creationism." There's no need to argue who's right, and it's damaging to Wikipedia to spend time, effort, space, and credibility doing so. I'm disappointed to see that this article shares many of the flaws of its talk page. Gnixon 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion. r b-j 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
These points are well covered in the existing lead and in the article. Feel free to propose improvements. ... dave souza, talk 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not what's missing so much as what's there and shouldn't be. Btw, everyone should feel free to make improvements! Gnixon 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
except if those improvements are not the ones that Dave souza, Kenosis, Orangemarlin, Felonious Monk, or Guettarda approve of. no one is free to make those improvements. we may "propose" them only to have them sandbagged. but if they want to make "improvements", they have unique authority to just edit the article. r b-j 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the first one or two sentences should be completely factual with no opiniond. Each side should be able to veto any suggestion until there is a sentence that all can agree is true. Then the pro-IDs should have a sentence then the anti-IDs. 68.109.234.155 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Many coments. GNixon, the article is NPOV, and does not discuss the merits of ID, except to quote several verifiable sources. To say otherwise violate WP:CIVIL, and no I won't write you up, because I don't do that. The article is locked to prevent editing (unless that changed recently), until this issue is resolved. It will become an edit war otherwise, which I hope you don't want. To RBJ, your accusations definitely violates civil discussions. Numerous individuals have participated in these discussion and in editing. We are holding ground here against changing the lead to a POV one that hides factual and verifiable descriptions of ID. Nothing more nor nothing less. And to the anonymous user who reminds me of a certain sockpuppet, that's not the way you write encyclopedic articles. You state what is verifiable, not who thinks what is right or wrong. The lead is neutral, it is verifiable, and it is well-written. Orangemarlin 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
To say directly that ID is an argument for the existence of God is simply wrong, because nowhere in a statement of ID does the word "God" appear. To insist on describing it as such is highly suggestive of a POV-pushing motivation. To say that proponents of ID are motivated by the desire to argue for God in a politically acceptable way is quite reasonable, even necessary, provided that it can be properly attributed and cited. Therefor, to argue that ID is effectively an argument for God is also quite reasonable, but that statement, when made in an encyclopedia, must be attributed and cited. Until those principles are followed, the article most certainly does not follow NPOV guidelines. I fail to see how it's uncivil to comment that the article has problems. Gnixon 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not POV-pushing to state what has been factually determined by a Federal Court, about as neutral a party as you can get. Since the judge who issued the ruling is also a Republican appointed by Bush II, it speaks even more loudly. To your point that "nowhere in a statement of ID does the word "G_d" appear", well that's not good enough. An organization does not get to describe itself. Or maybe the article on Adolf Hitler will start out by saying, "I am just a simple Austrian who wants to improve the economy of Germany." Or we could take Microsoft literature and start the article by saying that Microsoft makes secure operating systems that everyone loves. The subject does not get to choose how it gets described in an article. And yes, it is very uncivil to accuse this many editors of violating POV. You can say that to me when I was the only one standing up to your edits in other articles, but here we have probably 20 long-term editors who have fought to make this article completely NPOV. It may violate your personal POV on ID, but that doesn't make it your right to accuse us of whatever you want. The article is fully attributed with reasonable and verifiable sources. This argument/discussion/debate is going nowhere. Orangemarlin 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"An organization does not get to describe itself." OM, that doesn't mean that an organization's definition is automatically wrong. The federal court wasn't describing ID for purposes of use in an encyclopedic article, they were determining if ID had a religious angle. --Kgroover 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
in fact, since this particular etimology of the term had not the time to evolve in meaning (as words do over decades and centuries), the meaning of the term as was coined in this context remains unchanged. the coiners of the term still define the term they coined and to simply change it unilaterally is the same mistake as what is done by straw manning. now, one problem is that these DI guys (i dunno if it's Dembski or Johnson or Behe or even someone else) have co-opted the term from its common meaning to their agenda, but, when the context is what we have here, they, the coiners of the term not you (i mean Orange and the like), set the definition. you may not like the definition, you can point out all sorts of dishonest motives they have with this term they've coined or co-opted for their purposes, but you don't get to simply change the definition. society does with usage, but not a small band of Wikipedia editors. you get to reflect the meaning of the term (and deconstruct it), but you don't get to change it. to do so too often ends up destroying meaning in language (sorta like the DI guys did with the phrase "intelligent design" or the Christian fundamentalists have done with the word and concept of "fundamental"). also sorta like, back in the '80s when "bad" meant "good" in the street. we just don't get to keep changing the meaning of words, which is why dictionaries are necessary as authorities as to what these words are supposed to mean. the problem is that Orange and the other like-minded editors fancy their own authority of what ID fundamentally means over that of all of the other widespread references. they think they're wiser or more neutral than the dictionaries and the competeting encyclopedias. r b-j 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
they're called "opinions". even in the Supreme Court decisions, they're still called "opinions". they may have the force of law (when a judge comes to a judgement that something is contrary to law, he makes that ruling and people have to obey it until some judge or panel of judges with jurisdiction and higher legal authority rules to the contrary) but it's still an opinion. fact is something else. if the judge had ruled the other way, the school district would have done something different but it would still be an opinion (one with legal authority) and not fact.
as to "uncivil to accuse this many editors of violating POV", (are you using Gnixon as a proxy when you mean me?) you guys have done that to me multiple times (want me to find the diffs?). it is not my "personal POV on ID" but the widespread definition of it (outside of Wikipedia) that i am advocating putting in. by attributing that to my "personal POV", you misrepresent what i am saying. the only reason the "argument/discussion/debate is going nowhere" is because of obstinance of a group of editors (insisting that their POV become the definition of ID) that you belong to. this is eventually going to ArbCom because facts and WP policy does not seem to matter and the admins in your camp seem to be content to use their admin powers to impose their POV onto an article and not let the wiki process determine content. r b-j 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's true this argument has been going nowhere, and I agree with RBJ's assessment of why, but I'm glad to see that the RfC is starting to bring 3rd-party opinions. (I suppose I no longer qualify as a 3rd party, even though RfC brought me here.) We clearly need more. Gnixon 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the "alternative" definition comes just from a not very reliable source that has a clear conflict of interest in dissimulating what ID really is.--BMF81 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
can you be specific as to what the "alternative" definition is? is it the current one in Wikipedia or the American Heritage dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Columbia encyclopedia? seems to me that the latter three (that do not define ID as an argument for the existance of God) are the mainstream and it is this one here that is the "alternative". since no other reference supports it, it's a bit OR, to boot. r b-j 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither the American Heritage dictionary nor Britannica cite any source for the definition they provide (btw, in my opinion wikipedia's article quality is on another planet). The Columbia encyclopedia article cites R. T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (2002) as a general source; it would be interesting to include that book among the references for our article, and to see the definition it provides.--BMF81 00:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
doesn't matter. why should people trust the reliability of this small and unaccountable group of editors (whom themselves have a clear conflict of interest, they ain't no ID supporters, that is clear) over that of authorative and reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias? you're grasping at straws if you think that this is in any way persuasive. the "alternative" definition is the current Wikipedia definition and because it is semantically completely different than those of the existing reputable references, it is not a very reliable source. that you think it is, is only indicative of your own bias. r b-j 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand why people can't tell the difference between an argument for God and an argument for something else that's useful to people with an ulterior motive. ID isn't an argument for God, but it does get you *almost there*, which is very useful if you're a creationist who's not allowed to argue for God in the courts---especially if the public is confused about the difference. Are we trying to make Wikipedia confused, too? Gnixon 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Either it is an argument for G_d or it's not. The courts, the scientific community, and the founders of the ID movement themselves have all stated that it is. The only confusion is that Creationists are attempting to obfuscate the argument by using the "almost there" point that you're making, which, by definition is the Creationist POV. The Neutral POV, as stated by a very learned Federal District Court, is that it is an argument for G_d. I am absolutely not getting this round and round and round discussion. Just by accusing someone or something of having a POV does not make it so. Orangemarlin 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
. . . and of course it depends on what you mean by "God". ID=Christian God? Maybe about five generations of loose logic in. Not the best way to define it for an encyclopedia article. --Kgroover 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We're clearly talking past each other, so back to the article. I can't see how it can be important to the article that the definition of ID is prefaced by calling it an argument for the existence of God, whether that's true or not. As I've said before, the attributed assertion that it is "creationism in disguise" should be put in the introduction. Here are the first three definitions of ID I've found online:

  1. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. Amer. Her.
  2. a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. [ID] Webst. New Mil.
  3. the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence Merr.-Webst.

I would note that none of them saw fit to use the word "God". Can we please just pick one and get on with our lives? There seemed to be some support for the Intro layout of define, history, controversy, so I recommend implementing it. Gnixon 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think any of those would be fine, but I would emphasize again that I feel the term "Intelligent design" is being used to refer to various distinct but related entities, and that in addition to defining the term as above we would need to clarify that the ID movement (headed by the DI) uses their "official" position disingenuously to promote their (self-)admittedly religious agenda. I also still think there should be an article, perhaps at Intelligent design theories, that discusses various non-Christian ideas such as those promoted by the Raelians, Scientologists, overly-enthusiastic fans of The Matrix, or whoever else holds that the universe (or humanity) was designed by some other than the God of Abrahamic religions. --Sapphic 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The specific ID movement in the U.S. has significant notability (notoriety?), so it seems reasonable to focus this article on the ideas of that movement. I agree with prominently citing attributable statements about disingenuous use of ID. Also, I agree that there are a number of non-Christian philosophies that would fall under the definition of ID, like, for example, The Matrix, and I think it would be quite interesting and useful to devote a section to them. Gnixon 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A section (of this article, presumably) or another article entirely? Given the division of topics as I see it, I'd originally thought that this article should deal with the "official" version of ID as put forth by it's supporters, and the article on Intelligent design movement should address the rest of their religious agenda/addendum to the base theory (this "Christian science" that's not the same as the denomination that calls itself "Christian Science"). However, I later realized that the string "Intelligent design" is just better text real-estate, so to speak. It's shorter, it's what will probably show up most in the searches people do on this topic, etc. Plus, it's already a featured article at that name. So clearly "Intelligent design" has to be used to describe what it's opponents (some of whom, if I understand correctly, are admins, and who are acting on a previously existing consensus that's now being questioned) most wanted to expose about ID. The actual declaration of the "theory" part may not have any mention of God, but that's just a small part of the overall picture. It's the whole thing that's being called "Intelligent design" by its opponents, and it's just that scientific-sounding part that its supporters want the term to refer to (and thus what the lead would have to be about).
I think the term Intelligent design should be taken to refer to the combination of the movement, their agenda, and their scientific(-sounding) claims (though I do think they're scientific, albeit wrong). I think the wording of the lead should reflect this, and should acknowledge that some groups want the term to just refer to a particular scientifically-phrased (if not scientific) statement. It might also point out why that group wants the term to be used that way, just as has been done here on the talk page (and probably fully cited somewhere here or in some archive where it's been discussed before). There should probably even be a whole section on the disagreement over control of the terminology in the whole debate, since it's obviously a big issue. I think a different article, possibly named Intelligent design theories, should be created to address the non-Christian versions and should be linked to early in this article (maybe even a disambig). Given the obvious potential for emotion to take over on this topic, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to put the non-Christian stuff on this page, since it'll just end up being used as a bargaining chip or somehow subverted to one side or another. It really has nothing to do with what most people associate with "Intelligent design" other than the fact that there's really nothing better to call these theories because that term has already been popularized. I don't think opponents of ID should feel threatened by these other theories going by the same name — quite the contrary, since I don't see how being in the company of a lot of the other non-Christian groups that support some "Intelligent design theory" really would help Christianity in any conceivable way. --Sapphic 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Towards reviewing NPOV on this article, the very first statement cites to the following passage from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (2005-- note the date-- not 1999, not 2002, not 2004, but 2005with the ruling issued in December of 2005). The Kitzmiller trial was the first opportunity with regard to iintelligent design for the assertions of the various camps to be tested by cross-examination under oath, and the first time it was tested before an objective third party, in this case Bush appointee John E. Jones III. The relevant language from the ruling follows: ... Kenosis 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[Page 24 of 139 ]The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful [Page 25 of 139] arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a [Page 26 of 139] direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. [End of the most relevant passage from the Kitzmiller decision]

01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Source documents are great for reference. In the context of the above quote, I'm saying that a lot of the conflict in the debate both here and on this topic in general can be seen as an argument over what terms refer to what things. Supporters of ID want "Intelligent design" to refer only to the "official position" of the above quote, since it doesn't mention God and is at least phrased in a scientific manner. Opponents want the term to refer to "the concept" which includes the context in which the "official position" is presented. My suggestion is that we can and should distinguish between these two senses, and use the lead to acknowledge the very argument over language that has been stagnating here forever. Something like:
The term "Intelligent design" can be used to describe a number of related concepts, based upon an argument for the existence of God that is itself based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, would prefer to restrict the use of the term to designate just a statement of their official position, which they argue is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.
--Sapphic 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I seems to me that the long time editors are under the impression that a neutral source means NPOV. This is not the case for Wikipedia policy, which states the content is "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The sources does not need to be neutral and using a neutral source does not make it NPOV, if other views are not fairly represented without bias. The current lead uses the opinion of a neutral source to make a statement of fact. Using a neutral source as a reference for fact does not make the statement NPOV if such a statement is disputed. Morphh (talk) 2:17, 06 April 2007 (UTC)

I think yours is a good point. But let's see it in terms of reliability: the most reliable source goes to the lead, because the lead has to be concise, and broader discussion is given later in the article-body.--BMF81 08:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but do we have a reliable source disputing the fact? Since this is getting long, I'll start a new section on this point. .. dave souza, talk 09:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
According to NPOV policy, views are to be represented in proportion to the degree in which they are held. Meaning Discovery Institute as source of both ID and the movement is the natural choice for defining ID. I also note that the article cites other, smaller groups like IDEA and IDnet use the Discovery Institute's definition, which is not surprising. 151.151.73.167 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a reliable source for the definition?

The first question, of course, is how to define a reliable source. Fortunately, WP:A and WP:RS define this phrase for our purposes. In the terms of WP:A#Primary and secondary sources, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Memorandum Opinion including this is clearly a secondary source that summarizes, analyzes and/or interprets other material, usually primary source material. The point has already been raised that this is only an "opinion" with the suggestion that this is like, say, LBJ's opinion or OM's opinion. As a legal opinion it is a finding of fact by the court, and forms the legal definition of ID for the jurisdiction as well as, effectively, for other jurisdictions. Note these pages:

"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science... ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science."

It is being proposed that the definition given by the DI should be used: this is clearly a primary source, and is a questionable or self-published source which can only be used in articles about that source, subject to conditions including that "it is not contentious" and "it is not unduly self-serving". At present their definition is quoted after the legal definition to show their viewpoint without giving it undue weight, as is required by WP:NPOV. Their depiction of it as a "theory" is omitted at this point as their self-serving use of this term conflates the popular usage of the word as meaning "conjecture" with the scientific use to mean a well tested hypothesis. However, it's interesting to note that their definition as set out on this CSC page does not say that it isn't an argument for the existence of God, and indeed does state that "Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design." in what anyone versed in theology would recognise as a reference to the teleological argument. Note that the finding by Jones consistently calls it an "argument for the existence of God" without using the teleological argument term, and notes that "no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM". ... dave souza, talk 09:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't take the most reliable source or the secondary source and state it as fact because it is "better". This is not what NPOV states. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge, which is not an issue here. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible but this does not mean that reliance on secondary sources should exclude primary sources or negate the view if it disputes the other source. There are secondary sources from the New York Times (with an objection to the specification of God) and Dictionaries (that do not use God to define ID). I haven't read the entire case yet that you quote above, but it would seem logical that proponents argued that it did not define a designer in the case itself (since that was their way to get it into schools and certainly a point of discussion in the case). If this were the case, you could use your same source to argue against your point as a factual statement without attribution, even though the verdict was not in their favor because the source shows the point is disputed. It doesn't matter to me if we use something different then the definition given by the DI, so long as it is accurate and doesn't state God as fact without attributing the source. Morphh (talk) 11:53, 06 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that material from self-published or questionable sources, such as the DI's definitions, can only be used if the article is not based primarily on such sources – and as a summary of the article, the same applies to the lead.
Here, sources are attributed in the footnotes – what you're arguing is that the attribution should be set out in full in the initial paragraph, which appears to me to go against WP:LEAD which required that it should be concise and suggests that it should avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs. Simply attributing the statement to the Kitzmiller opinion in is open to misinterpretation in contravention of WP:NPOV#Undue weight "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." We also have to consider the statements by ID proponents that the designer is God and, albeit coded in a way requiring specialist interpretation, that the 19th century Teleological argument is "some form of intelligent design".
As discussed earlier, Kitzmiller notes the difference that ID is framed to avoid identifying the "designer", and proposals taking account of that point are shown at #Suggestion taking account of the above. ... dave souza, talk 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
which of these are "self-published or questionable sources or DI's definition"?:
American Heritage Dictionary: "the assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."
Encyclopeida Britannica: "Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer"."
Columbia University Encyclopedia: "Intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence."
so which of those are one of these are "questionable DI definitions"? r b-j 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It is utterly and completely against Wikipedia policy to state a disputed opinion as a fact, no matter how reliable the source for that opinion is. Nothing in WP:LEAD, WP:RS, or WP:A suggests otherwise. In fact, WP:A#Primary and secondary sources states, under the secondary sources paragraph: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." In other words, the reliability of the source for the court opinion is what gets it into the article, and the notability of the source is what gets it into the lead, but there is nothing that would justifiy presenting that opinion as a fact.
Also, the issue isn't whether the source of the opinion should be mentioned in the sentence itself or just in the footnotes. The issue is that the sentence is currently worded as a fact, whereas it needs to be worded as an opinion. This is an easily fixed by changing it to read, "Intelligent design has been found to be an argument for the existence of God", and leaving the source in the footnotes. -- Cat Whisperer 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cat. To answer the section heading, how about a dictionary? Three dictionary definitions are quoted above. Even better, I think, would be to define it as did whoever invented the term (DI? Can someone find a source?), followed immediately by Cat's statement about the court opinion. Gnixon 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't. She places a court ruling on the same level as partisan sources such as the Discovery Insitute, when they are clearly not. 151.151.73.167 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
there are no such levels. it is simply stating a fact and attributing it. i think this fact could be more clearly stated and the opinion the fact refers to more clearly attributed. something like: "In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, has declared in his decision that intelligent design 'is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God'," complete with all of the refs and links necessary. that is factual, and attributed. there is no sense that the "quality" of this opinion is placed on any level (other than what the facts say, the legal opinion of a federal judge is pretty important and says a lot) or compared in any way to the DI. again, the appropriate NPOV definition (which the current lead is not) should not be taken from anyones cache of slogans. i've cited at least three from a dictionary and two enclyclopedias that have been falsely labeled as slogans from DI. this is the smoking pistol of bias by the so-called "longtime editors" (which is a self-awarded title). you guys still just have no case. your POV and obstinance is evident, despite the denials. r b-j 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

<removed indents>RBJ, I found this interesting quote:

  • A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal. This fictitious cabal will obviously possess views directly opposed to the accusing editor, who will be remarkably willing to overlook contrary evidence. In this manner nearly every good faith editor will be accused of being a member of entirely contradictory cabals.-Addhoc

I'd suggest you chill out on accusing us guys of anything. As for Cat's suggestion, it sounds like weasel wording to me. However, I might argue for consensus so everyone would quit this bickering back and forth. Orangemarlin 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing RBJ. I noticed a trend with POV pushers that they will use the rules around here to make a case. Rules are fine, because we don't want anarchy, but on the other hand, there's common sense, wisdom and intelligence. A court ruling fundamentally has more weight intellectually than propaganda. Once again, we don't let people edit biographies about themselves, we don't let companies write articles on here, and we are smart enough to know better. The Wedge strategy is clearly a document that shows the DI's intentions with Intelligent design. The court ruling clearly states that it is an argument for a Christian god. The WP:NPOV and undue weight clause may support both "sides" to this argument, but in the end verfiability matters.Orangemarlin 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, why doesn't the article start out with "ID is an argument for the Christian God"? Isn't that what you should be shooting for? If the current wording is NPOV, then go all the way. Me, I'm willing to assert it as fact, and my version actually does use the term, but it doesn't start that way, because it's not the best way to start off an encyclopedia article as per Wp:lead#Writing about concepts.--Kgroover 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, OM, NPOV is also essential policy and must be followed. Please be assured I don't think you or anyone is part of some conspiracy. Anyway, for those wanting to use dictionary definitions, please read WP:RS. The section that starts "Tertiary sources are reference books such as dictionaries, general encyclopedias and almanacs. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced." is of particular note, and the quality of such references has to be considered carefully. .. dave souza, talk 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken---quoting dictionaries in an article is bad. I agree. Of course, I do think they can guide us on certain points, like the fact that none of them defines ID as an argument for God. Again, I think the best thing would be to quote a definition from someone in the movement. They invented the concept, so I'm pretty sure their definition is, err, by defintion correct. Let others explain their true motivations. Gnixon 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Dave you're one of the good guys, so I never thought you accused me of being a part of a conspiracy. If anything you're part of my "conspiracy." LOL. Yes, I know NPOV is fundamental. But as with all rules, everyone pushes their own interpretation of it. Orangemarlin 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, OM it's kind of funny that you're calling us POV pushers since none of us (as far as I know) are proponents of ID. Not me, Morph, or rbj, at least. And I'm not even one of the "good guys". --Kgroover 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I think maybe we could find facts by looking in a new direction... maybe this one: Intelligent design is the concept at the heart of the Intelligent Design Movement. I also strongly believe we can only document slogans and criticisms in later sentences. If there are other notable interpretations of the phrase than the DI's usage (and I haven't seen any sources for such) then perhaps that's a matter for a disambiguation page.
Taking something at face value comes up with one definition (though it may be a PR definition or slogan). But there are other aspects of the thing that also define it. Stepping back and looking at it differently offers a better view - and, if you will, a meta-definition. I believe we may need to step back to see more clearly, and if necessary keep doing so, until we can see the whole of the thing, rather than just what people have said about it (whether proponents or critics). I do think we can come up with a good definition that is factual and sourced, if we're prepared to look further afield than the alternatives we have been fighting over. SheffieldSteel 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be about generic intelligent design arguments?

