Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Entropy vs. Fine Tuning

Prior to my edits (which were reverted), the paragraph on Sewell's entropy arguments was under the heading Fine Tuning. This completely broke up the logic of the Fine Tuning section. The section was, previously,

Paragraph 1. Fine Tuning
Paragraph 2. Entropy
Paragraph 3. Fine Tuning, anthropic principle, intelligent designer.

Paragraph 2 on entropy totally breaks up the logic. Moreover, arguments from thermodynamics (entropy) have almost nothing to do with the Fine Tuning problem. The Fine Tuning problem relates to fundamental constants of the universe, particle masses, coupling constants etc., set at the Big Bang (or shortly thereafter). Thermodynamics is a whole other subject.

Therefore, the logical location for Entropy arguments is either:

 A. in its own subsection, or
 B. In the same category as Specified Complexity/Information Theoretic arguments.

I am fine with either putting it under A. or B. It should be pointed out that Specified Complexity makes reference to probability distributions, as does the statistical concept of entropy. The statistical concept of entropy, and the thermodynamic concept of entropy, are identical, although expressed in a different mathematcial formalism. The statistical concept of entropy comes out of information theory, and Specified Complexity presents itself as making contributions to information theory. Therefore, they are related, and could conceivably go under the same heading. However, I am fine with putting entropy under its own heading. But not Fine Tuning.

Secondly, I rewrote the arguments about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living things because they're not closed systems. I rewrote so the statements apply to living things in general, not just "people"-- the previous wording did not sound like scientific prose. Frankpettit 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More definite wording than "critics assert..." is needed here. The entropy argument is an ironclad declaration that the proponent is living in a reality-free zone, but it probably sounds convincing and logical to those who don't understand what entropy is. For those who do understand what entropy is, it's as plainly idiotic as stating that gravity is caused by tiny little men pulling on ropes. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about including this sort of nonsense in this article which is long enough already. I think these sorts of comments, which are common with creationism, should be included in Objections to evolution, which already has a section at [1], and also in Entropy and life. At most there should be a sentence or two in here with an appropriate link to the more extensive articles.--Filll 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch and Dave Souza are familiar with the concept of entropy, and I am somewhat familiar with it as well, all of us having previously assisted Frank L. Lambert in integrating into a couple of articles some more contemporary explanations of entropy than the traditional model originally related to heat engines. As to the 2ndLOT and its relationship to intelligent design articles, it's mentioned in this article only because it remains part of the debate about the antrhopic principle, which in turn is closely related to the FTU speculations, all of which are more-or-less thrown into the mix of arguments for the existence of God. This is as well connected to FTU as it is to specified complexity. But Dembski's speculations about specified complexity and complex specified intelligence are Dembski's original ideas, so it gets its own section, whereas the other arguments have been more intermixed in the general debate between those who see only chance at work and those who see intentional design or advance planning of some sort at work in the cosmos. The existing mention of entropy is already more than adequate, IMO, and I don't see the need to put the brief mention of entropy and/or 2LOT anywhere else except where it already is. Perhaps Jim62 and Dave have opinions about this? Anybody else? ... Kenosis 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As written in the article, there is no clear connection between 2ndLOT and the anthropic principle (AP). As I pointed out, the 1st and 3rd. paragraphs of the FTU section have a logical connection which is broken by sticking 2ndLOT paragraph between them. If there is a connection between 2ndLOT and anthropic principle, the article as written should hint at what that connection is. The way it's written now, that paragraph appears totally unrelated, and why is it between paragraphs 1 and 3? At the very very least, make the order of paragraphs 1,3,2, and then rewrite the entropy paragraph to hint or suggest what the hell connection 2ndLOT has with AP. Frankpettit 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait just a second here. I just gave the connection right above. Dembski's argument is his original argument. The other arguments are at least equally related to FTU as they are to any other ID argument or teleological argument -- they all argue for the existence of God. I gave my opinion, and so have others here. And, it deserves only brief mention because it falls in the mix of teleological arguments commonly used by people arguing for the existence of God. Then, there is a separate question about the difference between science and philosophy or theology about the assertion of the existence of God, or, pardon me, intelligent designer, or pardon me again, intelligent design without any speculation about a designer, or whatever the argument happens to be in order to seek the goal of having this set of ideas taught in high-school biology classes. The section begins appropriately, to wit: "Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology". That means it's an appropriate place for a brief mention that the nearly century-old 2LOT debate is among those occasionally raised arguments. ... Kenosis 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the offending paragraph in the article? It does not make any difference whether you connect entropy to initial conditions at the Big Bang HERE. The question is, does the paragraph in the article make a logical connection to the other paragraphs IN THE ARTICLE. It does not. If the logical connection is that 2ndLOT is explained by anthropic principle, that should be IN THE ARTICLE.

Next you suggest the section labelled "Fine Tuning of the Universe" should be a miscellaneous grab-bag of all "arguments outside biology". If so, then label this section Non-Biological Arguments instead. I repeat: this section AS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE not the discussion page, draws no logical connection between entropy and FTU, which is the name of the section. The fact that you vaguely remember there's a distant connection to the anthropic principle, and mention it on the discussion page, does not improve the article.

Even in this case, the paragraph is s&*t. "people wouldn't be born and grow up as this, too, would be a decrease in entropy. However, people are able to grow..." This is not scientific prose. I tried rewriting it to sound professional and someone reverted that, too. "eliminating waste"? What does that have to do with entropy? Who's so in love with "people are born and grow up"?

Second, you say "I gave my opinion, and so have others here." The only other opinion is that the whole subject should be dropped, not that entropy belongs under the heading FTU. Frankpettit 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover in that section you guys keep batting around, it says:

Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology;

... but nowhere in any of the three references made does Victor Stenger say that intelligent design is a tautology. He does say that the weak anthropic principle is a tautology (as does many physicists/comologists) but he doesn't say that ID is a tautology. It's factually incorrect and unsupported, yet when corrected, gets reverted by the owners of the article. Raul, what you say is untrue. Often "good" (i.e. well-supported, factual, and NPOV) edits are reverted and replaced with partisan edits. And often by partisans whose expertise in even the basic science is limited. 207.190.198.130 01:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Raul is wrong. Good, factual, NPOV edits are instantly reverted by the owners.

