Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Free image (PD)

I've added the image used by the CRSC to illustrate the Movement section.[1] This could brighten up the FA abstract. ..dave souza, talk 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not the actual logo though. Couldn't it be a bit misleading. (Sorry, I don7t know what the original logo was).--ZayZayEM 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No but it's pretty close.[2]  – ornis⚙ 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better reference and calls it a banner rather than a logo, so I've modified the caption accordingly. It's obviously the image they used, cropped and with lettering added. If preferred, it would be easy to crop the image to match the section used for the CRSC's original banner, ,,, dave souza, talk 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's basically identical to the original banner, so yeah, no objections to using this image.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. Not great, but I can live with using that image in the main page blurb. It will probably make the DI go ballistic, but seeing as how they used it in their own literature, they can't really complain. 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs)

TIME cover image

I nominated the Time "evolution wars" cover image (August 15, 2005), which was long a part of this article in the "controversy" section, for deletion review. Basic rationale for this is given a the review page. That cover image was, in my opinion, extremely illustrative of the public dimension of the controversy in 2005 while the Kitzmiller trial was being conducted. For those that don't remember the image, it can be found here. ... Kenosis 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good nom, Kenosis. I've put in my 2 cents, as it should never have been deleted in the first place. R. Baley 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV closed as relist. Relisted discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 12#Image:Time evolution wars.jpg opining participants are strongly encouraged to do more than merely assert that the image fails/meets the criteria, they should also explain how & why it passes/fails them. GRBerry 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Finklestein poll of Physicians.

...It's hard to see the relevance of a poll of a tiny subgroup. Should we cut it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No. There should be a discussion about which details of the poll should be mentioned in the text, as a footnote, or just as a reference to an outside link. But the poll is notable. Also because it uniquely allows to correlate personal faith of polled physician to belief in evolution or ID. I agree that physicians are a subgroup of society. But one with expert insight into the functions of a human body, thus a notable subgroup. Northfox 06:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that physicians are a tiny subgroup, but that the poll only looks at a tiny subgroup of physicians. I don't really know, it's interesting certainly, perhaps it might be better as a footnote.  – ornis⚙ 09:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, we probably have far too much detail on it now. Any objections to a trim down? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems Ok, I've rolled some of the extra details into the footnote itself.  – ornis⚙ 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>What I think is more interesting is how the Discovery Institute reported these results. They basically misrepresented the poll by doing some manipulation, and claimed that most physicians were in favor of intelligent design. See Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism.--Filll 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design? On my main page?

Well, at least it's not being vandalised by trolls. OH SHI— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on making the main page guys - took a lot of work, well worth it.203.189.134.3 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)(For some reason my sig dropped out: try again: PiCo 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe now those folks over at conservapedia will be happy? Ha! Yeah, right! ;-) Dr. Cash 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass the popcorn.[3] Raymond Arritt 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Beer allowed too? I think we might need it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So how long until our names find their way into the DI's blogs (again)? Raul654 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Count to five, and then check. Odds are it is. 130.126.67.144 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Here's a search engine for DI blogs. I agree it's only a matter of time until they discuss us putting ID on the main page. (Their previous comments show they *HATE* this article) I thought they would have been faster about updating their blogs. Raul654 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos, ladies and gentlemen. This is not what I expected to see on the Main and thus is a welcome surprise. A round of applause all around for tuning this beastie to the slick, coherent and (I hope) neutral article it is today. --Agamemnon2 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the quality page... but man how annoying to see the subject on the main page.... Fifty7 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my congratulations. Well done! Timb66 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

structure / unicorns

There is no such animal as a unicorn, right? There is lots of books, fairytales, films etc. abouts unicorns though. So, there is good reason to have a detailed article on unicorns - and there is. Fine. As intelligent design is an issue of sorts in the US there should be an article about it too (but maybe an article labled US (or something like that, something categorised like the article funny farm - as the issue in question is completely irrelevant to much of the rest of the English speaking world.) Still, of course, it's an issue worth an article, a more concise article though. But still it should be an article similar to the article on unicorns. People who disagree on certain basic principles of science & logic ... well, they exist, same as unicorns non-exist. But what do they have to do on the internet? I mean, there are monastries and there's no ban on spreading your message by copying texts by copying them in hand-writing. Go ahead and good luck to you. But once you embrace the digital world there are certain standards, you know. And everything that is outside of them - well - very cute indeed. But either you submit a report on your parallel universe - and just a report - or go illuminate books. 84.188.245.36 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

May I say, WTF???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP traces to Germany so that English may not be their native language. I gather the main point is that the article is too U.S.-centric, since ID is essentially unknown outside the U.S. Raymond Arritt 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the complaint is that the article is too US-centric - I think the complaint is that the article is too long and detailed for a phenomenon that is, for all intents and purposes, an American thing. He is, of course, totally wrong. Raul654 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation was that we were crazy to have such an article. That's why I thought he mentioned the funny farm (vernacular for the loony bin). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the commenter was complaining about lack of "equal time", forgetting that there is an entry for God, which seems to be his point by bringing up unicorns Michael.Urban 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's some kind of Rorschach inkblot test. How one interprets it reveals fundamental neuroses, buried deep in the subconscious.  – ornis⚙ 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Actually, I think the post brings up a couple of good points. I agree with him that it could be more succinct for many people's purposes. That is why there is now a Simple Wikipedia article about intelligent design and maybe eventually we will have an article like Introduction to intelligent design which are shorter and easier to understand and more direct. There is still a call for a longer more detailed article like the present one, however.

On the issue of US-centric-ness, it is a bit like complaining that an article on the National Institutes of Health is US-centric. However, as we have often discussed here, eventually we might compile all our information about overseas creationist and intelligent design activity into a separate article so we have this repeated objection covered.--Filll 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand opinion poll

I'm not sure where this would go in the article, or if it is even relevant to the article, but UMR Research did a survey of New Zealander's opinions on morality, religion and evolution[4]. One of the questions asked

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

which 40% choosing the statement:

Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God guided this process

Evil Monkey - Hello 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's Theistic evolution, not ID. A similiar but different animal. Raul654 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh this guy needs to reread his source. 40% of the New Zealand people picked "human being have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process". Its right on page 5 and 6. 128.227.249.197 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the wrong one. It is 24% for the "God guided this process" and 40% for "God played no part". Evil Monkey - Hello 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinion people have about ID is completely irrelevant concerning to the fact about wether we should accept ID as a scientifical theory or more possibly as a pseudo scientific (and I just point scientific because ID seems to try to invade scientific fields with its pretenditiously serious rethoric) and theological conception of life: millions of people smoke tobacco, and that doesn't mean they are right. I do not see any point in stating that people in New Zealand or the USA believe that or so about ID, since it won't make it true or false, and will just point out how ignorance and supersitition is reappearing in the world 200 years after the Enlightment.

By its very nature, the theory must be pseudo-scientific. It relies on the inability of science to prove certain facts. If science proves more, science will obviously exert greater influence. I would even say that intelligent design is more appropriately described as philosophy. Ultimately the problem that science will always have is explaining why the physical properties that science is capable of explaining actually possess those properties to begin with, ie. hydrogen is flammable, oxygen is flammable, but H20 can douse fire. why? at some point science's answer is 'just because' and to a human mind that is inherently unappealing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.133.39 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Why don't the External links and Further reading follow Notes, as suggested by the Guide to Layout? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments please

Please note that this substantial edit was made, but probably missed everyone's watchlists due to some poor reverting from myself. I read "can't be taken seriously", reverted, and then realised it was a logical bit of prose, so left it to those who are more active on this article in a content sense than I. Cheers, Daniel 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Two changes

Given the contentiousness of this issue, and the fact that I will not be online in the next 24 hours due to travel, I am writing here the reason for my two minor edits:

• It is quite correct to say, "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science," and to go on to give specific examples. Very good. But "unequivocal" is too strong; the percentage of professional scientists who agree with that statement is surely in the high 90s (and includes myself, btw), but it is not unanimous. "Unequivocal" seems like a dig too much at the PhD-holding professional scientists who do support ID.
• The claim that "Intelligent design originated" with Edwards v. Aguillard is not actually supported by the Kitzmiller decision that is cited. I think it is better to simply state the proximity in time between the two events, and let the reader decide. That, in fact, is what Kitzmiller does.

--BlueMoonlet 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here is my edit. --BlueMoonlet 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unequivocal doesn't mean universal. Although I understand your concern and it may make sense to remove the word. As to the second point, that's not what my memory about what Kitzmiller says. (If there is a problem here we could cite Forrest's work and her testimony that makes it explicit). Can someone who has more time on their hands track down the relevant section in the Kitzmiller decision? I need to head to bed now so cannot do so. JoshuaZ 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unequivocal" doesn't mean "unanimous." It means "clear and unmistakable," which is the perfect word in this context. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the change of the third paragraph of the lead, it became redundant with the first paragraph of the overview, so I changed it back to the earlier form. And the citations do support the statement establishing causation, not just proximity. For example, there is discussion in Kitzmiller referring to conversations about Edwards v. Aguilard in proposals for the book. ... Kenosis 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "unequivocal: leaving no doubt: clear, unambiguous." It is not too strong, and is appropriate notwithstanding the existence of a small fringe of scientists, most of which have no expertise in evolutionary biology, and most of which disagree on religious rather than evidential reasons, who disagree. I am reinstating it.
• "The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled." This clearly indicates that the court saw some connection between the two. "Response" may be too strong a word, but "in the aftermath of" (or similar) is clearly supported by the citation.