More polling--ZayZayEM 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia make a distinction between DI's intelligent design movement and the generic idea of intelligent design? (vs. unintelligent design, non-speficised intellegence design, human design, and no design)

If so Should the main intelligent design article be about DI's intelligent design, or about generic arguments/philosophies/hypotheses for design from intelligence?

First, polls are evil; second, the answer is no. The term intelligent design has been coopted by the DI. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Note, if you go to Encyclopedia Britannica, their ID article is about ID as described in this article [12] &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One other note: a brief stroll through the net shows that less than 1% of all hits for "intellgent design" are on a topic other than DI's ID, thus they would be tiny minority positions that really needn't be addressed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Or, more significantly, shouldn't be addressed as that would contravene WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The generic idea is the teleological argument, and variations on the theme are already covered there.. dave souza, talk 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with dave and Jim. Also, I second that polls are evil. Gnixon 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, polling is too easily gamed by simply get a majority and no guarantee of neutral articles. 151.151.73.167 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Perhaps intelligent design (disambiguation) should reflect that some people do occasionally use the term to mean a generic teleological argument, rather than DI's specific one. This is usually how politicians (and school boards) get conned into siding with the DI. Or perhaps the initial dablink at the head of this article should make it clearer this is about DI's coopted use of the term.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
One more point the generic idea of intelligent design is not explicitly the same a teleological argument. Intelligent design assumes intelligence (and usually purpose) on behalf of the designer. (Though I think most teleological arguments do, which is why science usually reject them)--ZayZayEM 02:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


What "generic intelligent design arguments" would that be? There is no ID other than that has been promoted by the Discovery Institute. 151.151.73.167 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What term would you used to describe the assertion that a superintelligent being designed life? 68.109.234.155 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, creationism. 151.151.73.167 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Really, then the Pope would be a creationist according to your terminology. And in the wiki definition is says that creationists believe that the creator was 'supernatural' To me it seem the terms creationist and evolution here are used in several different ways which makes the converstaions confusing. To me an 'intelligent designist' would believe that life was at least guided by an intelligent entity without knowing who that designer is. I think many times here people use the term creationist when they really mean a bible literalist. 69.211.150.60 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
see: teleological argument

I imagine that when people are searching through wikipedia for the term "intelligent design", they're looking for the DI's version. Other design arguments should be in the "see also" section. --Kgroover 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history, this has been debated to death hundreds if not thousands of times. The basic bottom line is, if I ask 100 people on the street about intelligent design, at least 99 of them will know the term because of the efforts of the DI. So the article, at this time, in English, should be about the ID that the DI has promoted. Fifty years ago, it could have been about something else (if it even was worthy of an article then). One hundred years from now, it could be about something else. But right now, in English, the dominant meaning associated with the phrase is the one that the DI has given it. It might be unfair that the DI has appropriated the concept and the phrase, but that is reality. If someone wants a broader and more scholarly perspective on the entire issue, there is always the teleological argument article and many others.--Filll 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Remember polling is evil. However, I beg to differ. I bet 99 out of 100 people wouldn't have a clue what ID is. OK, maybe 75 out of 100 wouldn't. Orangemarlin 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think most people know. Gnixon 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd hesitate that while probably 75% would know ID. I don't think that a lot of them would know that it is a term "coopted" by the DI. I think that is a good thing about this article. It lets people know that is how it is being used today.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the term has become too politicized and too attached to one group to be unobjectionably used by another group, but the fact remains that there is no good term for non-Christian versions of ID – and teleological argument doesn't work because not all of them fall into that category... the Raelians for instance don't take the "fact" that humanity designed as evidence for anything at all, and their claims are among the most scientific of all (though still absurd, IMHO) because they claim that life on Earth (but not in the universe in general) was artificially constructed by space aliens that evolved somewhere else via the natural mechanism. To my understanding, they never use their version of ID to argue for the existence of those alien genetic engineers, so they're not making any sort of teleological argument. The "Matrix world" version (which may not have any organized groups of supporters, though it's been mentioned in many books) is even less arguably teleological. These theories that all bear a structural relationship to the "official version" of ID need to go by some name, and though I agree now it shouldn't be "Intelligent design" it needs to be called something, and should probably be linked to from this page (perhaps just in "See also") but I don't think it would be a good idea to discuss those other versions here as that would be seen as taking sides in the DI debate. --Sapphic 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
But those ideas (Rael, Matrix etc.) aren't call intelligent design by anyone. Even though they arguing for design of life from intelligence - they aren't termed "intelligent design" arguments anywhere. --ZayZayEM 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request tag

{{editprotected}} Request administrative assistance in adding {{POV}} tag to this article. This debate over NPOV policy has been ongoing for some time. The page has been protected as a direct result of the dispute. We owe our readers an announcement that the neutrality of the article is disputed. I hope the dispute can be resolved quickly and the tag removed. Gnixon 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{POV-assertion}} or {{POV-statement}} on the first sentence or {{POV-section}} for the lead may be a bit more specific then tagging the entire article. Just a thought... Morphh (talk) 4:21, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary, in my opinion. It has {{pp-dispute}} already, which alerts people that editors are in disagreement over this article. Sandstein 13:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The pp-dispute tag gives absolutely no indication that there is a POV dispute. This debate has involved a number of editors on both sides, so clearly the POV tag is applicable. Readers deserve to know that without having to go to the talk page. Gnixon 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The page has been unprotected, no editprotected tag is needed. CMummert · talk 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Policies

As this debate over the intro continues, I'd like to frame it by encouraging everyone to review WP:NPOV. The relevant sections are "A simple formulation", paragraphs 3 and 5, "Fairness of tone", and most importantly of all, by far, "Let the facts speak for themselves." The next section, "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" is also quite useful. Gnixon 03:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also useful is the section on "Pseudoscience", particularly the following paragraph:

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

Particularly telling is that the recommendation distinguishes between "scientific point of view" and "neutral point of view." Just because an opinion is offered by a highly respected authority such as the scientific community (or the federal courts) does not mean that the opinion should be presented as fact. Rather, the opinion should be attributed like any other, and we should trust our readers to respect those opinions that are offered by credible parties. Gnixon 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, other editors may, after reading the various guidelines and policies which Wikipedia has in place, have other points of view about which sections are most relevant, and other insights which they may wish to contribute. SheffieldSteel 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thanks, dave, for pointing out other sections below. Gnixon 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How strange. WP:NPOV itself does mention the objection that "those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can", then under Pseudoscience links to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience where the statement cited above is preceded by:

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.

This discussion is about how to achieve that fair balance without appearing to give undue credence to the misleading statements issued by the ID proponents themselves. Which is why it is better to begin with a reliable secondary source giving a definitive assessment of ID before giving their self-serving "official" statements which should be read in the context of their other statements. .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave's right, the statement I quoted came from the FAQ. I hope my mistake wasn't confusing. Dave, I don't think the quote about "those who rely on pseudoscience" is very constructive here, since I don't think anyone on this page has been using "lies, slander, etc." to promote pseudoscience. I also think the 2nd quote you gave is not particularly relevant. That quote tells us why ID shouldn't be given prominent space in Evolution, for example, but doesn't tell us anything about how to present ID on its own page. Gnixon 12:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't think that quote describes anyone on this page. However it does seem rather close to describing the behaviour of ID's leading proponents, as indicated by the Wedge Document. The 2nd quote is clearly relevant, as pesudoscience must not be shown as on par with science, and we have to explain how scientists have received it. Your interpretation implies that ID's "own page" should be a POV fork, and surely you don't mean that. .. dave souza, talk
No, I don't mean that ID owns this page and it should be a POV fork. I'm saying that if this article were called Origins of Life, then science and ID would have different takes on it, and then the paragraph you gave would tell us not to give much weight to ID. On a page explicitly about ID, though, how could we spend too much time on ID? Maybe the underlying issue is this: some editors seem to want this article to be about whether or not ID is correct. I disagree. I think the article is about ID generally---not just the controversy. To me, the natural way to write about it is 1) define the theory, 2) give history of the movement and identify who comprises it, 3) discuss its reception and the controversy surrounding it. Do you see the difference I'm trying to point out? Many editors here want to move 3 up to the front---in fact, I think they want to make the article entirely about 3. Given the notability and weight of the objections to ID (non-scientific, just creationism), I think they need to be mentioned prominently in the intro, but I also think an intro that goes 1, 2, 3, concisely, will do just fine. I guess I'm saying that much of the article should be about describing ID in a very dispassionate, historical way that doesn't touch on whether it's right or wrong, or even whether its proponents have ulterior motivations. I'm a little frustrated because it seems like some editors want to make sure that every sentence in the article has some clause asserting that ID is wrong. I just don't see the need for that. To specifically address that last paragraph you quoted, much of this article should have nothing to do with Evolution or science, so no question need arise over how much weight is given. Gnixon 14:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for first paragraph

Since we seem to be drifting away from positive suggestions, I'll restate below previous proposals: please add any other considered proposals. .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(1)

Intelligent design is a development of the design argument, which is traditionally an argument for the existence of God, reframed with the assertion that it cannot address the nature or identity of the designer as that must be left to religion and philosophy. It is presented as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that they believe the designer to be God and have described their aim as “theistic and Christian science" which includes the supernatural. They claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(2)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents are part of the Discovery Institute, a think tank which promotes "theistic and Christian science". They believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(3)

Intelligent design (I.D.) is a teleological argument for the existence of an "intelligent designer" of the universe, that the leading proponents of I.D. identify as the Christian God.

(4)

No change to lead.

(5)

Intelligent design has been found by a United States federal court to be an argument for the existence of God.

(6)

Intelligent design is the name of a campaign by the Intelligent Design Movement whose aim was to introduce teaching an alternative to evolution into biology classes. Historically it followed the Creation Science campaign and preceded the Teach the controversy campaign. Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(7)

Intelligent design is a conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of natural processes. (Definition used in Wiktionary, slightly modified)

(8)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of natural processes. It is a modern form of the design argument, an argument for the existence of God, framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents are part of the Discovery Institute, a think tank which promotes "theistic and Christian science". They believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(8b)

Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent. This is a modern form of the design argument, an argument for the existence of God, but in a form that does not identify the designer. Its primary proponents, members of the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and view intelligent design as a scientific theory that is a viable alternative to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. (insert scientific counterpoint here)

(8c)
Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] This is a modern form of the design argument for the existence of God, but in a form that does not explicitly identify the designer.[3] Its primary proponents, all of whom are members of the Discovery Institute,[4][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] with many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers terming it pseudoscience,[8] or junk science,[9] and, according to The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[10]


(8d) [loses second sentence]
Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] Its primary proponents, all of whom are members of the Discovery Institute,[11][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] with many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers terming it pseudoscience,[12] or junk science,[13] and, according to The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences], intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[14]

(8d+) Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] Its primary proponents, all of whom are members of the Discovery Institute,[15][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] with many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers terming it pseudoscience,[16] or junk science,[17] and, according to The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences], intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[18]

Intelligent design developed out of the creation science movement after the Edwards v. Aguillard forbade the teaching of the earlier movement in U.S. schools, as a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. It would itself be banned from schools after Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, with intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testifying under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis had ever been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It was followed by the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

(8e)
Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] Its primary proponents, all of whom are members of the Discovery Institute,[19][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science, [20] because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.[21]

Advocacy of intelligent design followed the judgement in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science in U.S. schools was a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Teaching of intelligent design was similarly found to be unlawful in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, terming it "creationism in disguise." The response to that ruling was the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.


[Lost text in revision to 8e: "Under oath during Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe admitted that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis had ever been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."]



Discussion on proposals 1

Suggest that discussion goes here, so that further proposals can be added above. .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this started. I'd like to see a version that is careful to make cited attributions. Perhaps you could add citations to yours? I will try putting together a version myself, but unfortunately I can't spend much time on it at the moment. I think 2 is better than 1. Gnixon 12:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I dislike 2. The first statement should stand on its own, and positive language such as "best" makes 2 slightly POV without a moderating discussion of the reasons for the claim. I dislike 1 less, but prefer the old version. Adam Cuerden talk 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
2 is poorly written and, in fact, is wrong. Natural selection directs Evolution, I suppose with the same result that ID directs Evolution; the former is random, the latter is willful. The first one is less distasteful, but only marginally. The original lead should stand. I don't like either selection.Orangemarlin 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed the second a little bit to incorporate OM's and Adam's suggestions. Should I repost it with the new additions or edit it where it is? Also, is there a good way to add footnotes to talk pages?--Kgroover 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest just faking the footnotes here. If we get serious about looking at different versions, we could create a subpage, but for now I think it's good to keep everything here. Gnixon 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I dislike 5 as it leads with a heavy U.S. centric tone but it is better then 4, which I think violates policy. I think 2 is better than 1. 3 and 5 don't tell me what ID is - presenting the conclusion. IMO, 2 is the best lead. Morphh (talk) 13:30, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
On (5) I agree with you at some level, but we have also to consider that there is no other country court that ruled on ID yet, and in the end ID itself is a US-centric topic.--BMF81 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Since it is not phrased as a fact in this example, you wouldn't have to specify the U.S. court. You could just say that "it has been found", with a footnote to the source. Morphh (talk) 13:47, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
1 and 2 are both excessively wordy. 5 doesn't properly explain why the view of a court of law matters (without explaining that it was a judgement based on lengthy expert testimony from both sides, it's hard to see why emphasis is being placed on it). 3 is simply terrible - it's practically a run-on sentence, and teleological arguement isn't a term in common use. I have to say 4, barring something actually well-written coming forth, not vague stabs in the dark at ideas. I disagree that 4 violates policy - it uses the judgement of the most dispassionate review of the situation as its definition, followed by the advocate's side.
Forgive the bluntness, but I'm in a somewhat honest sort of mood. Adam Cuerden talk 13:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states, "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." I think this includes the most dispassionate view as well. -- Cat Whisperer 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Though there have been some improvements in 1 & 2, 4 is the best choice. I remain unconvinced that it violates any policy whatsoever. Orangemarlin 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It makes a statement that's contested by a significant population as if it were uncontested, so that violates NPOV. Nevermind that you (and me, given the right interpretation of terms) agree with the mainstream (and legally binding) view – it's still opposed by a sizeable group, and so it needs to be properly cited. I support version 5. --Sapphic 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It passed by the FA reviewers. Can't be that bad. Anyway, I don't think there's any way to please both sides, so might as well go with an NPOV, legally binding source. Adam Cuerden talk 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The FA voters were editors of this article, which in itself is poor practice. Voters should be those that have no stake in the article. It was a self promotion. You had few votes outside of the editors here (and it barely passed) and IMO, it should not have been promoted. It is not in compliance with FA criteria 2a and I expect it would fail FAR if said editors didn't vote on their own article. Morphh (talk) 15:44, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm shocked that this article passed FAR. Gnixon 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's all anybody is saying, Adam. One group is just saying we need to cite that source rather than repeating their finding as unopposed. I'm not even sure there are any actual ID supporters here (though maybe I'd recognize them if I spent more time here..) because Morphh and others seem to be making a point about phrasing and all (including me) are explicitly distancing themselves from ID. Personally, I think ID is nuts (whether it's coming from Christian fundamentalists or French racecar drivers) but I still think it's more important to follow good practice. Sure, the "good guys" have control of the page at this point, and are (IMHO) rightfully keeping junk out of the article – but I think in this case they're going a little too far, and need to remember that they're setting precedent for the next time there's a similar NPOV dispute somewhere, in which it might not be the "good guys" that have a court ruling (or page protection) on their side. --Sapphic 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This whole "good guys" and us-against-them mentality really turns me off, and I wish that kind of language would never be used. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but that other stuff is really taking things too far. I think it's a really bad thing that there aren't any ID supporters here. We've made things so hostile that there can't possibly be any, and that, frankly, disgusts me. This is an encyclopedia, not a club. (I hope this comment doesn't hijack a thread that appears to be getting somewhere, but I couldn't help myself.) Gnixon 15:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people take all of this garbage personally. I just believe in science, so ID is a religion. I'm personally cold about it. Orangemarlin 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people really seem to get their rocks off coming to Wikipedia to debate the creationists. Gnixon 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on proposals 2

I don't like 1 because it uncritically states the DI position at the start, and (for balance?) uses slightly weaselly phrases like "is presented as". Having said that, I think it has potential to be improved upon. 2 starts out by reiterating the DI POV word-for-word, even going so far as to describe natural selection as a random process(!). 3 is factual enough, though it will require support by later sentences in order to present a complete picture. 4 I think has problems (as has been stated) in presenting a court verdict as fact. 5 is true but does not inform the reader much; like 3 it requires further info in later sentences. Since I proposed 6, I'll just say I'm in favour of it because it is factual, and I do realise that the ideology behind ID needs expanding upon - but that's what the rest of the intro (and article) is for. SheffieldSteel 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a court verdict, but documents such as the Wedge document, statements from the founders of DI, etc. etc. Number 4 is good enough. Orangemarlin 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Shef, I think it's better to refer to ID as the theory. The IDM is the "campaign." Gnixon 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please craft a version that starts with "According to the Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design is "....", followed by statements from science and the court? I think it would be useful for discussion. Sorry I'm being too lazy to do the legwork. Gnixon 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I could agree on 6, though I'd probably tweak it slightly. Adam Cuerden talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I also like 6, and would follow it up immediately with a sentence about the court ruling. --Sapphic 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with 6 is that it never defines what Intelligent Design says. That paragraph reads more like the history of ID. I think it would make a good 2nd paragraph. Gnixon 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
One possibility is to add the definition of ID to the last sentence of (6), for example: "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, define intelligent design as the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," and say that it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life." -- Cat Whisperer 11:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we have to keep using that phrasing? I ever liked that sentence much, and only because it's surrounded by other opinionsi is it not ridiculously POV. Adam Cuerden talk 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What if we just used the first part: ...the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." Certainly that part isn't POV, right? The rest of the stuff is kind of extraneous, anyway. But I think the definition needs to be the first sentence. Gnixon 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How about (7), which is the definition used on Wiktionary? I'd be willing to say that's a fair, NPOV statement, and we could go on to explain the other views. Adam Cuerden talk 13:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki should not source wikis--ZayZayEM 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. But we can borrow the phrasing, surely, as long as we mention where it's from in the edit summary? It's easily sourced. Adam Cuerden talk 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
not as a source (i.e. the same standards of source for the wiktionary should apply here and vise versa), but as a wording. the same sources should be eligible for either. looks pretty accurate as a definition. r b-j 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think (1) serves a good new "basepoint" to work from. Editors should recognise that being a wiki, any decision made here is not final. We are merely settling on whether a drastic change is needed to facilitate further improvement to the article.

