Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

An Alternative Without a Definition

Just looking at an article that is not unfriendly to a creationist I notice there is a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. But this article, which is also under dispute, but obviously unfriendly to intelligent design, (for example, in the second paragraph it hastily mentions that certain groups that are evolutionary biased call it 'junk science' even though said groups call abiogenesis science when it cannot create life in a laboratory) yet there is no disclaimer that says that this article on Intelligent Design is under dispute. Wikipedia is a fraud. An outright fraud that froze up this page. You guys are pro-evolution, liars, who go to bed saying, "I'm proneutral I don't side with evolution. I am a liar." And you are liars. Next time you call ID junk science I dare you to produce life in a laboratory and call abiogenesis a science. Until then you are liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.95.195 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To say that Inteligent Design is the "modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" is to say that evolution is the "modern form of the ATHEIST argument that there is no God". In fact Inteligent Design is an old concept and the argument is much more than a modern form of anything. It has antiquity outside of any argument for God. This first paragraph is controlled by some controlling Nazi non-collaborationists who have never bothered to understand or read what Intelligent Design actually is. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be informative to show if there are still curricula that teach ID. Are there still schools in the USA that have such an obligation? Sikkema (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, et al:

I have objected to the first paragraph of the ID article on the grounds that the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation is not a definition of ID and should not be presented as such. I have proposed various definitions of ID but my definitions have not been accepted. I am therefore going to offer an alternative proposal. The following paragraph does not contain a definition of ID but it does attribute to the proponents of ID the assertion that ID is the "best" explanation. The reader will now correctly understand that "best" is the opinion of ID proponents, rather than a part of the definition of ID.

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The primary proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, assert 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." These proponents reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to avoid various court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything above is exactly what's in the first paragraph of our article, just rearranged. As such, I don't see anything wrong with it. In some ways rearranging it as Scott did does make sense. It puts a neutral definition before an attributed assertion. I like it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The rearrangement muddles the nuance that the term was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI, at a time before the DI came into existence. The opening works pretty well for me, but the second part of the paragraph needs work. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave: Your point is well taken -- "the term [ID] was introduced by a proponent who is no longer associated with the DI". So I changed "primary proponents" ("primary" implying "first") to "principal proponents". And I added the date that the "modification" of the argument took place, and an example of the kind of modification ("creation" replaced with "intelligent design"). These changes are included in the following paragraph.

Intelligent design is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. This modified argument was composed in 1989, after the publication of court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. The changes to the argument included, for example, replacing the term "creation" with the term "intelligent design". The principal proponents of intelligent design, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, assert 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." They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory and they seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. They believe that the "intelligent cause" is the God of Christianity.

Scott610 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

not bad, and I like the idea. I'd like to suggest a couple of major tweaks, though...

Intelligent design is a thesis proposed by Christian advocates as part of the creation-evolution controversy in the US. It is a version of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that refers to an unspecified Intelligent Designer rather than to God: proponents assert 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." This thesis was offered by individuals associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute in an effort to introduce alternative science textbooks in schools, in the wake of various court rulings that prohibited the teaching of creationism as a science. They argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

--Ludwigs2 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't like that one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL - just on general principle?  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"A thesis" misdescribes ID, and the historical context is wrong, as my comment above. Don't like the phrasing, more details available if need be. In the fullness of time. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of other reasons too. First sentence says "Christian advocates" which, while technically true, paints the proponents too broadly. It's a creationist argument (not all Christians are creationists) proposed by DI (not all creationists are DI). The second sentence is unnecessarily complex... Several other reasons as well. Plus Scott gave a reason for his suggested changes. My comment "Don't like that one" was actually longer than the reasons given for the tweaks; there were none. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, you know me well enough to know that I can provide reasons to excess; I thought I'd go the more passive route this time. guess that didn't work either. I don't get what you mean by 'unnecessarily complex', however, unless you object to the use of a semi-colon instead of a period.

Dave. I see your point about the historical context, but I don't understand your objection to 'thesis'. that seems an appropriate term.

SA - "alternative science" is a failure to read the text. the actual phrase is "alternative science textbooks". --Ludwigs2 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the new minimalist Ludwigs : ) but you should really give at least one succinct reason when proposing changes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

true. maybe I went a little too minimalist there.  :-) tomorrow I'll do better. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Of Pandas and People is not a science text, alternative or otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

well SA, I tend to agree with you, but that doesn't say anything about the well-established fact that it was offered as an alternative science text. saying it was offered as such is generically true, while in no way implying that it legitimately qualifies as such. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SA: What is "alternative science"? Is it anything like alternative rock?

Hmm... rock. Rock = geology. Alternative rock theory. Heh, heh. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I could offer myself to Angelina Jolie as an "alternative" to Brad Pitt. Doesn't really make me a viable alternative does it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

speak for yourself, FilmFan... =) --Ludwigs2 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability."

This statement appears to give an erroneous basis for ID's lack of falsifiability. Many events that are neither directly observable nor repeatable (the Big bang for example) are falsifiable. The reason that ID is not falsifiable is that it does not make any testable predictions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the Sober article that this is sourced to, I don't think that this article (which makes a number of important, but subtle and multithreaded, points) can be legitimately used to make a bald statement on ID's falsifiability. It's final word on falsifiability is:

If scientists observe that “purely physical

antecedents” at time t9 give rise to complex information at t10, this does not refute the ID claim any more than a mindless printing press does. ID proponents will simply maintain that an intelligent designer was present at an earlier stage. If scientists press their inquiry into the more remote past and discover that mindless physical conditions at t8 produced the conditions at t9, ID proponents will have the same reply: an intelligent designer was involved at a still earlier time. If scientists somehow manage to push their understanding of the complex information that exists at t10 all the way back to the start of the universe without ever having to invoke an intelligent designer, would that refute the ID position? Undoubtedly, ID proponents will then postulate a supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time. Defenders of ID always have a way out. This is not the mark of

a falsifiable theory.

In addition, the proponents of ID who make this argument have lost sight of the role of observation in Popper’s concept of falsifiability. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it is not enough that it be inconsistent with a possible state of affairs; it must also be inconsistent with a possible observation. Granted, the ID position is inconsistent with the existence of complex information that never had an intelligent designer in its causal history. It is equally true that “all lightning bolts issue from the hand of Zeus” is inconsistent with there existing even one Zeus-less lightning bolt (Pennock 1999). These points fail to address how observations could refute either claim.

It's conclusion is:

It is one thing for a version of ID to have

observational consequences, something else for it to have observational consequences that differ from those of a theory with which it competes. The mini-ID claim that an intelligent designer made the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, but that does not permit it to be tested against alternative explanations of why vertebrates have eyes. When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other. No such auxiliary propositions allow mini-ID to do this.

It is easy enough to construct a version of ID that accommodates a set of observations already known, but it also is easy to construct a version of ID that conflicts with what we have already observed. Neither undertaking results in substantive science, nor is there any point in constructing a version of ID that is so minimalistic that it fails to say much of anything about what we observe. In all its forms, ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.

Thanks for all the above info, Hrafn. The part of the article that's from goes through arguments that are then reiterated in the Defining science section. In my view both need to be severely trimmed to reflect newer sources directly concerned with ID and remove more general sources and discussion about the nature of science.

It would clarify things if the section directly under Creating and teaching the controversy were stopped after the statement of the 3 issues, and the remainder merged into the subsections of moved into a new subsection. Thus the paragraph concerned would move into the Defining science section, merged into the existing opening paragraph to give more there about the "theistic realism" issue.

The sentence you find unsupported should be cut out, perhaps replaced by a simpler statement based on Expelled Exposed "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested...." etc.

The whole attempt to define science from "This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where..." to "...any meaningful sense of the word." is superfluous and should be trimmed out of this article, possibly merged into another article if it's useful. The Peer review section is useful for the specific peer review claims, but seems to go over the "is it science" question again, and that aspect should be trimmed or merged into the Defining science section.

Just a suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Expelled exposed looks like a good source for a blunt rebuttal. As an alternative/addition, I've attempted to summarise Sober's more subtle point:

Philosopher of biology Elliott Sober states that ID is not falsifiable, because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out" as they can push the influence of the purported designer to an arbitrarily early time that predates the period for which scientists have a "mindless physical" explanation for, and that "[f]or a proposition to be falsifiable, it is not enough that it be inconsistent with a possible state of affairs; it must also be inconsistent with a possible observation." He concludes that to be a scientific hypothesis ID must "have observational consequences that differ from those of a theory with which it competes."

RE: restructuring, Kitzmiller definitely deserves its own top-level section, 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' can probably go together as subsections of some, yet to be named section (as they seem to be reasonably related to each other). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How does 'ID and empiricism' or similar sound as a section title to place 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' under? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a "Criticisms" or "ID as science" section? That'd be quite concise, and could probably house broader scope of potential material. Maybe. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the world "science" in the section title. But "ID as science" may imply supportive as well as critical statements. But if we want to keep this article readable (and it's really not, it is truly a religious/philosophical article, and it's hard to read), we should stick with simpler section titles like "Criticisms" or "ID as science". I'd accept either, but I"m just one lonely editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"ID as science" would, indeed, be a misleading title. Though I assume it could amended by starting the section with "ID is not Science". I'm sure readability is an important point for any and all articles, as long as no crucial information is lost. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a style guideline somewhere against such wording ('principle of least surprise', or some such). We clearly should not title ID "as" something that the overwhelming majority unequivocally states it is not (which quite clearly cuts down the list of appropriate "as"s considerably). This was why I was proposing an "and" title -- originally 'ID and empiricism', but 'ID and the evidence', or even at a stretch 'ID and Science' or something similar might be valid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added in both Expelled Exposed & my Sober-summary on falsifiability and given Kitzmiller its own top-section, as those changes don't seem to be controversial. We can leave off splitting off 'Intelligence as an observable quality' & 'Arguments from ignorance' until we can come to a consensus on the collective title (I must admit that I've yet to find a title that I do like, and have been simply advocating ones that I dislike least. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the argument from design really been discredited?

The opening paragraph, in a nutshell, states that the "unequivocal consensus in the scientific community" is that intelligent design, that 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'" is pseudoscience. This is roughly equivalent to stating that the argument from design is pseudoscience. Is this a fair reading of the consensus of the scientific community?

I think that a more neutral description is merely that it is not science. Intelligent design is not falsifiable and, therefore, is not testable. That it is not a testable scientific theory does not imply that it has been discredited, just that it falls outside the scope of science. Bwrs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition, as I've said dozens of times, isn't very good - we're using the Discovery Institute's, which is highly sanitised from what anyone who knew anything about the subject would use to define it. In short: The argument from design is explicitly religious apologetics, and thus not really pseudoscience, Intelligent design, however, claims to be science, adds dodgy pseudoscience to back the argument from design, and firmly pushes it into pseudoscience territory (per sources). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The teleological argument part of the DI definition stops at "...by an intelligent cause". It's the addition of "not an undirected process such as natural selection" that places it in conflict with science, and makes the description legitimate. In any case, the fact that ID has been _described_ as pseudoscience is more-than-adequately sourced, and is therefore appropriate for the article, even though some might not agree with the description. Tevildo (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: this article is about intelligent design not the argument from design. Problem solved?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The article equates them, then declares the former to be pseudoscience. That's not neutral. Bwrs (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bwrs - neutrality on this article is an uphill battle; sorry... you are (of course) correct. the Intelligent Design concept was never intended to be actually scientific - the proponents were simply trying to clothe a fundamentally religious idea in scientific swaddling so they could get it taught in public schools; they had absolutely no interest in challenging scientific theories on scientific grounds the way a true pseudoscience would. its kind of like accusing Al Gore of being a pseudoscientist because he uses (what some consider to be) questionable science to pursue political ends. seems like a clear distinction to me, anyway... --Ludwigs2 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What I find intriguing and amusing is that it is scientists who are always quoted in relation to design and I often wonder what they know about it. For example, Richard Dawkins in his books, interviews, etc., often says "looking at it from an engineer's point of view" or similar, then proceeds in a manner that an engineer would not. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Dawkins does not know as much about design as the thinks he does. Similarly with other scientists? Scientists seem to go into huge theoretical contortions to find a mechanism by which order and greater complexity comes out of disorder, whereas the usual process is the reverse. The pseudo-science tag is simply common form of abuse used by self styled sceptics and amateur scientists, widely applied and very subjective. that does not mean that I am a short term creationist, or similar, but, as a Professional Engineer, I know quite a lot about design, as well as science and a few other things; more than enough to know that people like Dawkins are talking absolute rot when it comes to design, along with numerous other occasions, especially when they take the "looking at it from an engineers point of view" approach. Neutrality on Wikipedia is, almost, entirely theoretical. The ruling POV is self-styled sceptic, amateur scientist (very early school level) POV. RichardKingCEng (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd place it as amateur skepticism, as well; real skeptics aren't prone to denouncing things outright. but setting that aside, I do understand both sides of this tangle: oddly, they are both trying to do the same thing - i.e., protect innocent impressionable minds from the pitfalls of incorrect belief. the ID people think that rampant scientism is destroying faith and the moral fabric of society, and they are trying to push people back towards a religious understanding of the world; while people like Dwarkins see religion (or anything that stinks of bad science, speculative philosophy, or overblown theosophy) as offensive efforts at mind-control, and try to push people back towards cold, hard, materialistic reason. it's the Vicar vs. the Industrialist in British drawing-room comedies, without the arch humor and stuffy. over-polite discussions. this is a moral tangle, and it really shouldn't be classed as a question of science at all (except that the vicar made the mistake of trying to talk to the industrialist in his own terms - and hilarity ensued...). --Ludwigs2 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