I am reverting the first, and reverting-with-modification the second. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The best citation for the second claim is appears to be on pages 32 and 33 of the decision. Someone should add them as a reference. Ok, now I'm really headed to bed. JoshuaZ 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that "unequivocal" doesn't mean "unanimous", but I still find it unnecessarily emphatic. How about "clear consensus"? I will concede the second point, and remark that the footnote should have directed me to pages 32 and 33, rather than page 21. --BlueMoonlet 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. "Unequivocal" is accurate. "Clear consensus" is watering it down, which is just plays into the PR strategy of those who try to market ID as science. Raul654 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BlueMoon is correct about the source needing to be changed. "Clear consensus" seems like a better phrasing to me than unequivocal (actually they seem like almost synonyms to me, and I favor smaller words so...). JoshuaZ 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From memory, the adjective "unequivocal" was chosen to balance the competing need not to give undue weight to the tiny fringe, but remain factually accurate. Can anybody point to evidence of equivocation in the scientific consensus (as opposed to insubstantial and unsubstantive dissent) to contradict it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that it is incorrect, given that the major professional societies speak for the scientific community. I still think it is unnecessarily emphatic, and that "clear" is just as accurate and better prose. I will confess that I haven't gone through the 44(!) archives of this talk page, and was unaware of any previous discussion of the topic. --BlueMoonlet 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The addition of "unequivocal" was discussed back in July, only four months ago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

...and the suggestion of "clear consensus" appears to have been made by Gnixon and subsequently ignored. No matter, it was a wide-ranging conversation then, and I'm done for now. --BlueMoonlet 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the situation, "clear consensus" is just so much weaselling. Unequivocal is perfect.  – ornis⚙ 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>It seems unequivocal that unequivocal is the right word here. If one includes all scientists in the US, including those in fields that are irrelevant to biology and evolution, more than 95% reject the anti-evolution position of intelligent design. If one concentrates only on fields relevant to evolution, the figure is more like >99.9% of scientists in relevant fields. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.--Filll 13:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the term 'unequivocal' seems to be vague and unclear (evidenced by disagreement on this page over what the word means) in this context, perhaps the word should be replaced by the very unambiguous term 'unianimous', with an additional clause that there is an exception to this in the form of a fringe minority of religiously motivated scientists.--NZUlysses 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Polytheistic (and non-Christian) points of view on intelligent design?

Has anyone given thought to polytheistic povs on intelligent design? And non-Abrahamic concepts of same? if so, that ought to go into the article. If not, say that and cite sources, and maybe look for a reason. Thank you. 204.52.215.13 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Find some substantial interest in ID from anybody other than conservative (and mostly evangelical) Christians in ID and we'll look at it. Find WP:RSs of the same and we'll include them in the article. I have seen no sign of any interest at all in ID outside the Abrhamic religions, and nor any sing of interest in the ID movement outreaching outside them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, because I had a similar thought while reading the article. Not whether there is a polytheistic POV on ID, but that there is a logical question to pose to the assertion that the Christian God is the designer: Assume for the sake of discussion that the fundamental tenet of ID is true. What evidence or basis does the DI assert to support that the designer is that God, versus, say, the ancient Greek gods of Homer, the Roman gods, etc.? Those belief systems also offered explanations for natural phenomena (e. g., thunder.) This is not OR -- it is a logical point that it seems some of the authoritative parties in the controversy would have raised. Have they? If so, what was the response of DI? Looking forward to the answer from those knowledgeable on the article subject. If no RS in the controversy has raised this objection, then disregard (and delete this post). Thanks! Unimaginative Username 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not so much an issue as to whether ID can be accommodated into polytheist beliefs as that neither polytheists nor ID advocates seem interested in doing so. And lacking any substantial interest from either side in articulating this accommodation, there's nothing really to report. The Designer=Christian God aspect can best be summarised by this from the Dover decision: "However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God". It's not so much that somebody coming from some other tradition couldn't make an alternative conclusion, just that the "God-shaped-hole" has been designed such that Westerners (and ID has no profile outside the West) would draw this conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL I was spelunking on uncyclopedia and came up with THIS.... but it's NOT serious... but lol anyway. 204.52.215.107 06:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn, excellent answer to the question! Oh, and 204.52.215.107... good points, esp. the childbirth cartoon ... see also "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Unimaginative Username 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design does not necessitate Creationism

In the Dzogchen Nyingma (& Bonpo) Vajrayana Buddhism of the Himalaya the Five Pure Lights (of which "Everything" and "Nothing" is constituted) are the Divine Intelligence, the Mysterium Magnum, of Dharma and the Dharmakaya. The Five Pure Lights, the subtle basis of the Mahabhuta, are uncreated and self-manifesting (refer Pratitya-samutpada): therefore, "Intelligent design" does not necessarily depend upon, necessitate, nor entertain, Creationism.
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, but the existence of a religion that believes in a "divine intelligence" in no way disproves that the argument/hypothesis/movement named Intelligent design is a form of Neo-creationism and thus Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument you attribute was neither implied nor stated. This article is not just to do with the organised movement nominally identified as "Intelligent design" just as the argument from design is not Christianity dependent. Moreover, "intelligent design" and "creation" are not mutually dependent; where intelligence spontaneously manifests: refer nondualism. You mention "belief" and "religion" in your comment: no "belief", "religion" and/or "faith" is necessary or required in direct experience of Divine Intelligence. Dialogue does not entail "either" and "or", the operator "and" and the spirit of inclusion and unity is sadly missing in this article. The co-existence of truths within Truth is a fundamental teaching inherent in, and evident throughout, natural systems: refer Deep ecology.

Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP was employed as a reason to move this content-string from this page. There is no soap-box inherent here, just exposition and elucidation of difference views and identification of conceptual flaws, and assumptions implicit in, the current content of this article. Please do not remove this dialogue-string from this talk page as it contains significant content and directions for future inclusion and iteration of the article.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

None of this has any relevance to this article, nor does it cite any sources (making it likewise purely WP:OR), it is purely a soapbox rant about Eastern religion. It has no place here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rama Rama Ding Ding! 204.52.215.107 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) his noodly appendages salute you 204.52.215.107 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I changed

The Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support." The Zogby polls, however, suffer from very considerable flaws, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions. A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."

to

A Zogby poll of scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories, commissioned by the Discovery Institute, show a higher percentage of support. Sandia National Laboratories, however, denied that the survey took place, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions. A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design."

Reasons for the change: 1) The link given for the poll is the wrong one, linking to an Ohio voter poll rather than a poll of scientists 2) There was a typo that needed to be fixed 3) It is important to note that in an open letter SAL denied that any survey of their institution took place

My changes were reverted for some reason. Personally I think that the poll should just be deleted, a tiny piece of fraud taking up disproportionate space, but if it must stay the changes would make it more accurate.Sad mouse 04:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the polls are unnecessary to the article, which is the position I held in several discussions. The consensus has been to mention them at least briefly. ... Kenosis 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but why not just mention legitimate polls? Having a bad poll takes up more space because of all the lines that need to follow. Sad mouse 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago I attempted to point out why none of them are useful -- mostly it has to do with the way the questions are framed. In the case of Sandia, it has to do with the brutally low response rate and the later misrepresentations of its significance by the Discovery Insitutue. And the HCD poll is a minor poll, conducted prior to the disclosures brought forward in the Kitzmiller trial, which failed to fully differentiate between theology and science in the most pertinent questions (though this wasn't part of the earlier discusison). ... Kenosis 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When describing polls on philosophical matters, I think it's crucial to include the full precise wording of the question. A person can readily believe that life evolved by natural selection, yet this was also planned by a deity, or that life evolves but the laws of physics follow from some mathematical idea, or... well, you get the idea. Really, this type of poll is like trying to count the number of spaces between grains of sand on a beach. And yet, since polls are an important aspect of the news and publicity surrounding the question, you can't just ignore them either. 70.15.116.59 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. Since ID is mainly a legal strategy seeking to affect public educational policy in the US, polls may be relevant. This is more-or-less how the consensus was arrived at despite my own protests that the polls available for us to cite in this Wikipedia article are, IMO, virtually useless. In the end, the scientific and educational community and the court system decided the issue, at least for the present. ... Kenosis 05:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I agree with his changes in general. If we have the wrong link we should fix it. If Sandia denied later that it took place, this should be mentioned. If the DI is using it as a promotional device, this should be mentioned too etc.--Filll 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For the second time my change was reverted, please if anyone is going to revert it again can they put the correct poll in as a reference. Putting the Ohio likely voters reference in does not constitute a citation for the poll of scientists, they are two different polls. Sad mouse 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because you clearly don't read the sources or know the subject material. Until which time you do I suggest you stop editing this article and find one that is less controversial and you're more well versed on. Odd nature 18:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link? The link is to a poll of Ohio likely voters. In other words it is not the correct poll. Oh, and I am actually a genetics researcher, not that it matters that I am an expert on evolution because all I am doing here is removing an incorrect link. Sad mouse 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted a third time, does anyone actually read the links they put in? Sad mouse 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadmouse's issue with the old cited document is correct - it's about teaching evolution in Ohio, not the Zogby poll of Sandia lab employees. I've provided a new citation - an IDnet press release describing the poll. Raul654 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually bother to find the correct links? The correct citation is at http://www.nmidnet.org/Press%20Release%201.doc - that document clearly states how the Sandia Labs scientists were polled, and what the results were. The link is found on IDnet New Mexico's page http://www.nmidnet.org/polling.html -Amatulic 19:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Right - that's the link I just put in. The link that was there before went to a different page. Raul654 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply Untrue

"Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute".

The above statement is simply NOT TRUE. The associated citations do not establish that ALL ( every single one ) of the primary proponents ( however that may be defined ) are associated with a particular organization.

The statement should be edited to read ..., some of whom .... Eregli bob 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simply true and attested by expert witness that all the leading proponents are associated with DI. Have you a reliable source giving a different view, preferably naming the mythical non-DI primary proponents? .. dave souza, talk 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this talk page over and over for months and even years. Nevertheless, we have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for your position.--Filll 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one [all that is required to void the use of "all" here] am not affiliated with Discovery Institute. In fact, I was previously unaware they even existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.86.108 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you claim our article is wrong (in that it says all major proponents of ID to be affiliated with Discovery Institute) because you are not? And who are you, exactly? And would you care to back up your claim with some evidence? Raul654 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing our mysterious visitor is "a leading proponent of Intelligent Design" who has somehow never once heard of the Discovery Institute. Sad mouse 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Page needs auto-archive bot (500+ kb)

Anyone have objections/suggestions about setting up a bot to take care of older threads? Anynobody 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that B9 hummingbird hovering keeps duplicating the page, which doubled its size temporarily. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot seems a good idea :) – I've just archived it in sections, and have left it where talk of some relevance to today begins, but in future automation sounds worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We might also want to consider using a separate page for the archive list. It's getting pretty long and it will only get longer. -- Lilwik 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to stay on the main talkpage for ease of access -- but turning it into two (or more) columns might be a good idea to save whitespace. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of autoarchiving. Apart for the flurry today, this page hasn't seen the kind of high traffic you get on pages like ANI, that necessitates autoarchiving.  – ornis⚙ 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is auto-archiving is best whatever the load. Auto archiving avoids the often messy arguments that can result when one user is accused of selectively archiving. The only issue with auto-archiving is it can result in posts being out of order which is IMHO usually a minor issue. I don't really see any other disadvantage any decent archiving bot can be adjusted to leave a certain number of messages and the timeframe can also be adjusted as necessary. Note that a fair number of article talk pages use auto-archiving bots, some of which probably have less traffic then this Nil Einne 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I can sometimes be useful to keep threads around longer even if they aren't being updated.  – ornis⚙ 10:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When and why? The way I see it, if editors are for their own personal reasons deciding to keep threads around for longer that is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid since it leads to claims of selective archiving. If you feel threads are being archiving too soon then adjust the time and/or make the bot keep a larger number of minimum threads. It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria. Nil Einne 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When a there are a lot of drivebys asking the same tired questions over and over again, after a matter has been settled. General practice has been to leave the thread around for a while, before archiving and indexing. And this" It's simply not necessary nor is it wise for an editor to choose what are threads that need to be archived and what aren't on some undefined subjective criteria I find frankly laughable.  – ornis⚙ 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical problems with the article?