(1) Solves issues with (4) and (3). The "development of the design argument" allows that it is not exactly the same as the traditional TA. (5) doesn't actually provide a definition of ID. (2) and (7) use vague descriptors "proposition", "conjecture". (6) appears to even more narrowly define ID to a specific campaign by DI. --ZayZayEM 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's so awfully written, with no flow at all, and far too much quoting of what the ID says in public in a "credulous" manner (e.g. without any skepticism nearby). Worse, it uses quotes from the DI, which have inherently POV phrasings, such as calling natural selection an undirected process. It might be the basis for a new lead paragraph, but I'd object strongly to adding it in anything resembling its current phrasing. Adam Cuerden talk 14:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam is right, it's no improvment. I'd object to it being added as well. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Number 4 is my first choice, and number 2 is something I could support as well. The others will never fly due to various NPOV issues like undue weight and/or being factually inaccurate. FeloniousMonk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the current version doesn't fly, either. Gnixon 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
In your eyes. I agree with FM. Like it or not, ID is a teleological argument and I'll be damned if I can see how any person of even normal intelligence can state otherwise. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate being called stupid because I disagree with you. Gnixon 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The revisions to No. 2 have resulted in a clear statement of the DI's position without the coded misrepresentations of science, so earlier objections to this option have now been resolved. It fully meets the objections to the current opening sentence, making it clear that ID avoids identifying "the designer" while accurately describing the argument in terms used by a reliable secondary source. For those who feel that the current version doesn't fly, this offers a significant improvement. .. dave souza, talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I might support 2, but could we change the first sentence to (7), the phrasing used in Wiktionary? It avoids the "better than" comparison neatly. Adam Cuerden talk 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I could go with that, but let's use "proposition" instead of "conjecture claiming." (Also, suggest using commas instead of parentheses.) #2 with the "proposition" form of #7 isn't perfect, but I think I'm too exhausted from dealing with big issues to worry about the details. Gnixon 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support this as well. I'll add it as number 8. Morphh (talk) 0:22, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add the "certain features" phrasing that is present in (2) to the rest of (8)? This pro-ID article makes this an important part of the definition of ID (saying, for example, "ID affirms that living things are designed (it doesn’t claim that everything is designed)"), and I think the definition used here should incorporate those elements required to make it uncontested. -- Cat Whisperer 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added it in.. this makes sense. Morphh (talk) 1:34, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice rewrite on 8b - though could it include Cat's suggestion on including "certain features of". I think it is a valid point. Morphh (talk) 2:21, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Morph. I thought about including the phrase "certain features" but I wasn't sure. I mean, as I understand the creationist position, life is the product of an intelligent designer, but all other things are not. (This is, I think, how ID is differentiated from creationism, which states that everything is created, living and non-living.) So, to keep the intro sentence as short as possible, I stayed with the "all life" angle. I hope I didn't lose accuracy by doing so; I know that's a fault I often have when triming things. I do think this approach has promise - but I'm eager to see what others have to say. SheffieldSteel 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
After a brief reading, I like 8b best. It'd be great if we could tighten it up just a bit by trimming a few words, and of course we need citations, but it's looking pretty good. Gnixon 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it accurate, though? I mean, do ALL of them think it's the Christian God? Would Judeo-Christian be more accurate? Adam Cuerden talk 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. My understanding is that all the ID proponents are Christian, but I could be wrong. Has the movement garnered support from other religions? Gnixon 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe there's several Jewish supporters. I've made a revision of it as 8c that sidesteps the issue. Adam Cuerden talk 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I'd propose 8d, followed by a new second paragraph based around 6 and the cut sentence from 8c. Adam Cuerden talk 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking 8d, but could we trim some of the last sentence and add a reference to the courts? I think it would flow nicely to say something like, "However, science has..., calling it pseudoscience and junk science, and the U.S. courts have called it "creationism in disguise." (That last bit is just such a quotable quote that I hate to omit it.) I'd really like to keep it concise and to the point. Kudos to Adam and Shef for good writing. Gnixon 03:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good suggestion to me. Thanks to Adam Cuerden for getting stuck in to the citations. I was dreading that! SheffieldSteel 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Making an 8e... Adam Cuerden talk 03:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. There's 8e. It's shorter and a lot more compact than the old, and might reasonably have more on Kitzmiller (and it needs a few cites), but I think it's looking pretty reasonable.
We should probably review the rest of the lead after - I've proposed a second paragraph to follow it, but it's probably not as near completion as the first paragraph, so maybe we should save that discussion for afterwards. Adam Cuerden talk 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make a cut-down version of the case-history paragraph, but it's late and I'm getting tired so I may well have trashed it. Let's see what the other editors make of all this! SheffieldSteel 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can most of us agree that #2 is at least factually accurate and covers most of the important points? If so, we may as well settle on it now. FeloniousMonk 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it at least delays the conclusion that ID is the teleological argument to the second sentence (and puts in commonly used, pretty neutral language for the definition) which is much better than the status quo. it might be just a bit more accurate if "most often" or "nearly always" was inserted into this second sentence as "It is most often a modern form of the design argument.. " and, as far as i'm concerned, "teleological argument" can be substituted for "design argument", particularly if the "most often" qualifier is included. i've never contended (nor do i now) that they are different. r b-j 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, adding weasel words like "most often" or "nearly always" would prompt me to withdraw my support of it, so let's keep this simple and neat. To that end the "modern form" bit needs tweaking to simply "a version" in order to avoid implying a natural progression or evolution of ideas as opposed ID being itself "designed" which is the case. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
well, one person's "weasel words" are anothers qualification of accuracy. not every single person in the whole wide world that advocates ID are also advocating TA. but (whether you believe it or not) i choose my battles. i am not an indiscriminate bomb-thrower (but i am a discriminating bomb-thrower and the previous version, #4, needed to be exploded so that some semblence of NPOV can return). also, "Christian God" should be replaced with Abrahamic God because although there are few Jews or Muslims in the DI (the DI leadership and the prominant ID proponents are Christian, in fact, they are Protestant Christian and likely can be narrowed down to American Evangelical Protestant Christian but they do not believe that the "Christian God" is a different designer than the God of the Catholics, Jews, or Muslims. They probably do not identify (among themselves, since they try not to do so for public consumption) the "designer" as any of the gods of the Dharmic traditions. It would be safe to say that "They believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, ..." r b-j 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, 2 quotes the DI's statements far too closely (and I think some of those non-quoted bits may, in fact, be unattributed quotes. It also contains at least one major inaccuracy, with the Christian God line.
I'm afraid I can't join a consensus for that. Adam Cuerden talk 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added back the Kitzmiller reference, expanded to include the point that the ID 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God. This could perhaps be trimmed a bit. Adam, would your concern with "the Christian God line" be met by changing it to "Abrahamic God"? As for "modern form", I agree that "a version" is a worthwhile change. .. dave souza, talk 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I prefer one of the 8's to 2. 2 is far too over-wordy, and, as I said, uses too much DI-language. Also, unless we have a cite - and noone has given yet, we shouldn't really be writing Abrahamic God or any god in definite terms. Adam Cuerden talk 08:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also support version 8e for the second paragraph, it's more concise and helps to better understand the relation with creationism. As for the Judeo-Christian God I think it is sourced partially by the court ruling. --BMF81 09:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference given at #Further discussion below. .. dave souza, talk 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Court point of view

Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. Not a 'correct' point of view, a 'scientific' point of view, or a 'court' point of view... a neutral point of view. There were US federal court rulings which held that abortion was the illegal killing of a human being. That would not have been grounds for an intro stating, "Abortion is the murder of an unborn child"... because it was the opinion of a court as to which of two partisan sides was 'correct' - rather than a NEUTRAL statement of the issue. Some courts in the US have held that two people of the same gender must be allowed to marry if they choose... other US courts have said the opposite... courts in various other countries have similarly split on the issue. NONE of those rulings is grounds for a 'neutral' statement on the 'same sex marriage' debate. Likewise the Dover ruling here... that ruling states that the 'ID is repackaged creationism' view is 'correct' as a matter of law. Another court might find differently, but in truth it just doesn't matter... because Wikipedia isn't written to reflect the 'point of view' of any court system. There are people in the world who insist that ID is a scientific theory... virtually all of them then take the tiny step to, 'and if ID is correct then the designer must be God', but the argument that ID is a scientific, rather than religious, theory exists. Saying that argument is false, 'because a court agreed with us' is absolutely NOT 'neutral'. We should certainly cite the view that ID isn't really a scientific theory... and that a court held that to be the case, but having >Wikipedia< state it as fact is precisely what the NPOV policy is meant to prevent. We aren't supposed to take sides in such debates... and this page currently does. --CBD 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

True, except you've left out the fact that we have available to us sources from all sides of the issue, both ID proponents and scientific organizations, stating the same thing as the court's conclusion, that ID is an argument for God. Do I need to post them all? We can add them to the article alongside the Dover cite. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't require anything more than simple logic to understand that ID itself is not an argument for God. The fact that it is used to further an argument for God, or that all its proponents have the ulterior motivation of proving God, is logically distinct. Everything CBD says is right on. Gnixon 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite such for every single person who subscribes to the ID theory? Our article on Scientology doesn't start off, "Scientology is a cult designed to dupe gullible people out of their finances"... despite the fact that quotations of past and present members, and even founder L. Ron Hubbard himself, exist to support that view. Because it isn't neutral. There are a sizable number of people who would dispute it. The same principle applies here. Even if you are SURE that every single person who says ID is a scientific rather than religious theory is 'lying', and can quote various of them saying things which support that belief, it isn't NPOV to have Wikipedia come down on one side of the dispute. That's not our job. We can quote the seemingly contradictory statements (provided they are reliably sourced of course)... and should do so, but we should not say 'this is the truth and the people who believe/say otherwise are wrong'. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. You are an ID proponent reading the current intro. Can you tell me they are not going to consider it biased? --CBD 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See the Wedge Strategy and you'll see the light. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Then the article should quote the Wedge Strategy so that our readers can see the light as well. Our job here at Wikipedia isn't to hit our readers over the head with the light. As WP:NPOV says, "Readers are left to form their own opinions." -- Cat Whisperer 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It does, read a little further and the light will whack you on the head Intelligent_design#Overview &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Then that should be sufficient to prevent the article from being a unquestioning endorsement of the pro-ID viewpoint. So why the need to present one side of the debate as fact in the lead sentence? -- Cat Whisperer 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's sad that you feel that the current intro presents as fact in the lead sentence the one side of the debate taken by Phillip Johnson when he speaks of "intelligent design, which really means the reality of God", a side affirmed by other leading proponents of ID. However, as that's a primary source we have to be careful about using it, and fortunately we have a detailed impartial analysis by a third party in a reliable secondary source[13] which describes ID and notes that it is claimed that ID does not identify the designer, a point well covered in proposal No. 2 above. Several editors have given opinions here about what ID is or what unnamed ID proponents believe – a reliable secondary source is required if we are to give any credence to these opinions. ... dave souza, talk 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you acknowledge a reliable secondary source noting the claim that ID does not identify the designer, that alone should be sufficient to see the NPOV violation in any article sentence which states, as a matter of fact, that the intelligent designer is really God. -- Cat Whisperer 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See No. 2. ..... dave souza, talk 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this the old Goon Show line about "he walked out of the darkness into the light <clang!>" ? .. dave souza, talk 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It might as well be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Other first sentences

Suggested first sentences. May have copyright problems. Please continue discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A. Intelligent design is the scientific investigation of intelligent causation and subsequent novel data, hypotheses, experiments, and practical applications that are derived by viewing specific phenomena in the universe as designed. Intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis that seeks to explain a very large range of scientific data, and so has a general definition, and then subsidiary definitions for use within specific disciplines.

reseach id

B. A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes.

wiki dicitonary

C. Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by undirected processes. [1][2][3][4]

conservapedia

D. Intelligent Design (ID) refers to the hypothesis that intelligent causes (sometimes equated to the God of Genesis) are responsible for the origin of the universe and specifically for the creation of life on Earth in all its myriad varieties. Proponents of ID specifically contrast their hypothesis with the more widely-accepted (among scientists) Theory of Evolution, sometimes called Darwinian evolution or Darwinism.

skeptic wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.150.60 (talk) 06:26, April 7, 2007

It's not scientific inverstigation, not a theory, nor a hypothesis. Only the second definition seems apt. -- Ec5618 14:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding letters, to make it easier to refer to. A. claims it's a science. This is patently false many times over. B. uses "undirected natural processes", which is misleading. C. claims it's a theory - it's not, under the definition of theory. D. It's not a hypothesis, and all those awful clauses. Adam Cuerden talk 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And that's precisely what happens with teleological arguments.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think C is just about perfect---it's short and to the point, and it's well-cited (assuming the 4 citations are good). I support it as long as it's immediately followed by sentences about science regarding it as a pseudoscience and courts finding that it's just creationism in disguise. Adam, of course it's a theory, in both the scientific and non-scientific sense. Even if it's a bad theory, it's still a theory. Gnixon 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think C is the best. It's also the one that's closest to the discovery institute's definition.--Kgroover 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon, intelligent design hasn't earned the right to be called a scientific theory. It is by no means scientific. -- Ec5618 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would only support C if "best explained by an intelligent cause and not by undirected processes" were changed to something like "best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes." I think that words such as "undirected" or "random" are deliberate misrepresentations of evolutionary mechanics which should not be repeated unless attributed and preferrably only in a direct quotation. SheffieldSteel 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable edit. Gnixon 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Plain and simple it is not a theory because it's not testable, not falsifiable, and it relies upon a supernatural being (setting aside the whole G_d thing). It is religious dogma. Orangemarlin 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A scientific theory that is not testable or falsifiable is still a theory, it's just a bad one. Any dictionary will confirm that. I admit saying "scientific" explicitly makes me nervous, so let's certainly not do that. In any case, it doesn't matter whether the theory is scientific or not---it's certainly some kind of theory. Let's not start some big pointless debate here. Gnixon 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon, please see Theory#Science. Not every vague notion is a scientific theory. For something to be a scientific theory is has to be scientifically useful. It must be predictive and testable. -- Ec5618 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but like I said, it doesn't matter here. (We can discuss the issue further on my talk page if you like.) Certainly ID is some sort of theory. That's enough. We'll surely clarify soon after the first sentence that it's considered a pseudoscience. Gnixon 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, with all respect, are any of those proposals actually usable? They're not free-use sites. Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely the wiki dictionary, choice C, is free use, right?
I'm pretty sure B. is wiktionary. C. is Conservapedia. I could see using B, actually. That's a pretty NPOV statement. Adam Cuerden talk 13:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, B's not awful, but calling what proponents consider theory a "conjecture" and "claim" seems POVish to me, and it's pretty wordy. What about just dropping "and other causes" from C. Surely "conservapedia" has the same free-use policy as this site. Gnixon 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Null Hypothesis

Encoding message into DNA

http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/03/scientists_enco.html

Japanese scientists have developed a technique that can encode 100-bit messages into the DNA of common bacteria. The bacteria replicate and pass the message down from generation to generation for at least thousands of years.

Please use this page only for discussing improvements to the article. Gnixon 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is important information on how just allowing the assumption that life was designed opens up new areas of research. Humans will probably be designing life soon. I think creative thoughts on 'intelligent design' should be included in the article. 68.109.234.155 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is discussion underway to address such issues in a different article. The big issue right now is figuring out what to call it, since "Intelligent design" and related phrases are all too politicized to serve as generic terms. Suggestions are welcome, particularly from people with an interest in this page, since the name for the new article should be such as to distance itself from (and not be used as a pawn or scapegoat by) the various groups involved in the debate over the better-known, very specific version of ID discussed in this article. --Sapphic 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes some sort of 'generic' intelligent design. Not-supernatural ID. It is such a mind opening concept. It's a shame it is so politicized. 68.109.234.155 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Put it into DNA. It's not relevant to ID as proposed by the DI. =) Adam Cuerden talk 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Who knows, there may already be an article on wikipedia documenting the concept that genetic material may be susceptible to engineering of some kind. SheffieldSteel 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Off topic. This isn't the place for this. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Gnixon 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Suggested edit to a para on the aim of the ID movement

I wonder if this paragraph:

The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[12] In a leaked Discovery Institute memo, commonly known as the Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

makes its meaning clear enough? I suggest it could be amended like this:

The publically-stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. This has been formulated by one of intelligent design's leading proponents, William A. Dembski, as the hypothesis that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence." The unacknowledged purpose is to overturn the scientific worldview based on natural science and replace it with one based on revealed religion; this was disclosed in a leaked Discovery Institute memo, commonly known as the Wedge Document, in which the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."—Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 April 2007

The Intro / discussion above - an overview.....

You guys have been busy over easter! - there's clearly alot of good work / discussion going on. I don't wish to pour water on the flame, but i think this version can be improved significantly quite easily....... my own point by point....

'biological life' is silly - is there any reason 'life' won't suffice? (i was bold and went ahead and did this.....)

I don't think it's ever going to be good enough to have 'Judeo-Christian God [citation needed]' in the opening - why not 'God' and wikilink?

Can we put the DI references together to avoid footnoteitis? (2, 3, 4 at the end of the second sentence isn't great for readability)

I wouldn't mind dropping one of the explanations as to why it's not science - 'However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science' might even be enough, but the three following clauses actually undermine the simplicity of explaining why ID doesn't count (IMO).

Please feel free to move these comments up the page if you think they'll fit better there, otherwise it's good to see reasoned discussion working so well here... cheers all.. Petesmiles 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ps. i'd also drop unspecified - it's implicitly covered without this adjective.... Petesmiles 09:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

pps. i did it! - and i can't spell superfluous! - cheers all, Petesmiles 09:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

final ps - i also removed 'but unofficially' as i'm unsure how this could ever be official?! - Petesmiles 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pete, you've come in at a point where there was some agreement around (2) as a way forward and the article was changed to that introductory paragraph, then changed again to (8) which aims to address concerns about 2. My preference is for (2), both versions are shown below (currently without links or footnotes) for further discussion. .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

(2)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form version of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents are part of the Discovery Institute, a think tank which promotes "theistic and Christian science". They believe the designer to be the God of Christianity, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(8)

Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an intelligent agent, usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] Its primary proponents, all of whom are members of the Discovery Institute, claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science, because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.

(8e)

Intelligent design is the proposition that life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God.[citation needed] Its primary proponents, all of whom who are members of the Discovery Institute,[19][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science, [20] because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.[21]

Advocacy of intelligent design followed the judgement in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science in U.S. schools was a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Teaching of intelligent design was similarly found to be unlawful in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature, terming it "creationism in disguise." The response to that ruling was the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

(8f)

Intelligent design is the proposition that biological life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent,[2] usually identified unofficially as the Judeo-Christian God.(^cite) Its primary proponents, who are members of the Discovery Institute,[19][5][6]claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should impact the teaching of evolution in public schools. However, the mainstream scientific community considers Intelligent Design "pseudoscience,"(^cite), and U.S. courts have called it "creationism in disguise."(^cite)

Further discussion

I've shown the proposed change in (2) from "modern form" to version. Regarding DI belief, Kizmiller p 26: " In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.", so we'd need another citation if we change that to Abrahamic God. Regarding "nature or identity of the designer", I'd like to add this citation:
"intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf) dave souza, talk 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your clarity, dave - some small feedback on 2) as writted above;

re : 'It is a modern form version of the design argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer.' - what about just 'It is a modern form version of the design argument' and then we move on - it seems unnecessary to mention the ambiguity of the designer, especially because we seem to be saying that it's ambiguous, but not really - can we just leave it alone?

I also don't really go for the word 'proposition' - i'd prefer 'belief' as a better description, but i know this is controversial...

both versions are strong - as is the now replaced version in my opinion. thanks all! (btw. i notice i created the word writted above, and was going to correct it, but actually kinda like it....) - Petesmiles 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Between these two (2) appears more clear on the matter. Calling it a "proposition" still seems vague to me. But perhaps that vaguarity is what is being called for. --ZayZayEM 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that 8e has become a little unwieldy, and 2 has changed to address some of my concerns. I'll try to look more carefully later today. Not sure whether it's better to discuss these here or in the original discussion above. I'm very glad we seem to be getting somewhere. Gnixon 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the addition in the second sentence "all of whom are" that was added during 8c. This has been discussed above as an absolute statement and I don't see that anything is added with its addition. Morphh (talk) 12:46, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
That bit's how it used to be phrased before, wih a hidden note in ALL CAPS saying it had been discussed over and over. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase it, to get the relationship (basically, ID is sort of like a DI-brand creationism trademark)?
However, 2's lead sentence is "Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection." - the lead sentence is supposed to stand on its own, but this one is only saying the DI's view of it. Likewise, 2 ends "...claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life." - this claim is not balanced by any view from the scientific side. Hence, 2 is still a POV violation, not able to stand on its own while remaining NPOV.
As someone who only wanted a definition of the term might only read the first sentence or paragraph, these rules are important. We need to provide balance from the start. Adam Cuerden talk 13:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
How about 8f as a concise take on things? Gnixon 13:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem I see with 2 is that it defines ID as, effectively, "the proposition that an intelligent designer is better than evolution" when it comes to explaining various unspecified features of the universe including, but not limited to, life. This is POV (it says ID is better), imprecise (it doesn't define what ID is supposed to explain), and inaccurate (unless ID explains more than just life, in which case it should be compared to more than just natural selection). SheffieldSteel 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is hopeless, and it makes wikipedia look bad. I give up.--Kgroover 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Two steps forward, one step back. I agree it's frustrating, but we're making progress, so don't give up yet. Gnixon 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I do have to say that this has been the largest debate that I've ever been a part of but we're finally making some progress. I think we've all been banging our heads and the process is working. I'm not sure why we're still discussing 2 - it seems that 8 has been a compromise adjustment that most can agree on. I do like the end of the first sentence language change in 8f (more concise). Not sure if biological is needed or if it is redundant. I also like the change from "all of whom" to "who" as I think it is cleaner prose that says the same thing without an redundant absolute statement. I've read the source and don't dispute the comment. It just seems like a vuage statement for us, when it doesn't have to be and would read better without it (see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a). One would only have to find one "leading proponent" (however that is defined) that is not a "member" (however that is defined) for it to be a false statement. I don't really care for the other changes in 8f and think 8e is better. Morphh (talk) 14:25, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I don't like 8f's last sentence: We haven't mentioned the word "creationism" yet, so however pithy the quote, this isn't the place for it. The paragraph on Kitzmiller would be better. Adam Cuerden talk 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was wikified? I'm not attached to 8f, but I wanted to put up a concise alternative. (Not that I necessarily think 8e is too long.) Gnixon 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really. People shouldn't have to read an entire second article to understand a throwaway comment. (By the way, it's from Barbara Forrest's testimony, I believe). Save it for later, when we're discussing Edwards v. Aguilard or thereabouts. Adam Cuerden talk 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Would changing this statement "Its primary proponents, all of whom who are members of the Discovery Institute, claim intelligent design" change the meaning? After reading it again, it may imply a specification that only the DI member primary proponents make the claim. I'm not sure - I don't read it like that but I think others could. Perhaps we can think of some better prose. Morphh (talk) 15:32, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts on changing Judeo-Christian God to Abrahamic God. Morphh (talk) 15:42, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "Judeo-Christian" is more commonly used, but maybe it's biased to leave out Islam. Gnixon 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> It's been one of those tiring days when life gets in the road of Wikipedia, but in the interim here's a note of caution: the opening statement "Intelligent design is the proposition that life did not arise by natural processes" seems rather dubious to me, and a citation would be welcome. My impression is that ID is focussed on particular areas which ID proponents hope are weak points for evolution/cosmology/scientific area of their choice, and they think that if they can cast doubt on normal science in this cherry-picked example, that undermines the universality of scientific explanations. The proposition this intro sentence gives tends to be left unsaid in most ID literature. Anyway, bedtime. Will try to have a look at it sometime tomorrow. .... dave souza, talk 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with that line ulnless we have a cite. Adam Cuerden talk 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The WP:LEAD length would do well with a third paragraph. Can we summarize the rest of the article in a final paragraph? This would fix it up for any 2a issues. Morphh (talk) 15:36, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia continues the unfair bias against Intelligent Design...