<back to the question> The teleological argument flowered as natural theology in the 1820s, split into various competing ideas and foundered as science developed an understanding of geology and evolution. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was adopted by T H Huxley in particular as part of a polarised debate pitting science against clericalism and hence religion, but at the same time was supported by Christians who saw natural selection and natural theology as consistent with each other.[1][2] By the 1870s this was the majority view in the Church of England, but Darwinism was used for various ideas including many contradicting Darwin's own ideas, and the fundamentalist Christianity of the 1920s developed into anti-evolution which gradually adopted the name "creationism" and used the teleological argument to justify their Biblical literalism. The argument still has some validity in a vague overarching way similar to deism, but its flaws as a detailed competitor to science as claimed by ID cdesign proponentsists have thoroughly discredited it in that use. Thus Dawkins can argue that if that's the best evidence for God, atheism is more rational and better. Other scientists hold views more like that of Asa Gray, and can hold good natured debates with Dawkins. ID is based on the legalistic claim that science ought to allow untestable religious explanations based on the teleological argument, and so is pseudoscience. Clearer? . . dave souza, talk 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dave for that lovely-and quite succinct--history lesson. You realize of course that all you've done is document that Darwinism is ultimately a metaphysical position, or in other words: a religious doctrine. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Well done! - DannyMuse (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To a metaphysician, everything is ultimately a metaphysical position, which is by no means the same as a religious doctrine. In other words, you're talking bollocks. Well done! . dave souza, talk 08:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's also managed to show his straw-man. The claim that ID was ever seriously presented as a competitor to science is just batty, and only gets the attention it does here because that's what's needed to claim ID as a pseudoscience (giving license per arbcom to jump all over it). ID was a political gambit aimed at keeping high school students ignorantly moral. it was never presented the way a scientist would. at best, it was an abortive philosophical position boiled down into a set of talking points; at worst, it was a snidely manipulative nose-snub at the supreme court. butwhaddayagonnado...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 September 2008

You are not a reliable source, Ludwigs, and your rambling speculations are unsupported by the evidence. From the outset, ID has been presented as science, a con that's persuaded a remarkable proportion of the population of one country. dave souza, talk 08:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page, Dave; I'm allowed to discuss things a bit more freely, just as you are allowed to keep reiterating your myopic misrepresentations of the material. deal. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but can we all please keep in mind this isn't a forum for pontificating about ID? In order to stay inside the lines, both sides need to heed this. These rounds of "You need sources, your opinion y doesn't count, and furthermore, it doesn't agree with my own unsourced opinion which is x, so there." We just don't need it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the opening question, it should be worded as the most premier spokespersons for science word it. What about the National Academies of Science, for example. Do they say "not a science" or do they say "pseudoscience"? It's my impression that it's within skepticism much more than within the mainstream sciences where you find this penchant for labeling things "pseudoscience".Professor marginalia (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As followup, here's what NAS says: "Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested." "Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science." "Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions {NAS calls ID a "newer school" of creationism}, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes...Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not." Science, Evolution and Creationism, National Academy of Science. I couldn't find it described directly by NAS as "pseudoscience".Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, last fall it read more accurately (e.g. here, which was the way it read when it was a featured article. Since then, someone changed it to the current wording. As Professor marginalia points out, the scientific community most typically uses words/phrases like "unscientific" or "not scientific", etc. The NSTA and others, though, used the word "pseudoscience" to describe intelligent design, As also noted in the footnotes of the earlier version, the words "junk science" were also used by some scientists to describe intelligent design as it was proposed to be taught in biology classes. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, my apologies. back to the point, I think Bwrs was exactly correct. the statement that it is the "unequivocal consensus in the scientific community" that ID is pseudoscience is a broad (and unsubstantiated) overstatement. no one in the scientific community really gave ID a second thought, since it was never presented to the scientific community as a testable theory. science only enters into this for legal reasons - ID tried to claim itself as a science as a tool to weasel its way into public education through the court system, and this obliged lawyers to gather opinions from scientists for court purposes that those scientists would never have made (would never have had to make) in a scientific context. the NAS position - they published a book on the topic called 'science and creationism', pre-ID, I think - is that creationism in any form should not be taught as science on any level. they do not to my knowledge use the term pseudoscience, or even criticize creationism as an idea, but say 'creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes' (that's from page 2 of the introduction; haven't downloaded the whole file yet). --Ludwigs2 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For info, the current edition of the National Academy of Sciences book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, ISBN: 0-309-10587-0 (2008), is available as a free PDF download. Statements in it include "Advocates of the ideas collectively known as 'creationism' and, recently, 'intelligent design creationism' hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a 'creationist' is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity.... the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology.... In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. ... Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested. ... The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process" . . dave souza, talk 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant diffs are here, where someone gave a little NewYear's Eve addition, adding the words "but psydoscience", and immediately thereafter here, where it got spelled correctly,. There it sat for over six months. In July, someone added the word "rather" and soon thereafter here, where someone else eliminated the words "not science, but rather". As PM has indicated, it might be best to return it to simply the words "not science" in that sentence, since the words pseudoscience and junk science are already mentioned in the same paragraph, each cited to the appropriate sources wherein ID is termed in these ways. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The bit of that paragraph I've never really liked is "Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science." It would be pretty surprising if no-one else in the whole world had concurred; if the people concerned are notable, name them; if not, the fact isn't notable and should be left out. ("Others have disagreed" and "others have no opinion on the matter" are both equally true and equally non-notable facts.) Similarly, who called it 'junk science'? If they're notable, name them; if not, it's not notable and should be left out. TSP (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. After a certain point, it's just epic silliness as editors keep piling it on. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nausem by countless editors of all stripes. The current language was the consensus version and AFAIK remains so. What I just changed back to the consensus version was a minor aberration that apparently went pretty much unnoticed. Call the long argued consensus version "editing by committee" if one chooses to, but it's WP. And yes, it would be more literally accurate if the statement was "Others [in the scientific community] have concurred, and some have called it junk science." But the whole paragraph is about what the scientific community says about ID, so in that context it appears unnecessary to specifically say "in the scientific community" in that last sentence. If it's that unclear, perhaps the issue should be revisited and should be proposed to say "Others in the scientific community have agreed with this characterization..." or some such modification so as to make it clear what's in the citations. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"asserted" is not neutral

The opening of this article contains implicit bias.

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the...."

Assertion = a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary). It implies a certain fideism. Now, I substituted the more neutral world "belief", but was reverted with they claim it's science, not belief). Now, I agree they claim it is a science, but the world belief doesn't imply otherwise. I can say "Scientists believe..." without implying that the belief isn't based on good science or reason, but if I said "Scientists assert...." I'd by implying otherwise. "Assert" isn't really neutral, I think "believe" is better (implying less about how or why), but perhaps someone has a third option.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a great deal of previous discussion, see at the top of the page "The following ideas were discussed. Please read the archives before bringing up any of these points again: 13. Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity), Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests), Assertion, view or theory? For convenience the most recent one is linked here. From my viewpoint, a big problem with "belief" is that many theists can hold the belief described in the DI's rather wooly phrase without considering their belief to be a scientific theory, as cdesign proponentsists constantly assert. . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not really fair to squeeze editors trying to improve an article through pages and pages of articles just so they can bring up what they feel is a valid point. Any argument should stand or fall on its own merits, and if you want to cite those arguments, you should atleast do some of the legwork.

And how does "argument" instead of assertion, view, theory, claim, etc. sound?--Tznkai (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went on the principle of bold, revert, discuss. I honestly saw so much on the talk page that it didn't help me. The discussion you point to seems to be a consensus of 3 or editors, so it is not set in stone. Having said that, it is the status-quo, so I will not change it without a new consensus. "Argument" seems good to me. It is certainly that, and "argument" doesn't imply whether it is good, bad, rational, irrational, scientific or otherwise.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since ID is not scientific, and cannot be scientific, assertion is the proper word. There is no supporting evidence, so the word is appropriate. Scientists don't "assert" or "believe", so you would be correct that it would not be neutral to use the words in that context. But ID is a religious belief, so one has to assert its principles. I hope this helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It helps in putting one POV. But I'm guessing that POV is not shared by ID'ers who would not say they are "assering without evidence" nor that it isn't scientific. So how do we find a form of words that both proponents and critics of this approach would be happy with?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We actually don't care what they they believe. We only care about verification and reliable sources, both of which do not support ID as a science. Therefore, believers in ID assert. Our job here isn't to make everyone happy, that's a fallacy that's going to make you very unhappy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but a well written encyclopedia article address, not attacks its subject. Forget facts for a moment, and think about tone. "Assert" has a connotation in anything outside of a careful philosophical argument or a court of law. Kind of the same way we use "He allegedly murder his wife, three kids, and was allegedly covered in their blood." The language itself is not neutral, its judgmental. While it may be "correct" on some sort of factual test, it is not similarly correct on a stylistic test. This isn't about making people happy, its about finding the best factually correct writing. To go back to my own argument, "argument" is factually correct and stylistically neutral. Oh last thought, there are people who believe ID to be factually true and a scientific theory. This article has the reasons they are incorrect, but they are not "asserting" it themselves.--Tznkai (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What they're consistently asserting is the "definition" which we reproduce, as sourced, though in this position we've avoided "theory" as that has meanings in a scientific context which they fail to meet. ID is indeed a philosophical or theological argument as we say in the second sentence, but it's also a claim or assertion. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Stating" might be better then. Asserting implies without reason or argument. And it is certainly a "theory" -albeit one that few accept. But even the view that the earth is flat, is a theory. ID'ers make an argument, they give reasons which can be debated and refuted. They don't just assert "this is how it is". That's the point.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Theory is out: the word itself is too ambiguous outside of established science, and even then. Colloquially theory is used the same way that really means hypothesis, and even then without necessarily an intent or reference to the scientific method. And then they're postmodern literature criticism theory, but lets not get into that.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: assertion works better as a neutral term in the context of "I assert that the sky is infact blue." Assertion are technically any declaration or defense of a cause, concept or fact, but that isn't how we use the term.--Tznkai (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent off) But no one ever says ""I assert that the sky is infact blue." - they say "the sky is blue". And there's quite a difference between reporting "He said/declared the sky is blue" and "He asserted/claimed the sky is blue" - the difference is [[WP:Weasel words|weeseling] in an inference that he was "wrong" or "irrational" in what he said. The first line of an article on an ideology should not contain any hint of evaluation. It should report without any spin. "Assert" doesn't meet that standard.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of excessive narcissism, I like my suggestion of "argument" best.--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It means no more than "proposition" for which some contend. it is purely descriptive. An argument can be logically correct 1+1=2, or utterly nonsensical, the word implies neither.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And now for something radical, but less POV related

I'm going to propose something. Actually, its probably more like "advanced warning." In my distinctly unhumble opinion, the lead is too long. Its similarly possible the article itself is too long (~170 kbytes, Evolution is ~125 kbytes), but I'm going to start with what I'm good at. To run down the hit list, what I tend to see in a lead, and in approximately this order is this:

• Definition ID is X, claims to be Y, is considered Z
• taxonomic: ID was created by A to do B. ID is American/evangelical/christian.
• Overview: ID uses concepts p, q, r, s. It is associated with movement T
• current events: ID came up in these court cases and the news.
• Status: I.D. is currently being taught in K districts.