Whenever one tries to edit, the browser gets stuck and the Wikipedia error message comes on after a few seconds. However, I've only noticed this with this article. What gives? 204.52.215.107 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would assume it's simply the size of the article, 161KB. Neobros 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Simply ridiculous"

Should "simply ridiculous" be there in the introduction? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, it has been deleted. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your original question, yes.

Congratulations

I've just read this as the article of the day. Having been involved in a number of other science articles, including passive smoking and global warming controversy, I'd like to congratulate the editors on producing a great article, which clearly states the scientific viewpoint, while giving the anti-science position a fair presentation. JQ 10:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is a monumental piece of work. Congratulations to all involved. JMcC 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the interest level of the article a few weeks back. I think its a good example of allowing alternative views whilst giving each view a good run for its money. I'd certainly use it as an exemplar for interest anyhow. Hal Cross 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This talk page merits additional accolades. It provides an exemplary example of how to efficently organize discussions on complicated subject matters. May it serve as a standard model for the rest of the wikipedia. Jeff Carr 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"All"/"Many"

I noticed Wyorunner's change from "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" to "Its primary proponents, many of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" being reverted by ConfuciusOrnis with the edit comment "Name ONE primary proponent not associated with DI just ONE"; so it became an intellectual challenge to find one :-)

Percival Davis seems an obvious contender. Is there any substantial link between him and the DI? Or would you argue that he isn't a primary proponent of ID? (I suppose 'primary' can potentially be defined however you like....) TSP 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Has he done anything substantial for ID since co-authoring Of Pandas and People in the late 1980s? If not, it's hardly surprising that he isn't considered a "primary proponent". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Principally rewriting for the 1993 second edition, and the forthcoming third edition The Design of Life. I might normally agree that one book wouldn't make you a primary proponent, but this does seem to be a pretty defining book of the movement. TSP 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He appears not to be listed as a primary author of The Design of Life. Can you point to any information that he made a major new contribution to this or to the second edition under the original title? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear. The draft linked from the book's Wikipedia page, here, lists him among the five authors (in alphabetical order), and the preface says: "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is therefore extremely fortunate to have Dembski, Behe, and Wells join the original authors, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, in this sequel to Of Pandas and People." To me that sounds like the five have worked together, though I suppose it could simply mean that the three new authors had worked with the old material produced by the two original authors. TSP 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that:

1. Behe disavowed involvement in this book at Dover (meaning that the preface is highly inaccurate, at best); &
2. the fact that the two remaining new authors are the primary authors of the new edition rather implies that it is the two of them are the ones doing the revising, not Davis or Kenyon.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I didn't know about the disavowal - do you have a source for that? That should be mentioned on the book's page. I'm still vaguely trying to find out if Davis HAS been doing any more ID-related work. Here is a 2001 article from the Reports of the National Center for Science Education which lists Davis among 'other leaders of his [Behe's] movement'. TSP 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The source for it is Behe's Dover testimony. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated with references in our overview, Behe added his argument (about blood clotting being too complex) to the chapter on intelligent design being demonstrated by microbiology (probably "information" in DNA in the first edition) to the 1993 second edition of Pandas. He coined the IC term and set out more examples in his Darwin's Black Box of 1996. At Dover he denied knowing anything about other chapters in Pandas, and presented no expertise to support its claims about archaeology, for example. ... dave souza, talk 14:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found the relevant passage where he denies authorship of The Design of Life and added it to the book's article. TSP 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) Creationism Stephen Meyer, David DeWolf, Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Walter Bradley, Charles Thaxton, and Roger Olson refused, en masse, to grant me permission to reproduce their works. Through their representative at the Seattle-based ID think tank, the Discovery Institute, these authors refused permission to reprint readily available material."[5] Perhaps when time permits we can check if he's listed as an associate or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He is only mentioned on www.discovery.org in relation to Pandas & his other book from the 80s, A Case for Creation -- which implies a fairly tenuous relationship at best. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> A quick look reveals that Davis is not a current signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Also Davis has a PhD in Instructional Design so this might not mean much, but his Bachelor's and Masters are in zoology, and the Discovery Institute has had no problem with people with dubious credentials signing the Dissent petition before. I also notice that on the Evolution News blog at the Discovery Institute, there have been some rumors spread previously that Davis had been removed from authorship of the text Of Pandas and People, although this was incorrect. I wonder how big a supporter of intelligent design Davis really is, and if Davis and the Discovery Institute had some sort of falling-out. I will keep my eye out for more information.--Filll 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Pandas the book where "creator" was changed to "designer" etc just before publication? Did Davis jump on the ID bandwagon, so to speak, or was he pushed? I think that the book as originally written was not about ID at all, but about creation science. Hence, Davis may not have made a primary contribution to ID at all. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The rumors spread previously that Davis had been removed from authorship of the text Of Pandas and People may have originated with a January 2005 article by Bill Toland in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette including "The assertion that Percival Davis was removed from the author list on “Of Pandas and People” (his name graces each edition so far)"[6] ........... dave souza, talk 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Claim" (?)

Yeah, "Intelligent design" is certainly a "claim" composed of a logic and sub-claims, but can "Intelligent design" be classified as a philosophy, a subreligion, a religion, a theory or some such? Said: Rursus ☻ 12:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory.  – ornis⚙ 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But, equally, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. TSP 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No comparison whatseoever. Theory is clearly false, and the guideline gives a specific definition, and when it should be applied. Claim on the other hand, is just a word that generally should be avoided as a verb. I wonder that you fail to see the difference.  – ornis⚙ 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The WTA entry doesn't seem to explicitly only refer to verbs, though admittedly all the examples of dubious usage use it as a verb; but in any case, the lead uses 'claim' both as a noun and as a verb. TSP 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably "hoax" comes closest, but we've put a lot of thought into the current wording. .. dave souza, talk 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal favorite would be "stratagem" or "subterfuge" -- as the real point of ID is to make Creationism look more sciencey, not to actually state anything new. But I doubt if either would win consensus. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was built by consensus in the truest fashion. My lead would have been, "This is a laughable idea conjured up by the Discovery Institute as a disingenuous method to force religion into the classroom. Fortunately, the legal system of the United States decided it was a religious idea without any scientific merit, and was blocked from being taught. It is a failed idea." But we had to be nice to the multiple Discovery Institute and creationist editors who are trying to protect their idea from being utterly destroyed. It must be sad to be so in love with an idea that utterly lacks any foundation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"canard...", "tactic..", "variety of creationism..".  – ornis⚙ 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I've never understood the need for "political correctness" on this matter. Evolution is right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong according to the scientific community (and the religious community is not really relevant in this debate, since it is science and not religion that is being discussed). Michael.A.Anthony 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not political correctness, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The reader should indeed be left in no doubt as to the majority opinions on the issue; however, Wikipedia's core policies require us to present the minority views "fairly and without bias". TSP 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm changing most instances of "claim" to some other noun or verb, depending on the context. "Claim" is a loaded word that is often used as a way to denigrate whatever is being "claimed". Per WP:MOS, we avoid use of "claim" except in relation to legal proceedings, or within a direct quote. Johntex\^talk 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you better stop right now, you're at about 4 reverts by my count.  – ornis⚙ 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He appears to me to be making numerous different changes, not reverts at all. TSP 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Piecemeal reverts are still reverts. Either way he is repeatedly making the same changes despite being reverted by several editors, and of course consensus, which I might remind john, is a policy, not a guideline like mos, or ata.  – ornis⚙ 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is in error. They were not piecemeal edits and they were not reverts. I was going through the article carefully, section by section, reviewing each instance of the word "claim". Those that comply with policy I left alone. Those that violate NPOV I removed. Check the diffs and you will see this to be the case. When I realized I was being reverted, I stopped editing the page and posted here. Johntex\^talk 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you refer us to which section of WP:MOS? I can't see 'claim' mentioned at all in there. It's in WP:WTA, but the description of the uses in there is a bit more nuanced. I'd agree with you over some of the uses; for others it's perhaps the best word. TSP 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gladly, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is part of the MOS, says we should avoid using "claim" except in regards to legal proceedings or in a direct quote. Johntex\^talk 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But it says "By itself, the word "claim" does not carry POV." along with it is best to avoid it. But that is what the reliable sources say. What about that? Spryde 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please continue reading, it says ""editors may resort to using "claim" as a way to encourage readers to doubt the speaker's sincerity." The best practice is to avoid using it. If it is in a direct quote then it should be used, otherwise, we should use a synonym like "assertion" for a noun or "said" for a verb. Johntex\^talk 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If "Intelligent Design is a "Claim" why don't we list "Evolution" As a "Claim"? Alec92 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I'm sorry my changes caused consternation. As TSP says, I was making unique changes, examining each usage one by one in order to check whether the word was being used in regards to a legal proceeding or in a direct quote. I didn't realize anyone was reverting me until someone left me a message at my Talk page.

Per WP:MOS, we are to avoid use of "claim" except in relation to legal proceedings, or within a direct quote. The reason for this is that the word "claim" is usually used to denigrate that statement that is being "claimed".

One of our five pillars is NPOV. We have no reason to use the word "claim" in an effort to make these assertions look bad.