I recently posted a post like this before with many sources it and many other things were deleted, so I'll say it again....

It is biased because wikipedia has hand-picked only references that are against Intelligent Design instead of unbiasely showing both stances...this is the definition of bias

Wikipedia has consistently demonstrated a strong bias against intelligent design:

  • Wikipedia defines Intelligent Design in a way shaped to ridicule and condemn the idea instead of the way that the Discovery Institute describes it
This has been a problem, I think. Can you explain why you think DI should get to define it? Gnixon 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Because Intelligent Design is founded upon the Discovery Institute as the article itself says...almost all supporters of the Intelligent Design come from the Discovery Institute...the Discovery Institute is really the only authority on Intelligent Design...what other authority could possibly define it? --Mdsats 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not recognise "argument from authority" as a good reason to include any particular piece of text - and our goal is to provide a neutral definition, not one endorsed by any third party. Stepping back for a moment, can you say what it is about the intro that you feel is shaped to ridicule or condemn ID? SheffieldSteel 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the DI is by far the main source of ID, I think this deserves more discussion. Gnixon 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia fails to mention that the Discovery Institute has repeatly went AGAINST teaching Intelligent Design in schools
I think the contentious issue is that ID is used to support teaching evolution with qualifications about its scientific acceptance. Gnixon 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't draw that conclusion from the wiki article...the article makes it falsely appear as if the Discovery Institute is pushing to allow ID to be taught in schools when repeatly it has went against it stating that it would "hinder fair and open debate" of the subject...which is EXACTLY what has happened
Sources - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/06/discovery_institute_sends_letter_opposin.html , http://seattlepi.com/opinion/235729_idesign09.html , http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutScienceEducationPolicy
--Mdsats 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading those sources you'll see it's part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign to sneak ID in the classroom backdoor. You're far too credulous Mdsats. 151.151.21.105 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are you adding your own personal bias into this...all the article has to say is that "The Discovery Institute claims..." the Discovery Institute is the main source for all things related to ID...instead you have to add in your own personal conspiracy theory into this, displaying your own bias against ID--Mdsats 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia fails to mention that Intelligent Design WAS featured in many peer-reviewed scientific journals
This seems dubious to me. Can you provide references, please? Gnixon 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Discovery Institute has a comprehensive list on their official site http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 --Mdsats 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I've seen that list before, and I seem to remember that none of the sources are both in peer-reviewed science journals and directly support ID---the title of the page is misleading. I do recall a lot of references to books and some journal articles tangentially related to ID. Can you point me to a specific example? Gnixon 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The list directly contradicts the statement in the wiki article "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal", however it does not contradict the statement that no peer reviewed journals provide evidence for ID...--Mdsats 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And the article clearly states that the list is widely seen within the scientific community as bogus. You're never going to be taken seriously here until you stop promoting the Discovery Institute's propaganda over more credible and neutral sources like the AAAS: [15] 151.151.21.105 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't contradict anything I've said if you actually read it, the article states that no peer review journals support ID, it doesn't state that ID never appears in any peer review journals, like wiki falsely claims with no sources saying so. Instead wiki claims "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal", when in reality the statement should be "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal supporting Intelligent Design" --Mdsats 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia almost completely ignores the stance of the supporters of ID and instead hand-picks only what those against ID say
This page needs more supporters of ID to help us present an unbiased article, but unfortunately, they'll need to have a thick skin in order to put up with the rude comments of some editors. Gnixon 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Pot, meet Kettle. Your idea of an unbiased ID is as flawed as Mdsats, and you've not been exactly welcoming to the other side here and elsewhere yourself GN. 151.151.21.105 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia insists that the Intelligent Designer must be a Judeo-Christian God when many advocates have expressed many other view points....
It would be very helpful if you can provide citations from reliable sources. Thanks for your comments! Gnixon 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Take the atheist Antony Flew for instance (who considers intelligent design his only reason for considering Deism):

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms" - http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

The Discovery Institute does not define the intelligent cause as God or anything instead they state: "Intelligent design theory does NOT claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or a “higher power” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence." - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348
--Mdsats 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the quoteation above is that, while Flew provides an excellent criticism of current scientific theories of abiogenesis, he stops short of actually endorsing Intelligent Design. What sort of article would it be if we were to assume that ID is the only alternative to current scientific theories? SheffieldSteel 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't Flew's comment fall well within the definition of ID (assuming it isn't restricted to Abraham's God)? Was it meant seriously? Thanks for the reference, Mdsats. Do you have others on hand? If the number of supporters of ID-like theories who don't have the Judeo-Christion God in mind is a tiny minority, it may not be notable enough to mention. Gnixon 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Drawing that conclusion is original research. Without Flew actually stating he endorses ID you've got nothing but drawing your own conclusions. 151.151.21.105 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Antony Flew has exclusively said that he favors ID, stating "I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it", "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design" - http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm --Mdsats 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I encourage other editors to maintain a civil and welcoming tone in this discussion. Gnixon 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we entertain objections that have show no understanding of Wikipedia's policies? Read the archives: These gripes are nothing new and have already been shown to be baseless. 151.151.21.105 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Neutral Point of View is not Sympathetic Point of View. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happened to WP:BITE and basic human civility? If anything, maybe this page should start a FAQ for topics that have already been raised and acheived consensus. Until one exists, it's rude to dismiss good faith discussions. Let's consider the Golden Rule here, please. Gnixon 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Shoot, whatever happened to NPOV? Both you and Mdsats would do well to stop presenting clearly biased Discovery Institute sources as if they were neutral and equivalent to the New York Times while griping about bias and start being objective and circumspect. 151.151.21.105 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is biased, and if you don't see that when reading it go study what bias is, I'm not saying to make it sympathetic, I'm saying to make it unbiased, show both sides, everything in it is chiefly geared against ID as opposed to showing both sides....thats exactly what bias is...and also the Discovery Institute sources are sources for ID, this entire article is filled with sources against ID...but there's no bias right?--Mdsats 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Bias is preferring the ID movement's own propaganda over that of more credible and neutral sources, that's what bias is. I'm sorry if the irony is lost on you. 151.151.21.105 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Woah, so preferring anything against ID is unbiased right? This article has sources "Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion. ISBN 0-618-68000-4" "^ Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 141" But no bias right guys? Also I'm not saying to favor the Discovery Institute all I'm saying is to mention their views also, not just one side.....but this is biased in your view...--Mdsats 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we've demonstrated that editors on one side of the creation-evolution controversy are not welcome on Wikipedia. Shame on all of us. I don't have time for this. Good luck to the sensible editors here---reducing bias in controversial articles is an uphill battle, I can assure you. Gnixon 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors on either side of the creation-evolution controversy are welcome on Wikipedia, but once again those editors on the creationism side of the creation-evolution controversy just demonstrated that they have real trouble contributing to neutral article, instead favoring partisan propaganda in place of credible neutral sources. 151.151.21.105 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
recently, it's the other way around. i am no pro-ID supporter and it is clear that any moderation of the anti-ID tone of this article is unwelcome, even though such POV tone is a violation of policy. it seemed that there was no interest in moderating this tone until another admin weighed in (CBD) and spelled out nothing new, nothing that i and others hadn't previously spelled out, that the "Court POV" is not necessarily the NPOV. it is the hard-core anti-ID editors (who prop themselves up as the "long-time editors") that demonstrate that i matters not what is fact or not, what is neutral or fair or not, it only matters who has power to make things happen or stop them from happening. calling the dictionary definition of ID "favoring partisan propaganda" or not a credible neutral source is hardly NPOV. your bias is naked. r b-j 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GNixon, please provide a diff where you think BITE was violated. If you have none, please stop citing guidelines which are not applicable. If there is one, please be more specific next time. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, in several places the article reports the arguments that writers at the Discovery Institute, for example, have used to promote ID and goes on to give counterarguments by scientists. In that way, it presents both sides. I don't see how this procedure can be called biased rather than neutral. If the article were truly anti-ID, it would mention the absurdity of the idea that a nonphysical intelligence can make anything happen in the physical world, at a distance. This is a powerful argument against ID, and last time I looked, the article didn't touch it. Cognita 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well it does mention the stance of the Discovery Institute in a few places, but then goes on to provide more than enough sources to debunk them all. Any of the stances that the Discovery Institute has that cannot be debunked are completely ignored. The article easily mentions the bias views of Richard Dawkins but it can't mention the views of the Discovery Institute? But no bias right? I should also mention that almost any stance against ID is instead stated as a fact instead of views of proponents against ID --Mdsats 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Any of the stances that the Discovery Institute has that cannot be debunked are completely ignored." Careful there. Any stance that cannot be debunked is not scientific. So please state these stances, but be aware that they will not be filed under scientific arguments for ID. Maybe you meant "Any of the stances that the Discovery Institute has that have not be[en] debunked are completely ignored." Do state them, as I'm pretty sure all of IDs stances are represented in this article.--Roland Deschain 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant to say that any stance that the Discovery Institute has that has not yet been debunked is completely ignored. Instead the article primarily uses the arguments against Intelligent Design in the Dover case as its primary source. It reads more like an essay against ID instead of an unbiased encyclopedia. Also, natural selection cannot be debunked, therefore it is not science? Not all of the stances of ID proponents are listed here, take for instance the primary major argument of no evidence for a naturalistic cause for abiogenesis, proponents of ID constantly cite that labs can only generate amino acids from biochemicals. Another argument is no objective evidence explaining the origin of genetic code. The major argument of ID is simply that no naturalistic explanation has been proven showing a naturalistic cause for this system of DNA, genetic code, reading, translating, etc... Also this article says that ID cannot be disproven, this is false, if you prove a naturalistic cause then you would've disproven ID. Why doesn't it cite that the Discovery Institute does not want ID to be taught in schools? You know why, because it doesn't fit the biased propaganda of this article....--Mdsats 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
" . . .the primary major argument of no evidence for a naturalistic cause for abiogenesis". Not sure how to break this to you, but evolution and the theory of evolution make no claims about abiogenesis, so this ID argument does not invalidate evolution or the theory of evolution in any way. In fact, this article makes that very clear: "Though evolution theory does not seek to explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred."
Great point, I should also point out that the Discovery Institute claims in all their videos, books, and other sources to have nothing against evolution as in a "change in species over time" it only has a problem with the notion that it is completley naturalistic, this is also completely ignored and remains unmentioned in the article, why? Because of the bias of these wiki editors, the sad part is these wiki editors know thats its true that they are indeed biased against ID, they just won't admit it...its main arguments have to do with the genetic code system...also its good that you cited that biased comment in the article "Though evolution theory does not seek to explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred.", this comment is clearly biased since the Discovery Institute does not claim that anything supernatural has occured, they only claim that science can infer whether something was the result of naturalistic cause or intelligent cause, again this is no where to be found in this extremely biased (to the very very highest degree) wiki article against ID--Mdsats 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You've regressed to the natural/supernatural argument. ID wants supernatural causation within science, whereas the scientific discipline is perfectly aware that supernatural explanations are beyond science. This is explained very very clearly within the article. ID wants supernatural causation, the scientific community is deeply opposed. The article says that, so I don't know what more you want. Your original claim of undiscussed ID propositions has melted into the thoroughly discussed topic of IDs drive to include supernatural causation into science while questioning the naturalistic limitations of science. So for the sake of clarity, do restate what ID proposals have not been discussed, just keep clear of abiogenesis, supernatural/natural explanations as they have been discussed. If you feel that some topics have been discussed unfairly, too much, or too little, start another topic with very specific examples.--Roland Deschain 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Another argument is no objective evidence explaining the origin of genetic code." Same retort as above. To summarize, the theory of evolution taught across the world makes no claims on abiogenesis. Evidence is mounting through chemistry and the sequencing of the simplest organisms on the Earth that abiogenesis is highly likely. But needless to say, just because we don't know how life started does not miraculously mean that a supernatural explanation is correct or even warrented (as ID wants): see the God of the gaps.
See comment above, the main supporter of ID (the Discovery Institute) has really nothing against evolution (according to innumerable sources, but again this is nowhere to be found in this unnaturally biased article)--Mdsats 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Why doesn't it cite that the Discovery Institute does not want ID to be taught in schools?" Because ID constantly changes it tactics. There is more than enough evidence brought to light in the Dover Trial that shows that the Discovery Institute was actively campaigning to get ID taught. The repeated failures drove DI to change its tactics, where ID would not be taught but evolution would be criticized. So you are right, DI does not want ID taught in school, but in the recent past it has actively campaigned for that. Only upon failure has it changed its tactics. The article makes this perfectly clear. In fact, Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution make the shifting tactics of DI quite clear.--Roland Deschain 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you demonstrate your own bias by imposing your own personal views (POV) onto the subject instead of stating what Discovery Institute claims. Why can't the article just say something like "The Discovery Insitute claims to not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, but proponents note etc...". DI has really never campaigned for teaching ID in schools, the Discovery Institute's main base is in Washington state and Washington has never tried to teach ID in schools...however DI has been forced to testify in court because of the many religious fundementalists in other states...this is nowhere to be found again--Mdsats 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply because ID changes its talking points drastically. Again, ID has in the past actively campaigned for ID being taught in class (see the Dover trial transcripts to clear evidence of IDs involvement in ID being taught in the school). Of course, their failed attempt has resulted in a change of strategy. So I will agree with you that now DI no longer wants ID taught in school (at the moment at least), but they have tried so in the past. Start another topic if you think that this fact (ID no longer wants it taught now, but has campaigned actively for it in the past) should be made more pertinent.--Roland Deschain 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're only agreeing with me that you're biased. In fact you insist upon using all the sources against ID from the Dover trial as a primary source. It would be akin to someone saying there article on the OJ trial is unbiased even though they only cite evidence used against OJ from the trial and ignore all other evidence for OJ being innocent in the trial. So why doesn't the article state DI's current position? What wiki can only be up to date on certain issues? I wonder when these editors will stop lying to themselves thinking that this article really is unbiased...--Mdsats 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears that everybody who disagrees with you is biased. The evolution of DI's position (no pun intended) regarding teaching ID is laid out in Intelligent design movement and Teach the Controversy. Feel free to start another topic where you cite specific passages in this article and how you would change them. It's a controversial article, so keep the proposed changes as focused as possible.--Roland Deschain 02:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok....but you haven't addressed any reason why any of the points I've mentioned remain ignored and unmentioned in the wiki article. Whats your explanation? The biased views of Richard Dawkins are gladly mentioned in the article, however certain views of DI remain unmentioned, ignored, as if to fulfill a certain bias propaganda...The teaching the controversy article still does not state that the Discovery Institute supports modern evolution being taught in school instead it is shaped in a way to condemn and ridicule ID making it seem as if DI wants ID to be taught in schools just as I stated...--Mdsats 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid debating the validity of ID and the motivations of its proponents. Remember that this talk page is only for discussing the article. When comments are posted that do not pertain directly to the article, the best practice is to simply ignore them. Gnixon 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro, take 47

Ok, this has become a morass of threading and irrelevant commentary. I have tried to restore the most supported version, if I have not, I apologise. I am beginning to think it would be best to restore the intro from the FA version until this is resolved. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm afraid the version that was good enough to pass FA will still not placate the pro- Id and DI POV pushers who created this mess. 151.151.21.105 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you concluded there was consensus for #2 after that long and ongoing discussion. Edit-warring is not the way to solve this problem. 151, it would be helpful if you logged in. Gnixon 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
possibly because FM and i were both tepidly supporting #2. anyay 151 (and others, including Gn), i am not, nor have i ever been, a pro-ID or pro-DI partisan or advocate. don't think, for a second, that i want to let DI off the hook for promulgating some pretty bad "science" (as well as bad theology). if anyone on any side thinks that i came here to "create this mess" (i prefer to think of it as throwing bombs) because i am somehow a pro-creationist or pro-ID supporter, that person is sorely mistaken. the so-called "good enuf to pass FA" version did not "pass" FA without ignoring some strident objection from critics. any "judgement" that there was essential consensus was either completely deaf to the criticism or was biased sufficiently to ignore such criticism. r b-j 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why's that? 151.151.21.105 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
GNixon, please do not show IP bigotry. There should be no onus on non-registered contributors. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hostilities aside, it seems a shame that what looked like a consensus version (8e or a variant) got steamrollered in a mass revert. I'd just like to say that, as things stand, I have a problem with certain features of the lead sentence. SheffieldSteel 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any objection to 8e's first paragraph? If there's consensus, let's swap it in. (24 hour pause to assess objections) Adam Cuerden talk 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent first objection> As discussed at #Further discussion above, the opening that "Intelligent design is the proposition that life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent" is unsupported by citation, and in my opinion the available citations show ID cherry picking what its proponents think are weaknesses to make their claims about. The phrase certain features is sourced to the DI's CSC statement and expresses that point. Perhaps the problem with 2 is that it gives that statement first, modified to remove the obvious misleading use of "theory" and "an undirected process". Will comment with further ideas this afternoon, .. dave souza, talk 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Take 47: proposals for comparison

(2) modified as of 10:49, 10 April 2007

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

(8e)

Intelligent design is the proposition that life did not arise by natural processes, but was created by an unspecified intelligent agent, usually, but unofficially, identified as the Judeo-Christian God. Its primary proponents, all of whom who are members of the Discovery Institute, claim intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science, because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.

(2b) or not 2b

Intelligent design is a version of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not identify the nature or identity of the designer. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, but this claim is rejected by the scientific community. The primary proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, and describe intelligent design as the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection.

(2c) (O say can you c?)

Intelligent design is a version of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), presented as the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It does not identify the nature or identity of the designer, and its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, but this claim is rejected by the scientific community. The primary proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

(2d.) just my tuppenceworth..

Intelligent design is presented by the Discovery Institute as the proposition that features of the universe and of living things have an intelligent cause rather than being formed by natural processes such as natural selection. It is a version of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, a claim which is rejected by the scientific community. The primary proponents of intelligent design are all associated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

(2e) a couple tweaks: flow; being careful not to say they want it taught; mention of courts

Intelligent design is presented by the Discovery Institute as the proposition that features of the universe and of living things were created by an intelligent cause rather than being formed by natural processes such as natural selection. It is a version of the teleological argument that does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should influence the teaching of mainstream scientific theories regarding evolution and the origin of life, a claim which is rejected by the scientific community and U.S. courts. The primary proponents of intelligent design are all associated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

(2f) more tweaks

Intelligent design is presented by the Discovery Institute as the proposition that features of the universe and of living things were created by an intelligent cause rather than being formed by natural processes such as natural selection. It is a newer version of the historical design argument that does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should influence the teaching of mainstream scientific theories regarding evolution and the origin of life, a claim which is rejected by the scientific community and U.S. Federal courts. The primary proponents of intelligent design are all associated with the Discovery Institute, and believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

(2g) {{quote|Intelligent design is a version of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), which proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It does not identify the nature or identity of the designer, and its proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, but this claim is rejected by the scientific community, as it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.