The current lead is long, and spends too much time talking about how ID isn't science before firmly grounding that ID is being advanced/advocated as a science. As it stands, the lead confirms or argues with the knowledge that readers already familiar with the subject. On a related note, the FAQ linked up there needs to be fixed for the same problem. Anyway, I will be slapping major edit template on the article in a bit, but now would be people's times to preemptively comment and criticize.--Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are probably 20 editors that will revert your edits on sight, myself one of them. If you're going to make major changes to the lead of an FA article, I'd write here or in a sandbox, and make a proposal. This article is too controversial for that type of editing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversions should never be done on sight without reading them and FA articles all include a little "Please improve me!" line on their talk pages for a reason. No article is too controversial to be edited boldly, and all articles are too controversial to edit stupidly. This is not a bureaucracy. But please, if you have an argument as to why the current lead is perfect, I would like to hear it.--Tznkai (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just read the archived discussions linked above. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? I'm not going to read the entire archive just to make an edit, they're archived for a reason. Besides, I suggest you consider waiting and seeing what happens. You may even like the new result.--Tznkai (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

13. Discussion regarding the Introduction: Intro (Rare instance of unanimity), Introduction (Tony Sidaway suggests), Assertion, view or theory?, as listed at the top right, and just mentioned. . dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Two of those conversations were three years ago, one of which was a patting on the back for making the article shorter. As a side note, I remember them, because I watched it happen. Seriously, asking anyone to read through the monstrosity of "already discussed" articles is not only bitey as hell, its plain cruel and far and away against policy. This isn't a forum, its a wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis a wiki, and it is OK to suggest improvements without reading 51 pages of archives. Wiki articles are in constant flux. I realise that's frustrating for people who have worked hard to get the article where it is, but it is how wikipedia works. Past consensus does not bind. Does that mean we are destined to repeat discussions all over again? Yes, actually it does. However, don't make large changes without seeking current consensus.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On a not totally unrelated note, I'm not sure if this article qualifies for permanent semi protection, I've been meaning to have it cleanedup on Abortion and related articles as well. --Tznkai (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic, I agree that Wiki should always be improved. But an FA article is one that that has been built to "top of the class." Improvements should be minor or to reflect new information. A medical article, for example, might have to add information about a new drug or a new pathology. In this case, there's not much new. ID is a religious dogmatic belief set, and unless aliens from the Andromedan Galaxy show up and tell us all "hey we put you here with our experimental DNA technology", I'm not sure what else there is to state. Maybe a court case or two. But what is being suggested here is that we change the POV. I don't think there's any consensus to do so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm trying to change the POV?--Tznkai (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that you are trying to change the POV. But it is obvious that others are very very nervous that their preferred POV might get altered. Pity NPOV got junked somewhere along the line.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From that statement, I'm not sure if you've got the hang of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. Glad to discuss detailed aspecte on request. . dave souza, talk 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please make a list of those things or issues in the article that you assert to be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. If there's an issue that hasn't already been thoroughly hashed by dozens of participants of virtually all conceivable stripes, I feel certain it will be discussed thoroughly. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Ignoring the terrible digression involving users and their supposed POV, what about my edits showed I was changing the POV?--Tznkai (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For an obvious example, removal of the well established point that DI is the teleological argument, modified to avoid naming the "designer". Was that just because you were unfinished? Please put finished proposals with reasons for changes on this talk page to facilitate discussion. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Outline proposal

It was because I was unfinished (and I assume you mean ID). Editing the lead takes much longer than it should because of the length of the embedded references, so I'll give you a brief overview of what I was getting at.

ID is the argument/assertion/notion/concept/whatever (seriously people, its just one word) that the universe and the origin are better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection. ID presents itself (there's a personification problem here, but I think it works) as a rival scientific theory. Scientific consensus says that ID is not science, but pseudoscience. ID was developed by U.S. creationists associated with and funded by the Discovery Institute. ID developed in response to the U.S. Supreme court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. ID is the teleological argument modified to avoid specification the identity of the designer in an attempt to disguise its religious nature. ID's first use was in Pandas and People. by mid 1990 the intelligent design movement became very visible in the attempt to have ID accepted as science, especially in U.S. Public school classrooms. The movement seeks to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. In Kitzmiller v. Dover... (that paragraph stays almost exactly the same.

Final version would have had considerably better prose, but that should give you an idea of what i'm getting at. I don't think any major points get lost, except for the junk science bit.--Tznkai (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Right, I'm rather otherwise occupied right now, but my immediate impression is that you're setting out the DI's official "definition" of ID (yup, my typo earlier) without showing the basic definition of it being the TE for exist. God, tucking that away under the court cases. Strongly disagree, just see Behe's claims that ID"s a successor to Paley's argument. Similarly, the redefinition of science to accept the supernatural was there from the outset, and ideed goes back to creation science. Will come back on this, but what I'm seeing is a reshuffle that obscures rather than clarifies. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It clarifies the causal chain. DI's official definition is the lead sentence to begin with. It claims to be science, and that should be addressed earlier. Lest we let people get confused, we point out that scientists don't think so. After that however, ID is irrevocably tied to the discovery institute, and the things it tries to do, are political in nature. To put it another way, calling ID the "modern form of the traditional Teleological Argument" (Big problems here by the way, modern and traditional are culturally relative), is giving ID too much credit as philosophy as opposed to a deliberate creation by a policy think tank. All of which, as I write it here sound very POVish, but emerge from the facts if written neutrally.--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's what very credible sources say, do you have a source in mind for your idea? dave souza, talk 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which idea?--Tznkai (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for unclarity, it may be your shorthand descriptions but your proposal outlined here seems to introduce ideas which I don't recall seeing sources for. No doubt that would be ironed out when you drafted it in detail, working from sources rather than starting with an idea and getting sources that more or less fit. The main source for the teleological argument is Ron Numbers, which I don't have to hand. We've easy access to the Kitzmiller opinion, citation 5, so that might suggest an alternative phrasing to "modern form". . dave souza, talk 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the lead

I've reverted a series of major changes to the article lead, implemented today leading up to this version. Please get consensus for significant changes such as this. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things. 1. No editor, me or anyone else needs permission to make changes. 2. You can't just say "time up!" and consider that a legitimate reason to revert.--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has (1) been thoroughly vetted in preparation for categorizing it as "featured article" status; (2) is presently essentially the same as then, with only relatively minor, incremental changes since; and (3) has proven to be extremely controversial, with virtually every clause and phrase in it having been hotly contested by someone and needing to be thoroughly discussed and carefully consensused. Contrary to some of the assertions in the two talk threads immediately above, the archived talk threads are neither obsolete nor irrelevant. Kindly review the relevant threads so as to become familiar with them. If there are particular threads one is unable to find which relate to some particular issue, there remain active a significant number of already familiar WP users who can help refer unfamiliar users to relevant threads. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1. FA status doesn't mean "lock down" in fact, as I stated before it means "This is awesome. Make it more awesome." 2. Just because thats the way it was, doesn't mean it needs to be that way since. 3. I'm familiar with the controversy and the extraordinary Gordian knot you've managed to tie with 50+ archives. The archived talk threads are not necessary reading to edit any article, this or any other. They're useful to know, sure, but thats the way it goes. That having been said, I'm actually fairly familiar with the history of this article and the controversies are almost without a doubt, problems of POV, not style. I'm addressing a completely seperate problem. And to put it more bluntly nothing is ever consensused into existence and set in stone. Consensus equally demands an evolving and active conversation.--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is widely acknowledged to be such a thing as a "stable article", wherein various editors have devoted substantial time to bringing such an article into a condition where it is useful and informative to readers. Of course it doesn't mean "lockdown", but on a controversial article, one generally would want to propose substantial changes on talk so the implications of the proposed changes can be discussed, and perhaps consensused to represent an improvement to such an article. .. Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Things don't get consensused, there is no such thing. They are discussed and a consensus is discovered. Wikis are by their nature a place where all your hard work can be eliminated in a flash. Aggravating? Sure, but thats the way it goes. Even if you want me to be more polite and cautious and meek in my editing, there is definitely no reason to revert before it is done. The universe will not collapse because I'm making a major edit. Reversion of edits is widely acknowledged, far more than any idea of a "stable article" to be the equivalent of a slap across the face. If you don't like what edits I have gotten through, fine, go ahead and criticize them, but criticize them on their own merits and flaws.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion about what I meant by the use of the word "consensused"; it's intended as shorthand for, a synonym for, as you say, "[issues get] discussed and a consensus is discovered". ... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to review WP:CONSENSUS. It does not mean one or two editors can make large changes, then come over to the talk page and say, "well, do we all agree?" On the other hand, that does not mean that this is a huge bureaucracy, and we move only when there is consensus. But as Kenosis has stated, there was a lot of vetting and work from a large number of editors to get, in some cases, a compromise. For example, the "teleological" argument was discussed from weeks. Removing it is going to cause a huge storm, because there are many editors, myself included, who think that's too weak...ID is a religion, and I would state that flatly. So, right now the article sits on the borderline between two difficult POV's. It's pretty neutral now, and if you're going to mess with it, there needs to be a serious discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is not "a" religion, but is excessively entangled with religion. That however is a semantic argument. As far as teleological argument, I have two points. 1.ID today is more political than it is descendant from philosophy. 2. I wasn't done yet, and was in fact going to put it back in when I put together the paragraph linking ID, DI, and ID movement. I never got a chance to. Inuse flags allow major reconstructions to happen, step by step so each part can be undone or modified as needed. Its a matter of basic courtesy to see the whole thing, so you can see what needs to be fixed, or not, allowing you to assess the balance of the piece. Unless you think this "stable" version is stylistically and factually perfect. Major reconstructions can be, and are done on controversial articles all the time, and sometimes the changes aren't controversial themselves. Sometimes they are. I think people should wait and see.--Tznkai (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would, please put a proposal for such a major reconstruction on a suitable userpage such as a "sandbox". I'm sure that at least some participants familiar with the article would be willing to view it and discuss whether such a proposal might represent an improvement, and in what ways it may or may not be perceived to represent an improvement. Due respect would, of course, need to be given to issues that have already been extensively discussed, viewable in the archived talk threads. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is most definitely a Christian religion. That aside, I would strongly suggest that you not make major changes. They're going to be reverted and quickly. I don't know how many people watch this page, maybe 1000?, and it's just going to cause trouble. Why are you so insistent on doing it in a way that is just not going to be helpful. Why not do a sandbox version, get some consensus, then go for it. Everyone is giving you very good advice here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Are you telling me that no matter what edits I make, as long as they're "major" I'll be reverted just because? And if that is what you're saying, why are you ok with that? Consensus is developed *through* the wiki process, not by proposing changes and submitting them for a vote. Aside from votes being evil, sandboxing and then asking for consensus suffers from TLDR, narrowing the people who will actually look at it and comment at it. Article edits are done in article space to have the speed and eyes looking. I'll address the ID as a Christian religion point on your talk page since it isn't relevant. --Tznkai (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum-what exactly is the harm of letting me finish the reconstruction to the lead?--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs as they stand now are clear and concise. I've come to this series of articles today (not the ideas, the articles) and as a fresh set of eyes, I say this is better. Your paras were too long, Tznkai, imnsho... I applaud your defence of your right to edit, but not your actual edits. Sorry. raining girl (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how my paragraphs were too long since they were shorter. Not to mention the whole thing was flagged major edit. Criticize as you will, I encourage it, but I'd like a chance to at least finish the major edit.--Tznkai (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a think Tznkai would have been best to post his new lead suggestion here, reverting an "in use" after less than two hours is poor form, and the same editor edit warring when his revert was undone is unhelpful. Is their an "cabal" claiming ownership of this page so much that any changes are unwelcome, and to be reverted before they are seen for discussion? I've never involved myself in this article before, but it seems to me that tactics like this, and the hostile attitude shown to new editors on this article, are precisely the sort of stuff that drives people away. I trust that's not the intention.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the meme again. Y'know, I have two other featured articles I worked hard on and I have them watchlisted and make edits to them, too. Ditto for anyone else who worked hard to get this article to FA status. Rather than implying the tired "they're out ta get me" meme, it actually implies, nay affirms, that when people work hard on something, they want to see it remain good. Actual improvements are good -- reworking an article to meet a specific POV or improperly address a misconception regarding what the article really says is bad. It is, as an edior noted, "simple and easy". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Full discussion and consideration of proposed improvements is welcome, and the best way to get that is to post such proposals on this talk page so that there can be detailed assessment of each aspect of the change. Starting by turning the article into a sandbox isn't good for readers or for reasoned discussion of proposals – Tznkai asked for 50 minutes, was given an hour and by then had a version that omitted a well sourced and established basic aspect of ID, without bringing any obvious improvement in flow or clarity. Presentation of a more finished proposal here for discussion will be really helpful. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I asked for more time on my third edit or and just because I trip over that limit isn't a reason to revert. Your typical user is more than capable of pressing the history button. Especially when instructed to do so by an inuse template. The edit summaries made it clear that the removal was temporary. In fact, if you were concerned about that, I have a talk page and this talk page to flag edits as they go. "Proposals" are what we do when we talk about policy. I just want to be able to edit. For the record, if I was a new user, this would've threatened to spill into an edit war. Reversions tend to do that.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please put a proposal for such a major reconstruction on a suitable userpage such as a "sandbox". I'm sure that at least some participants familiar with the article would be willing to view it and discuss whether such a proposal might represent an improvement, and in what ways it may or may not be perceived to represent an improvement. Due respect would, of course, need to be given to prior discussions of issues that have already been extensively discussed, viewable in the archived talk threads. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to grandfather all of the old discussions for due respect, I recommend you read through all of 2k4 and 2k5 to pick out all the points I brought up there and then, and the responses they had, and some time have not been given. Happy reading.--Tznkai (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can boldly edit, and everyone can boldly revert thus beginning discussions on the merits and demerits of proposed changes. Please give the reasons and clarify just what you're proposing, so that we can see real improvements. dave souza, talk 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can boldy revert, but thats usually the start of a fight, not a discussion. Again, I bring up something simple. Its was a work in progress, and Wiki won't collapse while someone makes a major edit.--Tznkai (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

However, major edits without discussion are rarely beneficial. Kenosis' idea re a sandbox is the best way to deal with any concern you might have, especially when they propose substantive shifts in the tenor and validity of a featured article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my views on the wiki process ad naseum on this talk page, but basically. Sandboxes are problematic for various reasons, edits to article space are preferable, wait and see if they're good. It'd only take seconds to revert if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of us find benefit in sandboxen or off-wiki preparation before article space changes. We've already reached the revert stage, discussion of proposals on this talk page give a good way forward. . dave souza, talk 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

With regret I'm marking this as neutrality disputed. I have outlined my reasoning why having "asserted" in the lead is weasel-wording. I offered "belief" and "argument".