Since I have been reverted, I have tagged the article with a NPOV tag. The tag should not be removed until we fix these wording issues. Johntex\^talk 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. This issue has been discussed extensively here before, and the wording was carefully chosen. Claim is an accurate description. Raul654 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, Raul, and inserting opinions of editors into the article is part of the problem. We may not believe in or support Intelligent Design, but we have to follow the five pillars, including NPOV. We are not suppose to use loaded language as a judgement of the assertions discussed in the article. Johntex\^talk 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is understood, but see also WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The assertion of ID advocates that their philosophy/theology is science and should be taught to the youngsters as such is rightly called a "claim", if the editors so choose. The reliable sources back up the use of this characterization in at least several instances in the article. I'd already changed the first use in the first sentence to "assertion", with no guarantee that other editors will agree. Perhaps one or two other uses could rightly be changed without making a mockery of reason, such as in the "fine-tuned universe" section. But where the issue involves a claim that a theological or philosophical view can replace a scientific view in science class, "claim" is properly used, irrespective of what WP:MOS advises. Given that reasonable people may disagree on this issue, the issue fails to rise to the level of a content dispute such that it would properly merit an POV tag on the article. ... Kenosis 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And slapping a tag on the article because you do not get your way is awful childish, tex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing the tag is the suspect act. The tag is meant for just this type of usage. It clearly says it is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. Johntex\^talk 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not when you haven't even attempted to claim a dispute involving a purported violation of WP:NPOV it isn't. As it stands your actions are simply WP:DE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Using "claim" to denigrate the statements of one side of the debate is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which is not only official policy but also one of the five central pillars of Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>

1. You have not previously made this claim -- you spammed this article with pov-tags several times, and only after repeated challenges, bothered to tardily articulate a dispute under WP:NPOV.
2. Your dispute under WP:NPOV is without merit. We have a host of WP:RSs demonstrating that ID and its underlying statements are meritless. Calling them "claims" is flattering them, not "denigrating" them. What you are advocating is in fact a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. You are tilting at windmills and making completely spurious assertions. Please go read the definition of "spamming", it has nothing to do with making edits to single a Wikipedia article. I made my edits one word at a time simply because I was being cautious and checking each instance of the word to see if it complied with policy or not. You should check the diffs, or for that matter, any of the facts at issue here.
2. You are also wrong on the chronology of the matter. When I received a Talk page message informing me there was discussion here, I posted explaining why I was editting the article to comply with policy and guideline.
3. Editors are not required to read the article Talk page before making any change. When policy and style violations are spotted, they are to be fixed. That is what I did. If the fixes are disputed, then they are to be discussed. That is what I am doing now.
4. Every edit I made cited WP:MOS, which supports my edits. The reason this particular issue is mentioned in the WP:MOS is because it a style issue to support the underlying policy, which is NPOV. It is not my fault that you did not immediately see the connection. I'm explaining it to you now. Johntex\^talk 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. If I was citing WP:SPAM I would have used "spamming", "spam" also has a wider and vaguer meaning. You repeatedly inserted a POV tag, long before you articulated any dispute under WP:NPOV. As such, it was perfectly legitimate to remove the tags.
2. Your previous talkpage comments made no mention of a WP:NPOV dispute either.
3. Irrelevant to the point I was making.
4. WP:MOS does not support your edits, it makes no mention of "claim".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. So your defense in misusing the English language is that you 'meant for it to have a "vaguer meaning"?
2. I articulated here the problem with the article prior to applying the tag. I also articulated in my edit summary that the NPOV tag was being applied because the corrections to the POV-laden language were being reverted. Check your diffs. Check your facts.
3. Not true. Any implication that I should have read the talk page prior to making changes is an erroneous implication that needs to be called out as such.
4. You are wrong. Wikipedia:Words to avoid is part of the MOS. Please read it and then you will understand the problem with using "claim" throughout this article as a way of siding with one side of the issue. Johntex\^talk 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(Above comments are in chronological order with the comments below due to unindenting)

<undent> Johntex, acting like an officious jobsworth and making multiple edits against consensus when a contentious featured article is on the front page is a really bad idea. Please look at talk pages and discuss your proposals before making such changes in future. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And accusing me of acting like an "officious jobsworth" helps build consensus, how, exactly? I recommend you take a hard look at your own actions, which are clearly counter-productive. Johntex\^talk 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could Johntex please tell me WTF is the reason why a purported violation of WP:MOS is being tagged with a POV-tag? Surely it should have a "Style-disaster" tag, which can only be removed when the Queer Eye team arrive to adjudicate. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Johntex has taken a break from editing the article. It's a fair point that we should avoid the term where it's not necessary, as Kenosis says, and I'm happy with his substitution of "assertion" for "claim". .. dave souza, talk 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I greatly appreciate your consideration of the issue. We really do have perfectly good alternative words that get us around this problem quite nicely. Johntex\^talk 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the middle of all this, I decided to change one more of the set of uses of the word "claim" throughout the article to "assertion", this one in the Richard Dawkins part of the section on "Intelligent designer", where the arguments-counterarguments between proponents and opponents of ID are somewhat more philosophical in nature. There may be one or two more in the article where it could readily be changed to, say, "statement" or "stated" or some other equivalent, depending on whether it's being used as a noun or a verb. ... Kenosis 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Claim" is a perfectly legitimate characterisation of ID, and the arguments underlying it -- they have been repeatedly and thoroughly documented as completely lacking any merit, by numerous WP:RSs. It is, if anything, an unreasonably pale characterisation of something that can, and has, been characterised as a "canard" and worse. To reach the level of a "loaded" term for it would probably require something along the lines of "blatant, barefaced and egregious lie". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Claim" is being used to denigrate the assertions of one side of the debate. As such, it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV which is not only official policy, it is also one of the five central pillars of Wikipedia. We CANNOT have a worthwhile encyclopedia we allow our beliefs to color our writing.

Wikipedia:Words to avoid explains this problem very clearly. It states we should avoid using "claim" except in regards to legal proceedings or in a direct quote. It directly speaks to the danger of abusing this term, "editors may resort to using "claim" as a way to encourage readers to doubt the speaker's sincerity." Johntex\^talk 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance in reaching consensus on the ideal wording will be welcome at a time when we're not dealing with near-continuous vandalism. .. dave souza, talk 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy violations are just as serious as vandalism. Perhaps more so. Leaving these problems in this article gives the readers the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is all about.

The fact that the article is prominently displayed on the Main Page is more reason to fix the problem, not less.

If the problems are not fixed immediately then we should re-tag the article with a NPOV tag. We have to warn the unsuspecting reader that the article they are about to read is riddled with loaded language.

The tag should not have been removed while the matter is being discussed. This is clearly stated right on the tag itself. Johntex\^talk 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are repeating meritless claims that have been repeatedly, and in detail, debunked by the scientific community for years -- I think that alone is reason enough to have some doubts over "the speaker's sincerity." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statement goes to prove my point. When we allow our belief that the claims are meritless to color our writing the we are violating WP:NPOV. You are defending the use of the word "claim" precisely because you believe the "claims" are "meritless".

I recommend you take a step back and examine your motives. Do you have a desire to "debunk" these claims? That is not our goal here. Our goal is to use neutral language to present what experts have said.

If we quote an expert who uses "claim" that is a fine usage.

Otherwise, we MUST use neutral wording according to our central tenant, WP:NPOV.

We have plenty of suitable words like "assertion", "says", "state". The ONLY reason to deliberately avoid using them is if we are trying to push a POV, which is blatantly against policy. Johntex\^talk 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No "belief": List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. Solid scientific consensus. Kindly take your WP:UNDUE elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The "experts" consider it to be meritless garbage -- "written in jello" to use the phrase a prominent mathematician used to describe the work of a prominent IDist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use the description of a prominent Philosopher of Science and a Biologist, who called ID a "Trojan Horse", which I think can be paraphrased as "canard" or similar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Or a Federal Court Judge, who described ID's central Teach the Controversy campaign "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Need I go on, and on, and on? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post inside other people's comments. It is extremely disruptive to conversation because it makes it difficult to see who said what. I have moved your comments below mine since that is the proper place for them. Johntex\^talk 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When "experts" have something to say about the matter, we can quote them. If they choose to use the word "claim" that is OK. We can report on their point of view. What we cannot do is insert our own POV.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must agree to follow WP:NPOV. That is not optional. We have perfectly good, neutral words we can use. You only want to use "claim" in order to help push your viewpoint. Johntex\^talk 17:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do follow WP:NPOV, however unlike yourself I have read it as far as WP:UNDUE -- which does not contenance the Creationism/Science "he said, she said" you seem to be promoting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No where in WP:UNDUE does it encourage the use of non-neutral language when neutral language is available. What is your objection to using neutral wording such as "says" and "states" instead of "claims"? Johntex\^talk 18:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the word "claim", set in the context of philosophical argument, is quite neutral and synonymous with "assertion". In legal argument, it is a similarly neutral description of an assertion. Both of these apply to this article. Beyond this, even the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover used the word "claim" in describing certain assertions involved in the case, which is in keeping with the generic use of the word "claim", not in its usage as a legal term of art (e.g. "the parties' claim").

With respect to interpretations of WP:NPOV, one editor, whether in her or his capacity as an administrator or merely as an editor with a point of view, cannot be the sole arbiter of this issue. The mere use of the word "claim" is-not-necessarily-equal-to "POV" in any article, let alone an article on a legal and theological strategy such as intelligent design. . ... Kenosis 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree with you on the first point. Wikipedia:Words to avoid says that "claim" is acceptable when used in connection with legal proceedings. I have not claimed otherwise; in fact, I took care not to remove the word when it was used in a legal context.
2. As to the court using the term in a generic sense as opposed the legal sense, that really doesn't matter. The court is not trying to follow our policies and guidelines; we are. Maybe the court thinks it is a neutral term. Maybe the court is so used to the word "claim" being used all day that it just rolls off the tongue without their thinking of the possible bias in the word. I don't know. It doesn't matter. Plenty of people say things every day that are untrue, or that express a certain opinion or viewpoint. People mis-spell things and use bad grammar as well. But WE are writing an encyclopedia under certain policies and style guides. We have to make a distinction between what our sources do and what we do.
3. As to your statement about one editor trying to be the "sole arbiter of this issue", I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you referring to me? If so, I am not trying to be the sole arbiter of anything. I am pointing out what the policy says and I am seeking consensus to follow policy in this article. If you read this thread, you will see that other editors have said I have made good points. Johntex\^talk 18:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means seek to change the consensus. There are at least several synonyms that don't necessarily carry the same potential for being taken in the cynical or sarcastic sense that the generic use of the word "claim" can be taken. One thing, though. When I said that the court used it, I said it was not used in a legal context, but rather in the generic context, referring to claims made by ID proponents outside of court, not to a legal claim. ... Kenosis 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>

Yes, I understood your point about the quote using the term in the "general" sense. In my point (1) I am agreeing with your statement "In legal argument, it is a similarly neutral description of an assertion.". However, my point (2) means to disagree that whether a court somewhere used the word in a different sense is immaterial to us. People misuse words. Their idea of what the word means may be different to our. WE should follow OUR policies and guidelines.

As to consensus - local consensus on a Talk page does not trump our central policies and guidelines. Anyone who disagrees with the policies needs to go to the policy page to try to change them.