Discussion of Take 47: proposals

The calls for 8e to be the opening paragraph instead of 2 seem to me to relate to concern that the DI "definition" is uncritically stated before its context is shown, as though it is the Wikipedia "definition", and that the scientific opposition to teaching of ID should appear at the outset. These are valid concerns in relation to the WP:NPOV policies listed at the top of this talk page in the box headed "Please read before starting". I've therefore adapted 2, with elements of 8e, to meet these concerns, and could not resist calling this variation 2b. Commentary and further proposals welcome. .. dave souza, talk 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be too much effort in "distancing" wikipedia from the subject of ID. Accurately describing a subject is not implicitly agreeing with it. I can say "The Heaven's Gate cult believed that an alien UFO existed on the Hale-Bopp comet, so they committed suicide so they could go there" without implicitly stating that I agreed with their beliefs. Accurate description is not equal to agreement.--Kgroover 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the 2b lead in sentence as it does not really tell me what ID is because it doesn't explain the design argument - it is more of a conclusion. It think it makes a great second sentence. 2 and 8e are better leads in my view. I disagree with the point of scientific opposition to the teaching of ID appearing in the first sentence. We haven't even defined what it is and we're already slapping it around with scientific dismissal. People will get it.. the lead overwhelmingly states scientific opposition. We just need to cleanly state what the design argument tries to show. Then we can state the conclusion presented and the context with supporters views and the scientific opposition. Morphh (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to KC, version 2c is now to hand and I hope that helps to meet your concerns, Morphh. It's a fair point that ID is perfectly valid as a philosophical or religious argument, and as Judge Jones recognised it could be true in these terms. The problem arises when ID is claimed to be science, and 2c is closer to that sequence. .. dave souza, talk 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
i dunno how (2b) or (2c) are considered derivative from (2). they change the "definition" ID back to the nondefinition of ID that is not supported in any other reference. it goes right back to the whole "let's open with a unique and contentious definition to identify the POV of the article right away" mentality. if consensus is really the requirement for acceptance (i'm suspect that the self-described "longtime editors" really mean it), then there is no consensus for any opening that defines ID as the teleological argument (or the equivalent "argument for the existance of God"). and there never has been. r b-j 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you, Rbj, are saying that you are opposed to any definition that isn't copied from another source. Is that your position? SheffieldSteel 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
the current opening sentence isn't copied directly from any other source, that i know of. but the language of it is, in some sense, approximating the language of the other defining references. we are not lexographers here. we just don't have the right to take a term that exists in the lexicon and redefine ID to be a baloney sandwich just because we might like baloney sandwiches. ID has a definition. that definition is portrayed in multiple encyclopedias and dictionaries, some of which are online and i have made reference to those multiple times. no other reference, none, na-da, nil, defines ID to be the teleological argument nor, as definition, an argument for the existance of God. i do not and never have denied that such is the agenda of the DI guys, but it still isn't the definition of ID. put the definition of ID as it is at the top of the article, and then show that what these guys are trying to do is make God scientific. it's true, that's what they are trying to do. but that does not change what the definition of ID is. and to put that conclusion in as the definition of ID is blatent POV. it is so in fact and in tone.
as soon as i saw any consensus starting to gel for what became prop #2 (hell, even FM went for it) i jumped right on it, because it put in a reasonably factual and neutral definition for ID at the lead. it didn't wait very long (2nd sentence) to put in the conclusion that it is the TA. but that is a helluva lot better than defining it as the TA because that is simply not the definition of ID and it never has been (except in the mind of some WP editors) since the term was coined in this context. r b-j 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God" etc Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005, " Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design" DI's CSC That's a secondary and a primary source, rbj, what sources do you have for your assertion? ... dave souza, talk 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not a definition. it's a finding in a legal decision. we put it in the article and attribute it to who said it. that's the Wikipedia way. i'm tired of repeating this over and over again. BTW, please re-read "Court point of view" above. it seems more than a coincidence that it took another admin, CBD, to point out to you guys the very same thing that i had that anything moved on this. (CBD said nothing new, nothing that i hadn't pointed out ad nauseum, but since he's an admin, some of you seemed to start paying attention and that's when the logjam started to soften - coincidence?) and also, i quoted and cited my sources a zillion times. please try to pay attention. r b-j 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(Anyone else getting a sense of deja argu?) I just don't want to see the first sentence mention the phrase "certain features" if at all possible. It's one thing for wikipedia to copy someone else's form of words, albeit with a risk of copying their POV too, but to copy the logical errors they have made is just too much. The sentence using "certain features" is no definition at all - except insofar as it defines ID as a rather imprecise and poorly-defined concept, and if that is the intent, the second sentence should make the point clearly. SheffieldSteel 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Rbj, I've given you the courtesy of repeating sources already provided in this talk page for the description (not definition) that you're complaining about. Your attempts to discredit Kitzmiller
STOP MISREPRESENTING ME! (and take a look at the article history, even the text above if you want to see my sources of definition of ID.) r b-j 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
echo the DI's attempts to evade the outcome of the court action they'd long sought, but what third party reliable secondary sources have you got for these assertions? And note that the DI's CSC is not the courts. .. dave souza, talk 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
So once again you're relying on tertiary sources, and ignoring a detailed secondary source as well as the statements of the DI. Got any positive proposals? .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't exactly positive, but I think 8e may be the least-opposed proposal. SheffieldSteel 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Ever willing to propose a compromise, see my 2d. worth...... dave souza, talk 17:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2d looks pretty good, better then 2b & 2c. Morphh (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(Tip-toeing back to this page.) I could get behind 2d (thanks, dave, for lots of good efforts), but I'd prefer to cut the parenthetical definition of teleological argument, which is already wikified. There should be no confusion about the God issue since the last sentence explains things explicitly. Glad to see things being attributed. Gnixon 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Tweaked it to 2e for discussion. Gnixon 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No objection to the US courts (should really be Fed court), but the parenthetical explanation of TE is essential for most readers who are unlikely to have come across it and can't be expected to have to go to another page to find what the intro means. Rather than remove the explanation, better to pipe it to the explanatory phrase used in our secondary source as "an argument for the existence of God" .. dave souza, talk 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Points well-taken, but I'm (along with others) uncomfortable beating readers over the head with the God thing, especially if it's hurting the flow. What about piping it to "design argument"? Or we could say "...modern version of the teleological argument where God is not explicitly identified as the intelligent designer"? (Can of worms: As I understand it, it's slightly inaccurate to describe the TE as an argument for the existence of this specific God, anyway. Aristotelian stuff, more general deism, etc.) Admit neither of my suggestions are perfect. Maybe finding a way to cut reference to TE is best. Gnixon 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does 2f address these concerns? SheffieldSteel 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Final?

I can support 2f. Assuming Dave and Morph are also on board, it'd be great to get input from other editors. Gnixon 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me Morphh (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happier with the phrase in parentheses as at 2d, will be interested in other opinions. Possible ways of modifying 2f to give the uninitiated some clarification might include "the historical religious design argument" or "the historical theological design argument". Will think it over. .. dave souza, talk 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Including "theological" sounds good to me SheffieldSteel 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design, a term coined by [insert name here], is the [proposition or belief or assertion] that features of the universe and of living things were created by an intelligent cause rather than being formed by natural processes such as natural selection. It is a newer version of the historical design argument that does not specify the nature or identity of the designer. Its proponents, nearly all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should influence the teaching of mainstream scientific theories regarding evolution and the origin of life, a claim which is rejected by the scientific community and U.S. Federal courts. Such proponents of intelligent design believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God but have at times disclaimed such identification of the "intelligent designer".

i am not sure that DI should be in the definition of ID unless it is clear that the particular person who coined the term "Intelligent Design" (i am not sure whom to identify such as) is directly related to the DI. i put in a 2g for contemplation. BTW, there is no problem with leaving out "certain". r b-j 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your enquiry as to the originator or the modern usage of the term, may I suggest that you read Intelligent design#Origins of the term, Charles Thaxton and Phillip E. Johnson, and see if you can spot any relationship to the DI. .. dave souza, talk 09:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. DI is already mentioned in the paragraph and it's better to be more specific. Also a nice edit otherwise. Cutting "certain" a good idea. I think I like "proposition" best. I'd prefer Shef's idea of "theological" in place of "historical." Gnixon 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Cutting certain is not a change I can agree to, nor is the rewrite from "not an undirected process such as natural selection" to " rather than natural processes such as natural selection". See ref 1 for reasons why the current definition fails. Report it as DI sells it, not as you might wish it to be sold. In other words, report the definition as used by DI, don't editorialise. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does the definition have to be a quotation? SheffieldSteel 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
leaving in or taking out "certain" is okay by me (dunno precisely what its net effect on meaning is). i like the idea of a direct (and cited) quotation from the dictionary, but there was so much resistance to that, that i had been looking for alternatives. the alternative that is simply unacceptable is the one where WP editors make up a definition that has nothing semantically in common with that of authorative and reputable references and stick it in, unattributed, in the lead contrary to WP policy (and then have the chutzpah to call it the NPOV version). Jim, when you say "Report it as DI sells it", that would be fine by me, since the people who coin a term essentially define it. but there is resistance to putting in an "uncritical" version of the definition that comes from the DI. i do not see what the problem is, we don't say that the DI definition of ID is fact, we just say what the term is defined to be and go on from there. r b-j 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I could support c, d, or e, but not f. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your objection to "design argument" instead of "teleological argument"? Gnixon 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the primary issue - it seems misleading to me to pipe it with "design argument" in its place. I also just realized that "certain" was cut from d-f, I would prefer that be replaced. Its only certain features, not features which are covered by ID. So IMO that needs to go back in for accuracy whatever version is chosen. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can support c, with a few changes:

  • it's "a teleological argument", rather than "a version of the" teleological argument ("version of the" suggests that there is only one)
  • the issue of "testability" isn't clearly presented - the argument behind ID is that it is empirically verifiable.

While the DI is behind the creation and marketing of ID, they didn't "coin" the term, and it isn't just a slogan, it's a carefully constructed idea. Guettarda 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support 2c. I support Guettarda's suggestion that "version of the" be removed. I think any version of 2 will be at least progress.--ZayZayEM 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote the current 2c, obviously I support, and would also support removing the "version of the" which has the added benefit of making the sentence more concise, aiding readability. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
2c is pretty good, but I'd like to add a little more about the scientific community's reasons for rejecting it. How about 2g? (Also, without a cite, we CANNOT say the ID proponents all think it's the Abrahamic God.) Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
if it's not the Abrahamic God (which is actually a real term) it can't be the "Christian God" (which is a term i have not read outside of the news media or WP). the God that Christians believe in is the God of the other Abrahamic traditions (it just that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Druze, etc. believe different things about this God). but it is likely different from the God or gods of the Dharmic traditions. one way to fix this is to leave out any qualifier to the word God where the observation is made in the article as to the identity of the "intelligent designer" the leading proponents of ID believe is, just say it is God or a god. but to imply that the Christians believe in a different God than the other Abrahamic faiths is both inaccurate and ignorant. makes the article look bad.
just to make sure that this is not conveniently overlooked, defining ID as identical to the teleological argument or the semantic equivalent ("design argument" or "argument for the existance of God") is inaccurate as a definition, unsupported by any other encyclopedia or dictionary of widespread use in the English language, and is blatently POV. and there is no consensus for it and there never has been consensus for it. that is clear from the record of this talk page. r b-j 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My objection is not to Abrahamic God, it's to the statement that *all* of them believe it's the Abrahamic God. It's probably true, but we canð't just guess at facts, we need a cite.
There's four main objections to 2f. That's one. The others are "Intelligent design is presented by the Discovery Institute as the proposition that..." (A particularly clunky opening), "...should influence the teaching of mainstream scientific theories regarding evolution and the origin of life" (Influence?), and the lack of any real scientific rebuttal, just saying they reject it. Reasons should be given, for balance, as we're giving a fairly detailed description of what they say it is.. Adam Cuerden talk 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, per a comment above, the DI may call natural selection an undirected process, however, this term is somewhat misleading, as it is, in fact, directed by environmental conditions. Hence, it kind of has to change to natural processes, as opposed to artificial or supernatural processes. Adam Cuerden talk 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> cite as requested, doesn't actually say "all" so phrasing needs consideration: "ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God... both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses.... A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." – See Kitzmiller pp 25-26 at the link given earlier in this chat. Agree that directly quoting the DI has the problem that it's stuffed with misleading weasel wording. ... dave souza, talk 09:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this article deals with a concept put forth by the Discovery Institute, created to sneak creationism back into public schools in the US. I also understand that most of the reasonable objectors to this article fail to understand this, and think that intelligent design is a philosophy. Why aren't we jumping on the chance to clear this up once and for all, by referencing the Discovery Institute in the definition? 2f, while imprefect, does make this clear. "Intelligent design is presented by the Discovery Institute .."
I'm sorry, but merely stating that most proponents of intelligent design are affiliated with intelligent design doesn't make it clear that intelligent design was created and promoted by the Discovery Institute. -- Ec5618 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but there's far better ways to phrase it than that front-heavy sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 08:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO it is not that reasonable objectors (in which happy band I include myself) fail to understand that ID is essentially a creation of the DI, but rather that the basic definition should not be obfuscated and entangled with the admittedly deceitful behavior of the DI. The basic definition of ID is a reasonable proposition (albeit neither a theory nor even a hypothesis), and we shouldn't be seeking to distort it just to score points against the DI, irrespective of whether they deserve it or not.
That the DI, and their sins, feature heavily in the intro is appropriate - I quite like the current version (with one or two minor quibbles) Tomandlu 10:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No-one suggested 'scoring points' against the Discovery Institute. The point is that this article deals with a 'intelligent design, as propounded by the Discovery Institute, as opposed to the general proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection'. This is easily the most prevalent misunderstanding, so we should address it in the intro. -- Ec5618 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means. Even if accepted that the article deals with some special DI version (which is contradicted by the title of the article), it begs the question as to where should the reader go if he wants to read about the non-DI version? Irrespective of that, it still seems a little irrelevant IMHO. The basic proposition of ID still needs to be stated clearly and concisely. Tomandlu 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source you were thinking of for this non-DI proposition, and is the term ID still in use in that context given the evidence that the DI proposition now predominates? The Origins of the term does mention some fairly rare previous usage, but it's questionable how notable these instances would be were it not for the DI's publicity. .. dave souza, talk 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Me? Not that I know of - ID, IMHO, is pretty much the exclusive "property" of the DI. I was reacting to the notion of a "general proposition" in Ec5618's comment. Sorry if that muddied the waters. My essential position still comes down to "The basic proposition of ID still needs to be stated clearly and concisely." Tomandlu 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
A great number of people who come to this article are under the impression that the term intelligent design refers to a general notion that life may have been designed. Recently, for example, raspor made a great fuss because he never understood that this article deals only with the Discovery Institute's version of intelligent design. He believed that it was, for example, unfair that the Raelians were never mentioned in this article. He believed that the Raelians believe in an intelligent designer, because they hold that life on Earth was deliberately seeded by aliens.
All I'm saying is that this article deals with 'Intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute', and nothing else. -- Ec5618 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
...and what they propound is where we should start. The basic premise of ID - not the morals or beliefs of its various proponents, not the wedge doc, or kitzmiller (sic). Tomandlu 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, the basic premise is deceptive, as it suggests that the term intelligent design refers to any 'proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection'. It does not. Intelligent design is not 'the proposition that..', it is 'a very specific proposition that ..'. -- Ec5618 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Number 2 above is the only version that I will support, the others have various inaccuracies and NPOV (undue weight) issues. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest "broad sense" and "narrow sense" definitions

In the broad sense, this is the argument from design. In the narrow sense, ID is an elaboration due particularly to DI. Dfarrar 14:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

it is both. but not by definition. there is nothing wrong with putting in the definition for the lead sentence. it is policy: WP:WINAD r b-j 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought experiment, here's what such an intro might look like. For labelling purposes this could presumably be (9) –

Intelligent design is a term which has occasionally been used for a theological religious proposition, usually known as a design argument or teleological argument, which presents the appearance of complexity or improbability as evidence for the existence of God or some other supernatural creator. The Discovery Institute has more recently brought into public prominence a version which does not officially identify the nature or identity of the designer, and claims that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught as equal in merit to mainstream scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life, though the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science. The primary proponents of modern intelligent design generally believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God, a point revealed in their writings, and are all associated with the Discovery Institute which describes intelligent design as the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection.

Modified per Kitzmiller cite above .. dave souza, talk 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC), copyedited dave souza, talk 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the earlier sense was a minor usage and I've been happier with earlier versions such as 2c, but comments welcome. .. dave souza, talk 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not a theological argument or proposition. it's a philosophical argument or proposition. teleology is inside the category: philosophy. it is discussing whether or not some observation of some perceived order in the universe is indicative of the existance of God. theology is the more focussed philosophy of what is the nature of God, assuming God exists. now, there certainly are theological issues regarding ID (or Creation science) once you get there. (one that i would keep asking the silly YECs is why God would leave all this bogus evidence around indicating the age of the planet to be billions of years old when it "really" is 6000 years old - why would God create the world "with a history" to deceive people? is God anti-truth? that's about theology, but teleology precedes this, conceptually.) r b-j 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Most famously known from William Paley's book Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Sounds like both philosophy and theology to me. Best to go back to the specific reference to it at Kitzmiller by John Haught, theologian, who calls it a "religious argument" ..... dave souza, talk 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I'm impressed---I think you got the presentation just right with this latest version. I'd recommend some minor changes:

  • Break the long first sentence about DI in two at the "and."
  • As I've suggested before, since IDers insist DI does not argue for teaching ID, say something like "that ID should influence the teaching of evolution..."
  • Prefer quoting a DI statement in last sentence, if a reasonably concise statement can be found.

Again, great job. I'm fully behind 9. Gnixon 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is minor criticism perhaps, but it seems like a shame that there are two sentences covering the identity of the designer, one saying that it is not specified by proponents, and one saying that it is. Though tricky, it would be great if these could be rolled up into one sentence of the form "A, however, B". Also, can we specify the identity, rather than identify the identity, of the designer? SheffieldSteel 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a conceptual exercise rather than a finished proposal, have modified it per cite about DIer's beliefs from Kitzmiller as shown in the previous section. ... dave souza, talk 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Conceptual exercise, true, but if we get to a solution here, we should probably put comments in the text indicating that the paragraph was reached by consensus after much debate, and edits should be performed with caution. If we do so, let's try and get a version that shouldn't even need much copy-editing. Gnixon 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
i'm glad to hear that it is a conceptual exercise. i would not be offering minor criticisms. i think you guys need to understand definitions of the salient terms (including "theology" as well as ID itself) and not just be using what you happen to think they might mean. you don't get to theology at all, without the presumption of the existence of God to begin with. if it's about whether or not God is an orderly God or favors or dislikes people because of ID, then you're getting into theology. but teleology, all by itself is not theology, and the Teleological Argument is a theistic philosophy, but it is still, not yet, a theology. if we start putting in what we think is a theology, even if some dipstick somewhere can be quoted as calling some non-theology as a theology (or any other category of thought), some professor of philosophy somewhere is gonna stumble upon this, use it as another example of the amateurs at Wikipedia exceeding their expertise and competence and making it into a "reference" that cannot be depended upon for anything factual. doing stuff like that embarasses Wikipedia. this is one of the main criticisms of Wikipedia, that it is amateurish and less than scholarly. r b-j 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My objections, respectfully, with the paragraph at the top of this section is with the use of ambiguous and very passive language. It leads with a definition that highlights what it is not. To say something is occasionally something, which is further usually defined as such-and-such, says as a matter of grammatical fact that it is usually something else entirely, which is occasionally defined differently. The use of passive language to avoid objection is (forgive me), quite objectionable. Further I would contend that complexity and improbability are factual concepts about the universe and thus I favour eliminating the passive phrase "appearance of". If the universe merely appears to be complex, then I am truly stupid, and if merely appears to be improbable, mustn't other manifest universes be provable?
I appears to me that real issue with the definitions comes from trying to eliminate theological words but then still using terms of personification, such as designer, creator, and so on. Would the solution not lie in phrasing the definition as a proposition that the universe came into existence through willful creation? The will is inherent as soon as an intelligence causes something to be, yet does not at all suggest a personified God in the Judaeo/Christian sense (yet allows for it). Apologies if I'm entirely missing the point of this debate. Joevanisland 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_term

The earliest use of the term cited in the article is 1847, but there is an even earlier one here. I just happened to come across it, so it's very likely there is an even earlier use of the term. --JianLi 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. It's possible that the term is an artefact of translation, worth exploring. The usage seems mainly to relate to Newton's ideas of intelligent falling which have been written about by the DI's Stephen C. Meyer. ... dave souza, talk 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts, ma'm - my version, for what it's worth

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not explicitly identify the nature or identity of the designer.

Current use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute - a US organisation that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer.

The scientific community states almost unnaminously that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk 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 they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Tomandlu 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely the right idea. Everything attributed and stated simply. Gnixon 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's valuable, well written, NPOV, and precise. My only quibble would be the phrase "does not explicitly identify" as this phrase can grammatically describe a specific identity widely believed but yet hidden from others. Perhaps "..., but is not exclusive to any specific nature or identity of the designer." is okay? I assume too citations for your 4th paragraph are needed, but should be easy enough. Joevanisland 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
well, it fits the title to the section. dunno if the "longtime editors" will like it since it is so clean and simple and NPOV and doesn't define in the lead sentence ID as the "teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God)". holding off, until at least the 2nd sentence, presenting such an evaluation of ID is good. this could be well wikilinked and tied to the usual refs and then i could really support this, but then i fear that means the "longtime editors" will just shoot it down. r b-j 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Change "rather than natural processes" to "than by natural processes", and change "explicitly identify" to "specify" and I will join a consensus. SheffieldSteel 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Fuse the first three paragraphs. The subject matter of the first feeds nicely into the second and the last paragraphs is a direct extension of the ideas expressed in the two leading paragraphs. No need to split each sentence into its respective paragraph.--Roland Deschain 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds pretty good - Remove the words "current", don't care for the dash, add periods to U.S., needs spell check (few words). Thoughts on just wikilinking "natural processes" to natural selection or removing the first natural term and just say "process such as" - sounds odd to me with the duplicate terms "natural processes such as natural selection". Morphh (talk) 1:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine lead.--ZayZayEM 05:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Morphh. Dump the first "natural", but think "processes such as" should remain if ID includes design outside natural selection - gravity, supernovas, and so on, no?Joevanisland 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It has no flow, and again faces the problem that the opening paragraph, however you fuse it, does not represent the scientific viewpoint, and thus cannot stand on its own as an NPOV description. Plus, it uses phrasings I had hoped were long dead. Adam Cuerden talk 05:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience: A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. there is no Wikipedia policy for the definition of ID to represent the scientific veiwpoint. would that mean that we define ID as "not science since that is essentially the scientific POV? r b-j 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the opening paragraph of an article on ID need to represent the scientific viewpoint? Isn't it sufficient to put scientific objections to the theory in the 2nd paragraph? The article on evolution certainly doesn't mention creationist objections in its first paragraph. Gnixon 05:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The evolution article doesn't begin with a statement about how it's superior to creationism, does it? These proposals, however, do say that it's claimed ID is better. We have to balance that. Also, creationism (including ID) is an extreme minority viewpoint in the relevant field (science), so may be ignored in the article about the majority viewpoint, but the majority viewpoint may not be ignored in an article about the minority view. Adam Cuerden talk 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
we attribute it!!! we don't say that it's an actual fact that ID is better than evolution, we say that supporters of ID, at least those with the DI, say that ID is equal or better science than evolution. and right away we get to say that virtually the entire scientific community shoots down ID as science. it's that simple, Adam, to follow the rules and write an NPOV intro. this was obvious weeks ago. there is nothing left to the fig leaf anymore. why do you guys insist on presenting your POV as the NPOV? it isn't. r b-j 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Tomandlu's intro proposal flows very well, one concept to the next. just as Roland Deschain says. r b-j 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
r-b-j, I was talking about this particular proposal, which, due to paragraph divvision, seperates off the scientific arguement. The opening paragraph is supposed to represent both sides, not represent one side, wih the second paragraph representing the oposing side. It needs to be integrated. Adam Cuerden talk 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Adam, if this were, say, Creation-evolution controversy I would agree with you, but it's just Intelligent Design. Obviously ID is essentially an argument against evolution, so the scientific rebuttal needs a prominent position, but I really think devoting the latter 2 out of 4 paragraphs in the intro to criticism of ID is sufficient. Since we've seen fit to go into considerable detail in the intro, I can't see how to incorporate science's rebuttal into the very first paragraph without disrupting the flow. Gnixon 12:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts 1.1