My change to argument (which I made first here) was reverted by Raul with the rather partisan remark "argument implies they have positive evidence with which to make their case. This is not so. It is an assertion". That's simply untrue. One can argue many things which others believe are patently wrong. And as to whether the ID'ers have positive evidence is a matter of POV - they obviously believe that they do - even if most people rightly reject it.

An assertion is something that someone makes with no evidence or argument - and it cannot actually be debated. ID offers both supposed evidence and argument - and can be debated. I'm open to other wording, but it must be wording that describes, and does not explicitly evaluate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The word is just as accurate now as it was the other ten times someone didn't like it. ID, like Creationism, is an assertion. Arguments need to be logical, not based religion, or the paranormal or pseudoscience, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I advised that this would not go well. Please try to work it out here, so that we can improve the article. Make arbitrary changes that were discussed and dismissed several times, throwing on POV tags, and edit-warring isn't going to get us anywhere. I really think settling here in the discussion section will benefit everyone in improving the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now for something simple and easy. POV tags are thrown up when an editor, in good faith, has a concern about the neutrality. That editor is to be treated with respect, and the tag is not supposed to be removed until the issue is settled. And the use of "argument" was never addressed negatively, nor was it arbitrary, until just now, letting it fall within BRD. Settle.--Tznkai (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now for a question/request: Explain, "And the use of "argument" was never addressed negatively, nor was it arbitrary, until just now, letting it fall within BRD". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When Scott made his edit, he and I had discussed why we preferred it. No one raised a point to why they didn't like the use of "argument." Therefor Scott Boldly edited. It was Rerveted, and now we're Discussing it.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good show. ID is the teleological argument, things are complex or improbable, they look sorta designed, therefore they had a designer. Step 4 "the designer is God" partially hidden for tactical reasons. However, for sound reasons we open with the DI's "definition" which is simply an assertion that ID explains things "better" than natural processes. A claim which hasn't stood up in court, unsurprisingly. So, got some suggestions for making that clearer? . dave souza, talk 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you're saying for a moment? I'm a bit confused.... what exactly your point is. Wrong section perhaps?--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply, ID is the teleological argument, the DI's "definition" is an assertion that ID is better without any argument to support that assertion. . .dave souza, talk 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

^Lets finish this conversation in the previous thread^--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't stood up much of anywhere really -- at least not in any real academic settings where the goal is not to evangelise by newer methods. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scott, you're wasting your time. This article is controlled by a small group of editors who are violently opposed to intelligent design. Of course "assertion" is pejorative in this context, however, even when it is admitted that ID "IS the teleological ARGUMENT", those editors still refuse to use the word "argument". The main advantage to leaving "assertion" in there, as I see it, is that by the fifth word of the article the prejudice is clear and hopefully therefore any reader looking for a neutral account of ID will know they will not get it here and will move on. That is, by displaying partisan colors so openly right at the start of the article, everyone will immediately recognize it for what it is. 78.86.153.121 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Also, lets not start the whole "controlling editors" thing again.--Tznkai (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. I'm sure the Conservapedia article is much more NPOV. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Violently opposed?" I believe a retraction and refactoring would be best. Otherwise, I contend that this is a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I could cite well over 100 comments from this talk page that demonstrate the opposition to ID I refer to, and the extraordinary vehemence with which it is held by editors here, but anyone who takes a cursory glance at the talk page history will see it fairly clearly. One can also see it by comparing the neutral introduction to the article on Adolf Hitler (by all accounts a fairly reprehensible character), and the intro to this non-neutral hatchet job. But as I said, that's good, because at least that way nobody who is interested in an accurate account of ID will bother to read this article after seeing the state of the first few paragraphs. And that means we don't have to spend any time beating our heads against a brick wall trying to make it better.78.86.153.121 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ. . dave souza, talk 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law officially applies to this thread. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can understand why the word "assertion" could be construed as biased, because the lead sentence doesn't clarify that the definition of ID is what does the asserting. In that, I agree that the lead sentence still has a problem, in spite of the voluminous discussion that has occurred in the past. I note that the word "proposition" works well here, it can't be misconstrued the same way, and doesn't dilute the meaning of the sentence. Anything wrong with that? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

We are certainly arguing about semantics. Does this happen elsewhere on Wikipedia? Anyways, the point is that ID is pushed by the Discovery Institute as a "science." It isn't science, because it fundamentally rests on faith in a "designer", either an alien from another galaxy or a Christian G-d. Since it isn't a science, it can't be proposed (because that assumes a theory/experiment of science). Really DI is making an "opinion" or "assertion" that some unknown being designed life on earth. That has to be said clearly. I'm not sure if proposition works. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposition does not work atall.

Anyway, Demski also proposed a time-travelling biologist thus providing a never-ending circular time paradox. One that makes it hard to see ID as anything more than a reassertion of creationism with fancier techie-type words. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And the synonyms for "assertion" are worse from an NPOV standpoint: "allegation" or "claim" would generate many complaints. I'd like to see the lead sentence make it more clear that the definition is what does the asserting, not ID. Intelligent Design is not an "assertion". That's just stupid. Intelligent design is a philosophy, political movement, or whatever, and that is what does the asserting. A better lead might be "Intelligent Design is a form of teleological argument that asserts ...." Rephrasing like that seems more neutral to me, it is an accurate, factual statement, and would likely mollify the folks complaining about bias in the first handful of words. =Axlq 03:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct that ID is more accurately classed as a "philosophy", one that is asserted by its proponents to be a scientific theory. But a complete statement of what ID "is" would be an extremely long and unweildy sentence, in part because of the intentional manipulation of words, non-standard uses of words, by ID's advocates with the agenda of teaching creationism (or a close variation of creationism) in high school science classes. The first sentence has long read more or less as it is because of the need to state what ID is right at the outset of the article, as concisely as was feasible while giving due acknowledgement to what it's principal proponents say it is. Editors of this article elected to use the Discovery Institute's definition, quoted in relevant part, right in the first sentence. This is why the text reads, essentially, "ID is the [insert your favorite word] that "[insert quotation representative of the Discovery Institute's definition]" . ... Kenosis (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're effectively saying, "it's too hard to do it right", and that isn't a valid excuse for sloppy and imprecise writing. ID isn't an assertion. ID is a (fill in the blank) that asserts. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Amatulic, I certainly respect your right to assert the assertion you just made. Note the different uses of variants of the word "to assert", one of which is a verb and the other of which is a noun. Both of them are legitimate usages. So is the one in the lead sentence of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenosis, we're usually on the same side (when I've participated here, that is). I shouldn't have to point out that dismissing the assertion that "assertion" has perjorative connotations, just because the usage of the word is "legitimate", doesn't solve the problem we're discussing. There are better words that won't damage the message of the lead sentence that would also mollify those who see bias in the word "assertion." Words like "contention" or "position" would make more sense, both grammatically and neutrally. I'd like these talk pages to be clear of future discussions about the wording in the lead, solving the problem seems like a no-brainer, so why the resistance to change? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I do remember your participation, and it's true that we've more often been in agreement than not. Here, I disagree with your contention that the first sentence of the lead is "sloppy and imprecise." Indeed it's quite precise in that it uses the exact definition of ID given by its advocates, the Discovery Institute. This sentence has been more or less the same since prior to my taking a WP username in February 2006, except for one little thing: the longstanding language until about a year ago was "Intelligent design is the concept that "[insert the DI definition here]" The use of the word "concept" brought repeated arguments, as did every proposed alternative. IMO, these repeated arguments were not because of the syntax, or the consensus choice to use the DI's definition verbatim in order to maximize the NPOV, but rather because the topic is inherently controversial. Also, many, perhaps most, folks have a tendency once they've read something many times to, might we say, ache for a new way of saying it, the possible reasons for which are probably beyond the scope of this discussion.
..... As to the consensus choice to use the DI's definition verbatim, this was one of the less difficult things about which to achieve consensus, among pro-ID, anti-ID and users with various other POVs brought to bear on this article. (Although, this too was argued intensively, just like darn near everything in this article.) Which brings me back to the choice of what class of thing best and most neutrally describes ID without clogging the opening sentence with a long series of nouns and adjectives, all of which could reasonably be used to denote what class of thing ID belongs in. In short, "assertion" seems to have generated the least resistance overall, admittedly by a narrow margin. If there's an approach to that lead sentence that can be agreed to be more precise and still be a reasonable lead sentence, which has some potential to achieve a new and different consensus about it upon thorough discussion of its NPOV, V and NOR implications, I would be most interested in seeing it presented here. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors may wish to refer to this straw poll on the word to be used. "view", "position", "argument" and "idea" all seemed to gain broad support, alongside "assertion". TSP (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I copy-pasted that table into a spreadsheet and totaled up the columns. Assertion got the highest score. Yes, I know it isn't a vote, but it's still a good consensus metric. However, I think the runner-up, "position", would generate less controversy. I would have liked to see more participation from ID proponents on that poll. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the "interpreting the data" section. Sadly, a few voters (particularly late arrivals) decided to "1" (indicating that they would revert an attempt to use the term) everything or almost everything except for "assertion". SDY's normalised analysis seemed fairly good, though obviously you can interpret how you like. TSP (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See all my various comments below. But yes, I agree that ID asserts X is a more useful statement.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only two out of 18 voters voted "1"s in a majority of circumstances, one gave a 2 and the rest ones (Mr. Outlier), the other gave only six out of ten ones, and four acceptable answers is hardly unworkable. And I see a whole lot of room for compromise from everyone else. So I see no need here to view the glass as 2/18ths empty. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that even disputing the obvious bias of this article is not allowed. Self-evidently, editors that are supposedly committed to objective neutrality are demanding that an pejoratively evaluative description "assertion" is used in the opening line. I've always worked by the theory that a neutral description is one that both proponents and opponents of the ideology would recognise as fair. I doubt that any ID proponent would claim to be "asserting" without positive evidence, rather that's the evaluation of the opponent. Words like: argument, theory, contention describe the position without evaluation - but I doubt that those long-standing editors who've developed this article are going to agree to any solution that excludes their evaluation. This edit summary rather gave the game away. I really cannot pretend to work with people who's obvious antipathy to the subject is stronger than any commitment to neutrality. I am certainly not a proponent of ID, but I do believe in leaving one's evaluations (even if they be evaluations shared by 99.90000% of secular scientists) at the door of the wiki. Anyway, I am now unwatching this article as it seems further discussion is futile.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

yeppers, NPOV can be funny that way, sometimes. You cannot address the unreasonable bias in Flat Earth, either - I mean, please, we all know that the Flat Earth Society exists, why pretend that their position is "nonsense"? Its so self-evident that the "flat earth" view should get half the weight, and the "round earth" view should get half. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's helpful. So, you think ID is as sensible as flat earth theory? You are entitle to that belief (as am I). Perhaps you'd like to put that in the opening sentence too? "Intelligent design makes as much sense to the average wikipedian as flat earth". Hey maybe we could add such an assessment to transubstantiation, reincarnation and other things? Alternatively, we could try neutrality and keep assessments OUT of leads. It should be suffice to say that the argument is made supported only by religious groups, and rejected by leading/most/virtually all scientific bodies. We don't need to have "and wikipedia agrees". It's really simple - we give due weight to criticism, and make clear than non-mainstreem ideas are non-mainstream, we make clear who thinks what is tinfoilhattery, but we DON'T DO EVALUATION ON WIKIEDPIA, and certainly not in leads. That's NPOV.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I was not voicing my opinion, nor speaking for Wikipedia, I fail to see the point of your outrage. Your understanding of NPOV is somewhat limited and in some places incorrect. We do not attampt to write so that "both sides" find an article acceptable, that is SPOV - Sympathetic point of view. Please re-read the policy, especially the bit about Undue weight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for weight to both sides, but for neutral non-evaluative language. We don't do evaluative language, and certainly not when objective language is perfectly available. I'm not asking for a sympathetic point of view, just a disinterested, and non-judgemental, one. But apparently that's unacceptable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is not a religion, it is religious.

You can make a solid argument that ID is inherently religious, which isn't quite accurate by some semantics (its pseudoscientific metaphysical claim with religious implications I believe it could technically be a philosophical claim without being religious). It cannot be a religion. It certainly can't be a Christian religion. ID isn't an independent Christian denomination. Generally speaking there is one Christian religion, Christianity, and all the different subsets are denominations, not independent religions, but we might consider them a family of Christian religions, but ID doesn't qualify. Not one of which I might add, has ID as a tenant.

ID is however, born of Christian religion, specifically United States Evangelical Protestant Christianity. It is reasonably construed as religious, it is not a religion, just like pro-choice and pro-life predestination isn't a religion.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, true enough, but are you referring to a specific comment? Link? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This was meant to be a separate, off topic, on user talk discussion between OrangeMartin and I, I have no idea why its here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, I always move topics from my user talk page to the article's talk page. I guess you were trying to discuss a religious philosophy, which I could have continued on my talk page, but I'd rather err on the side of moving. I consider ID to be a "christian religion", because it uses Christian theology at it's base. I'm not saying that all Christian religions would embrace it, in fact, most Christian religions accept Evolution as a scientific fact, and have no problem with it. But anyways, accepting something on faith is the definition of religion. ID requires faith in a designer, which is the Christian G-d. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

... No. It isn't, for the reasons I stated earlier, but as I also said earlier, this is a grammar/semantic issue, not one of any (relevant) substance whatsoever.--Tznkai (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK -- as I said, you're correct re ID. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Behe is not a "real" creationist, since he accepts a common ancestor

After the following sentence:

"The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science",

I inserted the following (slightly revised):

"Intelligent design is also based on theories developed by the non-creationist catholic biology professor Michael Behe. He and some other proponents of intelligent design accept the ideas of a common descent, macro-evolution and the scientific timescale, while the vast majority of ID proponents and financiers are creationists, that only accept micro-evolution. "

Dave Souza removed my contribution with the following argument: "remove unsourced assertions about Behe, which contradict reliable secondary analyses". What secondary sources? That Behe beleives in common descent is pretty clear, as shown below. However, he seems to avoid the term macro-evolution.