Having said that, let's look at what the local consensus really is here: TSP, Alec92, dave souza, Neil, Merzul and even yourself Kenosis, have all either questioned the use of "claim" in the article and/or provided some level of support for the points I am making. (Note that I am not trying to say they all feel exactly the same way. There comments here should be allowed to speak for themselves.) Johntex\^talk 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Geez already. Please don't try to make guidelines introduced by style-specific editors at WP:MOS and other guideline pages into binding policies. If the argument is that the consensus isn't strictly following WP:NPOV, you've made you POV clear on it. I just pointed out two important senses in which the word "claim" is used without intending to necessarily carry the kind of connotation that is sometimes attached in streetyard or cynical usage, including the judge in Kitzmiller referring to ID proponents' claims of scientific merit where there is none. That's a completely different use of the word than in a legal claim, where one party alleges something before a court, but rather is used in the context a factual matter being reported in the court's decision referring to an argument occurring outside the court. I'm pointing out that the consensus among the editors here is a reasonable interpretation of WP:NPOV. Understanding that reasonable people may disagree, as I said, your point is taken. The participants here have already heard my own preference, which is that in at least a couple of the instances of the use of the word "claim", the word "assertion" would be equally appropriate and a bit less likely to be misunderstood in this way. Yet the consensus has been to use the work "claim", which isn't a violation of any WP policy. If the consensus changes, fine, so be it, and I'll support it. But in no way is this usage a violation of policy.

And there are numerous other legitimate uses of the word in a neutral context, depite what the folks over at [WP:Words to avoid] may prefer to see used in WP. This is why adjectives are so often attached, like "unsupported claim", or "well-supported claim" or "spurious claim" or "credible claim", etc. etc. ... Kenosis 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A challenge for Johntex

O omniscient and omnipotent enforcer of all wikipedia plicies -- how should one characterise statements/claims/assertions/whatever that have been verifiably and reliably been debunked and proven meritless? To simply call them "statements" when they are known to be without merit would appear to give them undue weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• While your sarcasm is counter-productive and probably a violation of WP:NPA, I will answer your question anyway. If you actually read the relevant policy/guideline links I have posted, you will see the answer: If "claim" is in a direct quote use the word "claim". Otherwise, use a neutral word and let the reader judge the facts for themselves. Johntex\^talk 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No! If the source says "X is a claim", paraphrasing it using "claim" is perfectly fine. However, if a source says Y, it is not fine for us to write that the source claims Y. That's the crucial difference. --Merzul 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes! Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit." Johntex\^talk 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No! :) Seriously though, first, MOS is a style guide, WP:undue weight is part of official policy. If ID is characterized as "claim" by reliable sources, then the editors here are free to use these words, but not if they are sourcing from ID itself. Once more, NPOV is always with respect to reliable sources. We don't represent peer-reviewed journals and quack-magazines on an equal footing. It is perfectly fine to say, intelligent design claims/alleges or whatever other biased word if an article in Nature or whatever is using such words. It is only not acceptable to use words like claim and alleged when sourcing from Behe et al, because that's naturally not how they describe their view. Finally, what I say is also consistent with the MOS too. (Anyway, you already have enough other editors to argue with, so I will leave you to it, good luck!) --Merzul 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe!  :-) Seriously, if you don't think the MOS should govern then go back to WP:NPOV. The central tenant is to present viewpoints fairly. We don't need suggestive language to do that. We have enough facts. Violating our policies OR guidelines is not a good idea. We have them for a reason. We look bad when we choose to ignore them. Johntex\^talk 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Fine, maybe... :) We certainly don't need suggestive language, and we should let the fact speak for themselves, and all that. But we also look bad, if we are not faithful to the sources. So on a more friendly note then, I believe you might have a point there somewhere, I will leave you to convince other people. Good night, Merzul 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My sarcasm only indicates that I think you're neither "omniscient" nor "omnipotent", so is only a violation of WP:NPA if you're God. Imputing anything more into it is pure WP:OR on your part.
  • Your alternatives are not "neutral" characterisations when what they are describing have been verifiably and reliably debunked and proven meritless -- they are flattering mischracterisations and thus violate WP:UNDUE. That was my point -- a point you are failing to acknowledge.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about what WP:UNDUE dictates and how it replies to neutrality. WP:UNDUE essentially says that we don't have to give all points of view equal weight. However, we still have to present those views fairly, which includes using neutral word-choice.

WP:Words to avoid even gives this example:

Politician Roberts claimed that American women did not have voting rights until 1970. [He's wrong, so say so, don't just try to imply it.]

So, even for a completely objective fact, we are not to use a loaded word like "claim".

You are allowing your distance for Intelligent Design to cloud your writing. There is no reason to use loaded language unless it is in a direct quote. If you are so confident that the experts have debunked this belief, then stop inserting bias into the article and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, aside from a philosophical view that the word claim is in some way problematic, taking a look at the definition of the word claim, how would you say it is inappropriate in this context? I have just read through the article with some care, and I'd say the word claim is a precisely correct and unambiguous use of English. Cruftbane 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not my philosphical view that the word "claim" is problematic, it is a factual statement of what is encoded in the WP:MOS. We write these policies and guidelines to make the project better. We should follow them. Wikipedia:Words to avoid specifically explains where there is a WP:NPOV violation with using "claim" to denigrate one side of an issue. Johntex\^talk 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I implied that it was uniquely your philosophical view, and there are good reasons why one might avoid the word claim in the sense of "X claims A, but Y claims B", but that does not address the question, which is: in what way is this, specifically, not a correct and accurate use of English? Cruftbane 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

The example you gave right now,"X claims A, but Y claims B", is actually supported by Wikipedia policy/guideline because it treats both sides equally. The problem arises when we say something more like, "X claims A, but Y rebuts that claim by stating B".

Also, I don't think I said anything was "not a correct and accurate use of English". That is not the point. Sentences can be grammatically correct and still run afoul of Wikipedia policy/guideline. It is not a question about grammar, it is a question of NPOV presentation of content. Johntex\^talk 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

National vs American

The intro should make it clearer that intelligent design is a concept largely associated with the United States; it's jarring to read something like "National Science Teachers Association" without any clarification that this is an American organisation. You can bet that if it was a Chinese, Mexican or South African organisation, it'd be prefaced accordingly.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a note about NSTA. JoshuaZ 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

wow

Congratulations to all who helped make this a featured article. I think it shows how wiki-collaboration can produced high quality, balanced articles on even the most controversial of topics. Amit@Talk 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Is ID an heretical view within Christianity?

If we accept intelligent design as a fact, meaning that some superior being had its part in the evolution and apparition of life, then the next thing we should ask is whether that design really is intelligent. We all should remember that living beings are full of inacceptable physiologycal and anatomical mistakes (such as the vermiform appendix,the coccyx, muscles in the ears, wings on flightless birds,...) that surely an all knowing, good, all powerful being such as god is said to be wouldn't have accepted. Then, the question is if either that is a proof against ID, or, accepting ID is a posture against what Christianity understand as God, and therefore unchristian, and so, when claimed as a fact inside Christianity, heresy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.133.39 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been claimed that biblical literalism (which has close ties to Creationism and thus to ID) is heretical, so it's not too great a leap to conjecture that ID might likewise be considered heretical by some denominations of Christianity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While ID is closer to the truth than the "claims" of Evolution, it is more aptly a "wolf in sheep's clothing" than Creationism masquerading as science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.86.108 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Christians who accept intelligent design know that the world has been defiled by sin, and that in the Christian view, for the 6,000-10,000 years that we have existed, that sin causes mutations, which causes the things 85.85.133.39 talked about, those who think god "Wouldn't let things happen like this" don't really know what the Christian God's plan is. Alec92 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone possibly know the Christian God's plan? If not, then what's the point? Isn't faith just a crap-shoot? (yes, I know it's off-topic) — DIEGO ^talk 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't all forms of faith a "crap-shoot"? not one person can be completely faithfull, so you can't really say that only faith is a "Crap-shoot" Alec92 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ID is heretical primarily because it makes evil an intentional act of God (e.g., what Behe has to say about the death of a child in her mother's arms in Edge of Evolution). In that way, ID is gnostic, and Behe's designer is more demiurge than loving God. In addition, since it reduces the actions of God to tinkering (and tinkering badly, since they claim we can detect it), it denies the idea of God as all powerful. 129.15.162.207 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If your ever read the bible at all, you'd see that after the Fall ((The Fall of Man)) Evil was created because Adam sinned, Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 17-18 "Cursed is this ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. it will produce thorns and thistles for you."

God is not evil, he allows evil because it is in his written plan in the bible, he does not justify evil, but allows it to remain so he can judge the living and the dead on judgement day. Alec92 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one interpretation (by no means the only one). But what Behe is saying is that God intentionally tinkers with the genome of malaria, with the intent that the child dies in her mother's arms. While that God may not be incompatible with the God who walks among the Egyptians and kills their children, it is incompatible with the God of the later prophets and the NT. 129.15.105.96 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the compatibility is not obvious does not make it incompatible. the assumption is that if something is bad in your eyes, it must be evil. An all-knowing, all-powerful god may define good and loving differently than you, in particular as it relates to eternity. The main assumption in the Problem of Evil is that earthly pain is a facet of evil. An eternal god might not consider it so, but rather as a prerequisite to growth and eternal joy. Many philosophies see personal sacrifice as noble and good. Perhaps pain (including death or suffering of innocents) is not evil, but a noble enterprise through which growth and well-being on an eternal scale is attained. If the god is all-knowing, then it must know things that I never could and therefore I must allow that my understanding will never be sufficient to explain all that occurs. 131.204.42.99 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What worries me most is how christians try to explain evil as a kind of test for humans so that God can judge them. But if we assume that God is an all-knowing being (or well, according to St.Augustine, he is not even a being for he neither exists on time, nor in his creation the Universe), and thus, he surely knew everything, including your sins, from the very moment he created the Universe, so then, why the need of the test? It just seems odd. All the things around the evil explanation in the Christian world lack of a solid and evident explanation: it just goes from saying that evil is a lack of good, meaning that evil itself doesn't exist, but it's just like an empty space not filled by the goodness of God, but then, how explain evil material things, such the malaria virus, etc? Are there parts of the Universe,i.e, the evils ones, not created by God? Everithing seems easier if we think of God not as an all-knowing, all-powerful being, or even if we consider the matter of his/her unexistence... It all comes to a matter of faith, and ID involves so much of it and creates so many Christian doctrine contradictory problems about how to exclude God from the evil, bad and mean things of human life and evolution that, I conclude, doesn't seem to be an answer to any problem, but a problem itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.133.39 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 October 2007