As for the line about Stenger, it does not follow logically from the sentences before or after. Why is it there? It does not add much to the article. I would be happier with deleting that line altogether. Frankpettit 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See #Fine tuning Stenger below... dave souza, talk 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Designer (proposed edit)

I think the logical progression in the lead paragraph to the "The Intelligent Designer" section could be clearer. I've broken the para up into its sentences:

• Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. (Fair enough as an opening statement)
• Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. (This sentence is adding a further dimension to the first, but the link could be clearer - maybe add a "Nevertheless" to the beginning. Also, "they do not state that God is the designer" is simply repeating the information already given in the first sentence and is therefore unnecessary. The sentence would probably read better as: "Nevertheless, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene." Incidentally, I'm not sure about "implicitly hypothesized" - can one make a hypothesis by implication, or do you really mean "implied"?)
• Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. (The sentence is trying to say that Demski tries out the idea that the Designer might be a non-supernatural agent, but ... well, but what? Does Demski reject the idea of a non-supernatural Designer? We're not told in this sentence and the possibility is left hanging).
• The authoritative description of intelligent design,[84] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. (This sentence is trying to answer the question raised by the preceding one, but it doesn't: the "authoritative description" states explicititly that the Universe was "designed": the crucial question remains unadressed, designed by whom, God or spacemen?)
• Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[85] (This is the real answer to the question raised in the sentence before the sentence before: Demski speculates that the Designer might be non-supernatural, but concludes (we're not told why) that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical" etc etc. So the paragraph will erad better if the preceding sentence is deleted and these ermaining sentences are combined, to read: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[85]")
• The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[46] (This would read better if it were joined to the preceding sentence: "Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life,"[85] and leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[46]"

For consideration. PiCo 08:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of Article

Why are certain editors reverting ALL edits that come along to the article? This smacks of WP:Own, which is not allowed. Wikipedia's strength is its changability, and edits should NOT be reverted merely because they occur. What is this, a protected page? You guys appear to be making it a de facto protected page through your heavy reversionism. 68.36.214.143 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edits to the article don't get reverted. (Example: [2]) The problem is that the vast, vast majority of the edits to this article - including non-vandalisms - are detrimental. Raul654 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of arguments appear to be deemed as detrimental on account of being allegedly POV or by way of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which appears to be what ConfuciusOrnis used when reverting some edits of mine, which I have reverted back). It would help to explain how allegedly POV edits are POV. And, yes, my edits (I was in anon mode earlier) to the links section were there because the topics of origin beliefs and origin of life were very germane to Intelligent Design as an argument. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about an N dimensional manifold, or the age-area hypothesis. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not our job to explain basic English words like teleological. Raul654 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember: People are stupid Raul654 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you wikilink materiel? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's an inappropriate (unrelated) link. We put an HTML comment in the Yom Kippur War article immediately afterwards explaining that it "materiel" was correct, and not to change it. Which is exactly what was done here with teleological, and yet people still ignore the comment. More to the point, teleological already links to something, and yet people insist on changing it anyway. It beggars the imagination. Raul654 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design as a religious argument, as well as Discovery Institute

I want to edit the first paragraph to compromise between those that consider ID to be religious and those that don't necessarily consider ID to be religious; that is why I inserted "arguably religious".

Item number 2. "The primary proponents, who are associated with the Discovery Institute, include people who" Vs. "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,"

The problem here is that the second version, which is the one people keep reverting back to, fails to define "primary", excludes the possibility that there might be people outside of the Discovery Institute also participating in the ID debate, and presumes to read the minds of those proponents from the Discovery Institute. Do we know for certain that all Discovery Instituters believe in the Abrahamic God? Also, I am leery of the word "all", because it tempts the ecological fallacy. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling need to state that ID is a religious argument, especially because ID's proponents go to great pains to avoid stating it as such. Inserting the word religious into the lead section would bring on more POV accusations, as it has in the past.

Oh, and the word "all" in this context was discussed extensively and agreed upon. Naturally, there are other proponents. The fact remains, however, that the primary proponents are all associated with the Discovery Institute. -Amatulic 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, do all Discovery Instituters necessarily believe in God? Do we know that for sure? Link to the "extensive discussion"? 68.36.214.143 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know for sure that "all" primary proponents are from the Discovery Institute? And what about the word "primary"?68.36.214.143 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk page archives are linked at the top of this page for anyone to peruse. If you want to re-tread over old ground, it's your responsibility to review past discussions. The word "all" and the ID proponents personal beliefs on the identity of the designer has been discussed to death. Please look through the archives before going further. I don't see how this discussion will result in any improvement to the lead section. -Amatulic 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I recommend taking out "all of whom", and inserting simply "who", because that's simpler and says essentially the same thing. 68.36.214.143 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I looked over the discussions already. Why not say "As far as we know, all"? 68.36.214.143 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is "as far as we know", more precisely, as far as we have found it attested in reliable sources. --Merzul 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The POV on this article is really poorly done. Look at the talk history if you want to see how the same problems have been repeatedly identified and repeatedly reverted by a group with clear agenda. 216.143.142.68 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Hmm, possibly that sentence and the one following it could be combined with a different sentence break. For example: "Its primary proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute. While these advocates of Intellgent Design believe the designer to be God,[7] they claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]" That's what I'd propose. I'd like some others to weigh in before changing the lead, however. -Amatulic 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps needless to say, the first paragraph is important to get in accordance with the verifiable facts of the matter about this topic. I've had a chance to quickly review Rickyrab's edits. 1) "Teleological argument" is important despite that some readers will need to learn more to distinguish it as a particular philosophical argument that has a meaning different from "theological". There's a wikilink to teleological argument for the benefit of those readers who are confused upon first encountering it. 2) All proponents of intelligent design that meet WP:Notability with respect to this topic, plus many more that to varying degrees are further to the periphery of this topic of intelligent design, are either fellows or founders or close associates of the Discovery Insitute -- not some, not most, but all. The association most commonly has been in the form of fellowship grants which have helped fund the main written publications involving intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design, according to the reliable sources, is not the product of separate independently operating individuals at different institutions, but is solely a product of persons all of whom are involved with the Discovery Institute and its progeny, the Center for Science and Culture and the ISCID. As discussed many times before (in now-archived talk page discussion, linked to at the top of this page) with extensive arguments from different perspectives, there is not one significant, leading, primary, or centrally influential proponent who is not directly involved with the DI, CSC, and/or ISCID. 3) There is no need to add "religious argument" to the first sentence because the second sentence makes clear what intelligent design is according to the reliable sources, an argument from design, a.k.a. teleological argument, a philosophical argument which proponents are arguing is a scientific theory that should be taught side-by-side with evolution in high-school biology classes. The article then proceeds to explain in several levels of depth, with numerous citations both as verification and also as points of departure for readers to further pursue any research thay may care to do in whatever level of depth they may choose. ... Kenosis 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very simple style issues

Before I leave this page, I would like to go over two simple examples of WP:WTA-related style issues that IMO would improve the article.

• First, the edit I tried to make... It is only about avoiding the phrase "critics point out". I mean if I could understand the scaffolding objection, and I really suck at biology, then surely all our readers will be able understand it. There is no need to use language that appeals to authority when the argument can speak for itself.
• There is another annoyance in the paragraph before. Behe's "alleged" examples. Obviously, if his arguments are flawed, then his examples can't really be of irreducibly complex entities. According to policy you can make this clear, but in the space where you let him speak, there is no harm in letting him finish his sentence. I would suggest, if you feel uncomfortable saying he presented examples of IC, to just write "examples of what he considered irreducible complexity" (modulo my bad English). Then in the next paragraph, you can clearly state that his examples are disputed, and so on...