Okay - here's V1.1, which incorporates most of the above suggestions and restores the references (I've kept one paragraph break to separate the basic statement of ID from the rest of the commentary - Roland Deschain suggested fusing all 3)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by natural processes such as selection.[2] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[22]

Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute,[23][5] a U.S. organisation that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[24] Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer.[25]

The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[26] and some have termed it junk science.[27] 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 they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[28]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[29] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[30]

Tomandlu 09:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hidden references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ One of the governing goals of the Intelligent Design movement is to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999.
  2. ^ a b c d e Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
    • Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)
    • Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.
  3. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." (Known as the teleological argument) Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  4. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
  5. ^ a b c d e Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  6. ^ a b c d "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  7. ^ a b c d See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
  8. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  9. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  10. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  11. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
  12. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  13. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  14. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  15. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
  16. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  17. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  18. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  19. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
  20. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
    ·"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
    •"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  21. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  22. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
    "intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
  23. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
    • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  24. ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
  25. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  26. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  27. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  28. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  29. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005
  30. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
    Pieret, John, The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, TalkOrigins Archive. (A response to a criticism of Jones' decision)
(UPDATED)Hmm, the refs have turned into a right dog's dinner - it's just related to them being on the talk page, rather than the article... (they're fine if I preview this version on he article page)Tomandlu 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The scientific side comes in far too late. WP:LEAD says the first paragraph should work self-contained. By waiting two paragraphs to present the majority view, undue weight is being given. Adam Cuerden talk 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct. WP:LEAD says that the lead in its entirety should stand alone, not just the first paragraph of it. Devoting over half of the lead to objections to the article's subject is plenty of weight, no matter what the article is. Again, this is an article about intelligent design, not about whether intelligent design is true. Gnixon 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
We could swap the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs if required - would that be better? (edit - IMHO the current proposed version makes more sense) Tomandlu 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to begin introducing scientific objections in the 3rd paragraph, after the relationship of the IDM's position and goals to science is fully explained. Others may disagree. Gnixon 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You could also possibly take out the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph and replace it with the third paragraph (to make paragraph 2). Then take the old 2nd sentence and make it the first sentence in the new third paragraph. This would start with the definition, go into the scientific aspects, then go into the religious aspects. As oppose to definition, proponent aspects, opponent aspects. Morphh (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That could work well. Gnixon 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm wondering if we really need the last sentence of the last paragraph ("During the trial, intelligent design advocate.."). It looks like a specific detail best covered in the main article, rather than the lead, but I'm not that bothered one way or the other. (UPDATED) Or, to put it more metaphorically, I've nothing against hammering nails into ID's coffin, I just don't want to split the wood... :) Tomandlu 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point (and love your analogy), but my first thought is that the sentence has a lot of value here since editors often insist on this page that ID has lots of peer-reviewed publications (there's that famous list). An attributed statement from an ID supporter right in the lead clears up the misconception pretty definitively. Gnixon 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally prefer "processes such as Natural Selection" over "natural processes" (more prominence to full scientific term to offset perceived NPOV problem, less inference of ID as unnatural to it's proponents). Agree with Gnixon 100%, the article is not the debate, so no need for "balanced" opening line. WP articles don't lead with caveats because it's not a scientific journal, nor must the "majority" opinion be mentioned. Should non-Christian article leads be required to present the "majority" belief that Jesus is the messiah? Nonsense! Neither do I see this lead having a problem, yet it states divine nature, a "theory" opposed by science (Biology:Birth, Physics:Ascension). Tomandlu's excellent writing presents a proposition, clearly stated as such, which does not claim fact. Please keep going. Joevanisland 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts 1.2

Thanks User:Joevansland, but I don't think one bit of text or reference is my work, so I can't take any credit.

Okay, I've incorporated the above suggestions - plus I wanted to see what it looked like moving Behe's admission about no peer-review to te science bit. Some changes I think look clumsy, but take a look. Tomandlu 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by processes such as natural selection.[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[2]

Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute,[3][4] a U.S. organisation that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[5] The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[6] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[7] and some have termed it junk science.[8] 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 they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9] In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[10]

Despite the limits of the proposition, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer.[11] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[12]

I'm for it. (minor copy-edits aside) Gnixon 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

me 2. r b-j 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks OK here. Perhaps cutting out a few of the more obvious blue links ("living things", "supernatural", and "hypothesis", for starters) might be an improvement, and I'd suggest either "stands on an equal footing with" or "is on equal footing with, or superior to...", but I think this is a reasonable compromise. Tevildo 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
good suggestions - but could reasonably wait until it is posted as the new lead to the article - would there be any serious objections to posting this as the new lead? Tomandlu 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
none from me. r b-j 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Be bold! Joevanisland 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest trying to get some comments from others who've participated in the discussion, since it has been long and sometimes contentious. Might even be worth messaging them on their user pages. It'd be a shame to post this new version and have it a provoke a firestorm from those who haven't had a chance to review it. Gnixon 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
hell, they can always revert it. (loads gun.) r b-j 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Careful, your humor will surely be misunderstood here. Gnixon 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
r b-j's humour is misunderstood everywhere. Tomandlu 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait for 24 hours for any serious objections on this page. Minor typos and grammatical improvements welcome, but can wait (although feel free to adjust 1.2 above). It is a controversial subject, and it's understandable that change is greeted cautiously. User:Rbj's advice - despite my respect for both his viewpoint and his conviction - remains a potent indicator of the path not to follow if a reasonable consensus is to be reached. Tomandlu 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No objections from me. -- Cat Whisperer 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I meant no objections to the above version of the lead. I wasn't trying to express an opinion on the timing of editing the actual article, which is indeed now moot. -- Cat Whisperer 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, r b-j has made it all rather moot now - strangely I remain neither shocked nor awed - I guess we wait and see... Tomandlu 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So much for editing by consensus. Sigh.... Gnixon 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

RE the current third paragraph ("Despite the limits of the proposition..."): Y'all are kidding, right? Surely a better way can be found to express this idea that ID ostensibly avoids making assertions about the nature of the putative designer(s). Other than that, the recent modifications appear to me to be generally reasonable and consistent with what the article goes on to explain. ... Kenosis 01:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kenosis. An editor went ahead and inserted this version of the lead into the article, so edits that aren't likely to be contentious should just be made there. Gnixon 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Some suggestions:
  • "It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God)". I find it very strange that the editors found it appropriate to include an explanation for the teleological argument that disrupts the flow of the sentence that badly. The term is wikilinked for a reason. Lets decide on one or the other.
  • "Despite the limits of the proposition". To ambiguous. Maybe something more like: Even though ID does not specify the identity of the intelligence. . .. It's not great, but at least its a lot clearer than "the limits of ID propositions".--Roland Deschain 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
well, the "longtime editors", who that think their POV is the NPOV, pretty much want to make awful damn sure that there is no possible question that ID is an argument for the existance of God, despite the lack of such language in the basic definition and the uncredible denials of some ID proponents (because they know if they did admit it, that there would be no chance of ID ever in any public school science classroom). i agree taking out the explicit definition of the teleological argument and leaving such one click away would be okay, but they consider me such a POV pusher (because i wouldn't stand for their biased non-definition being put forth as the definition) that, for this particular battle, i just sigh. someone else can take it out. r b-j 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok . . ., that's a very strange consensus. ID is clearly an argument for God: the Dover trial facts and findings say so, the writings of the leading proponents say so, the founding document of ID says so. The rare moment when ID is in a secular spotligh (such as Wikipedia), the proponents claim otherwise, but the continuous double standards of ID do not need to pollute the intro. Just say ID is a theological argument. Quick, to the point, and verifiable.--Roland Deschain 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The bizarre truth is, we could cite just about any source relevant to the issue saying that "ID is an argument for God" (in one form or another), yet it is not a fact - it's just something everyone involved believes to be true. SheffieldSteel 03:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel, with all due respect, stop with the semantic and pseudo-philosophical non-sense. To show the fallacy of your argument: "The Earth revolving around the sun is not a fact, it's just something everyone involved believes to be true." We believe things for a reason: evidence. There is a plethora of evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun and another mount of evidence that shows that ID is mainly an argument for God poorly disguise in secular terms. So please stop with the vacuous speeches.--Roland Deschain 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevant issue is that virtually everyone agrees that the earth revolves around the Sun, whereas a significant minority of people believe God created life in a way that contradicts scientific theories. As Shef says, even if most sources have the same POV, unless society has established consensus on a subject, we have a duty to attribute every point of view. 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is clear and unambiguous on this point: "ID is an argument for God poorly disguised in secular terms" cannot be asserted as a fact. So we have two choices for the opening: (1) reword it as an attributed opinion; or (2) find a definition for ID that is uncontested by all parties. All suggestions based on (1) have been quickly shot down; thus the discussion has continued based on (2). -- Cat Whisperer 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I used the word "fact" in the strict sense that wikipedia uses it, to summarise a problem that's bedevilled this debate for some time. Anyway, apologies for making a comment that, incidentally, pretty much agreed with your last post in a way that was obviously too poorly phrased to be clear to readers. SheffieldSteel 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I seemed to favour rushing consensus, just urging BRD, but too new to get the subtext of why it isn't the right or efficient thing, so will bow out respectfully Joevanisland 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposed changes here are never going to fly, they muddle the issue being far less clear than what they propose to replace. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Gnixon 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And in mid bow (saw the reversion), you know sincerely, for what it's worth, I'm a fair man with no invested position here, and I just want to say that this reverted version does not read neutral to my neutral, fresh eyes. I now see the problems with the other one, but this is describing something by what it's not. In fact the second paragraph has four nots and a no, and what to a speechwriter would be nine negative references. I agree with every word of it, but humbly, it's an attack on an assertion I just don't see on the page there. I can't grasp how a paragraph about it not being science is seen as neutral -- when there's nothing it's countering. If the lead avoids claims of science, a large paragraph refuting that phantom claim does not leave a neutral taste. I'll try to shut up, but consider keeping the current whole first paragraph in its reverted form, but with the only two three sentences I think you really need to make sure there's no claiming of science: The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science. United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science,and further that it is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[12] Everything else, in good faith, seems defensive.Joevanisland 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the suggestions above - I suspect that, in my efforts to make the second paragraph more concise, I might have gone too far. My intent was to whittle the lead down to the essential bullet points, so to speak, and leave the detail for the main article.
Debatable points (IMHO). The lead is divided into 3 sections - a statement of ID, then the science (DI's claims, scientific establishment's counter-claims), then the religious aspects. There is some blurring between the science and religion sections - Behe's admission is science, but relates to Kitzmiller, which more naturally fits into religion. Likewise, the judgment of Kitz that ID is not science looks like it should belong in science. So, should Behe's admission be the last sentence of para 2 or para 3? Tomandlu 09:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think (1) statement, (2) science, (3) education is a good outline. Obviously the religious aspects are relevant to teaching in the public schools, so they logically fit in a paragraph about education. Gnixon 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts 1.3

Latest version (was on article page, but got reverted). Some changes are cosmetic, but more contentious is removing some of the body of the lead (but not the refs). I just wanted to remove what I felt was superfluous detail better left in the main article, rather than the lead. Tomandlu 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by processes such as natural selection.[1] It is similar to classical arguments for the existence of God, but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[13]

Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute,[14][4] a U.S. non-profit think-tank that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[15] However, the scientific community, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has stated unequivocally that intelligent design is not science.[6][16][17][18][19] In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[10]

Although the nature of the designer is outside the proposition's scope, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer.[20] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court judge ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature,[21] and that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Just the facts 1.31

Same as above, but without the extensive cuts in science section... Tomandlu 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than by processes such as natural selection.[1] It is similar to classical arguments for the existence of God, but does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.[22]

Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute,[23][4] a U.S. non-profit think-tank that promotes the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[24] However, the scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[6] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[25] and some have termed it junk science.[26] 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 they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[27] In 2005, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[10]

Although the nature of the designer is outside the proposition's scope, the Discovery Institute's primary members, as well as leaked internal documents, have shown a strong bias towards identifying the Abrahamic God as the designer.[28] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court judge ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature,[29] and that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The previous version (1.3) is much better, IMHO, because it avoided bloat in the 2nd paragraph by stating things simply. The first phrase of the third paragraph is awkward, but I'm not sure how to do better without starting a war. Gnixon 12:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - but I suspect that it may be a cut too far for many. Yeah, the first sentence of para 3 is a bit precious, but I think it makes the appropriate point. Any suggestions for a more elegant phrase? Tomandlu 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Although intelligent design does not indentify|specify|define the designer..."
  • "Although the identity|nature of the designer is [left] unspecified|undefined by the proposition..."
I've listed some of the options; of course there are plenty more. SheffieldSteel 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Reasonable phrasings, IMHO, but I suspect they'd rouse vehement opposition. Gnixon 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Any consensus as to how we reach a consensus?

... 'cos I've got no idea... Tomandlu 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, given the hard work by you and others, but I think the only way these articles (related to creation-evolution controversy) will reach consensus will be to climb all the way up the dispute resolution ladder. I've tried to support good writing here, but frankly, I've always been very pessimistic about getting a positive outcome. Gnixon 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a veiled threat. Threats will make it less likely that others will take your arguments seriously. Also, DR works both ways, and I've seen some clear POV promotion and misrepresenting of sources going on here that would make great evidence. FeloniousMonk 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not a threat---just fatalism. I doubt I have the energy to pursue dispute resolution. Gnixon 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of the changes I've seen over the last 24 hours from the standing version were definitely not an improvement; they replaced properly sourced fact with weasel words, ambiguities, and factual errors ("Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" becomes "Use of the term is almost exclusively linked with the Discovery Institute"![16] and "It is a modern form of the teleological argument an argument" became "It is similar to classical arguments for the existence of God" [17]) and deleted significant aspects of the majority viewpoint ("many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9]" simply disappeared [18]) This took place in the context of a particular set of editors who have insisted on repeating the rhetoric of ID proponents in the article as fact, and these very ambiguities and weasel words are used by the Discovery Institute. Furthermore, these changes not only did not reflect what consensus exists here, but actually ignored it, and instead inserted the favored text of that particular set of editors here that failed to gain any wide support and was rejected long ago. When stunts like that are pulled how anyone can with a straight face claim they were working toward consensus, much less implementing it, is beyond me. FeloniousMonk 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no basis for most of the above accusations IMHO. AFAIK the intent of the recent suggested edits has never been to in any way promote or hide the dishonesty of the DI, but rather to present the basic information clearly, without bias, and without pre-emptively joining together relevant but distinct facts.
Fact 1 - ID (as a proposition) specifically excludes trying to identify the designer
Fact 2 - The DI claims that ID is science, the scientific establishment says it is not
Fact 3 - The DI and its members have a bias towards the designer being the christian god
Fact 4 - Teaching ID has been judged to be unconstitutional, since it violates the anti-establishment clause
Of course there are many more facts, but no lead can cover them all - IMHO the above facts are what ought to be covered in the lead. The only reason I supported the suggestion that the extra stuff be cut from the science bit (while leaving the refs) is that they are extraneous detail to the basic information. Isn't brevity in the lead something we should work towards?
I have to say I did not favour the update to the article, and thought it provocative, but IMHO you have assumed bad faith where no evidence exists (how the hell is Gnixon's remark a veiled threat?). Repeating the rhetoric of the DI (I assume you mean the first para, and possibly the first sentence of the second para) is not pandering, it is providing a context. I don't know how you can read the suggested changes and conclude in any way that they offer aid or support to the DI/ID...Tomandlu 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A couple of extra-points regarding the "weasel words" - I'm not really bothered whether we say "primary proponents" or "use of the term", but the "almost exclusively" is to prevent some schmo from finding some reference, any reference, to the term being used by a non-DI person, and then citing that as proof of bias in the article. The removal of teleological argument (to which it still links) was purely because "teleological argument" was considered too obscure a term, but people also didn't like it being used with a bracketed definition. No weasel words were harmed in the making of this sentence :) Tomandlu 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that an observation by Jimbo Wiles on a weak side of wikipedia still holds: those editors with an agenda and willing to spend more time on the article can impose their view in the long run. It is sad that this is still true despite the more source-citing-sensitive policies.--BMF81 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By and large, the article as it stands is, IMHO, excellent and a credit to it's long-term editors... but many of us are uncomfortable with the lead, and consider it to be somewhat POV. I would rather ere on the side of both caution and trusting the casual reader to draw the correct inferences from the basic facts, rather the conducting original research.
IMHO a good lead should be spotlessly unbiased, clarified concisely in such a way that someone with no knowledge of the subject would grasp the essential facts, and, in the case of ID, irritate the hell out of the DI without giving them a single legitimate cause of complaint... :)
I suspect that the difficulties with preventing ID advocates from pov-pushing on the piece have made long-term editors overly suspicious of well intentioned efforts, and it's making the whole process of cleaning up the lead a somewhat fraught exercise. Just MHO. Tomandlu 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Gnixon 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm failing to see where a featured article needs cleanup. If you wish to clean up an article which needs attention, see Category:All pages needing cleanup - I assure you there is much which requires attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has pointed out that this article was essentially promoted to FA status by the editors who wrote it. That doesn't constitute much evidence that it's WP:PERFECT and we should all therefor go find something else to do. A talk page that generates this volume of debate is highly suggestive that there are problems with the article. Gnixon 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who the "other editor" is, but they clearly haven't spent much time on FA if they think that's how it works. If that were the case, everyone's pet article would be FA! Secondly, not perfect is not what Tomandlu said. Tomandlu said "cleaning up" and that is an insult to everyone who worked on this article. Take a look at a random sampling of articles from Category:All pages needing cleanup and tell me how you can imply this article belongs in that category. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon KillerChihuahua, I use the term "cleaning up" in the ordinary, common, sense, and you point me at some backwater of Wikipedia lore? LOL. I don't know what contortions you are having to go through in order to work my remarks on the current state of the lead up into an insult on all the editors, but it is unjustified. Tomandlu 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup is hardly a "backwater" and it certainly is not "lore". I am going to take it that you used these words as carelessly as you used "cleanup" and that you did not intend to insult. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
With reference to FeloniousMonk, I see your points on "Use of the term" and "similar to" and agree with you, but "it's primary opponents, associated with the Discovery Institute," says what you wish without the problematic "all of whom". I respectfully submit also, and I'm not implying your motivation, that further subdefining "not science" is de facto speechwriting, and this sort of specific extension of a term can be studied in any university as a technique for repeating the same assertion in a way as to make it resemble further assertions, when they are merely derivitive assertions. In point of fact, pseudo can also be defined as sharing a reasonable resemblence to something, which in this light is contradictory to "not science" anyway. Then you also want "junk", when in fact you mean the same point with all three phrases? There's too much of this sort of thing here, asserting debate techniques as good article writing. I beg for grammatical agreement between assertions and refutations, and common sense that this is an article, not an an answer of inquiry, and dimissing anticipated insistences not on the page or inherent in the definition is debating. This is not a physics formula nor a math conjecture. I ask that anyone respecting the terms "science" and "fact" to consider that the true relevent science here is that of linguistics.Joevanisland 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest reading the references provided in the article, and maybe branching out from there in one's background research of these issues (as opposed to relying on assumptions rendered here on the talk page). ID has been characterized as "unscientific" and as "not science" by the major scientific organizations. At least one major organization of science teachers has specifically gone the extra step of calling it pseudoscience. And several credible sources from within the scientific community have called it junk science. This is, fairly straightforwardly, what the WP article about intelligent design says about this issue.

As to the issue of the use of "... all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute ...", six or seven references are provided, which would be a good place to start research of that matter. There also is a link to several previous lengthy discussions of the issue of the Discovery Institute's relationship to ID in the talk page archives, at the top of this page. Several times, offers have been made to provide evidence of even one person who could reasonably be characterized as a "leading proponent" (or if you prefer, a "primary proponent"), and not one has been presented who is not affiliated with the DI. Certainly there are other ways of expressing this other than the way it is currently presented in the article. But any such proposal for a different way of stating the point to the reader should be equivalently accurate and explanatory of this important aspect of ID. ... Kenosis 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's rude to imply that Joe doesn't know what he's talking about just because you disagree with his suggestions, and it's clearly a baseless insinuation---his comments indicate that he understands the issues. His points about linguistics and the difference between writing to provide information versus writing to make an argument are entirely valid, and unfortunately, they're extremely relevant to this discussion. Gnixon 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Insinuation, heck. Joevanisland, if you look at what he said, plainly was making an argument that the WP editors are making these assertions about "intelligent design" being "unscientific", "pseudoscience" and/or "junk science", when in fact the scientific community is verifiably making these assertions. WP is reporting it as such, qualifying each statement with a description of the groups and/or individuals that've made these characterizations of ID. Wedged in there, in that brief commentary by Joevanisland, was a criticism about the WP article's rendering of the issue of all principal proponents being associated with the Discovery Institute. That rapid-fire set of criticisms by Joevanisland of multiple issues of the language in the article on the basis of the "science [sic] . . . of linquistics" very stongly implied (1) lack of research, and (2) lack of a superior alternative to the longstanding language in the article.