The problem you're discussing is theodicy, and you'll perhaps find this page of interest. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Why is this a featured article? Making it the featured article is an invitation for constant edit war and dispute. It should be removed as featured article, since that only makes what is a controversial subject a bigger target for an edit war. Right now, thousands of people are trying to read an article that keeps changing every minute and is being vandalized. Fanra 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Let me rephrase that, it is a fine featured article, IF IT IS LOCKED. This should be locked so only Admins can edit it until a period of time has passed (like a month). Fanra 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Happens with every featured article. If you think this is bad, you should have tried the Sony PS3 article! There's a faith that FA's should show our editable nature... dave souza, talk 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking articles during the FA day allows unregistered intellectuals versed on the subject matter to contribute to the article, and as such may encourage them to edit frequently on other articles, thus increasing the richness of information displayed here. There may be a few morons seeking attention, vandalizing the article; however the positive result is worth the reversion time in such cases. Neobros 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also question why is this a featured article? Not only is it an extremely controversial subject, but I think a poorly written article. I would expect an article on on Intelligent Design should focus on the principles that the believers of ID purport. Reading the summary of this article, the focus is entirely on why ID is not science. I think discussion of the controversies, the court cases, peer review, etc. all have a place, but as summaries; not the main body of the article. To me what gets totally lost in the article are the underlying concept of ID, which should comprise the main body. In short, I think ID is really bad science, but that it deserves a place to document itself sympathetically. Bad call to make this a feature article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The underlying concept of ID is "god done it". Doesn't take much to sum that up, the real meat of the subject is the artificial controversy, the court cases and the publicity stunts. Oh and and please see: NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", like it suggests at the top of this talk page. thank you.  – ornis⚙ 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ti reply, if you think the underlying concept is "God done it", you fail to understand the concept and make my point. A person who believes in ID looks at nature and sees a clownfish in an anenome living in a mutualistic symbiotic relationship. He doesnt see happenstance by evolution, he sees order. That the universe is not random but is ordered denotes the awareness of that order; ie, God. And yes, I have seen the NPOV and other links, I just think this article is unbalanced in it's focus. I reiterate - reading an article on a theory or belief, the reader should walk away with a fundamental understanding of that theory or belief, and it's hard to do with this article, and not possible from reading the summary which has one sentence explaining what ID is and the rest explaining why that one sentence is incorrect. I am not saying I disagree with the article, which i don't, but thats its not well written and should not be featured.

No, ID goes beyond making the observation that there is order in nature, and attributing that order to God. ID is a subset of natural theology. It claims to be scientific (necessarily, since it was "designed" to fit into the loophole that Scalia left in the Edwards case), and to claim to be scientific it needs to make the assertion that design is testable. Order in nature doesn't challenge evolutionary theory - in fact, evolutionary theory predicts order. 129.15.105.96 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons it's a featured article is so that people can come along and say, "this is awful, it should be improved by X,Y, and Z." - and if they want, they can actually do X, Y, and Z. Welcome to wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the OP. Only rugby players and cricket teams are worthy of FA. (j/k!) Unimaginative Username 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it time for a lock?

I laughed hard when I was redirected from "Intelligent design" to "Bullshit", but that's probably not appropriate. And it seems like a safe bet that the religious crazies will be out in force, too. Maybe this article should be locked for a day or three? CSWarren 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That was actually the 1114th Signal Battalion, and they won't be editing from that IP for a day! ;) .. dave souza, talk 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. This is often proposed for articles of the day, but:

• The Article of the Day is often the first page that new users come to. If they find they cannot edit it, that gives a bad first impression of Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
• Past experience has shown that articles generally end their day of being Article of the Day in a better state than they started it. The featured article, whether controversial or not, always attracts vandalism; but it also attracts new eyes from good editors, which can help to iron out remaining wrinkles.

TSP 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. My apologies for making a request that's well-trod ("well-trodden"?) ground. :) CSWarren 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's time for a lock. Readers shouldn't need to be subject to a crap-shoot about whether they'll get a vandalized version or a reasonable reflection of a consensus version. Can an admin please at least semi-protect this page? Perhaps even a full-protect for awhile, then move it back to "protect2"? ... Kenosis 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but some of the edit summaries are funny. I think I saw that Atheism and Charles Darwin were semi-protected by the next morning. Maybe it's time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline says that 'Administrators only semi-protect the page as a response to extreme levels of vandalism', which in my view isn't what we have here (I remember keeping an eye on the Stanley Williams page when THAT was featured article - now that was vandalism!); but others' views may vary. TSP 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only semi-protected for an hour at present -- time enough to run out for a sandwich and coffee. ... Kenosis 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of all prominent proponents being associated with the Discovery Institute

"all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,"

This statement, although appropriately cited, seems rather obtuse. I'm not trying to make trouble here with the Wikipedia censory overlords, but you can do better than that. Someone may call themselves an "Intelligent Designer," while at the same time have no affiliations with said "Discovery Institute." I consider myself more a proponent of universalism, and the principle of "intelligent design" is an intrinsic attribute of that particular philosophy.

Again, the title of my enquiry is "clarification," so that's all that I am really asking for. I'm not here to argue. It's just that when I read that on the front page, I immediately thought of...hmmm...pigeonholing...if you want to disparage, do it in style. Salva 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A person can call himself an ID proponent or whatever else he wants, but that doesn't make him a "major proponent". Raul654 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So tell me Salva, how many books have you published on intelligent design? And how were the sales?--Filll 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but let's be more charitable. This misunderstanding comes from the in-universe definition of ID that the page gives. Naturally, I realize you can't write "intelligent design is a subterfuge", or any of the other more accurate characterizations that were suggested above, but using the DI's own device does generate confusion.

I don't pretend to be any smarter than you guys, so I assume, the current wording is perhaps the best one can do. But at least we should understand the confusion. It is not that he believes he himself is notable, but he might wonder why theist philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, who also believe 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" are considered as affiliated by the DI.

Of course, if one reads the entire paragraph, then it should be clear what is meant here, but if people only read the first sentence as a mathematical definition, and then replace the occurrence of ID in the next sentence with the above definition, you get something like:

The primary proponents of the assertion 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" are all associated with the discovery institute.

Still, excellent article, and congratulations on the FA!!! --Merzul 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this confusing as well. Didn't I see a whole movie about this on cable last month, where the main proponent wasn't a Discovery Institute stooge? Or at least it wasn't even brought up until the end of the film. -- 67.98.206.2 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a difference between the specific Intelligent Design promulgated by the Discovery Institute and the more general version (which is usually known by a different name) which is not tied to there? 199.71.183.2 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on the more general version. See Creationism. Raul654 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, but Intelligent design theory began in 1984, the Discovery Institute began in 1990. How can there be a perfectly retroactive association here? Not to mention there's no useful definition for "prominence" and the sources all use different terms for who exactly the "all prominent proponents" being associated are (e.g. "leaders", "authors" etc.). This gloss is hand waving. -- 67.98.206.2 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the article says "are associated", rather than saying "have always been associated". The article is not asserting a causal relationship - it's pointing out a correlation (or rather, it is reporting a correlation which has been pointed out by others). 129.15.105.96 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may not be a style guideline, but I can't recommend starting off an article with a sweeping statement which rings false; even if it is WP:Verifiable, you really want to gain the reader's trust a little first. I was wrong above, though. I was thinking of Michael Behe in Flock of Dodos, but he is indeed with the Discovery Institute. The film does have any number of other "prominent proponents" (such as various school board members) who are not associated with them. -- 67.98.206.2 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The Forrest cite uses the term "leaders", and the article at one time said "leading proponents". This was changed to "primary proponents" during a discussion about the nuances of meaning: in my opinion it's better as "leading". School board members are clearly led, invariably using arguments and resources put forward by DI associates. .. dave souza, talk 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Status outside the United States section

Congrat.s to all involved for getting an article on such a contentious subject to FA status. The 2nd paragraph of the above-named section could use some work, particularly the sentence beginning "When it was revealed..." It's really long and hard to follow; I'd suggest breaking it into 2 sentences, the first beginning with "In 200x it was revealed..." Also, footnote #197 doesn't seem to substantiate the statement "being used by 59 schools". RedSpruce 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine image

The Time cover image from August 15, 2005 has been nominated for deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_12#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg . The issue in this case is NFCC#8, which is about "significance", whether it significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic. NFCC #8 states that an image of this kind ("non-free" content, which doesn't mean that it costs anything, but rather that it is not explicitly granted one of the "free licences" that are preferred for media files in WP) is to be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding".

My take is that the image's use in the article (presently in the section on Intelligent design#Controversy) very substantially enhances the readers' understanding of the public dimension of the intelligent design controversy in a way that mere text cannot possibly convey. It also is self-standing in terms of NPOV without requiring any counterbalancing examples. Further, it enhances understanding by serving as a "call-out", drawing the reader's eye to a significant dimension of the topic. And the cover illustration depicts the tension between concepts (the image of the ape and the creator) as well as poses the central question of the ID controversy, all in one "snapshot" that could not sum it up any better than by using the cover image itself.

Whatever one's view on the use of the image is, it may be useful to participate in the discussion at the IfD. ... Kenosis 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Grass roots

Should quote grass-roots unquote be replaced with astroturfing? or was it genuinely a grass-roots campaign, in which case what looks like scare quotes should probably be removed. Cruftbane 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was nominally grass roots. That is to say, they (the ID pushers) call it grass roots. Whether or not this was reality is a different story. In that sense, quotes are appropriate. Whether or not it should call it astroturfing is debatble - I'm inclined to say yes. Raul654 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it was "astroturfing" to some extent. But we would need sources for this -- it does appear there was a lot of ground-floor work at first, and only later did it turn into the kind of public presentation of the illusion of a ground swell that we ordinarily refer to as astroturfing. From the mid-1990s on, it was definitely astroturfing. ... Kenosis 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The grass-roots refers to campaigning in the first months of ID being launched with the publication of Pandas in 1989 – "Of Pandas and People has been promoted vigorously by its publisher in full-page ads in The Science Teacher and other journals, and at teachers’ association conventions. It is also being advanced by members of religiously-oriented citizen pressure groups like Concerned Women for America and Citizens for Excellence in Education. Pandas was, at the time of this writing, under consideration for state adoption in both Idaho and Alabama, and will be submitted in Texas and other states in the coming months. In addition, given the grass-roots nature of its promotion, Pandas has a good chance of showing up in local districts of non-adoption states as well. In Alabama, more than 11,000 citizens signed a petition requesting the adoption of this book. In the face of such pressure from non-professionals, science teachers need to have accurate information and analysis."[7] It was after the DI got involved and introduced funding as well as political connections that the astroturfing really started. .. dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim v assertion

I'll start a new section because the one above got veered off on a tangent (probably intentionally) by sarcasm and snippyness. Why are we using "claim" in the opening sentence, rather than the more neutral "assertion"? Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim sums it up better than I could. I don't think there are many editors, or any real scientists, who believe Intelligent Design is legitimate, but that's not the point - we should strive for neutrality at all times. We have a better word than "claim", and we should be using it. Neil ☎ 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to one point I saw above - I know ID has been described as a "claim" by reliable sources; in that case, the sentence should read "Intelligent Design has been described as the claim that ...", not "Intelligent Design is the claim that ...". One is passive, one is active (and incorrect usage). "Assertion" lets the reader make their own judgement, which is the whole point of a "neutral" encyclopaedia. Neil ☎ 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"...has been described as a claim" I hope you aren't serious. This is a ludicrous construction to get around stating the perfectly obvious, and (as has been discussed above which have simply decided to ignore) calling it a statement is giving it undo weight. Raul654 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not being serious, as it's awful English, but it's equally as poor as using ".. is the claim that ..". Is there a problem with using "assertion"? Neil ☎ 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The current wording is biased. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim clearly says not to denigrate one side of the issue by use of the word "claim". Doing so is a POV issue.