There seems to be a certain fear that weakening the language, will weaken the argument. I don't think this is true. In my experience, good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers, it is more pleasing to read when you don't feel pushed to accept this or that conclusion. That's all I really have to say on this, in retrospect, very minor issue! Best wishes, Merzul 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Especially: "good scholarly style under-promises and over-delivers". MisterSheik 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of saying Behe presented the following examples of irreducible complexity... I would suggest Behe presented the following as examples of irreducible complexity... which neither states that the examples are IC, nor does it get bogged down in words to avoid. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very elegant solution. I'm going to edit that one in. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what you consider a consensus? Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A complete lack of dissent? Yeah, seems like consensus among those who care enough to comment. So, do you have anything productive to add? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first of Merzul's points, the words "critics point out" were used towards being faithful to WP:NPOV. I do see Merzul's second point, in that "alleged" arguably carries a bit too much of a skeptical tone in the second paragraph of the section on irreducible complexity, because that paragraph is not dealing with the critics' view but is dealing with Behe's view. I wouldn't object to changing it to, say, "Behe's argued examples of..." or similar construction. ... Kenosis 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see the wording I attempted to implement here if you're interested. I'm not perfectly satisfied with it, but I can't think of anything better off hand. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Definate article in first paragraph

I agree with Kenosis: it should be "a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" not "the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state" -- contra to Raul654's edit summary, we do not name this case until the next section, and it is highly likely that there was more than one "1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state". Until it is named it is just one of many, so it is "a ruling" not "the ruling". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that as it was, it should be "a" case. However, it's easier in some ways for the reader to be told the case name at the outset, so in the interim I've changed it accordingly. By the way, an anon edit[3] added " In the 20 years since Intelligent Design was first formulated," no rigorous test that can identify... By my reckoning it's 28 years, the source is actually 5 years old but still stands .. dave souza, talk 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was misreading the wikitext - I thought it was stating the name of the case (it should have). I agree with the sentence as it Dave has currently written it - explicitly identifying the case. Raul654 14:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed that the anon editor was dating from Edwards in 1987. 28 years would put its origin in 1979, which seems a tad early. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Stein

Shouldn't he be mentioned here. Seems like he is a leading ID proponent and creationist. Dontletmedown 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the history of this page, you will see he is mentioned a few times. And we have already altered his own article Ben Stein accordingly. And we started a new article, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed about his upcoming movie. If this movie becomes more than just a sidelight, it will probably get more mention in the intelligent design article itself. For now, it is just a curiousity; the movie might flop and disappear immediately without a trace, for example.

The problem is, we cannot put all topics in the main article. There is just too much. Some material has to go in subsiduary daughter articles.--Filll 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Stein is a fairly minor ID advocate at this stage. He may become more prominent if his movie gets much attention, but whether it will is uncertain at this stage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's both a minor celebrity and a minor advocate. He's published no influential works, and no, Expelled does not count as a influential work. Odd nature 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

If we include Ben Stein as a noted theist, we must include Christopher Hitchens as a noted atheist, since he has published as least as many non-fiction books.--W8IMP 08:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that Stein be included in this article has already been soundly dismissed. Also, this article is not Atheism, so your suggestion is completely irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Behe

An editor is attempting to contend (without anything in the way of substantiation, and against a stack of contrary evidence) that Behe is not a pseudoscientist. Additional input may be helpful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An operational definition of 'pseudoscience' is needed. Dontletmedown 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If we decide on an "operational definition" for X, and evaluate objects A, B, C against our definition, all we are achieving is original research. What is needed is a reliable source saying either that Behe is/isn't a pseudoscientist, or that his field is/isn't pseudoscience. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No OR. We find a source that has a good definition. Are you people serious around here? OK get the source that says Behe is a pseudoscientist. go for it. Dontletmedown 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's carefully read about what qualifies as original research. The key points are:

• Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
• Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
• Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
• NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Pseudoscience is well defined, there are so many reliable sources, etc. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine tuning Stenger

Having had a look at the question of the Stenger references, I've not been able to find in the pdfs Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? The Anthropic Principle (PDF files) support for the tautology argument:

Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.

His conclusions seem to be that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon.... The fine-tuning argument would tell us that the Sun radiates light so that we can see where we are going. In fact, the human eye evolved to be sensitive to light from the sun. The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe." and "theists make two contradictory arguments for life requiring a creator..... In the fine-tuning argument, the universe is so congenial to life that the universe must have been created. But, if it is so congenial, then we should expect life to evolve by natural processes. In the second argument,... the universe is so uncongenial to life that life must have been created. In that case it is too unlikely for life to have evolved by natural processes and so must have been produced by an intelligent designer. But, then life could very easily have been an improbable accident." These points appear to me to be more worth summarising than the tautology argument, but perhaps someone can cite the supporting words I may have missed. .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds like not a claim of tautology but rather a claim of self-contradiction, which is quite the opposite. A tautology, in the sense used here, is an empty truth, or a piece of circular definition; what is being asserted here is that the ID advocates contradict themselves by asserting that design is shown both by the hospitability and inhospitability of the universe to life. --FOo 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's both a tautology and a pair of mutually contradictory arguments here. The tautology is of the type that if there's somebody living to argue that life is too improbable to exist by chance, then a posteri the probability of life existing is unity, no matter how low the probability of it coming into existence a priori. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an argument against the anthropic principle in general, not specifically its application to ID. --FOo 01:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No tautology. It seems that the universe and the earth specifically seem to be fine tuned as a great place for life to thrive. A great place for the seed to grow. Then there had to be the first seed planted from which all life sprung from. We can have a very fertile field in an area of perfect temperature and sunlight but with out say the perfect grapevine the field will produce nothing without the very high quality seed. You need both. Patonq (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see problems here:

Userfied -- "Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time." Originator of thread seems far more interested in sparking a general argument than in discussing and substantiating, specific problems in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a troll, if it sounds like a troll, if it whines like a troll, it must be a troll, and they should never ever ever be fed. See Don't feed the trolls. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article seems biased.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems unbalanced. Seems like it is more of an attack than an objective discussion. Seems like a proscecutor's closing statements. Does anyone else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PappaStone (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Something seems unbalanced here, but I do not think it is the article...--Filll 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) What if, objectively, we can tell that IDC is a sham designed to evade legal precedents concerning the establishment of religion in public schools of the USA? That should be part of the article, distressing as it may be to those who would prefer that the sham remained undetected. The kicker is that, yes, we do have that objective determination. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The metaphor breaks down because the prosecutor's closing statements come before the verdict. And we already have a verdict. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Civil trials involve plaintiff(s) or complainant(s) vs. defendant(s) or respondant(s). Unlike the 1925 Scopes trial, no prosecutor was involved in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Twelve parents of high school students were the complainants, the school district and school board were the defendants. And of course there were opportunities for closing arguments in the form of written proposed decisions requested by the judge and submitted by both parties, which served as "closing statements". And the Wikipedia editors who participated in the process of forming this article have gotten plenty of guff from supporters of both sides. ... Kenosis 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Warning: Reality may seem biased, especially to those starting with the preconception that truth = Jesus. Caution: Subject of article may contain nuts ;) ...dave souza, talk 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Gee, did someone lose a pair of socks this morning? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I do not believe that Jesus = truth but I feel the article is biased. Now if the present editors feel that ID is a sham to avoid legal precedents then say that in the article. It is easy for people to libel others under assumed names. I doubt that many of these editors would have the courage to make their convictions public using their real names yet Behe etc show that courage. Difference in character. The article should be changed and be less anti-Christian and pro-atheist. Wiki is not a soapbox.Billybudski 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Jesus may not equal truth, but I'm pretty sure that User:Billybudski = User:PappaStone = User:Dontletmedown = User:Imbrella = a series of transparent attempts to troll the same articles over and over. — DIEGO talk 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) It's my real name on the edits I make here. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Me too. --Michael Johnson 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) If I told the truth about Billybudski, I would be banned for violating WP:NPA.--Filll 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)' You do realise that pro-atheist is a double negative?--THobern 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC) I agree that this article reads more like an attack on intelligent design than a neutral description of what it is. I'm somewhat surprised by the number of personal attacks on this page. They seem to me to be an effort to intimidate those who disagree with the current POV of the article. I don't know the true motivation behind them, but I wonder why they occur so frequently. I am new at this, but don't most topics that have a controversy typically explain what the topic is in the introduction, indicate that there is a controversy, and then refer the reader to a "controversy" section. Why is this topic different? I guess my question is this, why is the definition of this concept written as a rebuttal of the concept throughout, instead of isolating the rebuttal to a single section. This would allow readers to be able to learn what the concept is intended to mean by those who created it, as well as to give appropriate voice to those who disagree with it. Ambler11 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC) What the concept is intended to mean by those who promote it is stated in the first paragraph. It may be a weakness that the article doesn't currently give the definition presented by those who created it: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC) The article is unnecessarily hysterical in its bias, but at least in the right direction. The irony is that it's become impossible to spot the difference between creationists (sorry, "supporters of ID") on this board, and legitimate commentators, since any argument or edit against the article's polemical nature is treated as pro-creationist. This is not the first time this has come up, and it won't be the last. C'est la vie. Tomandlu (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Where else would one expect to find "attacks" (I prefer "challenges")by those few, but very vocal Christians who are so intolerant of anything that challenges the "Bible." I use quotes because the modern Bible was completely re-written, throwing out many books with which those MEN disagreed.--W8IMP (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC) To those who think this article is biased: please pick one sentence, paragraph, or section; explain how it violates NPOV; and suggest what change would have to be made to ensure that - in your opinion - it would be NPOV compliant? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Been there, done that and it exhausted me. Feel free to check the archives [[4]] Tomandlu (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Phrenology (from Greek: φρήν, phrēn, "mind"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is a theory "Intelligent design is the assertion' it is more than an assertion Something more like the following would be better. The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. And as others have said. The article reads like an attack. Patonq (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 1st para ok, 2nd para "sucks" (apart from anything else, the comparisons assume an intelligent cause) Tomandlu (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC) No Patonq, ID is not science, it does not "detect design", it merely asserts design as badly substantiated religious apologetic as to why "evolution couldn't have done it". None of the fields you mention use anything even vaguely resembling ID's purported "design detection" methodologies. So please put up reliable sources before making these wild claims. The reason you misinterpret this as being an "attack" article is that ID is entirely vacuous (in the unequivocal opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community), and any article in keeping with WP:UNDUE will reveal this. HrafnTalkStalk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC) It's not a bad thing to explain why this article is not an attack here on the talk page, but that does not address the real issue. The problem that some are observing is that even if this article is not unfairly biased, it clearly gives some people the impression that it is biased. Ideally, the article should seem fair to everyone who reads it. Is there a way to make this article seem more fair without given undue weight to ID supporters? -- Lilwik (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I suspect the problem is that anything short of a whitewash would seem "biased" to the pro-ID side. They quite simply deny that the scientific consensus has already passed legitimate judgement on ID, finding it to be wholly meritless. Given these fundamentally contradictory viewpoints as to the current state of reality, it is quite simply impossible to write an article that both sides accept as unbiased. HrafnTalkStalk 07:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) The trouble is, life is so unfairly biased against ID supporters. I mean, just this year that nice Professor Behe produces a spiffy book explaining that HIV (you know, the virus involved in AIDS) hasn't evolved, and a mean girl was rotten enough to point out that her research work involved evolving HIV, and that scientific papers from previous years showed just the evolution Professor Behe said wasn't there, and even provided a Quick Translation for Laymen. Well, Professor Behe wasn't going to answer that sort of rudeness, but another professor wrote to him, and only 105 days after first being told about it, that nice Professor Behe admitted that, well, HIV had evolved. And in response that other professor is asking Behe to publish an erratum for his book, acknowledging that the statement in the book is wrong. I mean, how biased can you get? ... dave souza, talk 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC) It just seems from the tone of this article that the authors are trying to imply that the Discovery Institute and all associated with it are involved in a conspiracy to lie to the public to get a theocracy established in the US. And it seems to imply that Behe et al are incompetent, unknowledgeable, insincere, purposefully deceptive. All are involved in an evil attempt to overthrow science and the government and to change the US into a medieval theorcracy in which people will have not rights and must obey religious edicts. And then when they take over they will forbid scientific research and take away medicine, stop surgeries, shut off electicity and have everyone pray for hours every day. This is how it appears to me. Does anyelse see it this way? Sometimesprana (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Now, now, don't exaggerate. As someone who's contributed to the article, my understanding is merely that they want to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies, replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God, see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory, see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science, see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda, see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science, see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts, see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.[5] There now, that looks much more modest. .. dave souza, talk 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) According to the many reliable sources that verify the information in this article, the attempt to propagate "intelligent design" into science classes is more like a wedge strategy rather than a blatant attempt to establish a theocracy. Similarly, any assertions in this WP article of intentionality by intelligent design proponents are quite well verified, in a number of the over-two-hundred citations including the body of evidence entered into the trial record in Kitzmiller v. Dover, by public statements and writings of leading intelligent design proponents. Among the things Wikipedia is not: it is not a mouthpiece for public relations campaigns. ...... This article is quite closely in accordance with the neutral point of view expected of Wikipedia articles. Ignorance about science such as confusing science with philosophy, theology or religion, is not a valid point of view, at least insofar as this article is about a topic invented in order to teach creation-based beliefs in science classes, and not an article about popular ignorance. As the WP article notes, the advocates of intelligent design, after the US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public school science classes, merely changed tactics in attempting to achieve the objective of imposing a biblical perspective on the science that is taught in school by trying to make it into something that could be argued to pass muster as science. The court in Kitzmiller, upon examining the extensive evidence, found intelligent design to be a transparent tactic to insert creationist perspective into science. ...... Note that intelligent design advocates have used a multi-prong strategy in attempting to achieve this objective. Advocates have argued that ID is science according to existing notions of science, which, as stated in the WP article, the scientific community unequivocally rejects. And advocates have attempted to change the boundaries of science such that intelligent design might be included in what's regarded as "science". All this is thoroughly verified. ...... As to the notion that the article has some particular "tone", I wonder what that means, other than reflecting a person's preference that the article should be written differently and/or contain different information than it presently does. Please note also that it's been criticized from both sides of this controversial topic, for giving too much credence to the assertions of intelligent design advocates, as well as for giving inadequate credence to those assertions. And it could be written at least thousands of different ways, of which the way it's written is just one-- but it's the way that resulted from the collective efforts of many dozens of participants, several of whom know this topic just about as well as anyone on Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC) "tone" is just a shorthand. IMHO the problems lie largely with the lead, and are fairly minor. Compare the current first few sentences of the lead with the alternative below. compared to: IMHO the problems relate to too much inferences. I'm not, I might add, advocating any changes - been there, done that, life's too short - but while the lead remains in its current state, I doubt this arguement is going to go away for long. Tomandlu (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Duly noted, Tomandlu. But sorry, ID is not only similar to a teleological argument (aka "design argument") for the existence of God-- it is a teleological argument for the existence of God. Teleological arguments are perfectly appropriate for teaching theology or religion, or a relevant philosophy class. This is not an issue of tone, but of substantive content. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Have you a source for "is similar to"? Note well the cited source – "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God.... The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, citing John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for the Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion. ....... dave souza, talk 12:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I would argue that both the actual version and my varient use the same source. The point I'm making isn't about facts but about slanting the statement of those facts. The current version is essentially stating that the modification is a deliberate attempt to obscure the religious nature of ID. IMHO we should not be making such a bold claim in the lead, irrespective of its truthiness... Tomandlu (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Your argument is simply your argument, and as such is original research. Behe is comfortable with attributing the concept to Paley, your assertion of "truthiness" is a slur on an expert witness under oath. .. dave souza, talk 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for reminding me why I got bored of this arguement the first time around. My arguement isn't "my" arguement - it's a suggestion that we should limit the lead to the bald facts (which are damning enough IMHO), and let the reader make the correct and inevitable conclusions. Anyway, I'm out of here. Bye. Tomandlu (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC) <unident>The modification is explicitly a deliberate attempt to obscure the religious nature of ID: What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it." ... "You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence. -- Phillip E. Johnson HrafnTalkStalk 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Now some think this article is biased. It that mainly because there are 2 sets of opinions: those who feel that ID is not science and not testable and those that do? It that the main difference of opinion here? Is there a way to hit some middle ground here? Hignit (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC) No, it's between those who want the article to "limit the lead to the bald facts" and let the DI people and their supporters hang themselves and those who want to actively promote the case against ID in this article including the lead. It's between those who insist that anyone who accepts (perhaps from a religious/philosophical position) any notion of design (which, if taken any further, would likely lead to a teleological argument) [b]must[/b] be in league with the DI when they say they are not and those who are not making such a conclusion of the DI=ID equivalence. It's between those who take the notion of WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone seriously and those who want the article to leave no doubt that the official Wikipedian position is against ID. That's what it's about. 