But I wasn't referring to Joevanisland only. This whole talk page almost constantly is pervaded by rabid, bilious criticism by persons who plainly have not well researched this complex topic, and who plainly do not well understand it, intermingled as it is with socio-political, ideological, theological, educational, scientific and legal factors in the United States. ... Kenosis 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept your criticism, Kenosis, and leave room for it, however I have read the citations, am not ignorant of the relevant literature here, and am not disputing you. I'm arguing that tonal colorations are facts of language and defined by the science of applied linguistics. I am not arguing the truth of what you say, only the neutrality of its wording. Respectfully, your reply does not read to me as if you read my actual comments since I offered a sentence that defines the proponents as synonomous with DI, but merely absent the only few words that leave the sentence open to attack as somewhat of a straw-man. Neither did I suggest whatsoever that ID is science, nor did I object to strong, citable wording to the contrary. My point is that if you seek to disprove a single assertion with multiple versions of the same refutation (that ID is not science), then you are factually weighing your response, which is speechwriting. Verifiably, ID is not science. Many citations prove this. Citing all of them without grammatical balance is debate by assuming the opponent's next argument. There is no opponent in an article. I indeed do not intend to muddle things by jumping in late -- I am sincere in my apology here -- yet feel every facet of WP policy supports bold comments from fresh perspectives on controversial subjects, else it's merely tyranny of the stubborn.Joevanisland 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, sorry to appear critical. No sweat. ... Kenosis 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, arguing for changes that run counter to easily verifiable facts tends to harden the positions of others. 151.151.21.104 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Plainly? Holy Spaghetti Monster, Batman, is there ever a lot of watching instead of reading going on! I accepted your apology Kenosis, but you posted above me after my post, and this is as much to other editors as you. I'm not slightly doubting the facts. I'm doubting the neutrality of the language chosen. I'm doubting that flies aren't stuck in the distaste that oozes from some of this article.

Please, people, be fair and patient before you group me. The passion with which you view science is not greater than what I feel for language, and both are noble, larger than our own lifetimes, and under threat by this article's subject.

I was criticizing how it was said, not what. I feel like I should copy this all to the bottom just out of respect for ID'ers who are obviously going to think I set them up when they figure out I'm not of that camp. You really read me as someone who would turn a blind eye to the co-opting of a word? You think my specificity with language wouldn't make abhorrent to me the attempt to turn science from a process to a mere adjective? Lesson learned that it's not about the accuracy with which one writes, but the accuracy with which one is read.

Is the [sic] necessary and in reference to soft/hard? Sociolinguistics is worthless to you? Must I scratch out the "S" and write "A" or "FA"? Are the string theorists allowed to use the word? For crying out loud, there are far too many battles to fight in this place for those who respect and understand the supremacy of the scientific method to start battling each other over respect for specialities based on sound methodology. It's like dentists and physicians arguing about "Doctor" when you want to tell them to just shut up and fix some teeth already, stitch a wound, there's bleeing going on and they can argue about it later. Why would you dismiss or intimidate people who might have something to offer your side just because they don't agree you have already succeeded??

For those who respect fact:

  • I first posted here because I thought the language was too passive!. That is clear in my first post 21:25, 11 April 2007.
  • My 2nd overstated an opinion too casually for the wars here, but is obviously a support post to those trying to clean up the passive voice.
  • 18:01, 12 April I argued for the strength of the full term "natural selection", but obviously the line about non-Christian articles was misread as majority of populace or some crap, and the rest not in clear reference to the first line in the lead.
  • Next, I apologized for my suggestion to be bold, at that point acknowledging this is a special case here, as there's so much history.
  • 05:43, 13 April is a pro science point that killing a fly with a sledgehammer suggests a weak position, and why would you want to trigger an underdog, empathetic response that makes it seem to a reader like there must be something to all this "DI" since everyone's so bloody defensive?
  • Same with the next post suggesting speechwriting may come back and bite you in the ass because there are techniques here that ID could use to show your own conscious choosing of obfuscations. Why won't you set up the notion on its own legs and then let the arrows fly? The claims will fall, it'll be swift and you'll win, but you won't be left looking like you're pushing POV because you wouldn't have set up the fall. You don't slightly need to.
  • Next I quietly suggested my opinion as help to Adam, including striking out something that should obviously show I don't disagree with the assertion I was attempting to copyedit there.
  • Then, for Pete's sake, I argue for including the court decision early! Then I suggest a compromise as I do see Rbj's point, but when it is rejected, I concede. Would still like a mention, but don't fight for it at all. I don't even know what "Pete's sake" means, btw, but you all make me feel a conversational reference to God would make you point your fingers as if you caught me.
  • Then I backup the pro-science view with a balanced suggestion to another user that the point has been proven as such.
  • Big mistake next, though, as I name the elephant thinking people will acknowledge a "war" bias for the good faith goal of producing an irrefutable article.

What in the world are any of you reading that suggests I didn't think the ID "science" was not pseudo or junk? I pointed out pseudo can be used in a way you don't even wish, to help your point. That whole section, in plain english, is a reference to positioning within the lead! There's so much aggression and dismissal here I wonder if some of you even care when others wish to help, and don't instead just wish everyone would go away and leave you the heck alone. Too bad it's a Wiki. So many here seem to watch for signs of agreement with already written lines, and take well-intentioned, educated, reasoned criticism as some sort of sign of the enemy. What a shame. Joevanisland 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fax amalgamated: fv2

There seems to me to be merit in the proposed idea of stating at the outset what ID is defined as, then going on to a separate paragraph about the claims and counter-claims about it being scientific. A problem is that we're not attributing the definition. The third paragraph about Kitmiller is also about the claims to scientific validity, and moving Behe into the second paragraph to make the third more about "religion" seems to introduce unnecessary confusion. In a worthwhile effort to reconsider the wording in the proposed scheme, previously well defined and supported statements have been weakened, so I've tried to get back closer to the original wording at the same time as adopting aspects of the proposed revision and adding clarification of who's defining it.

Intelligent design is presented by its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, as the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than by natural processes such as natural selection. These proponents state that the nature or identity of the designer is a matter for religion or philosophy and is beyond the scope of intelligent design, though their personal belief is that the designer is God and they consider other possibilities to be very improbable. It is a version of a teleological argument, which traditionally presents perception of design in the complexity or improbability of life and nature as evidence for the existence of God or a creator.

The proponents of intelligent design claim that it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science; many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk 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 they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Comments welcome, .. dave souza, talk 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for attributing the definion. It's good to start with a fact. (I'm not being snide, no beatings!) Overall I like this version. SheffieldSteel 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's interesting, and has a nice victorian tone to it. I don't see if offers a significant improvement over the current version. I would still favour my version or similiar - I favour a lead with a bam-bam-bam quality (indisputable fact-indisputable fact-indisputable fact).
That said, I have no real objection (my primary objection is that we give ID-ers a real objection), and it does have some qualities that favour it over the current lead. Beyond that, I prefer some of your earlier versions - could we compile a page of suggested versions to save cluttering up this page? How would one go about that? Tomandlu 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's please avoid making it one of our goals to piss off IDers. We need their input to make this a good article. I definitely prefer your "bam-bam-bam" version. See Joe's comments in previous section. Gnixon 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I welcome their input, but, to be frank, if we provide an article that IDers are happy with, we've probably got it wrong, IMHO (hard to see how it could be otherwise).Tomandlu 07:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How about simply "Intelligent design', as presented by its primary proponent, the Discovery Institute, is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause than natural processes such as evolution." Adam Cuerden talk 21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam, how about ID is "the proposition advocated by the Discovery Institute that certain..."Joevanisland 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I slightly prefer Adam's version, but I think you guys are both on the right track. Gnixon 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"advocated" seems a little strange in that context. Is there another word we could use? (Also, "whatevered by the discovery Institute" should probably be set off by commas.) Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Used "advocated" as a verbal for "proponent" (would "supported by" (wrong and weak Joevanisland 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)) have been better?). Just trying to show one can write that all main proponents are in fact DI, without using interpretable wording or the claiming of future fact.Joevanisland 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the division into paragraphs. The scientific side is presented in an excessively roundabout and circuitous way; and demonstrating that many people call it pseudoscience and junk science is fairly trivial information for the lead, and it should not take 23 words to say that those terms are used, and yet, nonetheless, we do: "many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience, and some have termed it junk science."
I say, cut the waffle, and then fit it all into one paragraph, as so:

Intelligent design, as presented by its primary proponent, the Discovery Institute,[30] is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution.[1] It is a modern form of the teleological argument (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer,[31] though the writings of its leading proponents identify it with the God of Christianity.[32] Its supporters claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life;[33] however, the scientific community states that it is not science[6] because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.[34]

Adam Cuerden talk 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair and accurate but should mention the courts, as in "...the scientific community states that it is not science and the courts have affirmed this." Quibbles about how to refer to the "God" would still leave me in consensus. Other points such as Behe's quote can now fairly follow outside of this lead imho.Joevanisland 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


the definition of "intelligent design" exists before and without reference to anything called the "Discovery Institute". for multiple reasons, this is far worse than even "version 2". we can get the definition of ID out of the dictionary, cite it with a ref, but we don't have to say in the very sentence that "such-and-such dictionary defines Intelligent design to be...". what other articles begin with that? none that i know of. r b-j 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
ID is a difficult case; while examples of arguements similar to Intelligent Design exist outside the Discovery Institute, only the DI-related ones are actually called ID, a term the Discovery Institute came up with. I don't think the article's scope can easily expand beyond the DI, as we'd have great difficulty avoiding original research in identifications. Adam Cuerden talk 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Adam, and think Rbj's issue is best served by linking to such a different article, as I too believed a less theistic interpretation existed more thoroughly but agree it does not belong here in the lead.Joevanisland 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to compromise with "Intelligent design is a proposition, primarily advocated by the Discovery Institute, that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an unspecified intelligent cause than natural processes such as evolution."
Actually I think we need to compromise with Rbj here. I re-read (again) the whole post and especially his logic the section below this. The lead should unequivocably corelate ID/DI, but is there really objection, since it states primary proponents, to later in the lead paragraph include something like "others such as Owen Gingerich define it differently"? It seems fair to me; he does use the phrase and is a respectable source, no?Joevanisland 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Owen Gingrich is not a notable ID proponent by any reasonable measure, his opinion does not merit mention in the article. 151.151.21.104 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree your point not notable proponent, thus doesn't belong near lead. Not agree "not merit mention in the article". Joevanisland 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the Discovery Institute, who are, after all, the major driving force, need mentioned, but we should be careful not to overstate. Saying they're the primary proponent seems reasonbable - it doesn't exclude others. Adam Cuerden talk 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't edit war

since someone deems it necessary to edit war over a SINGLE word, I have no choice but to add a banner indicating that there is dispute. So for the record, I dispute ANY difinative wording such as "all", "every", "none", etc. unless it can be proven. Such wording is unscientific and unprofessional. I'm not even a IDer, so such wordings are doubly embarrassing to me. When we show such biases, we give undue credibility. 216.67.29.113 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think definitive wording is necessarily unscientific. The article gives (I think) five citations supporting the assertion. No-one has provided a reliable source claiming that a main proponent is not affiliated with the DI, but if they were to do so, the assertion would be falsified. Until then, the evidence seems pretty good. SheffieldSteel 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
it depends on what you call "ID". there are reputable scientists, who are theists and some Christian, some whom have a WP article about them, who want nothing to do with the DI and the DI agenda (of polluting the science class with ID) but still have some belief, on a philosophical level not as science, in something called "design". someone that i know, Owen Gingerich likes to call it "intelligent design with a small 'i' and small 'd'." saying that every object in class A is also an object in class B is a strong statement that isn't safely true without really showing it. saying that every proponent of "intelligent design" is affiliated with the Discovery Institute is such an unsafe statement. you need to identify every ID proponent and then show the affliation. all's one needs to do to disprove it is show one single counter-example. r b-j 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
RBJ this has been repeatedly discussed to death. This article about the "Intelligent Design" proposition of the Intelligent Design Movement. It is not about generic design arguments. Please cease from trying to muddy the waters on this subject. Please approach it directly that you would like to shift the focus from IDM's ID to generic ID, which is a concept practically covered in the teleological argument page. I do think a direct link from intelligent design (disambiguation) should create a link to the occasional generic usage of the term.--ZayZayEM 02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
the title of the article is not: Intelligent Design proposition of the Intelligent Design Movement nor Intelligent Design (Intelligent Design Movement) nor Intelligent Design Movement. the article even discusses a history of the origin of the term that far precedes this current Intelligent Design Movement (DI). no, the article is not only about the "Intelligent Design" proposition of the Intelligent Design Movement and by, without the additional qualification in the title, narrowing this to, essentially a different, more focussed subject, you end up conflating the two. and no, ID is not synonymous in definition to the teleological argument and it's not me muddying the waters. r b-j 10:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had issues with this wording myself. How is a "primary proponent" defined? Ann Coulter wrote a chapter on her last book discussing ID. Proponent - yes.. Primary - ? Also, how is "associated with the Discovery Institute" defined? Do they get a paycheck, just work with them, just hired by them, or part of the organization leadership? IMO, the statement uses a an exclusive statement with terms that could be considered vague. Morphh (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
These questions have been dealt with in the past and resolved, read the archives. FeloniousMonk 16:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


== "All of whom are affiliated" - or should it be "some of..." ? ==

Since User:216.67.29.113 is attempting to change the wording of the intro paragraph, I thought it'd be nice to make a section where we can discuss this particular issue. My position is that there are many citations already provided that back up the assertion. I think 216...'s position is essentially that it's unscientific to say that the main propenents are all affiliated. What do other editors have to say? SheffieldSteel 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding also that it has been proven, and the problem to me was one of tense. Saying "all of whom have been", or even "have been and are currently" would bring me to consensus on this line, as would saying it's a proposition "pursued" or "promoted" by the DI. Neither demands it is only and forever so, and in good faith, it does say "primary" proponents. I think these are fair, attributed facts (without the tonal derision I objected to), and I can't find any "primary proponents" that are not linked to DI as per WP:Attribution, thus don't understand this edit unless you do have such a source.Joevanisland 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good artical, it just needs some cleanup. There are a LOT of weasel-words for example (Including one I put in myself) which need to be reworded. I also think that some of the more forceful comments in the intro paragraph could be better moved a bit farther down. The intro paragraph shouldn't be controversial at all. Anything controversial should be moved further down. My humble opinion. 216.67.29.113 21:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is very and accurate, balanced and very, very well sourced; no clean up is necessary. Also, there is no policy requirement that intro not cover controversies. Period. But there is one that intros summarize their topic, and since some subjects like ID are contested and hence mired in controversy, article intros on such topics will cover both sides of the topic out of necessity. Since you are clearly unfamiliar with our policies, guidelines and conventions, I suggest you gain more experience editing less controversial and high visibility articles for awhile before taking up here again. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
FM, I think your above comment would have been just as useful, and much less antagonistic, without the last sentence. The post from 216.67.29.113 was entirely WP:CIVIL and in good faith. Gnixon 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
in addition, FM, as an admin you are, or should be, quite familiar "with our policies, guidelines and conventions" (the use of the word "our" is curious, as if you have some partial ownership of such policies, guidelines, or conventions), what excuse does that provide you for the violation of such? is it that everybody else has to be WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV except for FM (or other selected admins or their friends)? BTW, "Period" is also a thought-terminating cliché.
just because a collection of WP editors who ostensibly hate ID and the agenda of the ID Movement, have researched and written this article, it is a logical fallacy to declare that it is necessarily accurate and balanced. it is mostly accurate, but it is not neutrally balanced as evidenced by the tone of the article and "Period" is hardly an effective rebuttal (about as much as Orange's well-I-liked-the-article-as-it-was nonrebuttal). now, it's not that i wanted to see the whole article re-written, but i insisted that this original (that's about the kindest term for it) definition of a term already in use (so it already has a definition which happens to not have anything in common with the previous original and unnacceptable "definition" that is thankfully now bumped to the 2nd sentence) be removed as the lead definition. now, i must admit that i was pleasantly surprized that you could get on board with #2 and with that i immediately saw an opportunity for some semblance of concensus. but i do not understand what the objection to Tomandlu's lead is. it is so clearly what it was billed as: "just the facts". r b-j 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is appropriate and necessary; in the 48 hours he participated here he's managed to disrupt the article and its talk page by misusing a number of rather official templates. That alone belies any notion that he's rank newbie. As for the changes that you, Morphh, Gnixon and Tomandlu have been lobbying for, I've already explained here several times the all too obvious NPOV problems with them, any one of which making that content change a non-starter. In fact, there's been no shortage of similar explanations to you all why it won't fly from a very wide range of credible, respected long term participants here; responses which your group has chosen to ignore or dismiss.
This group of yours has gone out of its way to malign the various admins here, myself included. And if you look at the discussions above and in the archives for the last two months or so, you'll see five other admins, one an arbcom member, all telling your group the same thing: The changes you seek violate WP:NPOV because they promote the view of ID proponents at the expense of scientific community's (which is the majority pov on all matters science I'll remind everyone). KillerChihuahua, JoshuaZ, Adam C, Guettarda, Raul, and myself, have all told you that you are simply mistaken in your interpretation of how NPOV applies to this article, not to mention the dozen or so regular editors who have said the same. WP:AGF requires us to assume your good faith, but not in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Tendentiousness, rejecting community input and attempts to drive away productive contributors are the hallmarks of disruptive editing.
It's time to move on to new discussions and topics: The article's intro has been refined, though clearly not to your liking. It's time move along and free up this talk page for more fruitful discussions. Continuing to raise the same objections and proposals that have previously failed to gain consensus is pointless, unproductive and eventually, disruptive. There's a limit to how much it the community will tolerate. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
FM, you don't exactly have a rosy record within the "community." Attempting to improve biased articles is always an uphill battle, because groups of perhaps well-intentioned editors invariably become defensive at the suggestion that "their" article needs NPOV work. It happens at literally every article on a controversial topic that I've seen here. The "community" would do well to consider how much these editors will tolerate before they find something better to do with their time---a little bit of WP:AGF on both sides could have gone a long way here. Those are my two cents. The lead looks fairly reasonable to me now, if not entirely unbiased---but it didn't have to be so hard to get it there. Gnixon 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I was saying... FeloniousMonk 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Some aspects of these discussions were productive and help clarify items in the lead. However, as FM has observed the basic outline of the intro and the parts currently in question are NPOV. Many editors are in agreement and every sentence in the intro is supported by a large number of different sources. JoshuaZ 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyone read WP:V or WP:ATT lately? This has been going on for months, and no one has provided a single source which refutes or challenges the word in question. There are four sources to support it at last count. Put up or shut up; we've wasted enough time on this. If you have a source, put it here on the talk page; if not, be done! And when I say "source" I do not mean a blog, or forum, or a similar questionable source. And Gnixon, your personal attacks on FM have not gone unnoticed: remember to comment on the content not the contributor. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This farcical argument created by Rbj/Gnixon/Morphh/Tomandlu has gone on too long, and it is time to move on. There have been two months for those dissenting to the proper wording to put up, and as none have put up, it is now time to shut up. BTW, before you decide to warn me about WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF remember this from AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This engineered battle is absurd and needs to cease. Find something new to complain about. Observer mes mots, c'est finis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to read these comments. Now I can't wait to edit again! Orangemarlin 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I used to think Rbj could stand to tone things down a bit, but I'm beginning to see now how one can get so worked up over time. Gnixon 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
i only get worked up when i get blocked or when admins otherwise abuse their authority or use such with a sense of entitlement in content dispute as to their own weight in determining article content. then i get worked up and write Jimbo or someone (who has, on multiple times, but not every time written back). when it gets really bad, i've been heartened to see Jimbo doing something about it.
i wasn't worked up though in all cases where my "tone" might have seemed harsh (like when i told all this guys that they should be ashamed of themselves but knew they probably weren't). then i was just being frank. right now, i can't see what the fuss is between Kenosis and Adam Cuerden. i don't get what the neutrality or word flow issues are. i'll just watch and see what happens. r b-j 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened...

Hooray collaborative editing.

But just what happened to move from this to a totally different this (Yes I'm referring back to the last version by me, its obviously the last one I was happy with, thoughsome of the edits just after it make some sense). Bullet points by me--ZayZayEM 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • We are now associating ID with DI in the first line. Bad - this is what Di wants, complete control over the term.
  • "God of Christianity" is not an improvement over "Abrahamic God". DI, and especially the few non-DI associated advocates, make points to also associate with Judaic and Islamic creationism.