I found these quotes in other Wikipedia articles:

"Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

He questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes. He takes deliberate steps to distinguish himself from the Young Earth creationism movement.

The Edge of Evolution (book written by Behe) was reviewed, by prominent biologists, in The New Republic, Science and Nature with similar comments - that Behe appears to accept almost all of evolutionary theory, barring random mutation, which is replaced with guided mutation at the hand of an unnamed designer.

I also found these references:

"Like the sequence analysts, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." Quote from Darwin's Black Box. Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83493-6

In "Darwin Under the Microscope" by Michael Behe:

"I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species." Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Under the Microscope", The New York Times, October 29, 1996, Tuesday Final Section A; Page 25; Column 2; Editorial Desk

From the liner notes from 'Edge of Evolution':

"Behe strongly asserts, to the likely chagrin of young earth creationists, that the earth is billions of years old and that the concept of common descent is correct." Editorial review from Publishers Weekly of "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" by Michael Behe

As quoted in this review of the Edge of Evolution:

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." David E Levin, Review of "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael J Behe

Behe's own blog at Amazon:

"At some points in his review, it’s hard to know whether Professor Coyne simply has a poor memory, or is so upset with the book that he gets confused. He writes “For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5�billion�year�old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time .... and that all species share common ancestors.” “Now accepts”? I made that plain in Darwin’s Black Box over ten years ago. Throughout the controversy of the past decade over ID, almost every time my work had been cited in a newspaper or journal, it has been noted that I think common ancestry is true. Yet apparently that comes as a surprise to Coyne." [3]

Mange01 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:PSTS. Also, blogs are rarely considered to be good sources. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, not a reliable source. Behe is self-contradictory, a trait he shares with other cdesign proponentsists. His idea of common ancestry includes divine twiddling to produce malaria and aids. Creationism covers a wide range of anti-evolution positions, and he wanders about in that range. . dave souza, talk 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave and Jim, I for one would like to see you actually address [[User:Mange01|Mange01]'s arguments and his properly cited sources rather than simply dismiss it with boilerplate WP:Policy quotes. How does it help improve this article to say, "logs are rarely considered to be good sources" when it ignored that Mange cited four appropriate sources, three books and a review. Dave, you assert that Behe is "self-contradictory." One, what's your source for that claim; and two, so what. The point that Behe states that he accepts common ancestry is not invalidated by your claim even if true. Please eschew obfuscation. Help improve the article with on-topic comments which address the arguments presented. Thank you. - DannyMuse (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny, let it go. We can't synthesis Behe's views from various of his quotes without it being original research. Further revisions back and forth of the talk page constitute edit warring, and while I can't shouldn't block the people who are doing it myself, I have no problem wasting my time putting together a 3RR report that will probably end with two 24 hour blocks. Now, do we have a reliable neutral source on whether Behe is a creationist? (Note, Dawkin's as quoted in the Behe article doesn't count. He's an expert biologist, not an expert on creationists)--Tznkai (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respond: Please don't lecture and threaten. It's tedious and annoying. If you can offer suggestions that will improve the article or encourage dialogue then do so. This pointless diatribe is exactly the kind of frustrating, non-productive banter I was referring to in my comments which Dave Souza removed. - DannyMuse (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, who is even near 3RR on the talk page? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny:

Mange's statement is unsourced. Adding an unsourced statement as a counterpoint to a sourced statement is problematic.

Mange's response here is to argue about the logic of his assertion, rather than to cite a source. That creates the perception that he isn't working from a source at all.

Mange's assertion appears to be based on the assume that someone who accepts common descent, macroevolution and the "scientific timescale" is not a creationist. If this comes from a source, we need to know what source this comes from. And since that assertion seems to be at odds with other reliable sources, we'd need to present it in a way that acknowledges the fact that it is at odds with other sources. But we can't present nuance when we don't even know what the source is. Of course, if the source of the definition is Mange, then we can't use it.

Even if we accept that definition, it's still problematic to use one definition of a creationist to conclude that Behe is not a creationist. Is there a reliable source that says "based on these criteria, Behe is not a creationist"? If so, then we need to figure out how to reflect the fact that this source differs from others. If Mange is using a sourced definition to conclude that Behe is not a creationist, then it poses a problem of going beyond available sources to come up with a novel assertion, a WP:SYNTH problem. Since this contradicts sourced descriptions, it's even more problematic. Finally, if the definition is Mange's own, then drawing conclusions from one's own definition poses serious problems. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> In fairness, Mango cited one good source,[4] but for some reason used it to quote Behe's words without going on to the view of the secondary source that "Behe is stuck between the need to establish a semblance of scientific credibility and the desire to forward his distinctly unscientific creationist ideas." and "he makes the classic creationist error of assuming the primacy of humans among all living things, a distinctly religious notion. Behe offers no evidence or arguments to support this presumed goal, yet remarkably clings to his insistence that ID is a scientific proposition." etc. Quite a good read. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I havn't read in depth, because I don't care enough to, but we can fix this in one of two ways. One, y'all can hash this argument on Behe's article page and we'll take whatever the result is, or Two, someone can pony up a probably already existent verifiable source that opines on Behe's creationist leanings, or lack thereof. --Tznkai (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an honest admission of what is a real problem with these articles: ignorance, apathy and lack of will to correct it. Tznkai, if you haven't "read in depth", I'm tempted to suggest you should reserve comment until you have. But, since you admit that "don't care enough to" I really feel that you should just reserve commenting altogether. On the other hand, since you readily acknowledge that there is "probably already [an] existent verifiable source" I would suggest you try to find one rather than just shoot down the good faith efforts of others to provide well-rounded, well-sourced content. Why not try working together, rather than against? But that probably just brings us back to your "don't care" problem. Food for thought, Bon Appétit! - DannyMuse (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought indeed, Danny, your statement is about peronalities rather than content, and is a tacit admission that you don't understand WP:SYN and/or haven't looked at the sources for the statement you are chiding Tznkai about having to "read in depth". Tne statement is made up entirely from quotes from WP, primary sources and publisher's blurbs. However, one of the sources is a quote from Behe presented in a reliable secondary source, which draws the opposite conclusion from the one being put forward by Mange01. Get it? Now go forth, and SYN no more. . dave souza, talk 07:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my comments were about behavior, not personalities. Although the latter may reflect the former, they are not the same. Get it? DannyMuse (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To belabor the point, do we have that source?--Tznkai (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

David E Levin, Review of "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael J Behe published by the National Center for Science Education. , dave souza, talk 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guetta gave me critical but serious response. I don't understand the logic in most of the other comments that I got. Did you really read the sources? On a dispute on what Behe believes, his own words should be interesting, whether it is his own books, or in his Amazon blog.

Can't we agree on that Behe fully believes in a common ancestor?

Are you against agreeing on that simply because it would indicate some differences between ID and creationism?

If Behe also believes in macro-evolution, then he would not be a creationist, but a proponent of theistic evolution in a wide sense - to my understanding. Am I wrong? The difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution has always been a key point in creationist literature. Have you found some better distinction between creationism and theistic evolution?

The weakest point in my argument is that Behe is very silent on the issue about macro-evolution. I have realized that lately. What is your impression about his view on that topic?

Macro-evolution is sometimes defined as synonymous to Speciation. My impression isthat he argues aginst Speciation, but I have not found any good quote.

(Personally I beleive in evolution, I am agnostic towards theistic evolution, I want to know more about ID, and I have lost respect for creationistic arguments since long time ago.)

Mange01 (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Theistic evolution is technically a form of creationism. It doesn't have the same baggage as the rest of creationism to most informed and reasonable people, but thats how it goes. At any rate, there is a long and moderately interesting digression here on YEC,OEC, religion, science, new atheism, but its all off topic. We don't determine whether Behe is a creationist by synthesis, that is, we don't use our own litmus test "Creationists don't believe in common ancestry" and determine creationism by that standard, we simply ask reliable sources what they say. Normally, we might go with a nominative declaration: I say I am X, therefore I am X. With ID thats a mess however, because of the political and shapechanging nature of ID. The ID movement has been definitively proven in Kitzmiller v. Board to include a bunch of lying rats (to be blunt). Thus, we need to turn to other reliable sources, and see what they have to say about Behe. Besides, this is all probably better served here--Tznkai (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As David E Levin's Review of "The Edge of Evolution" indicates, Behe presents creationist arguments while talking close to a mainstream position, but always denies that evolution can explain things without the supernatural intervention that characterises creationism in its post-1929 meaning of anti-evolution. See also – the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's,[5] and Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design.[6] . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Threshold for wikipedia is Verifiability not Truth.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but too terse. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

David E Levin, Review of "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael J Behe published by the National Center for Science Education. , dave souza, talk 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(the above copied and pasted to facilitate discussion) Not to be belabor the point, but that citation, and every other one I found in my admittedly brief google search says that Behe is making/using creationist arguments not that Behe is a creationist himself. It looks like they don't have Behe tagged as a creationist except by accusation from Dawkins who isn't a particularly...enlightened... character when it comes to careful measured discussions on the confluence of religion, character, and science. That all having been said, I havn't found anything that indicates Behe is definitively not a creationist either. he is definitively Roman Catholic, and the religious associations paragraph needs work since Evangelical=protestant, period period period. None of this however seems to have anything useful to add to this article here. Take it to Talk:Michael Behe and have fun.--Tznkai (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See Evangelical Catholic :-) - you're right in 99.9% of cases, though. You do seem to have missed, in your edit, though, the fact that the Unification Church, which Wells belongs to, is not only not part of mainstream Evangelical protestantism, but wouldn't be considered by most to be part of Christianity (given that it includes belief in a messiah apart from Jesus). I've restored 'majority' and regrouped to reflect this. TSP (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on Unification Church, and Evangelical Catholic is quite frankly in my opinion, worth ignoring as a taxa of Christianity.--Tznkai (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify the last bit (about EC)? -- it seems the edit got a bit messed up. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut-tut on your character assassination of Dawkins: on a bad day his fingernail clippings are brighter than Behe. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a typo, IMO Evangelical Catholicism is not a significant or useful organizational division (taxon) of Christianity. And Dawkins will live with my read of his abilities just fine, I'm sure.--Tznkai (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I get you on the EC part now -- I figured something was missing.

LOL and true re Dawkins -- he'll survive, just as Behe will given my opinion of him.:) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai: The reason why this is important to discuss here is that the statement that ID is creationism should be nuanced if one of its main proponents is not a creationist. The statement in the first paragraph, that ID was developed only by creationists, and only with the aim of teaching creationism in science classes, should definitely be nuanced. Any better suggestion than by proposal? Behe's ideas about irreducible complexity (which is something unique for ID, not inherited from the creationism tradition) is mentioned very late in the article. Why not mention it earlier? Because it would indicate that ID is more than a strategy in the legislative school teaching issue?

And why don't you answer my above questions? Does Behe beleive in a common ancestor or not?Mange01 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is creationism, relabelled from creation science in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard. Behe's beliefs and any misinformation he puts out are between himself and his maker, but reliable secondary sources establish that he joined in the ID bandwaggon (which had been originated by more open creationists) and that he presents creationist arguments in support of ID creationism. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Which above questions? If I didn't answer your questions, its because I don't find them relevant, or I didn't see them. And Behe apparently believes in an common ancestor, but that doesn't mean anything on its own.--Tznkai (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone mentioned this discussion on NOR talk. My advice: please stop arguing about whether or not the man is a non-creationist advocating ID, and spend 10 minutes researching reliable sources. Here is a start: [7]. Jayen466 13:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do please explain rather than just putting up a Google search that shows a lot of primary sources confirming what we already know, that Behe denies being a creationist. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• A Christian source explaining the difference between theistic evolutionism and Behe's position (p. 273–p. 274): [8] Jayen466 13:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say "a Christian source" you appear to mean "an ID source", given that the lead author is Paul Nelson and the entire discussion is summarized by Phillip E. Johnson... The excerpt linked is from someone who goes on to say he agrees with Behe.