The people defending the use of "claim" are essentially saying it is OK to be biased against ID because ID is bunk. That is not our call to make.

We have perfectly good words like "assertion", "state", "say", etc. We should use those words unless "claim" is in a direct quote, or when it refers to legal matters. Johntex\^talk 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, we need to reflect reliable sources as fairly as possible, and whether ID is a "claim" or a "scientific theory" is precisely what the sources disagree about, which is why this issue here is more difficult than just a style issue. However, I'm also not comfortable with the fact that we use a word like "claim" to introduce a quotation from sources that call it a "theory", but it is also ridiculous to if they have to back up every use of a word like "claim" or "alleged" like this, is it not? --Merzul 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Those citing Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim should read the entire section, not just the beginning. The use in this article seems pretty clearly to fall under the "acceptable use" portion of that section. Not only did the proponents make the claim in a legal sense, but their claim in the context of a scientific theory candidate is exactly that: a claim. -Amatulic 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Policy/guidelines allow for the use of the word "claim" in regards to legal proceedings; I support leaving those in. But there are many instances in the article that do not relate to legal proceedings. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim does not say anything about allowing the word in regards to scientific hypotheses/claims/statements. It specifically says not to use "claim" only when referring to one side of a contentious debate.

The example given as an allowed example is:

Scholar Smith claims that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters claims that it must exist in order for the universe to function.

Note that in that example, "claim" is used in reference to both sides. That is the very problem at hand. This article fails to follow that example. The remedy is to replace "claim" with a synonym unless it is related to legal proceedings or inside a quote. Johntex\^talk 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy can't cover every possible example. As a scientist myself, I can say there isn't any POV problem with the word "claim" when used in a scientific context - which is the context ID proponents want their views to be considered. Also, the example you show above shows the word referencing two sides making unsupported claims. That isn't the case here, so that example isn't a good analogy. Here we have one side making a claim and the other side requiring that the claim be supported by the scientific method before it is accepted as science. That's still a perfectly valid and neutral use of the word. -Amatulic 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim is fine, it's accurate and does not lend undue weight since the vast majority of scientists and the courts say ID is not science. There's little consensus for your change and even less support. Haven't you disrupted this article enough? Time to give this a rest I think. Odd nature 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. My view is that allowing policy violations to continue would be disruptive. It is very simple to insert neutral synonyms that fix the policy violation. It is not a matter of disruption.
2. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy/guideline you should go to the policy/guideline page to seek a change. Local consensus cannot trump policy.
3. The idea that there is little support for a simple change is not accurate. I'm not the only one who sees that there is a problem here. TSP, Alec92, dave souza, Neil, Merzul and Kenosis have all either questioned the use of "claim" in the article and/or provided some level of support for the idea of inserting synonyms. (Note that I am not trying to say they all feel exactly the same way. Their comments here should be allowed to speak for themselves.)
4. Is there any reasonable reason NOT to follow policy and use verbs like "says" instead of "claim"? Is there any harm to neutral wording? If not, then we should follow our policy/guidelines. That is why we have them. Johntex\^talk 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The way he has patiently argued rather than edit-warring, however, makes it very different from what I consider disruption. If the style is biased, intelligent people can sense that, so you should be thankful that he is trying to add credibility to the article. I don't necessarily agree with him, but this is not disruption in my opinion. (Terms like NPA and Disruption become meaningless when used like this...) --Merzul 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My own article-disruption-meter hasn't been tripped by Johntex (the article is already being disrupted well enough by others). In this case, however, "claim" is the most accurate word we can use. It's scientifically accurate, legally accurate, and perfectly neutral in the context of the whole paragraph.

What I find disconcerting (and disruptive) on this talk page, is Johntex's apparent penchant for wikilawyering the points of a guideline as if it were official policy. Throwing around phrases like "policy violations" "local consensus does not trump policy" is way out of line here; a non-sequitur because we aren't even discussing policy. That is disruptive. -Amatulic 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The central issue is WP:NPOV, which is not only policy it is one of the 5 pillars. Our policies elucidate our central beliefs and goals. We have guidelines partly as a way to further elaborate on the mechanics of how we go about complying with the policy. In this case, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim. That guideline exists to avoid POV violations caused by mis-use of the word "claim". Hence, this most certainly IS a policy issue. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, especially the fact that you're the perfect example of a tendentious editor. Who cares about your FEELINGS about what is right or wrong. It is a claim, which implies exactly what the word says--"to assert or maintain as a fact". That's what DI does, it makes claims that they believe are facts. That's NPOV. How's that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:KETTLE. Johntex\^talk 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate being directed around here by someone like you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I guess you're calling me tendentious too. Which I am most certainly not. But thanks anyways.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> What I found disruptive was the action of bulldozing ahead with the changes without first mentioning it on the talk page, or even reading the talk page given that the matter had been raised and discussed. Even after being alerted on his talk page, J'tex carried out another couple of edits before commenting here. Under normal circumstances that would be a bit incivil, but when the article's getting all the attacks that go with being FA and the usual editors are focussed on quickly assessing every edit and dealing with frequent vandalism this was a disruptive distraction. The relation to NPOV is obviously a judgement call, and he should accept that others interpret the MOS differently in good faith. Also, NPOV must be read as a whole, including the provisions regarding pseudoscience, making necessary assumptions and undue weight. Anyway, better get back to watching edits. .. dave souza, talk 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the MOS is a guideline as a general interpretation of how NPOV normally functions. If local consensus is that a conclusion in a guideline wrong in that case then so be it. The MOS is not a holy text. That said, I don't see much of a difference between claim and assertion. JoshuaZ 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is that WP:NPOV is supposed to be non-negotiable. This article has strayed from that. Johntex\^talk 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, you seem to be missing the point. NPOV is non-negotiable. The relevant section of the MOS represents a guideline for how to comply with NPOV. Do you see the difference? JoshuaZ 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a question of what "the point" is.  :-) I do agree with your statement that " The relevant section of the MOS represents a guideline for how to comply with NPOV.", yes. We are currently not following that relevant section, and the article has POV issues as a result. I believe that is "the point" of the matter. Johntex\^talk 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand, I believe, like Johntex said that "Claim" is a loaded word, its not representing everybody who visits wikipedia and reads this and other articles, as well as thinking about the pillars and guidelines etc, we should be thinking about the people who read the article, it shouldn't be biast to one group, because not everyone is part of that one group, thats all i have to say about this for now. Alec92 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my edit was also reverted as being weasel-worded. If you just look at the diff, you will realize that the reversion was not on the merits of the edit, but because it was part of the current WP:WTA "disruption". If that is really what you guys feel, then fine, I'm not going to insist on this, but it is now rather obvious that we do have an atheist bias here on Wikipedia. So strong that even militant atheists like myself are scared away :) --Merzul 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, I'm not sure why your edit was reverted. In general, a lot of stuff gets reverted when articles are on the main page. People are much quicker to revert. I think we should all step back a bit, wait until this isn't featured and discuss this issue then. I also suspect that everyone will have cooled off a bit by then. JoshuaZ 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the smiley... I'm not offended and let it also be known that I still have the utmost respect for the editor that reverted me, although in my opinion he did overreact.

Oh, and excellent idea to wait until this is no longer on the main page. --Merzul 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the original source says "theory" which "holds" which isn't very different. You hold your claim, you claim your hold. Is it a theory, a school of thought, a belief? There does seem to be a descriptor missing. -- 67.98.206.2 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to side which changing claim to assertion. However, I reiterate my earlier point that we really should focus on other things until this is no longer the FA of the day. JoshuaZ 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The next day ...

The point that "claim is a loaded word" has been made repeatedly on this debate. This point is correct only to the extent that all words in the English language are loaded -- they all bring with them baggage in the form of past and alternative usage and other "colour". An example is "state"/"statement" which is heavily loaded with the term's legal usage (that of a statement, under oath, and thus under threat of perjury if false) carrying a colour of truthfulness. Should we likewise include "state"/"statement" in WP:WTA? Of course not. We should use words that are neutral in their contexts, rather than pretending, as the current formulation of WP:WTA does, that there are certain words that are universally neutral, and other words that are universally loaded.

If I may be permitted to outline a brief continuum of the contexts that are at issue (and to use a modicum of legal terminology, as I will be discussing evaluations of truthfulness throughout):

• Uncontested testimony: This is where somebody is saying something and nobody is saying otherwise. In this sittuation, there is a prima facie (i.e. rebuttable) presumption that the testimony is the truth, and in this context to call it a "statement" is thus neutral.
• Contested/conflicted testimony: This is where two participants offer testimony, of which only one can be true, but where we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt which side is true (though one side may be favoured as having the weight of probability on their side). In this situation I would assert that to call either side's testimony a "statement" (except in the strictest legal sense, if they are offering it under threat of perjury) is inaccurate and non-neutral, as we know at least one of the testimonies to be false. It would therefore be more neutral to characterise both as "assertion". (NB: I explcitily "asserted" this rather than "stated" it as my line of reasoning is itself contested).
• Discredited testimony: This is testimony that has been proven (in the context of wikipedia by a heavy weight of WP:V & WP:RS contrary evidence) beyond reasonable doubt to be false or misguided. In this context, calling it a "statement" is clearly non-neutral, "assertion" is arguably non-neutral and even "claim" may be considered to be mildly flattering.