  • It's also important that this God-identifying came from leaked documents


The former lead was well worded it first: defined ID with the only available succinct summary, and tied it to the teleological argument. secondly it expoused DI's frame of mind about ID, and countered it with the scientific opposition to ID. and last it rounded off with an independent inquiry into ID and its religious nature.--ZayZayEM 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the new version is terrible. I've reverted back to the old versoin. Raul654 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is: "We are now associating ID with DI in the first line. Bad - this is what Di wants, complete control over the term" (my emph). If you don't think that reveals strong bias, then I'm stunned. And I don't mean bias as in ID<>science; it's not. I mean it sounds like a bloody talking points memo from a government war room. {WP:What_the_Di_wants} shouldn't blatantly shape an article or motivate its writing. It's POV. The article's not the battle. If you're not interested in removing where the bias has crept in, then it's not a neutral article; it's a tool you're using to counter ID. Joevanisland 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. My point is that it is pushing a DI POV of ID.--ZayZayEM 09:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for rolling it back Raul. Much better. FeloniousMonk 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I really wish you wouldn't roll back without at least saying why in an edit summary, or directing to the talk page. If you don't like the mention of the DI, fine, but there's a lot of other changes and wording improvements, you reverted without comment just to remove a single clause. Adam Cuerden talk 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading both over, I can live with either version. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Basic review of the timeline of the words "intelligent design"

And so on and so forth. ... ...Kenosis 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kenosis. Gnixon 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Very welcome. Thanks for saying that. ... Kenosis 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot the rest of it... Hmmm. That seemed like such good material at 2am. SheffieldSteel 06:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Seemed pretty good at 4PM, too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut text

I've cut this text as it really doesn't belong in the lead. It's trivia about what terms have been used to describe it that better belongs later in the article. I think it reads better without.

many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[35] and some have termed it junk science.[36]

Adam Cuerden talk 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and that seems to me to be a point that Joevanisland was making, that overemphasis weakens the statement. I've tweaked it a little, making the first sentence read "proposition that claims that certain features" to meet my ideas of grammar: it might be better as "proposition making the claim that certain features" or another alternative. The pseudoscience and junk science references should be in the body of the article, as was done before, but not in the lead in my opinion. .. dave souza, talk 11:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also note that I've piped the reference to Abrahamic God (which is a redirect to Abrahamic religion) to appear as "God" to save readers puzzling over a slightly unusual term which doesn't appear in any of the references I've seen. In my opinion the earlier version "though the writings of its leading proponents identify it with the God of Christianity" is plainer and closely matches the reference cited. ... dave souza, talk 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. Gnixon 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the changes serve to lessen the degree to which ID is utterly dismissed by the scientific community, violating the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. I've reverted it to the version that Raul and FM supported, and for the same reasons they've said. 151.151.73.169 15:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, I thought they objected to themention of the discovery Institute in the first sentence. I've reverted you back. I just don't think that a weak "Many scientists... call it a psudoscience, others use the term junk science" - which by the very nature of the word "Many" implies that a significant proportion don't - strengthens it at all, and it also delays the more important rebuttal which explains why it isn't a science.
However, the information itself, properly phrased, fits at the end of the paragraph fairly well. How's it look now? Adam Cuerden talk 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they objected more to the inclusion of the DI into the definition of ID. I think the description of it being termed pseudoscience or junk science was very badly phrased and poorly placed between the statement that it wasn't science and the reasons it wasn't science. I've moved it to the end of the paragraph and rephrased it. Adam Cuerden talk 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify claim

It's a concern that the claim is stated in the lead without much indication of the reasoning behind the claim, so here's the first sentence expanded by the nine italicised words to show the argument:

Intelligent design is a proposition making the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things show complexity or improbability which appears to be designed, and can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than by natural processes such as natural selection.

In my opinion this is a worthwhile clarification. .... dave souza, talk 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That change would replace properly sourced content with an unsourced synthesis, which we cannot do according to policy. 151.151.73.169 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We could do it if we hve a source. It's not a synthesis as long as we don't make new claims through the combination. If source A says it's X, and source B says it's Y, it's fine to say it's "X and Y" or "X or Y" (dependant), but not to draw new conclusion Z. As the old part is describing the overall definition, and the new text the arguements used, they are not incompatible, though we still need a source saying that that's an accurate summary of the type of arguements used in favour of ID. That said, the phrasing of the addition is a little awkward. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the proposed change (for me) is that it shifts the emphasis of the definition. It is no longer "certain features..." which are better explained by ID, but "complexity or improbability" instead. Perhaps this is a better definition of ID, but it may be original research (or arguably synthesis). In any case, it would need a good cite. SheffieldSteel 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not just one, or any source mind you, but souces as notable as the three given, the Discovery Institute, IDEA, and IDNet. That's a tall order considering those sources are three of the four leading ID organizations (the fourth being ISCID) who all use the exact same definition of ID. Add to that that the judge in the Dover trial also relied on the very same def, and you can see that the definition given is simply representative of the most notable opinions on the topic, from both sides. There's no way a synthesis or a lesser opinion will do per policy. FeloniousMonk 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, those sources repeat the same formula, then get very opaque when giving further explanations, essentially saying "design" is "detectable". Something similar to my suggestion might summarise the main arguments put forward, but it's not the definition they use and so is inappropriate. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

I hate it. It's gone from direct, easy-to-read (and edit, WTF is going on with all of the HTML code), and NPOV to a Discovery Institute whitewash. POV pushers must be happy everywhere. It now deserves a POV tag, even though I used to remove them. The worst part is, I'm trying to read back over a week of discussion, and I can't find the point where consensus was reached. I think a couple of editors just put the new lead in, and no one stopped them. I hope I'm wrong, and I just missed the paragraph that got consensus. Anyways, all IMHO. Orangemarlin 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is not wrong about this supposition regarding the article lead. Several editors decided to go ahead with the current version several talk-sections above. So, I think at this point one would have to say it's a consensus among those editors that decided to give the current lead the go-ahead in that recent talk section just above.

While this version is cited and generally reflective of the topic, I think it does tend to fall short of succinctly conveying the force with which the scientific community at-large responded to the assertion that ID is "scientific". The "as per organization X" and such in the present article text is somewhat stodgy, in my opinion. That second part of the current first paragraph of the lead also lacks the combination of succinctness and relative accuracy of the previous version as to how frequently and broadly the characterizations "not science" or "unscientific" (generally in the official statements) were applied along with the word "pseudoscience" (generally unofficial except in the case of the NSTA) and "junk science" (the use of which has been wholly informal and not part of any of the official organizations' statements). The words "as well as being proclaimed as such" (which fail to specify whether the NSTA was calling it pseudo or junk science in its statement) create more confusion then need exist about this in the short intro of the article, in my opinion. I think it was just as well to leave that cite in the footnote as it what before. So yes, I think it's headed in the direction of an increasing whitewash of the scientific community's response, which according to the sources was quite direct and unequivocal about the matter of whether ID is properly regarded as science. ... Kenosis 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i really can't understand the fuss between you (Kenosis) and Adam Cuerden. i don't see much difference between those two version either in terms of neutrality or word flow. is Orange advocating that we go back to the "ID is defined to the teleological argument" or that it has "Discovery Institute" in its definition? this back-and-forth between K's or A's preferred versions seems non-substatial to me. but if Orange likes the "old" version, he makes no case to support why it's more neutral (and i made many cases why it was not). r b-j 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What fuss? Joking, right? ... Kenosis 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No. I actually want to go back to the version that states: "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4][5] claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6]" That was the status quo version, and any changes were not done with consensus. I am willing to state that I might have missed the consensus in all the back and forth discussion, but I searched pretty carefully. Orangemarlin 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
the fact is, even though i was not watching at the time, that version never had consensus and this talk page bears that fact. you (the so-called "longtime editors" just ignored the objections of everybody who said that ID is not simply the "an argument for the existence of God". i put forth multiple reasons why it was so transparently POV (besides being OR) and nothing you (or the "longtime editors") have said touched it. the definition of ID is not that it is an argument for the existance of God and there is no reference that supports such a definition. the definition of ID is not that it is some position of the DI and there is no reference that supports such in the definition. the definition of ID is what the dictionaries say it is. doing some analysis of the meaning and consequence of such a definition is fine. attributing what other people say about ID is fine. but we don't make up definitions of terms here at Wikipedia. not without angling for a fight. that naked POV definition has always brought about strident objection from many different people to this talk page and ignoring it was not the open-minded and unbiased thing to do. r b-j 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I admire your cojones at the minimum. So there we go, there wasn't any consensus, and your edits just stayed. But, just because "you" think that there is no POV in what is written, I think a number of editors do. It might be too late to revert back to the original, and then get consensus, but I'm going to try. Orangemarlin 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is, in my observation, true that the consensus for the language from approximately late-January-of-2007 through a few days ago was not as firmly established as the consensus for the basic language of the lead that existed for the prior eight or nine months through most of 2006. That earlier language was consensused after the results and commentary arising out of the Kitzmiller decision was published in December 2005 and the amount of new published commentary began to decline significantly in about the early Spring of 2006. The complaints around the beginning of 2007 about the failure to call ID an argument for the existence of God (or more specifically a modern synthesis of teleological argument for the existence of God) in the article lead did in fact drive the then-consensus to proceed on that language over the course of several weeks' discussion.

In my observation also, the consensus for the current language, if any, was rapidly achieved among three or four editors and appears weaker than that associated with any prior change of the lead language. In my review of the recent discussions, virtually no one is completely satisfied with the language of any version. So if there is any point of agreement at all that can reasonably be called a consensus, the consensus may well be that no article lead achieved to date is adequate to introduce this topic. That, however, does not amount to a consensus for the current language. That said, I think the current language is a different but reasonable introduction in general, with only the caveats I made above in this talk section and the edit I made breaking up the absurdly long sentence into two for the present. ... Kenosis 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I wish someone would remove the underlying html code. Who thought that was a good idea? Orangemarlin 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
you mean the "TEXT" and "REFERENCE" markers? it wasn't me. i didn't think so either. r b-j 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be new wiki code.to allow sorting through the edit box looking for the body text amidst the references. ... Kenosis 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes it hard to edit, but I guess I see why it might be useful. Orangemarlin 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate it too, it's simply less clear and harder to read than the previous version. Others, like FM, supported the old intro as well. I say it should go back. 151.151.21.104 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ALL proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute?

I don't think so. That's a broad-brush statement that simply is not justified by the sources provided. Jinxmchue 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"These proponents" refers to "primary proponents" as stated in the previous sentence: the references show that all leading proponents are associated with the DI, as discussed previously – see Talk:Intelligent design/all leading proponents and Talk:Intelligent design/Archive32#conflation of ID Concept and ID Movement (& its arguments) on to the end. .. dave souza, talk 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the leaders of the ID movement are associated with the Discovery Institute, yes. Read the souces in the article. 151.151.21.104 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
but the question is about all proponents of ID. and the fact is that there are several proponents of something that ostensibly appears to be ID (as originally defined) that want nothing to do with the DI. that might become the next issue (ID=DI) to clean up regarding the article. r b-j 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"...As originally defined..." you mean people who advocate something other than what this article is about? Why would we want to confuse our readers? Is there a benefit to confusing readers that I am not aware of? And just for fun can you name a few leading, noteworthy ID advocates (who advocate what this article is about) who are not associated with, or lapdogs of, the Discovery Institute? Mr Christopher 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"as originally defined" i mean as the term was used before there ever was a Discovery Institute. the term has a history that precedes the DI. r b-j 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Which advocates of ID are associated with the DI and which ones are 'lapdogs' in your estimation? 68.109.234.155 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


<unindent> To avoid such confusion, it might be worth changing the sentence to "These leading proponents are all associated with the DI". ..... dave souza, talk 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


And yet another idea might be to simply name the leading advocates, this could also help neutralize the ongoing debate of who is a leading advocate, or at least remove the ambiguity. Something like, "The most prominant ID advocates include William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Philip Johnson who have all written books and articles on intelligent design and are all fellows of the Discovery Instiutute". Did I leave any leading ID (as defined in this article) advocates out? Mr Christopher 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When one looks at the evidence thoroughly (something many of the editors of this WP article have done before, discussion of which is repeatedly visible in the talk page archives), only one reasonable conclusion emerges, which can be stated in a number of ways. Examples are: "it's leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute..." ; "the principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with each other and share common funding sources, most typically in the form of fellowship grants from the Discovery Institute and it's offshoots"; "primary proponents are all part-and-parcel of the Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture"; "all of the leaders of the intelligent design movement are closely involved with the Discovery Institute"; "all in the same boat as opposed to being comprised of independent researchers operating from independent funding sources"; or "the leading proponents are all part of the same kit-n-kaboodle, specifically the Discovery Institute and its direct offspring the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID". One of the cited sources already used in the WP article states this as "The Discovery Institute is the engine behind the intelligent design movement", and five or six others of the cited sources in the article say the same basic thing in different ways. The WP editors didn't invent this characterization of ID; rather, it's what the reliable sources say about the issue of where "intelligent design" came from. And the current language of the article is about the most concise and accurate way the WP editors have found to date to express this issue to the readers of the article. ... Kenosis 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What Kenosis said. If you can find a reliable source that disagrees with the assesment then fine, but until then there's no reason to change it. JoshuaZ 18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had issues with this wording myself as it uses what I consider broad use of terms. If I were to try and find a source, how do you define "primary proponent"? Ann Coulter wrote a chapter on her last book discussing and supporting ID. Proponent - yes.. Primary - ? Also, how is "associated with the Discovery Institute" defined? Do they get a paycheck, just work with them, just hired by them, or part of the organization leadership? IMO, the sentence uses an exclusive statement with terms that could be considered vague. The statement doesn't bother me too much but it reads to me as having bias tone and absoluteness that I think could be phrased better and less off-putting. It certainly seems to be a continued issue for new readers. I've read several versions on this talk that I think fix the issue without loosing the point. Morphh (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It has everything to do with who started this mess. First off, there's nearly a ten year gap between when the leading proponents got together and when the secondary commentators and writers started weighing in on the topic after the unveiling of the teach the controversy campaign in 1999. The secondary literature and other published use of the term also involves a major gap in the amount of influence and sales of books. There are clearly identifiable leaders of this movement, some more up front as authors and others a bit more in the background, and all of the notable participants in this affair are verifiably affiiliated with the Discovery Institute in a clearly identifiable way. This we've all gone over before, and it's all in the archives. I sure hope we do not need to go over the entire thing bit by bit. ... Kenosis 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand and don't disagree with the statement. I was just saying that it might be something worth rewording, even if it is completely accurate and varifiable. Readers should not have to go back into the archives of a talk to understand the points of why a statement is true. The phrasing of the sentences seems to make new readers object. I don't feel the information is incorrect but I think it is a failure on our part that such wording creates controversy and the perception of bias. I think other examples of this sentence (presented in the talk) have addressed this without loosing the points you've made. Like I said.. It doesn't bother me too much. I just agree that it could be worded better. Morphh (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hey 151,

try using a dictionary. even an online dictionary. using a vacuous truth to try to prove a further premise is a logical fallacy. but it's just stupid to say that some proposition is both untrue and a vacuous truth at the same time. the WAP is a vacuous truth, but at least it's true. ID is certainly not considered to be true by its critics. r b-j 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you rephrase ID as "if certain features of the universe and of living things can only be explained by an intelligent cause, then we should infer the existence of an intelligent cause", then you've got your vacuous truth... ;) Tomandlu 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
yes, actually, you're correct, that is tautology where a statement simply concludes with its premise. (and this is what ID proponents want people to accept. they want you to accept that this watch you just picked up could not have been formed by only undirected natural causes, and once you get there, there is only one conclusion, that somebody purposely made the watch.) but the critics of ID would not accept the premise. but ID is not saying that. no "if" in the beginning of the sentence. they are saying, in whatever semantic, that certain features of the universe and of living things can only [or bestly] be explained by an intelligent cause. and that is most certainly not a tautology. it is a controversial statement and i don't think that tautologies can be controversial. using a tautology to conclude something beyond its premise can and should be controversial. using the WAP to conclude that God made the universe for human existance is a good example of such. r b-j 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking again at that section, there might still be a problem. It says "Critics of such use of the weak form of the anthropic principle argue that it is essentially a tautology;" - I'm not sure that's right. Gonzalez's use of the anthropic principle is essentially a teleological argument, not the more reasonable forms. Are critics really saying that that's a tautology?
I take your point above that it is a use of a tautology, but I don't think it has remained a tautology... Tomandlu 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey rbj, ever hear of WP:CIVIL? Apparently not judging by you section heading here. Look, I didn't change to say it was a tautology, I restored to the original version which said critics say it is a tautology, which they do. Try reading it next time. Jeez. 151.151.21.102 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
which critics? exactly what are they saying? calling any controversial statement a tautology is just dumb and simply dumb statements are not encyclopediac. extending a tautology to justify a claim that actually asserts new meaning (which may or may not be controversial) is a fallacy and that's what i suspect some of these critics are saying. you still haven't supported this claim specifically and it reads like a bunch of anit-IDers are grasping at whatever criticism they can think of and putting it in. r b-j 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Stenger, for one. Read the sources, that's what they're there for. Numbers 48, 49, 50. But of course you deleted them once again, so here: [19] 151.151.73.164 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Victor J. Stenger is a notable critic and had have the two sources from him leveling this point, I've restored it and sources and rewrote it attributing the claim to him. 151.151.73.164 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
you think i didn't look at those? try to act like a scholar and read the references you cite. you're making yourself look foolish, 151 (which is easier hiding behind an anon IP) but when you insist on putting this foolishness into the article, it makes the article look stupid. tautologies, in and of themselves, cannot be controversial. but they also don't say very much. they say very safe truths essentially by concluding with equivalents to their premises. it's like saying 5=5. ID is controversial. it actually says something non-trivial that is not the logical equivalence to its premise (like saying x=5) and such a thing that nearly all scientists cannot agree with (because they think x equals something else). that cannot be a tautology. use the friggin' dictionary.
what you just don't seem to get, 151, is that you're conflating the fact that many (not all, but most) cosmologists see the WAP as a tautology (which is quite reasonable, in my opinion) and since a tautology actually says virtually nothing, using a tautology to support another assertion that does make a substantive claim, is a logical fallacy. just because we know that 5=5 (an obvious and empty truth) does not mean that x=5.
try growing up a bit instead of insisting that your misconception of things are fact. you're making the same mistake that the hard-core creationists are. in fact anyone who insists on such a dichotomy between the concepts (on both sides) make this mistake, but that is a POV of mine that will not go beyond the talk page. r b-j 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your chronic incivility, I'd say I'm not the one who needs to grow up here.
Apparently you didn't read the sources very well. Stenger says that the Weak Anthropic Principle (aka WAP or Fine Tuned Universe) is a central claim of ID, and a tautology, and he does so all within the context of providing a critical look at both. Here, I'll connect the dots for you:
Victor J. Stenger says ID proponents use WAP to support ID: "Proponents of so-called Intelligent Design claim to confidently rule out natural processes as the sole origin for certain biological systems (Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, 1999, 2002). Here we shall focus on another variation of the argument from design, the argument from fine-tuning...." (pg. 1) "The delicate connections among certain physical constants, and between those constants and life, I will collectively call the anthropic coincidences. Before examining the merits of the interpretation of these coincidences as evidence for intelligent design," (pg. 2) IS THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNED FOR US?
Next he goes on to say that a flaw of the WAP/Fine Tuned Universe argument is that it is a tautology: "The WAP is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it." (pg. 4) He then goes on to again show the WAP is a central ID arguement that is flawed: "I find it rather amusing that theists make two contradictory arguments for life requiring a creator. Sometimes you hear these from the same people. In the fine-tuning argument, the universe is so congenial to life that the universe must have been created. But, if it is so congenial, then we should expect life to evolve by natural processes. In the second argument, which one hears from creationists and anti-evolutionists, the universe is so uncongenial to life that life must have been created. In that case it is too unlikely for life to have evolved by natural processes and so must have been produced by an intelligent designer. But, then life could very easily have been an improbable accident." (pg. 15) The Anthropic Principle
Stenger's criticism that the Weak Anthropic Principle is a tautology is made within the context analizing ID's use of the WAP, if the WAP is a tautology, then any argument that relies upon it will be one as well in his view.
Now, what shgould we do about your chronic incivility to me and others and deleting of properly sourced content? I see you've been warned multiple times already yet persist in making them. Blocked too. What gives? Suggestions from others would be welcome. 151.151.73.164 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No mouthpiece of the scientific community

Re: The scientific community unequivocally states... wording: The scientific community is able to "state" nothing. There is no way for the community to state anything because the community is not monolithic nor is it hierarchical nor is it represented by spokespersons appointed or elected. The scientific community makes considerations through scientific consensus which can be judged and weighed in a variety of ways, but the community does not "state" as there is no mouthpiece through which this can be accomplished. --ScienceApologist 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite right: how about "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;" .... dave souza, talk 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I think your suggestion is more accurate and addresses SceinceApologist's concern. Mr Christopher 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I made the edit, in spite of the nutty html/comments behind the article. Again, this was a good suggestion. Mr Christopher 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that ScienceApologist and Dave Souza's recommendation is better language for this part of the article lead. It's more accurate, and equally succinct as would be appropriate for the article lead. ... Kenosis 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for improving my edit, Kenosis. Mr Christopher 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, Mr. Christopher.... Kenosis 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone wants a cite for it, "overwhelming" was the term used by Judge Jones. :) ... dave souza, talk 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Dave, you might want to dig up that cite as I am sure we'll have some folks complainging about "overwhelming" (in spite of the overwhelming evidence for it, such as every scientific organization in north america has come out with statements against ID and it's big sister, honest creationism.). Mr Christopher 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The cite already has a link to page 83 "we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution", and in the conclusion he writes "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." .... dave souza, talk 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. Questions about Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
    • Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)
    • Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.
  2. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
    "intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
  3. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
    • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  4. ^ a b c Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  5. ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
  6. ^ a b c d See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
  7. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  8. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  9. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  10. ^ a b c Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
    Pieret, John, The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, TalkOrigins Archive. (A response to a criticism of Jones' decision)
  11. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  12. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005
  13. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
    "intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
  14. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
    • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  15. ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
  16. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  17. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  18. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  19. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  20. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  21. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005
  22. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
    "intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
  23. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
    • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  24. ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
  25. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  26. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  27. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  28. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  29. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005
  30. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest
    • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
    • Who is behind the ID movement? Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", American Civil Liberties Union.
    • "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." The Evolution of George Gilder Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.
    • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)
    • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  31. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
    "intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” (pdf)
  32. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December, 2005
  33. ^ Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories. See also Darwin's Black Box.
  34. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  35. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  36. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_37&oldid=1142440019"