207.190.198.130 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Wiki's offical position is anti-ID? How did that happen? Now if some feel that ID is not science they could express their views in the article and then have the pro-ID people express their views. Isn't that the fair way to do it? Hignit (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC) See WP:V and WP:NOR – we don't express our views or present our own analysis, we accurately summarise reliable sources giving the analysis of third party experts on the subject, journalists and historians. ... dave souza, talk 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC) But aren't both sides supposed to represented? Hignit (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Follow WP:NPOV as outlined at the top of the page, and provide verification of the opinions from reliable sources. .. dave souza, talk 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Both sides are represented. The first paragraph explains what ID is, per its proponents. The second paragraph explains what the scientific community thinks of ID (which is relevant, since ID claims to be a scientific "theory"). Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Only thing is that in the first paragraph 2 sources are from ID proponents and 6 from opponents. And the of the first 18 sources only 3 are from ID proponents. Shouldn't they at least have chance to speak their piece at least in the first paragraph. I have not analyzed all the sources but it seem like 90% of them are from ID opponents. Hignit (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC) You are absolutely right, Hignit. I can't believe people are actually arguing that this article doesn't violate NPOV. There is literally more material discrediting or debunking ID than explaining what it is -- and a whole lot more references doing so. This is nothing but a well-referenced treatment on the arguments against ID. Regarding the statement in the lead, "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God." It is simply not true, and I don't generally think that what expert witnesses in trials should be used as reliable references of fact. They are hired to persuade the jury. Intelligent Design is not by any means an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a different understanding of certain aspects of nature that is informed by the presupposition of the existence of God. I support the suggested change to the sentence listed above. Now, does anyone have any idea where I can find the encyclopedic treatment of ID that I came here to find? Erikmartin (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Hignit, Erikmartin, etc: please read WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the imbalance probably also reflects the lack of WP:RSs from the ID side. HrafnTalkStalk 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Well, the problem is more that we have plenty of sources of what the DI say, but what's needed is objective third party analysis of what they mean, and ID proponentsists commonly produce short deceptive statements that take a lot of explaining. The numerical "imbalance" reflects past demands for extensive substantiation of anything critical of ID. The claim that "Intelligent Design is not by any means an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a different understanding of certain aspects of nature that is informed by the presupposition of the existence of God." appears to be original research, and contradicts statements by ID proponents as well as by critics, but you are of course welcome to put forward a reliable source for the statement. .. dave souza, talk 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I think there are a lot of reliable sources. And I agree with Erikmartin. It seems like all the editing is done by persons who are very much against ID. Should not a personal with a neutral attitude or even a postive attitude to it have some say in the way the article reads. A compromise? I think that is fair. Hignit (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) No bias. Article uses reliable third party sources. This article uses a good balance of DI sources and opposing sources, but predominantly relies on third party sources. That these sources are mostly critical, but not necessarily deathly hostile, of DI and ID is not unsurprising given its nature. The article should not rely on DI sources to provide it's backbone, this would introduce bias, and does not fulfill wikipedia's role as a tertiary resource.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) But most of the editors here are anti-ID and strongly anti-ID. I do not think there are any Pro-ID editors and most of the sources are from ID opponents. Look at the first 20 sources. About 90% are from very anti-ID people. How can a person who is on the opposite side of ID in a trial be considered an unbiased source. Which are the third party sources and what do you exactly mean by that? Hignit (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC) You claim that the editors here are unable to write a balanced article, and you claim that there are a lot of reliable sources from which the article could be written. If you have evidence to support your assertions, please supply some. The article actually gives the "cdesign proponentsists" far more credence then they deserve - it assumes the fiction that they are honestly presenting their ideas...which, obviously, is just a fiction. But the fact that the DI are a set of dishonest charlatans does not prevent me from writing a good, neutral, accurate article. You have been repeating your assertions for days, but have refused to provide a single shred of supporting evidence. Come up with something, or quit wasting people's time. Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have present my case: and I think you are verifying it. Almost all the editors are very anti-ID. Are you saying Behe, and the others are charlatans? A good neutral article would give the proponents a chance to make their case. This article only shows one side. I think the first paragraph should be rewritten. Intelligent design is 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."[1][2]. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. The above is how the proponents see it. You can have a seperate criticism section for those who do not feel that the above is correct. Hignit (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) "An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences." Indeed scientists have tested the hypothisis and found it wanting. It is almost univerally rejected as a possible expenation of life on earth by biological scientists worldwide. Having explained what Intellegent Design claims and having seen that it's claims are not accepted by science, it seems reasonable to then ask the question, why to supposidly intellegent people promote a hypothisis which has been cleary rejected by the scientific community. The article quite rightly looks at this aspect of Intellegent Design as well as the more obvious "what is it?" If the evidence available does not paint the proponents of Intellegent Design in a particually good light, who's fault is that? --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Yes Behe is a charlatan. Take a look at what his colleagues in his own department think of him on their website. Look at his testimony under oath. He is the laughing stock of the country, an embarassment. He has not done any science in a couple of decades. He is a joke, frankly. And repeating like a robot the nonsense about detecting patterns and SETI that the Discovery Institute spews completely discredits you. Why not try thinking for yourself for a change instead of repeating what the nonsense these cretins are feeding you? I am an expert in detecting patterns and believe me, intelligent design is about pushing a religious agenda, and nothing to do with detecting patterns. What they have done is a complete scientific sham.--Filll (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Hignit: none of the fields you mention as "detecting design" make any use of ID hypotheses or principles, so using them as support is purely spurious. Behe and his ilk have been proven to be charlatans. They have been given over a decade to "make their case" -- all that they have come up with is arguments from ignorance, equivocation, hand-waving and cheap rhetoric. All of which has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. HrafnTalkStalk 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Hignit wrote: I have present my case: and I think you are verifying it Nope. You made unsubstantiated allegations. And I showed that, despite the fact that these people are charlatans and snake oil salesmen, the article doesn't say this - in fact, it plays into the fiction that they are not. We must be willing to sacrifice accuracy for NPOV. Your allegation is that anti-ID bias is preventing people from writing an NPOV article. Again, I ask that you supply some shred of evidence for your allegation, or stop wasting people's time by making it. Are you saying Behe, and the others are charlatans? Absolutely. That's a well-established fact. A good neutral article would give the proponents a chance to make their case No, it shouldn't. This isn't a debating forum. Articles should be written based on notable secondary and tertiary sources. This article only shows one side. No, it doesn't. It reports on notable views, in a balanced manner. See WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I think the first paragraph should be rewritten. That's what this page is for. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) Now there you have a perfect example of what a Wikipedia article is not. Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection No, it isn't - this runs counter to just about everything I have read about ID. Do you have a source to support this assertion? We can't say "intelligent design is...the science of signal detection" - not when ID lacks the characteristics of science. how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose If you're making a serious suggestion for a re-write of an article, try making it grammatically correct. ID isn't "how to recognise patterns" - on the contrary, Dembski's "filter" is just a small part of ID. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields... Again, the assertion that ID is somehow like "anthropology, forensic sciences...cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)" is unsupported by the facts. In addition, none of this is supported by sources - we need reliable secondary and tertiary sources which are independent of the ID movement. An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. This is a bald statement unsupported by any sources. An inference [of] intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated... Perhaps, but no one has proposed a method by which it could be tested. in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences Nope. It can't. The above is how the proponents see it. You can have a seperate [sic] criticism section for those who do not feel that the above is correct Have you read any of the links provided? Have you bothered to figure out how Wikipedia articles are written? Did you read any of this talk page, or maybe some of those big links at the top of the page? To begin with, no, that is not how cdesign proponentsist "see it". Have you read a word of either of Behe's books? Have you read any of what Johnson wrote? Have you read any secondary sources about ID? Equally important is that Wikipedia articles are not talking points juxtaposed with criticisms. That's not the way you write an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Can't stand the heat Look at the first 20 sources. About 90% are from very anti-ID people. I looked at the first 10 references. Note that references 5 and 10 are multipart, so it actually adds up to 20. They break down as such (If someone wants to tabulate this go ahead): DI related sources: 4 (20%) Refs 1, 2, 8, 9 2 DI, an IDEA and a Meyer & Nelson Hostile sources: 3 (15%) Refs 4, 5, 10 List of scientists opposing intelligent design, 2 Barbara Forrest sources Neutral sources: 13 (65%) Kitzmiller vs Dover (Court decision, impartial by nature) - 5 (25%), Refs 3, 7, 9, 10 Newspapers (again *generally* impartial by nature) - 5 (25%), Refs 5, 9 and 10 Scientific sources - one journal, and the AAAS, critical but not hostile - 2 (10%), Refs 5 & 6 The ACLU - independent organisation for civil liberties - 1 - 5%, Ref 5 Now I'm counting as a "very anti-person", someone who spends a good part of their time chasing down IDists and creationists. Someone such as PZ Myers, Barbara Forrest, or Panda's Thumb weblog. If ID wishes to be included for scientific scrutiny, sources are not "biased" simply because they come from the scientific community. Further, if you want to claim conspiracies about the media and the court system You are in the wrong place. All in all 11 sources independent of each other. And the oevrwhelming majority are indpendent non-hostile sources. The second most represented source is the Di-itself (after the Kitzmiller decision). Again there is no bias other than reality.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) And look at evolution page ... oh look, absolutely everybody agree with evolution theory! Just like in real world, NOT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) The claim isn't that everybody accepts evolutionary theory. Just that almost everybody who is a reliable source accepts it. Ilkali (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC) No such claim. Actually read evolution, particularly History and Social effects, "evolution is still a contentious concept." and "several denominations contain creationists who object to evolution, as it contradicts their literal interpretation of origin beliefs". Look it even talk smack of Darwin: "Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation". ZOMG.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I really do not feel the need to respond to someone who is abusive as you are: "Can't stand the heat - I hate dyslexic trolls; where's your conspiracy now bi-atch?)" And if no one else agrees that you should not address me like that then obviously this is gang which will harrass anyone trying to go againt their POV pushing. Let us see if one person will correct on you bad behavior here. If not then this is certainly a setup. Hignit (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) As regrettable as the "bi-atch" comment is, I understand it completely. After a person has answered the same objection several hundred times, it gets very very tedious. And if these pages were not constantly patrolled, they would turn into religious tracts and recruiting tools for one particular religious sect or another. This is not what we want from an encyclopedia. If you want to write a religious tract, start a blog. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have been polite and courteous and have gotten abused and now you are condoning it. If this was really a place where opposing views were fairly considered this would not happen. This behaviour happens when a gang of bullies want to protect their turf. It's all yours. The article is embarrassing. It so obviously a soapbox. You are not getting away with anything. It reaks and smells of bias. Enjoy yourself. Hignit (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I think you have to review WP:UNDUE. Intelligent design purports to be a science. As such, we treat it as a science for evaluation purposes on WP. According to UNDUE and NPOV, we weight the pro ID and critical material roughly as the relevant fields of science do. By level of support for evolution, well in excess of 99% of the relevant scientists think intelligent design is nonsense. And therefore, about 99% of the material that WP includes should be critical of ID. By this measure, WP is actually not critical enough of ID.--Filll (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion has already been covered by this header section from this talk page, so please do not rehash it.