For an expert opinion, Robert T. Pennock describes Behe and other old-earthers supporting ID as "creationists in the core sense of the term, namely, that they reject the scientific, evolutionary account of the origin of species and want to replace it with a form of special creation." – Robert T. Pennock (2001). "Whose God? What Science? Reply to Michael Behe". National Center for Science Education. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that "Christian source" states in so many words that Behe is a creationist, and that he cannot be classified as a theistic evolutionist (i.e. a Christian scientist who accepts evolution and all the rest of it but prefers to believe, quietly and privately, in god). He is, according to that author, a creationist because he posits divine intervention in objective reality. Likewise, [this source states that both creationists and evolutionists generally regard Behe as a creationist, his own occasional denial notwithstanding. So to describe him as a non-creationist, as one editor suggested, would amount to a novel narrative. Cheers, Jayen466 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mange01's assertion that Behe's belief in a common ancestor renders the phrase "developed by certain United States creationists [to circumvent US court rulings]" to be in need of clarification by an additional sentence about Behe's slant on creation, along with microevolution and macroevolution, in the article lead, is simply incorrect. All of the independent reliable sources on this issue, including testimony and the federal judge's decision in Kitzmiller, show unambiguously that the originators of the term "intelligent design" as a replacement for derivations of words "creation-" and "creationis-" in the book Of Pandas and People were a Texas-based group of creationists, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. The additional fact that later entries into the intelligent design movement, including Behe, had certain variants such as what's come to be called theistic evolution, is adequately dealt with a bit farther down in the present version of the WP article on intelligent design, and has been fairly prominently included in this article for well over two years, (since not long after the Kitzmiller trial). The broader issue of how various folks including Behe choose to reconcile belief in divine creation with the apparent fact of evolution is well beyond the scope of this article, and perhaps should be discussed on a talk page of the article on Michael Behe and/or his books, or another more suitable place. It's already discussed at creation-evolution controversy and in other places in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your post a few times and I can't understand what you're saying asking.--Tznkai (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment really should be in the main thread rather than this subsection. But I'll leave it here since it's already here and has a response/reaction.
..... Mange01 asserts that because Behe isn't a real creationist, the lead of the article needs a sentence such as the one he or she proposed at the top of this talk section. I'm saying that's simply incorrect, that the lead needs no such qualifying sentence about Behe's view such as that proposed by Mange01. Behe's variation is adequately dealt with a bit farther down in the article, and it's well verified that ID "was developed by a group of United States creationists...", specifically a Texas-based group of creationists, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Behe's slant needn't be in the lead whether or not he's properly classified as a "creationist".
..... But moreover, I was asserting that this is not the optimal place to be arguing about contemporary subtleties of creationism, "microevolution" vs. "macroevolution" etc., all of which were proposed to be placed in the lead by Mange01. There are other places to be discussing these things that are far more appropriate than this article. Bottom line: IMO, it doesn't matter whether Behe is properly classified as a "creationist". ... Kenosis (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with Kenosis in that Behe is clearly creationist in the core sense of rejecting aspects of evolution and supporting a form of "special creation", Kenosis is right that ID originated in 1987 in drafts of FTE's Of Pandas and People which was published in 1989, but Behe didn't appear on the scene until 1992 as far as I've been able to find. Behe first presented his ideas of "irreducible complexity" in all but name in June 1993. These ideas appeared in the second edition of Pandas published that year, the name appeared in Darwin's Black Box of 1996. Even these ideas weren't new, similar ideas were published earlier in creation science literature. Thus, Behe wasn't in at the start of ID. For sources see Timeline of intelligent design. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosis, whether or not Behe is a "real" creationist is irrelevant to this article, and should be hashed out on his talk page, not this one.--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Relation between ID and theistic evolution?

Tznkai wrote "Theistic evolution is technically a form of creationism." Do you have any support in references for such a statement? Many ID proponents, for example Dembski and Jonsson, are arguing against Theistic evolution. Theistic evolution proponents are opponents to creationism, and gives full support of the theory of evolution. They mean that the theory of evolution is fully compatible with a belief in that universe (for example the fundamental natural laws) might have been created. Then life is only indirectly designed. Many biology researchers believe in theistic evolution, but very few in creationism.

Theistic evolution should be mentioned in this article - and its relation to ID should be discussed. There are alternatives to ID and creationism for religious people! Mange01 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, theistic evolution has its own separate WP article, and is already mentioned twice in the body text of this article. In addition, it's linked to in the extended "see also" links provided at the bottom of the Intelligent Design article page. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See Creationism, which covers a spectrum of beliefs. It's a good point that this article should show more clearly that ID creationism is a minority theological view, opposed to mainstream religious views. It's covered in a paragraph at the end of the Creating and teaching the controversy section, but it would be a good idea to give that paragraph its own title, and to think about expanding it. . dave souza, talk 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is any belief that existence is created by some sense of divinity, theistic evolution is a religious/philosophical stance that is both creationist, and hip to science. A creationist however has two meanings. A believer in creationism as broadly defined, and/or anyone who disagrees with evolution based on religious commitments. But yes, ID is a fringe view denied by most so called mainstream religion minsters.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And there'sthis older, but still valid def of creationism (and hence creationist) that has nought to do with this article, but, hey ... "A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism); " &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Junk Science

I reverted the deletion of the sentence in the lead that contained that term. Junk science is a standard descriptive for bad science, and it is hardly weasely. Moreover, the citation supports the use of the term. Why are editors making wholesale deletions of writing that met a consensus two years ago? There's no significant change. ID hasn't suddenly become real science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a better writer than whoever put that lead together. "Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[20]" is weasly, because of the others part. Its generally redundant because its part of a full paragraph listing the various ways the scientific community has declared ID to be !science but pseudoscience.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So specify who "others" and "some" are -- it's in the voluminous footnotes. ID is both junk science and pseudoscience -- the first thanks to Demski's and Behe's tripe, the other because it's just regarbed creationism. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly, does the reader lose from not reading that in the lead? Remember, concision is good, and rambling is bad. The pseudoscience label is actually stronger without the cruft around it. Junk Science is an amorphous term slung back and forth by various attempts at political framing. Global warming is also called Junk Science by various people, and we all know how the scientific community feels about that. Lets not paint ID and Global warming with the same brush.--Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been raised at least several times on talk. The scientific community does not, as a general rule, use the word "pseudoscience" in its published commentaries. In this case, two major scientific organizations and a number of individual scientists used the characterization "pseudoscience". Most scientific organizations which have commented on the issue have used words/phrases like "not scientific", "unscientific", and other semantic variations. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What does he gain by its omission?

Your last point baffles me, especially the brush bit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking as a given that Global warming is not pseudoscience, but science, and ID is pseudoscience, and not science, we want the reader to know that ID is not science, but pseudoscience. Various principles of writing and rhetoric suggest that less can be more, especially when more is tendentious, overwrought, or confusing. Junk science is a confusing term, meant to denigrate the research behind a theory as "bad science" and is a political term, not a scientific one. Global warming has had the label Junk science applied to it. People will often come away with the impression that the accusation of Junk science is actually sign of the legitimacy of the science, especially if they run into that term being slung around by ID movement , various abortion advocacy groups, and Global warming denialists to name a few. Thus by principle of least confusion, and rhetorical minimalism (make your point in exactly as many words as needed) my version is better.--Tznkai (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm not so hung up on the junk science part, even if it's true. But, let's let others respond, and we'll see where we go. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of responding to both of you. I hate the lead too, but that's what happens when 15 different writers, various vandals, and whoever else gets involved. I specifically hate all of the imbedded html code, but I was screamed at by the ID cabal (cough cough, I was) for trying to remove it. That's another issue. If only someone would let me rewrite the lead, it would be simple. This is what ID is. This is what it isn't. And a really big group of smart people think it isn't. And the courts think it isn't. Then I'd be done. Four easy to read paragraphs. And as long as pseudoscience is prominent, I guess I don't care about junk science that much, which really isn't something used much in science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Didn't you tell me you were going to revert my edits to the lead?--Tznkai (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

While I respect that you'd like to trim the lead, Tzn, there have been reams of discussion to reach this admittedly somewhat verbose and clunky lead. Every statement has been hashed over; every source is there to satisfy some citeneeded naysayer. In short, BOLD does not work well here. I suggest taking the approach of making a case for each edit, and gaining consensus for it, before, not after, the edit. This will take time and patience, but otherwise you will be editing very much against hard-won consenus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things, what NY bit? And to the rest... so what? I'm not edit warring, so theres not a single edit I make that will cause any harm. Working by committee on an article not only prone to cause more fighting, not less, but its less effective for editing in general. The "revert unless there is previous consensus" doesn't work, because much of the way we gauge consensus is by the silent majority. If you edit, and there are few objections, its "consensus" to keep it, and vice versa. Reversions and removal should be the last resort, not the first. This lead is a problem. We all know it, but everyone is afraid to do anything about it, because they don't want to upset the delicate "consensus" and they're afraid of POV pushers taking the opening. fine I get that, but I'm not doing that, and I've got an edit history that lives up to that claim.

As for the edit itself, calling it junk science is problematic for two reasons. 1. Yes, AAAS has called it that, but so what? DI has called evolution Junk Science too, but we don't include that anywhere (I hope). There is no salient justification for using a term localized to American politicking when we're talking about the scientific community's aggregate reaction. Second, using redundant synonyms is both a stylistic and rhetorical nightmare. It reduces the impact of something stated simply and causes confusion. For example, can something be simultaneously pseudoscience, junk science, and an assertion?

• An assertion is made without rhetorical support.

"Don't kill, its wrong!" is an assertion.

• Psuedoscience on the other hand, uses scientific sounding language and reasoning

"Don't kill, its wrong because your brain loses 5% of its gray matter every time you do it!"

• Junk science is a political term, but can be vaguely defined as "bad science" Science done incorrectly especially because of political reasons

"Don't kill, this study by Americans Against Criminality shows murderers go insane." 

Calling ID all three is in many ways incorrect, and more importantly, incoherent writing. It needs to go.

TL;DR We can do better. This subject is suitably important that we must do better. Forget the POV balancing for two seconds, it matters little if the text is bad. A properly written lead will always be NPOV because of the neutral nature of good, clear, informational writing. The opposite is not true.---Tznkai (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can do all three. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please clarify how ID is not junk science or pseudoscience, or how it is not based on an assertion as in the first sentence. Your bare statement "calling ID all three is ... incorrect" requires some explanation in order to persuade, at least for me. As far as incoherent, I disagree. The writing is kludgy but not incoherent. I agree it needs to be trimmed and tightened - and if anyone finds a way to do that which will not lose substance or cause larger problems, I will happily support that edit(s). KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How did this become assertion vs pseudoscience or pseudoscience vs junk science or any other formulation that fits? I thought we started out with assertion vs argument. Besides, the apparent assumption, made by Tzn, that pseudo- and junk science make arguments not assertions is in no wise inherently true. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way I can explain what I am getting at, is imagine there is a multiple choice test. ID is A. Pseudoscience B. Junk Science, or C. an assertion. All answers are mostly correct but the best answer is A. The lead can't be an indiscriminate collections of things about ID that people have said, or is true, concision and coherence over redundancy and confusion. Pseudoscience and Junk Science in particular, have overlapping definitions, but distinctly different uses and connotations, and junk science has a few bad ones. There is no danger that removing a sentence on junk science will dilute the fact that ID is not science, but there is some damage to that same point by leaving it in.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Our sources don't say the best answer is A. Our sources say the answer is D: All of the above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not this mess again. We've been over this many times before with the POV pushers, and assertion is the winner every time. That ID is junkscience is notable and verifiable point of view as the sources given show. Why are trying to remove a notable and verified viewpoint? Someone needs to reread WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV again. Odd nature (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Our sources are coherent on saying that ID is not science, and as I said just because a source says it, doesn't mean we should keep it. The problem with the D: all of the above answer is simple: its bad writing. Redundancy is bad. If you need to wrap up a single taxon for ID in one word, what is it? Pseudoscience, Junk Science, or Assertion? Only pseudoscience, which is well supported by many more sources (remember the definition of pseudoscience is approximately "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] " Pseudoscience is a category on wiki while junk science and assertion are not, and for good reason, they're not useful or significant taxa. To the uniformed reader, especially in the lead, they need to know the basics, in a coherent structure. "ID is pseudoscience." is powerful, neutral, coherent, and informative. Adding "The national association of science teachers says that ID is junk science" dilutes it.