What I am suggesting is a more nuanced and contextual view of neutrality and "loaded words" than currently exists on WP:WTA, and I will be cross-posting this to Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn, you seem to have skipped a step in your logic here. Testimony that has been "proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false or misguided" is discredited - yes, correct. But how does that make describing that testimony as an assertion be a non-neutral term? Neil ☎ 13:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "arguably non-neutral", as "assert" arguably gives less implication of doubt than "claim" (which I have seen defined as "assert in the face of possible contradiction"), so less accurately represents a case where overwhelming doubt (to the point that it is discredited) has been established. But I would agree that the difference between "assert" & "claim" is far less than between either and "state". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopaedia, we should at no point imply any doubt, no matter how crackpot the theory - we should use neutral language, present the facts, present what experts in the field have said about the theory, and let the reader decide for themselves. Neil ☎ 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no universally "neutral" language. When we have established (WP:RS & WP:V) doubt, using language that pretends that this doubt does not exist amounts to equivocation, which is out of place in an encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is no universally neutral language, and yes, absolutely you have every right by WP:UNDUE to present one side as the scientific majority and the other as ruled by the court as being manipulative. The question here was only whether you want to fall down to using that kind of language. Consider two examples, you are walking down the street and a creationist gives you a pamphlet: The evidence for evolution: a critical review. Being interested in these matters, you might actually read it, until the first quoting of Darwin out of context. :) Contrast that to being handed something like The alleged evidence for evolution: a critical review. Are you even going to open it? Doesn't using words like "alleged" really raise your expectations as to the quality of their analysis?

The point is that when you are making a strong case based on fact and so many well-researched sources, why the need for using biased language? Using phrases like "critics point out", we betray the slightest bias that sensitive readers pick up. I believe now that the very reason stuff like Watchtower gives one a sense that something is wrong (or will go wrong) even before they make any logical fallacy or factual mistake, is because of violations of WP:WTA. Whether I'm a creationist or atheist, I hope you do believe that this reasoning is -- even if entirely wrong -- at least well-intended. Thanks, Merzul 09:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Adolph Hitler was elected by the German People, and all of his ideas were, "well-intended." Does that mean that we should listen to them?--W8IMP 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Things to learn from this all

Hello again, having rested and thought about my experience of yesterday, I think now two things:

• Johntex is probably right in what he argued for. This article does use non-neutral phrases, and so on, however...
• It is never wise to fight alone against the consensus on the talk page. (Especially on the day it is featured, and on a page that typically has loads of ID pov-pushers)

Although I believe John is right in his arguments, I think it is very bad to violate consensus. Based on this experience, and many other (but normally I'm on the side of the consensus, not the minority), I wrote a proposal called Wikipedia:Don't violate consensus. I think the more people make noise about the dissatisfaction with how we "bend over backwards" to accommodate to tendentious editing, something good might happen.

The good thing I hope would happen is that you guys are sufficiently relaxed so that when an atheist like myself suggest NPOV changes, I don't get bunched with the ID crowd. (Not that I really was, but I'm trying to make a point. :-) --Merzul 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, please accept what I'm going to write a face value. It has been my experience over the past year that anyone who comes into editing this article by claiming that they are an atheist has almost always not been an atheist and has an ulterior motive. The best editor in these articles are...well...I don't know. I edit extensively around here, and I have been accused of being anti-Christian, an atheist, and I believe once, a virgin-sacrificing Darwinist (something about which I am quite proud). But a very few people know privately my religious outlook, and that's how it should be. If you are an atheist, then that's a private matter and it is irrelevant to your editing. If you are a theist, it's still a private matter, and it is irrelevant to your editing. In addition, when someone says they are both an atheist and they're insisting on NPOV changes, my blood pressure goes up and the BS radar goes on full sensitivity. So, none of us give a shit if you're an atheist or Christian evangelist. Keep it to yourself. Your editing will show your true colors one way or another. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this. If you claim you are an atheist, more than likely you are a fundamentalist with an agenda here. It has happened over and over and over here, so now it is almost automatic that we would assume someone who claimed to be an atheist is a creationist instead. I also have been accused of being an atheist or a creationist myself here, and all other flavors of religious belief. However, all of these are incorrect, because I do not advertise it widely and my edits are basically balanced, and not driven by some extreme set of views.--Filll 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed a mistake to make so much fuss about being this or being that, there is absolutely nothing I can say in defense of that, and you have every right to be skeptical. What I should have said is as follows... you are probably getting so much POV-pushing edits on this article that you are (in my opinion) not relaxed enough to deal with it. Even when it comes from an atheist, and here the emphasis should not have been on "atheist" but on the word "even". I apologize for my complete ignorance of the circumstances around here, even though by my experience elsewhere on Wikipedia, I really should have known better to make it more clear, so please accept my apologies! --Merzul 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks! Still trying to catch up on my sleep. It's right that we should be using Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim as a guideline, aware that it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. "Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit.... Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable.

The claim that ID is scientifically valid originates as a legal claim that it should be taught in public school science classes, a claim which has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The above guidance is subject to NPOV policy, which includes WP:Undue weight requiring us to make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint among experts on the subject, and not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" which with reference to pesudoscience says that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. NPOV is not negotiable, and clearly prohibits implying that the claim of ID to scientific validity is as valid as the unequivocal view of the scientific community and the courts. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Having watched everything yesterday, I wanted to say that it's important to get it right and to be fair, but. . . the time for nuance is not on the the day of the highest traffic activity. It can be crazy just to keep the article coherent and fend off vandals; we have plenty of time to consider slight changes of phrasing afterwards. Retrospectively, R. Baley 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

R.Baley, I agree. Frankly, it was getting difficult to tell the POV-warriors from those who were trying to add some good information. And of course, there were the out and out vandals. Claims vs. whatever wording is something that takes significant discussion. Moreover, in articles like this, sometimes little things matter. At first blush, I like the word "claim" because that's what DI does do, it claims. But maybe we can discuss the nuance now, and move forward. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Abrahamic God?

The Abrahamic God (El, or El Shaddai) is the Canaanite High God, one of many in the Canaanite pantheon. The Abrahamic God never says "don't worship other Gods" (and Rachel steals, and defends the theft of, her father's household Gods). On the other hand, the Mosaic (and possibly Midianite) God, YHWH, who was, like Baal, one of the "Sons of El", is the one who demands monolatry which later developed into the monotheism preserved in Judaism and Islam (and allegedly in Christianity). So while terminology is often used to refer to Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Bahai ideas of God, it's a modern misnomer which should not be propagated in a featured article. (And anyway, Abrahamic God redirects to Abrahamic_religion#The Supreme Deity. 129.15.105.96 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's very nice, but the sources don't say that, and we are constrained by whats in reliable sources. To almost any speaker the term "Abrahamic God" means the Deity worshipped by Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ba'hai. The term isn't connected to what Abraham actually worshiped. JoshuaZ 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting this stuff. The Abrahamic God (as the name would imply) is the God of Abraham, and as such is the same single deity worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. As far as worshiping other gods, the first commandment from Moses (which, again, are recognized in some form by all religions) says not to do it. Raul654 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I can't believe the article on God didn't survive an AfD, but this redirect was an article once upon a time.[8] It's clear which god the sources are talking about. -- 67.98.206.2 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - the commandment against worshiping other Gods is made to Moses, not Abraham. And when YHWH first appears to Moses in Midian he makes a convoluted claim that he is the same God that Abraham and Isaac worshiped...but Abraham worshiped a God named El, which happens to be the name of the Canaanite High God, and whose High Priest blesses Abraham when he visits the Canaanite town later known as Jerusalem. "Abrahamic God really isn't the most useful descriptor. In fact, "Christian God" would be a more accurate descriptor of the statement used by ID proponents. Simpy saying "God" is more accurate. 129.15.105.96 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

129.15.105.96 is putting forward (as fact) something that is very much a minority view held by a few scholars. 199.71.183.2 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry I'm wrong. I think the "Abraham worshipped El" line is standard doctrine of one of the Christian offshoot sects, possibly LDS? I'd have to look it up to be sure. 199.71.183.2 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's a conclusion drawn from Beth-El and Isra-el, among others. El is translated as the name of God. El Elyon in Gen 14:18 whose priest, Melchizedek of Salem, blesses Abram, is another instance. In Exodus 6 God also identifies himself as having been known to Abraham as El Shaddai. Whether Abraham's El is the Canaanite El or not is another issue, but the claim has been made by scholars. Anyway, the assertion that the God of Abraham (El) is the same as the God of Moses (YHWH) is a matter of opinion. The source cited says "Christian God". To assert that the Christian God is the same as the God of Abraham (or even the God of Moses) is a POV. No article in Wikipedia should assume that the assertion of any one religious group is "true". Saying "God" agrees with the source. "Christian God" would be closer to the source, but I don't think it would be an improvement over the original wording. Guettarda 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To assert that the Christian God is the same as the God of Abraham (or even the God of Moses) is a POV. - uh, no, it's commonly knowledge that Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same god. If they all claim that the one God of Abraham is theirs (which they do), then by definition they must all worship the same god. Nobody that I know of even disputes this. Raul654 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seemed a fair point to me, and I've restored the piped link to the subsection. IIRC It said "God" rather than "Abrahamic God" at the start of today, and so we're back to that version with a more precise redirect. .. dave souza, talk 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

anatomy of a claim

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This is in fact claimed by IDC proponents, yet they have never offered any proof for it, not even a coherent theory. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Well, it's actually a hoax (or a con depending on your perspective) but that's another story. Read the guidline you keep linking, it has examples of acceptable uses of the term "claim" and calling this sentence a claim is well within the acceptable use as defined in the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if intelligent design/deism is a claim, atheism is a claim as well, people who argue that there are no god/gods argue there is no "Physical" Evidence of a god/gods, where is their "Physical" Evidence there isn't a god/gods? Alec92 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have not have gotten the notice, this is not the atheism article. This article is about intelligent design (creationism). We're talking about the unsubstantiated claim 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" So put down the cough syrup, drink some coffee, and after you sober up and join us in discussing Intelligent Design.

Alec92, such negatives cannot be proven, e. g., can you prove to us that you do not kill puppies or molest children? Do you have physical evidence to support your claim that you do not do these things? Not meaning to be facetious or personal, just that this is a very common error of logic. See Negative proof. Cheers, Unimaginative Username 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great article

Congratulations to all involved in writing this article. Its informative, balanced, well-referenced, and genuinely NPOV. A fantastic job dealing with a challenging, contentious subject and deserving of its featured status. Stevecudmore 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)