I would also direct editors attention to the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the Archivebox above -- which includes previous discussion on NPOV, differences between treatment in this versus the Evolution article, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of this sentence

A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Teleological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer."

I do not like how it is written particularly, and when I look in the teleology article, I do not see the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.--Filll 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I provided that quote, and can attest that is it as written in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the "Teleological argument for the existence of God". The article on the teleological argument, although I provided much of the material around the same time in Spring, 2006, doesn't cite to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Any idea that the quote was referring to the Wikipedia article on the teleological argument is a result of someone else having put a wikilink within the quotation. I'll go ahead and remove that wikilink now. ... Kenosis 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) ... I instead adjusted the text to make clear that the WP article is referring to the EoP article rather than the WP article on teleology. ... Kenosis 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to put in a proper cite as well to this encyclopedia then, with ISBN number and publication information etc.--Filll 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I'm getting fatigued with the idea that WP:V ever meant dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" and adapting every old citation to a newly developed format. IMO, there are more productive things to do. But, since you mention it: Title = "Teleological Argument for the Existence of God" ; Publication = Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; Publisher = Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc & The Free Press, New York; Collier Macmillan Publishers, London ; Date = 1967 ; Author = William P. Alston ; ISBN = readily available online . ... Kenosis 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: There are many, many more productive things to do. •Jim62sch• 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't mind that I'm anal retentive about citations and references? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the desire for good citations. I can understand the desire to link these cited entries as carefully as possible to the relevant pages. I am less enamored with the automated tools everyone seems to love and seem so inflexible and unhelpful to me. I also can understand the desire to have article content that is comprehensible and accessible.--19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