Also, can we please stop it with the uncautious use of POV pushers and similar pejoratives? Editors might think you're talking about them.--Tznkai (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point; thanks for taking the time. IMO ID is all three per sources, but the lead should be concise. However, should one of the statements be removed from the lead, then it should almost certainly be incorporated into the main article. I suggest discussing options here - and I may be the only editor open to this approach besides you, Tzn, and I won't war for it. More input is needed from other editors here - the lead is very delicate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving statements from the lead to the body would require a major edit and playing with the eye burning insanity that is the embedded sources. I'm willing to wait for at bare minimum a promise not to revert on sight before we even start trying. As for migrating points, I think "Junk science" since its an incredibly political term should be put into "movement" which might need a new subsection "reaction from scientists" or something similar. (which can really be summarized as went down like a lead balloon, but whatever" I'm not sure where the falsifiability statement should go. I understand why its there, but it feels out of place. Like an editorial aside from your professor, or a elementary teacher (Now children, whats the definition of science again?). WHY ID isn't science and isn't accepted as one is an analysis that goes deeper than its lack of falsifiability. Will need to think on it more.--Tznkai (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues being conflated here: should the descriptions of ID used by various scientific organizations ("not science", "pseudoscience", and "junk science") be in the lead, and how do _we_ describe ID - or, more precisely, what word do we use to replace "theory" in the Discovery Institute definition? On the first point, the consensus is in favour of all three, although I agree that "junk science" isn't a good description, and wouldn't object to it being elsewhere in the article. On the second issue, "assertion" seems to be the only word that few enough people find objectionable to be usable. My preference is for "proposition", but that's been described by the Powers That Be as "completely unacceptable". If we're going to continue this discussion, we need to confine it to one or other of the issues, not try and do both at the same time. Tevildo (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, but I see the two problems as related, as they're both cases of bad writing. I've been thinking about it more, and ID is not an assertion, it is an asserted ______. That blank is somewhere around theory, method, or model. While anything that is asserted is an assertion, that doesn't really tell you anything useful. Proposed model is dubious because that gives it an air of legitimacy and part of the scientific process, which ID has not gone through. I prefer argument for the reasons stated above. At any rate, my point is that whatever ID "is" as its functional taxon, what ID does is modified by asserted, and is not left alone as an assertion. This is all very nuanced and a semantic issue, not a substance one, but it is symptomatic of the general clunk and kludge of the lead. Hopefully what I wrote was remotely clear.--Tznkai (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the lead would be a much better piece of prose if it wasn't required to reflect the closest thing to consensus that's possible between two such radically-opposed viewpoints; however, that's one of the constraints of Wikipedia. I would have no objection to "argument" in isolation - indeed, for some months the opening sentence was "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God..." - but the problem with "argument" as things stand is that the - sentence fragment? - "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" isn't an _argument_. "Assertion" is a good word (perhaps not the best) to describe _this particular sentence fragment_, and the sentence fragment is our definition of ID. Going back to "argument" would mean departing from the Discovery Institute definition of ID, and I don't think consensus has changed on that. Tevildo (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note, we seem to have a weak consensus for moving the junk science out of the lead and into the body, so I'm going to do that now. I am neck deep dealing with the WikiTroubles on WP:AE, so I will probably be very slow to respond to comments here.--Tznkai (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropoff

Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science. 

Recommendations on where we put this? I still think we have a weak consensus to move it (hopefully enough to avert reversions while we figure it out)--Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose moving or removing it. It's a notable and verifiable view that has stood where it is for over two years and you've failed to make a sensible case for either moving or removal. Please stop edit warring over this and move on to something that actually needs attention. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Argument vs. assertion

I'm not really in the mood to argue over the larger issues above, but I will say that "assertion" (the current wording) much more accurately reflects what ID is than "argument". Argument implies a set of propositions supported by evidence. ID is no such thing - it has not a cintilla of evidence to back it up. Assertion (that is, something which is claimed to be true by someone) is a much more accurate word. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That there is not "a scintilla of evidence to back it up" is clearly a (majority) POV. Assertion is loaded. I am open to more neutral suggestions - "belief" - "contention"??--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mm, it has no evidence that you find convincing. The Discovery institute certainly tries to put forward what it considers 'evidence' - irreducible complexity and all its various (discredited) examples, the mousetrap analogy, the paper in the Sternberg peer review controversy, and the many papers on the Discovery Institute website. If the Discovery Institute was really backing an assertion, their website would presumably consist of the sentence quoted, followed by blank space. Just because we find all of their arguments unconvincing (which I agree they are), I'm not sure that turns them into assertions. TSP (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See the definition of argument. Also, believing that one can know what the DI would or would not do is essentially mind-reading.

Also, belief was considered to be very POV by a number of previous editors, and is a far more loaded term that assertion could ever be in anyone's mind. Contention is not NPOV, either. Assertion is what it is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera!

Addendum:

From the OED

Argument

4. A connected series of statements or reasons intended to establish a position (and, hence, to refute the opposite); a process of reasoning; argumentation.

Assertion:

5. A positive statement; a declaration, averment. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ID seems to fit both definitions, depending on your spin. Its a collection of statemnts intended to establish a position "Intelligent designer=win, evolution=lose" it could also be seen as a bald face assertion of the same.--Tznkai (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

True of ID, but the DI's pet "definition" is clearly an assertion without any argument. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, really, as you show in your example. The example is in itself an assertion. The very real reason why ID can never be an argument, and likewise can never be science, is because it starts with the "end" already determined and works backwards to "prove" the "end". It's not, we see this, why does it happen?, it's we see this, it must be the result of a designer, let's prove it. Bad form all around. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• If ID is "just" the teleological argument, then we'd redirect this page to teleological argument and we'd be done with it. Since thats ridiculous, the premise ID = TA must be false. ID is a form of TA, sorta, but its also a political tactic. To borrow from Dawkin's poorly defined concept, ID is also a meme.
• Arguments can be stupid arguments and still be arguments. Like wise Circular reasoning/argumentation is bad reasoning, but it is still reasoning. Just because ID proponents probably (I can't read their minds, but i'd bet on it) said Here is God! How do I prove him? doesn't make them not arguing, it makes them not doing science properly. Thus, the pseduoscience label.
• If I read Dave right, ID is an argument, but the definition DI uses is a bald face assertion, ergo the definition should not be used.--Tznkai (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's their "definition", and as such is a notable point of view. A more detailed view is that it's the teleological argument modified to avoid naming the "designer" for tactical reasons. We don't read anyone's mind, we follow reliable sources. By the way, this is a fun read. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a teleological argument. It starts with Aquinas and Paley (and others too numerous to mention). It is dressed up to look like science, and yes is political in nature in that it seeks to sneak creationism into pulic schools. It is an assertion for the reasons I've already explained.

Given what you've said, should we call it "a bad, circular and implausible argument"? Somehow, assertion just sounds better. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggest we call it an argument, and let our reliable sources call it bad circular and implausible, but thats just me.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And if it were an argument, that would be fine. ID doesn't argue, it asserts: "God did it". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP, however irritating and likely to derail this into a bad faith festival brings up an interesting point: the teleological argument is also an argument. IF ID is a TA, it must be an argument.--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And if pink is a color it must be in the rainbow. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me extend the thought a bit more. The teleological argument is an argument. There are various teleological arguments of which ID is one, or so we seem to have established, thus ID inherits membership in the class "arguments" being part of "teleological arguments." A cod is a fish is therefore an animal.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Cautiously, as I'm sure this can be disputed, my own feeling is that we could clarify the opening definition along the lines of "ID is a modern variation of the argument from design for the existence of god, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the DI, describe it as showing 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.".... Just a thought, dave souza, talk 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as the tenor doesn't change and the validity is not threatened. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with "modern" as a bad term. Also, is ID a variation, or does it use a variation? (I'm leaning towards the second, ID has a lot of supports in its argument structure, however unsound). And to bring up the causal chain again, the argument was modified for a reason, and we should tell the reader why. As a related thought, discrediting intelligent design does not discredit the argument from design, but discrediting the argument from design discredits intelligent design. Ditto on creationism in general.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer "current"? And "is", not to parse its meaning, is the correct word.

As for the rest, no one is attempting to discredit anything. Seems like you're ascribing motives here and that's not good. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer current, but prefer more to drop it entirely. As far as the discrediting goes, Intelligent Design is discredited. The argument from design is not, I'm not ascribing motives, but describing a logical chain.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From a scientific perspective, ID is discredited and so is design. There is no way that you can test for design, so therefore it can't be science. If you want to "believe" in design, that's faith and religion, and fits into the Creationism article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So, according to science, Stonehenge is a natural formation and all discussion about how it was constructed, or even the notion THAT it was constructed, fall outside of science and are merely faith and religion? How truly bizarre. 78.86.153.121 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to re-hash this yet again, shall we unarchive the most recent discussion (and the bit that immediately preceded it)? Or more to the point - would everyone involved please do the rest of us the courtesy of reading that discussion? Please? Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All that shows is that quite a lot of people wanted "assertion" to be used. But many also thought that "idea" and "view" were good too. Given that some people here think that "assertion" is pejorative and nobody has any real objection to, say, "view", the decent thing to do would be change it from the disputed term to the undispted one. After all, if "assertion" really is intended to be just a straightforward, non-pejorative term then there would be no reason not to indulge those who feel that it is pejorative and just change it as a matter of courtesy.78.86.153.121 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with "view" and "belief" is that many people hold such views or beliefs while distancing themselves from ID. The proponentsists make that particular assertion, I've suggested wording which puts the core argument first and means that we can treat the peculiar definition as a DI description. YMMV. . dave souza, talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the version you suggested above is much better but, as noted, I think it genuinely would be better to keep "assertion" because there's no way the rest of the article is ever going to fall into line with anything resembling neutrality and so it's better to keep the bias up front and clear just so as the reader will know.78.86.153.121 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're on quite the roll. There is no bias, just fact. Sorry if that doesn't work for you. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply Guettarda - I did. I have, I'm not convinced we can't do better.--Tznkai (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC). In reply to the IP: give it a rest with being inflammatory, please.--Tznkai (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being inflammatory. I really do think that Wiki will always have deep problems with articles like this and it's better to have an obviously biased article like this one than one that is surreptitiously biased. That way everybody knows where they stand and everybody is saved a whole lot of trouble arguing endlessly about things that will never be resolved. Witness the refusal of some to accept that ID being the teleological argument means that ID is an argument! Witness the non-analogy of pink and rainbow being used in an attempt to dispute this! How long do you think it would take to get to some of the more subtle biases changed when arguments that are as clear as day (x is a sheepdog therefore x is a dog) are rejected because some want to keep an obviously pejorative description right at the start of the article. 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.153.121 (talk)

The statement that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", what Sober called "mini-ID", is a compromise statement that keeps the ID "big tent" together. It isn't a "belief" or "view" - ID proponents don't believe in an "intelligent cause" - they believe in some flavour of God. The hold any single "view" - some are YECs, others deny common descent between humans and apes, others accept the pattern of evolution but reject to cause. ID proponents present no evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", so it's unreasonable to call it an argument, hypothesis or theory. Similarly "premise" gives it undeserved weight - a "premise" is a foundation upon which you stand a logical construction or an argument. Calling it a "position" is misleading - it's impossible to say whether an ID proponent actually holds the position that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"..."takes" the position, perhaps, but that just boils down to "asserts". So "position" introduces needless ambiguity.

People make assertions. An assertion is simply a declarative statement. The ID movement makes this assertion because they seek to be a big tent, and because they sought to skirt Edwards. I cannot think of a better term than "assertion". Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of excessive stubbornness, assertion underestimates (wait for it) the breadth of ID. This is going to get moderately technical for a moment, so bear with me. ID is an argument, because has a series of connected statements in support of a conclusion for example P1. X, P2. Y, P3.Y-->Q, P4.X--->Y C. Q. The structure ID argument is at least partially valid, that is, if the the premises are true, the conclusion would be true. Some of the evidence is true, for example Behe's examples about irreducible complexity of the human eye and the clotting chain. (This stolen from H. Allen Orr.) Parts of the argument are not true such as Behe's premise that the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting mechanism has no natural selection explanation. (The discussion on irreducible complexity is stolen wholesale from H. Allen Orr). This makes the argument unsound but it makes it an unsound argument not an assertion. To think about it another way, arguments are collections of assertions, declarative statements, which are judged to be true or not true. In addition there is a connotation issue. With respect to Raul's posting at the top of this page, argument implies a structure, not the quality of that structure, and arguments don't need "evidence" they need premises. Hell, look at theoretical physics, a lot of that isn't observed, but a series of logical/mathematical premises based on what ifs and guesses. (On the other hand, I could be wrong about the physics part, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt)--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the core problems one faces when trying to write about intelligent design is that you are faced with the question "what is intelligent design". Far too many people just jump in with both feet, without bothering with the definition...it's something we all know... What makes matters worse is that there's a dearth of good definitions. The DI defines ID narrowly - we use their definition in the current lead: ""certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause". It's true that Thaxton, and Kenyon, and Behe, and Dembski, and Wells,... each added their own flavour to ID when they made their attacks on evolutionary theory. To begin with, when Behe makes his mousetrap argument, he isn't talking about ID. He's making an argument against mainstream science. They don't argue in favour of "the design hypothesis" (as they like to call it), they argue against mainstream science. So while Behe is making his relatively reasonable arguments in DBB (for that point in time), or Dembski is adding fart noises to an animation of Judge Jones, they are making arguments for the purpose of advancing ID. But they are not making arguments for ID. What's more important for our purposes is the question of reliably sourced definitions. While Luskin must be aware of IC, SC, FTU and all the other initials, he leaves them all out when he answers the question "what is intelligent design?" on the DI web page. What he goes with is what Sober calls "mini-ID". If we go with Sober or we go with Luskin, we have a simple, minimalistic definition of ID. And that definition is key to holding the coalition together. ID boils down to an assertion, a simple statement. Sure, you can find other answers to the question of what ID is, but they aren't the most reliable sources on the subject.

What is Intelligent Design (ID) theory? Answering this question is complicated by the fact that one version of the theory is minimalistic, while others are more contentful. The minimalistic version, which I’ll call the mini-ID theory, says only that the irreducibly complex adaptations that organisms possess were made by one or more intelligent designers (Behe 1996, 2005; Dembski 1995, 1998b, p.15). The identities of these designers are not specified; maybe the vertebrate eye was made by a team of Extra Terrestrials or by a God who lives outside of space and time. The mini-ID theory does not deny that human beings have common ancestors with other species, nor does it insist that the earth is young, nor does it offer an explanation of the origin of the universe. The mini-ID theory differs from some earlier versions of Creationism by virtue of its modesty.

Defenders of the mini-ID theory have a lot more to say about intelligent design, and this is where more contentful versions of ID theory make their appearance. For example, Phillip Johnson (1996), one of the main architects of ID theory, endorses theistic realism, “affirm[ing] that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly biology;” he says that this is “the defining concept of our movement.” In their widely used ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (1993, p. 7, p. 26, p. 100) frequently contrast “natural” and “intelligent” causes; this indicates that the intelligent designers they have in mind are supernatural. And Dembski (1998b, p 20) rejects theistic evolutionism, which is the thesis that God used the evolutionary process to produce organisms and their adaptive features. Dembski’s gripe is with evolutionary theory, not with divine design

Elliott Sober, Intelligent Design and the Supernatural -- the 'God or Extraterrestrials' Reply. Faith and Philosophy, 2007, 24: 72-82.

Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is certainly a moving, amorphous target, I just think assertion has connotation problems, and from a style standpoint, implies a simplicity to ID. ID is complicated. Sure, your analysis is bang on, DI's definition is a distillation holding together various groups, but ID is a very complicated mess, and I feel we need to indicate it better than "an assertion." What other options do we have? --Tznkai (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ID may be complicated, in the sense that it stumbles all over itself to support its assertions, but it is hardly complex. Simple things like going to a store can become complicated, but they are never complex. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is complicated, BUT there is much valid evidence for ID. Someone who is knowledgeable about the strong evidence of ID should be able to easily defend this theory. It is a theory of Origins, worldviews and science. It is an argument, not an assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.51.108 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

theology of ID

The article claims that "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." In reality, Jonathan Wells, a prominent DI associate, as an ordained member of the Unification Church believes that Jesus was a failure and Rev. Moon is the true messiah. He does not follow the God of Christianity. ID is also popular with various other groups, such as the Raelians. (Incidentally, there's also a lot of variation in branches of Christianity as well, with Behe Roman Catholic and Dembski Eastern Orthodox). There are also issues as to whether the picture of God advocated by ID is entirely in line with traditional Christianity, though I don't knwo that Wikipedia is the place to deal with that. (Note that references 9 and 10, cited as evidence, do not show that all the DI associates believe the designer is the Christian God-one showed that a desire to promote Christianity was deemed to be a motive in the Kitzmiller case and one showed that Dembski thinks the designer of ID is the Christian God)

The issue ties into the unfortunate U.S. legal situation. Creation science and intelligent design do not belong in schools, not because they are religiously motivated (teaching evolution can have religious motivation, too) but because they are wrong. If there were good ID arguments, then they would be appropriate to teach in schools, no matter how many atheists didn't like it, just as evolution ought to be taught no matter who doesn't like it because it is correct.

More fundamentally, the fact that many major proponents of ID believe that the designer in question is the God of Christianity does not necessarily tell us anything about ID. As Christians, naturally they assume that if such a designer turns up, it is the one they believe in. But that does not mean that ID itself necesarily makes the connection. Ironically, although the claim to be religiously neutral (made when claiming that ID belongs in public schools) is generally disbelieved by ID advocate and ID opponent alike, in fact ID couldn't tell whether the designer was aliens, Zeus, Allah, etc.

The relationship between ID and more traditional creationism is complex. Young earth creationism has sometimes taken up the ID name; ID advocates have not consistently distanced themselves from young earth nonsense; but ID is not simply a front for of creation science.

The cited responses to fine-tuning arguments are not all that good. Both fine-tuning arguments and anti-fine tuning arguments involve assumptions about the probability of our universe being the way it is. Without having data on a large random sample of universes, there's no scientific way to test if ours has unusual features. Even with an infinite number of multiverses with varied physical laws, there's no guarantee that the features of our universe fall within the range of random variation (for example, an infinite number of universes could have a fundamental value ranging between -1 and 1, but our universe has it equal to 2). Fine tuning cannot be proven nor disproven scientifically. They may seem plausible or implausible, but science cannot decide. (It's a bit like the Drake equation-yes, that would give relevant probabilities on aliens if we knew what the values were to plug into it, but we don't and probably cannot know some of the values.)

Cecilbeany (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The points you make are not sourced, and appear to contradict to some extent verified points in the article. Please provide more evidence if you're proposing specific changes to the article. . dave souza, talk 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some admitted TLDR going on here, but all of the DI associated ID proponents say they believe in the Xian God. We, as encyclopedia writers, are not in a position to say otherwise just because we happen to think their theologys are whacked, we report, not judge.--Tznkai (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TLDR?

Anyway ... Cecil, re "Fine tuning cannot be proven nor disproven scientifically" -- science does not have to disprove it, those asserting fine tuning have to prove it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TLDR=Too long didn't read. I didn't read all of Cecil's post, just skimmed it for what I felt were the relevant parts.--Tznkai (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem area(s)

Areas that the article needs improvement:

• The "defining science" section is poorly titled and introduced We don't need a lecture on every way ID fails to be science any more than we need a lecture on every way a fish is not a golden mushroom. A basic rejection and reported reasoning why will be fine.--Tznkai (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• The "Creating and teaching the controversy" section can't decide if its history or analysis. We can have both, but its probably better to trim analysis and/or separate it so the timeline is clear.--Tznkai (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

W.r.t. the first, the demarcation problem is a very significant issue that courts have struggled with, and that the scientific and educational community has struggled with in the context of the "intelligent design movement". Unfortunately it can't be reduced to a statement like, say, "ID isn't science because it isn't falsifiable", or "ID isn't science because it's obviously religion", etc. etc.

W.r.t. the second (which is actually the main section of which the "defining science" is a subsection), I agree that this section can be pared down slightly and still retain its important points of information. There is, of course, already a lengthy "main article" on Teach the Controversy, but there's some material here that isn't quite suitable for that article because "Teach the Controversy" refers to a slightly more specific set of actions and strategies of the "intelligent design movement". I figure the main question will be "what's most important to retain in this article?". Please proceed very cautiously though, because a lot of users were involved, and a lot of that stuff is important information too. The part of the second paragraph of the "Controversy" section that discusses the Time Magazine article was put in there by someone mostly to fulfill what was argued by the WP "image police", to be a "non-free-content" policy requirement in order to use the Time cover image. I had argued that the paragraph wasn't necessary to meet the WP:NFC criteria. And it was a very heated exchange with some of the folks involved with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Personally I don't think the latter part of that paragraph is needed, only the first sentence or two which could be integrated into another paragraph. Anyone else? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As the "defining science" subsection reads, its an out of the blue digression on the nature of the scientific method, science, scientific consensus, and so on. That could be useful somewhere else, say, in the scientific method, science, and scientific consensus articles or subarticles or so on. I'm saying thats only moderately more useful than having a section on sound Christian theology, and showing why ID isn't that. ID has asserted itself to be science, so I accept we need to address that, and we need to address the numerous times it has been rejected as such, but I think any further is the sort of analysis that borders on original research. My test: if a student could turn in any chunk of this wiki article as a position essay, we've gone too in depth.

As to the machinations of the IDM, DI, and Teach the Controversy are huge, and could probably have their own wiki devoted to them. Perhaps hilighting the major events as listed in that timeline that we've got somewhere would work as a guide?--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

the "defining science" subsection is there after many assertions that ID is science were made. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jim here - we found it insufficient to merely link to [science]], it is necessary background for people (readers) to understand precisely what ID is claiming when they state ID is science - pardon my poor grammar, I trust you know what I mean. As such, its placement is logical near the claims refuted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we have something moderately more elegant, like "I.D met with strong resistance from scientists and science teachers. Source says that ID is not XXX and YYY and ZZZ, which are core components of the scientific method."--Tznkai (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong resistance? Short of a few non-scientists, it was roundly rejected. ID is simply not science because it requires faith, which is untestable. It isn't science. I might go along with removing a casual term like "junk science", but you have zero support to weaken this article to the point where it sounds like a few ultra-Darwinists, meeting at the Local atheists meeting, don't like ID. In fact, there's not a single scientist of any merit that thinks that ID is anything more than a religion. ID fails science on so many levels that it's impossible to list them all, but we should, since the Discovery Institutes whole purpose with ID is to create scientific-sounding creationist argument that can be taught in US schools, thereby circumventing the US Constitution. If you make it sound like science exists anywhere in this argument, then the article is a POV sham, and not an NPOV FA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

...OK. Find your favorite synonym for rejection (ID met with massive resistance? ID was rejected by?, but I'm not sure where I'm doing any of the the rest of what you said.--Tznkai (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to use reject, not resistance. Unanimously rejected would be fine. Describing those who push ID as "batshit insane" would be fairly clear to the reader, but I guess that wouldn't pass the POV sniff test. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Vocab issues aside. Is the concept ok with you?--Tznkai (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any case here for the changes you propose Tznkai. This is already a Feautured Article and meets Wikipedia's highest standards, and the "issues" you cite are far from readily apparent to me and others it's clear and your proposed changes are controversial and seem to fly in the face of already solid sources. Since this article already meets the highest standards I think we need to be very circumspect about deleting or weakening this article's content. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree.--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We need higher standards then. I have no problem with the facts or the sources involved, but the writing is not good enough. I'm not proposing any content loss, but restructuring, and fat trimming. Hell, we don't have to get rid of the fat, just move it to a better spot. Something becoming a featured article doesn't mean its "done" I remember the Black Hole article being featured when it had a section narrating in the second person, which is terrible style for an encyclopedia. The facts were just fine, the prose was in bad shape. Which is what the situation is here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, you are making fairly significant content changes. Why can't this be done in a sandbox, and you gain consensus of a large number of editors who have been involved in the past. Right now, it appears to be you and one other trying to make changes, and larger number of individuals who are reverting your changes. This isn't getting anywhere. Of course, you could just do an FAR, then everyone has to be involved. The number of changes you suggest is either going to make this article lose its FA statuts, or it's going to induce an FAR. Let's move on. You're an experienced editor, so I know you know how to make this work. This edit/revert/edit/revert is not useful. Why don't we do something better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FM nails it. The issue is that this content has already stood the test of FA, FAR, and time and unless Tznkai has some special knowledge or insight the rest of us lack, there's no reason to change it. One of the FA criteria is stability, and Tznkai's constant tweaking and reverting are going to destabilize this article. Odd nature (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made, what two? reversions on this article since returning to Wikipedia? One of which was not controversial, and the other with a number of voices have said "sure, I'm not attached to the Junk science point myself" The edits in this section are proposed I havn't actually done any of them. Double check your facts on my actual edits to the article.--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have reverted quite a number of others, including me, to remove the junkscience section despite it being long standing and properly sourced content with no clear consensus to delete. That sort of thing tends to destabilize articles and can earn people a label. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have? o.O It seems you reverted me, unless we're talking about something that happened in 2005, 2006--Tznkai (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ON, I'm not saying we shouldn't edit the article, I'm saying we need to be careful about how we do so. That said, I agree that the content has withstood FA and all that and is solid and well-sourced as it is and substantial changes are not warranted unless solid evidence is presented that shows the current version is inaccurate or incomplete. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't advocate one way or the other whether the reference to "junk science" is important information for readers of the article. When the article was vetted and attained FA status, included in the second lead paragraph was the well-sourced information that ID has been variously termed by the scientific community to be "not science", "pseudoscience" and "junk science". The debate about how much information the reader should receive in the body text of the article is, it seems to me, fair enough. The longstanding consensus has been to make the article thorough, in part because it's a complicated topic. If, however, the question is whether the specific reference to "junk science" is adequately sourced to merit inclusion in the article, here's another reference. The author is a neurobiologist. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I placed the additional reference into the article. I don't know whether it should be a cite-web or cite-book template. I apologize for my ineptitude with these citation templates. Any WP:MOS and/or WP-template experts around here? Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue is not whether "junk science" is well sourced, but whether it has any significant use in the article, and even it was useful, whether or not its useful in the lead. I would argue that it is not useful. Well sourced? Certainly. True? Sure.... Well, heres the catch, junk science is a political term, and I'm not sure if its useful to call something junk science, any more than its useful to say that Republicans think Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal. "Tax-and-spend" is a political pejorative. So is "junk science" and I feel that we're most useful in working outside of those pejoratives. !Science and pseudoscience to me, serve just as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, I think the main problem with the term "junk science" is that it implies that ID is alleged by some in the scientific community to be some type of science at all, specifically "bad" or "junk" science. Intelligent design is not bad science, but rather, it's not science, period . But the agreed purpose of that second paragraph is to relate to the reader what the scientific community says about ID, not what we think it should be characterized as. That community has variously termed ID "not science", "pseudoscience" and to a lesser extent, "junk science". It's our obligation as WP users to report it as such, and it only takes seven words (and two footnote numbers) in the body text to deal with the "junk science" characterization. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would work better in the body myself.--Tznkai (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Defining science

As stated above, it would be good to simplify and shorten this section. While some sources such as "Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Intelligent Design". give simple explanations, the complexity of the issue is pretty well shown in "Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". which essentially shows disagreement over methods which all reach the same conclusion about creationism. . dave souza, talk 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the subsection on "defining science" could be more concise and better organized than it presently is, so long as it reasonably continues to take into consideration the range of factors typically included in a contemporary analysis of what is considered science and what is not. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)