They aren't THAT inflexible. And they are very useful for articles that cite one reference over and over again. Moreover, once a reference type is used in article, it's bad form to change it. TBH, references in the articles you write are difficult to use. I guess we can all be anal retentive or stubborn about different things. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro

I find the third and fourth paras of the intro a little odd. I am wondering if they couldn't be combined down into one, leaving the explanations of the casework below. I'm thinking along the lines of something like:

"Intelligent design was introduced after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science in state schools was unconstitutional, as it was seen to be "advance a particular religion". In response, creation science works were changed to talk about "intelligent design" with no mention of a specific intelligence. This helped it to avoid the "particular religion" issue, thereby bypassing the Establishment Clause that had been the basis of the Supreme Court decision. Efforts to have intelligent design taught in schools followed, which succeeded in Dover, Pennsylvania. Another Supreme Court case quickly followed, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the courts stated that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the it also violated the Establishment Clause."

This removes some of the history that is better left outside the intro, but leaves a complete story arc about where it came from and where it ended up. Specifics, like the books and dates, can be left below, and much of it already appears. This version also states why ID was introduced as a result of Edwards v. Aguillard. This point is missing both from the intro and the Overview section immediately following. The Overview does contain some information about the decision that suggested ID was a possibility, but again never really comes out and says it. I can't imagine anything more important to understanding the basic concept of ID.

Maury 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs previously were one paragraph, focusing on the legal status of intelligent design. Then it was expanded in March 2007 to include a brief synopsis of the legal history leading up to the current legal status. The demand by several users to further expand the amount of explicit information in the lead led to a compromise that resulted in it being split up into two paragraphs around the beginning of October 2007, which seems to have resulted in a stable consensus for the time being. ... Kenosis 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that the article does not clearly spell out why ID came about. It's very good at telling us when, who and even where, but not the only question that really matters, why. There is not a single mention of the actual wording in the EvA case that led to ID being a proposed solution. Maury 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article makes plain in the third paragraph of the lead that the words "intelligent design" were used in response to Edwards v. Aguilard. Similarly, calling intelligent design a scientific theory was in response to the language used by the Supreme Court about what is permissible to be taught in public-school science classes (specifically that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." ). All this is quite plain and verified by reliable sources, both in the lead, and in further depth in the "Overview" and several of the sections that follow. ... Kenosis 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with you in principle, the LEAD is the way it is through tremendous struggles for years. We cannot just change it with so many involved. Of course intelligent design was "created" in response to the legal situation in the US. We might even be able to find a few WP:RS sources that claim this. However, there would likely be many who would fight desperately against this, since it casts creationism and intelligent design in a bad light, and it might take months to change the LEAD in this way. The discussion of the Dover case in this article might be excessive, but the LEAD is supposed to reflect what is in the article, and the Dover case is discussed extensively in the article. Perhaps later it might be pared back and more shifted to its own article, which already exists.--Filll 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"it might take months to change the LEAD in this way"

Or it could take one mouse click and a cut-n-paste. We don't know, and there is only one way to find out. Let's at least try!

To date I have received (only) two opinions on this; both appear to agree in broad terms that there is something wrong with the intro, and that the article is missing (what I consider to be vital) information. Yet the same (two) posts suggest any changes should be avoided.

The idea of the wikipedia is to write good articles, not to write controversy-free ones. I would argue that it's the most controversial articles that we need to try our hardest to improve, because the reader likely has few other resources that will even attempt to cover both sides of an issue.

I understand that you're all very tired of flamewars, but these are unavoidable. I say this as a 30 year veteran of these debates (hi wes!) The alternative, doing nothing, is (IMHO) unacceptable. Maury 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of experience here on WP, although more in time than in actual number of edits, at least on this account. I think it might be prudent to ask a few more people. However, if you make a big change like this, it might get a lot of attention. You better have plenty of cites prepared for any such changes; probably at least 3 in high quality sources, if not more. I would post the suggested change here on the talk page first but you are free to try whatever you want of course.

I personally am in favor of very slender LEADs with minimal detail. However, others disagree with me often. I have lobbied for a long time for a companion introduction to intelligent design article which would have a simple LEAD and less compliicated text, but we have not tried this yet.--Filll 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having read over the Intelligent design movement article, it seems there is ample proof that the points above can be addressed, reach consensus, and stay in the WP article. All of the points I raise above are addressed to my satisfaction in that article. Of course it's LEAD is even longer, and suffers from a similar attempt to encompass an entire field within it, but at least the article isn't leaving out the entire reason for the modern concept. Maury 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be included somewhere?

Userfied to User talk:Massachew, as Massachew has not demonstrated any relevance for this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Noetic cosmology link

I, and several other people, have removed a link from the Further reading to an article on Noetic cosmology, which was published in a conference proceedings in 2003. There are several issues: the linked article appears to be in violation of the article's copyright. Furthermore it does not really discuss intelligent design per se, but is only tangentially related to it. Finally, it presents a new view of the rules governing life, which may constitute a original research issue. For myself, I don't think this belongs in the article. I'm bringing it here since the link has been added several times. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archivebox

Given the length of our archivebox, should we change to Template:Archive box collapsible to save space? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we have two archiveboxes (both collapsable). One for archives, and a seperate one for the "points already discussed"?--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the heading of the box is fixed as "Archives", so having two boxes would be confusing. If you can find an equivalent box template with an editable header, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't split them. As it's been a couple of weeks since I made this suggestion, and as nobody has objected, I'm going to go forward with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Talk:Evolution had a customised/non-template one that seemed to fit out needs, so have adapted it. If somebody is a whizz at creating templates, it'd probably be worth creating a standard template to do it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

cdesign proponentsists

Does anyone plan on doing an entry/article on this transitional intelligent design fossil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in Of Pandas and People, and arguably a brief mention in this article is appropriate – it's certainly come to public notice! .. dave souza, talk 16:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With the NOVA episode bringing this phrase to public attention, do you think there might be enough material to merit an article for cdesign proponentsists? TechBear 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in this article that the changes were made after Edwards v. Aguilard. No need for a new article, I would think. It actually was only an interesting added twist on what Barbara Forrest had already thoroughly documented, which was the mass change of terminology from "creation" to "design" with no corresponding change in meaning in the text. Perhaps it deserves brief mention in the article on Of Pandas and People. ... Kenosis 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the phrase is mentioned in "Jonathan Storm : 2-hour 'Nova' reviews Pa. 'intelligent design' trial : Philadelphia Inquirer". Retrieved 2007-11-14. {{cite web}}: Text "11/13/2007" ignored (help), and certainly caught the attention of some viewers, as this entertaining blog by an assistant professor of religion notes: "Exploring Our Matrix: Transitional Forms as Evidence for Evolution: Tiktaalik and cdesign proponentsists". Retrieved 2007-11-14.. I've added a couple of good NCSE references to this article together with a brief mention, and this is also good – "NCSE Resource -- My Role in Kitzmiller v Dover". Retrieved 2007-11-14.. Looks promising, does anyone have access to the Nature review of the Nova programme? At the least a redirect to the Pandas article may be appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF does "proponentsists" mean? Do we know who created this monstrous neologism? If so, summon Thanatos. •Jim62sch• 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pandas Thumb explains the *joke* well [6] (it's true, does that make it not a joke?). In the rush to change all forms of "creationists" to "design proponents" a copyeditor made a mistake worthy of a grade 10 English assignment - he didn't highlight the whole word (obviously before the days of "Find and replace" function available on most word processors I've used - you guys are old)--ZayZayEM 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

“ Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.” ”

Just cursious what was the former and latter in the above examples? And this blatant error was actually published? Massachew 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Warrants inclusion in Intelligent design#Origins of the term and Timeline of intelligent design. Can't argue with the fossil record on this one.--ZayZayEM 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes in warrants addition. And a little of what they were referring to. It is hard to believe they could be so sloppy. Massachew 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! •Jim62sch• 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to simple version

I wonder about this edit: [7]. On the evolution article and the Introduction to evolution article and other science articles with introductory articles, the link is given as part of an italic text above the article. If it is relegated to the list of languages, will it be accessible?--Filll (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article seems biased continued

Userfied to User talk:Hignit -- this has all been covered in the header section & 'Points that have already been discussed'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok tell me what I am allowed to post on this page.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What can I say so it will not be moved. Now should not other hear what I have to say? I think the article needs some changes. I am not allowed to say that on the talk page? Hignit (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC) The problem is Hignit, what you are saying has been said 10,000 times before and answered. And people get tired of it. Since it is not constructive for the article, it is moved.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC) But it has not been answered sufficiently for the many people who come upon the article for the first time and are struck by the clear anti-ID tone set by the article. Tomandlu said it well and, as I examine the link he provided, he said it repeatedly and was ignored by, what appears to be a group of like-minded editors who are determined to retain the anti-ID bias in the article. The lead of the article betrays its bias immediately. So, perhaps it has been asked and answered 10,000 times, but it has never been answered acceptably, and when someone tries to make the article less biased, those changes are always reverted. So, do not expect that 10,000 times will be enough. The article is clearly biased and that will never be acceptable to those who are not themselves so biased against ID. Just pointing to the talk page history and saying "we've been through this before" is insufficient, because you have not dealt with the actual bias in the article. At the very least, it violates WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone, but it is actually worse than that. 207.190.198.130 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Clearly, the only thing that will satisfy people such as yourself is to turn this article into a religious recruiting tract. There are many such articles and even entire wikis for this sort of thing on the internet. Please go to one of those to satisfy these urges. This wiki is not for that. It has different rules. Please respect our rules. --Filll (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC) That is not true and the example of Tomandlu is the counter-example. In my own case (if that is who you mean by "people such as yourself"), I personally do not support ID, but it's still clear that the article is biased. I don't want a religious tract. I just want a dispassionate accounting of the facts, and as Tomandlu pointed out, the raw facts are sufficient to make ID look really bad. The article need not "nail the coffin shut" (as Tomandlu pointed out in the history). But, by simply relegating any critic to a religious nut ("the only thing that will satisfy people such as yourself is to turn this article into a religious recruiting tract"), you betray your own bias. You, Filll, are a biased editor. The issue here is not one of unbiased editors defending an unbiased article, it is one of biased editors defending their anti-ID POV in the article. It is simply an issue of power. The biased editors have sympathetic administrators who are willing to use their muscle to defend the POV in the article. It is you who are not respecting the rules, and the rule I would start with is WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. 207.190.198.130 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Yes 207 you hit it on the head: "when by simply relegating any critic to a religious nut". It is truly embarrassing that the tone of this article is so unscientific. Hignit (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) The facts themselves are biased against the whole concept of "intelligent design." It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to write the article to reflect this. TechBear (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC) But it is wrong to misrepresent what IDers think ID is. I do not think any IDer thinks ID is science in the way Physics is science. Hignit (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) So the cited statements within the article, wherein ID proponents are saying that this is science and should be taught in science classrooms as an alternative to established scientific theories, are all incorrect? Even when such statements are made by ID proponents while under oath in open court or when they appear in documents prepared and distributed by these same ID proponents? TechBear (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) An article's talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic of the article. Looking at past edits, it appears that you wish to discuss the topic (as well as rehash old ground that has been covered ad nauseam.) As such, Hrafn was correct in moving your discussion to a private area, specifically your own user talk page. TechBear (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I was not discussing the topic I was dicussing the way the article was written. It does not accurately represent the situation Hignit (talk) If you want to persist in this, you will get nowhere unless you have a source in a neutral mainstream publication describing the situation in different terms. For example, find us an article in Scientific American, or the Washington Post or the New Yorker Magazine that states that a significant fraction of scientists in biology or paleontology (a significant fraction is like 30, 40, 50 percent or more) think that intelligent design is a viable scientific theory. If you cannot do that, you cannot make progress here.--Filll (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Please note that comments and concerns like yours have already been covered numerous times, and they are all answered in the FAQ, specifically: "Why is this article so biased against ID?" and "Why are you censoring my comments". In response to your question "Now should not other [sic] hear what I have to say?", please understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, this Talk page is not a forum for "scientific progress". While science is always progressing, new scientific thought isn't explored and debated on Wikipedia, that would violate one of the core policies: Wikipedia:No original research. As for what you should discuss on this Talk page: Spelling or grammar problems. Improvements in article arrangement, flow, or clarity. Summarizing especially lengthy sections. Factual inaccuracies or missing relevant facts, but only if you can cite sources that provide strong supporting evidence and show relevance and notability (there is a very high probability that this ground has already been covered before, and some relevant facts have already been delegated to supporting articles to keep length under control), keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute is considered a questionable source. If you think a specific part of the article violates one of Wikipedia's policies, bring it up here. But first, please read the FAQ to see if what you're proposing has already been covered, because rehashing something for the nth time serves no purpose but to clutter this Talk page. Truth be told, I think my overly verbose response is cluttering this Talk page. =o) -Eisnel (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I don't get this. So this article cannot be changed? Now if enought people see it as biased can it be changed? If everytime a person who does not like the article has there comments removed then it will biasly appear that everyone is in agreement which they are not. This article seems very POV and seems like a soapbox for people who do not like the DI. I think people have a right to state here they do not like the article. Otherwise this is just a place to push a POV. Hignit (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Think of it this way. If I state that most Christians have green skin and eat babies, would you let me change the article on Christianity to reflect this? Probably not, correct? Would you demand that I have a reference that proved my point? Probably, correct? And if I had no reference or citation for my claims, would you not tell me to not bother with my demands to describe most Christians as green baby eaters?--Filll (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) That is exactly my point. What ID is should be accurately described and then if you want to say it is not valid go ahead. In this article it never state why IDers believe ID is. Hignit (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have indefinitely blocked Hignit as another Raspor sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion has already been covered by this header section from this talk page, so please do not rehash it: please read this before posting.

To quote Hrafn "I would also direct editors attention to the 'Points that have already been discussed' section in the Archivebox above -- which includes previous discussion on NPOV, differences between treatment in this versus the Evolution article, etc." Baegis (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which this header section is being referenced, I've created an {{anchor}} to it -- #Please read before starting. This means that we can easily direct newbies and/or trolls to it without having to clutter up the talkpage with repeated copies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I cleaned up my edit to reflect the new link. Baegis (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)