Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Defining science

This section of the article that defines science is at odds with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as science, as AGW science has declared the subject closed and fully proven and no dissension of the consensus is allowed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.226.239 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

firstly, you are in error, as no scientific subject is "closed" to further examination by scientists; but more to the point, this is not a global warming article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

alien creators

Some people, even atheists, believe that we were created by aliens. That's also intelligent design, so this article is unnecessarily critical of a determinated religion (christianity) and therefor has a considerable lack of neutrality, descarting other religions. --72.50.103.18 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for any such content. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 05:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is descarting a typo? . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The ancient astronauts created us theory raises the question of who created them. TFD (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue remains whether the only usage of the term Intelligent Design is in reference to the stuff that comes out of the Discovery Institute. Other examples of the term, from noteworthy sources (e.g. a Harvard astronomy prof emeritus) who has made use of the term but explicitly differentiate their usage from what DI says. ID $\neq$ DI. 70.109.185.151 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the whole situation. For one, I'd be willing to bet that Owen Gingerich's speculation on the idea that aliens intelligently created us is also through the process of evolution, meaning that it resembles ID in no way whatsoever. Even if that is not true, he is one man and one voice, not representative of an entire movement. Second, as this and other related articles explain, the DI literally invented ID and its members can be quoted as saying that the "intelligent designer" IS God many, many times over. Lastly, in response to your first objection that the article has an anti-Christian pov - I say otherwise. I am Christian. This article presents no offense or even opposition to my faith. To re-purpose one of your quips, ID $\neq$ Christianity.Farsight001 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Who misunderstands the situation is not a settled matter. The assertion that "DI literally invented ID" is a personal opinion. It's not even about whether the article offends anyone's faith or not. It is whether the article is NPOV and factual to entirely conflate the concept ("id" with a small "i" and small "d", what might more generally be the teleological argument) has existed outside of and preceding the Discovery Institute. The fact is that the DI and its partisans have done some deceptive things. The article unfairly stains the broader philosophy (small "i" small "d", as meant by Gingerich) that long preceded Pandas with DI and their little mendacities. The article has never been truly NPOV. It has always had a critical tone consistently connecting the concept of ID (or id) to DI. 70.109.185.151 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It really is settled and it really was literally invented by them. That much is obvious to anyone who spends five minutes researching the subject and that much has been determined by court of law and ADMITTED by the DI itself. If even they admit it, the issue really is settled. We are not at opposite opinions here. We are right and you are wrong. Period.Farsight001 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno whom you mean by "we" and "you", but saying "we're right, you're wrong, pbbbt!" is hardly persuasive and doesn't sound particularly open-minded nor particularly humble about a deep epistemological issue. The problem is not whether or not DI claims to be the sole definers of what is ID or not. It's whether there are others of note that have some input of what ID means and there are. To write the article as though DI is the sole authority of what ID means is not NPOV. And because DI legitimately brings down criticism upon itself and how it presents ID is not sufficient to stain what others say is ID with the same account. 70.109.185.151 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I demur, Farsight; I think you're confusing intelligent design with the intelligent design movement. --Yopienso (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This article deals with intelligent design as defined and promoted by the intelligent design movement, a relabelling of creation science. Other concepts which may use the phrase "intelligent design" come under the teleological argument article. If further definitions or examples are proposed, reliable sources are needed – see wp:talk. . . dave souza, talk 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This article includes fine introductory paragraphs on the origin of the concept and the origin of the term, going back to Plato and persisting through many major thinkers: Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Paley, Dove, Gray, Darwin, Allman, Schiller, Nozick, all uttering "intelligent design" or something similar well before the ID movement sprang up. It would be a gross over-simplification and misservice to the public to limit this article to the definition of intelligent design, essentially the ID movement, since the mid 1980s. We have a separate article on the movement, another on natural theology, and yet another on the teleological argument for the very good reason that they are separate ideas. ID looks at Creation (or the Universe, or Mother Earth, or Nature, or whatever term you choose) and says, "This is the work of an intelligent being or mind." It assumes there is some primordial, fundamental, yet overarching intelligence. The teleological argument, on the other hand, tries to prove the existence of a postulated God or intelligent agent, using Nature as evidence. The logic of ID and of the tel arg. work in opposite directions. Therefore, this article must embrace the idea itself, voiced for millenia, and not just the modern movement. All the modern movement did was latch onto a convenient term that already existed and appropriate it for itself. This article should make that fact clear. --Yopienso (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The belief that humans were created by aliens (or any other being) falls under Creation myth (or Creationism if it's religious). It is only when said belief is dressed up to pose as legitimate science that it becomes Intelligent design. That is what was this article is about, and is a phenomenon almost strictly associated with the Discovery Institute. There is unfortunately a large amount of confusion over its intended scope due to an overlap in terminology (see my earlier post). Even so, like Jess said, to merit its inclusion in any article, we would need WP:RS's that document it. MildlyMad^T_C 05:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mm-hmm, that's your opinion. Plazak offered one I agree with half an hour earlier on Sept. 7. And here's my same old opinion, the one I'm sticking with. But I should really butt out, since the lede's been edited to say it's about the contemporary idea, even though the article didn't start out that way The article called "Intelligent Design Theory" was merged into this one. So I'll pipe down. --Yopienso (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the beginning we had A theory of evolution asserting that God guided the process of evolution., linked to Theory of evolution. Times have certainly changed since 2001. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we don't live in a static universe?? That was lame on my part. I saw I was bucking consensus so realized I needed to desist, but I've come back to admit the last thing I said was dumb. Uncharacteristically dumb, I hope! I'm not disgruntled, and am in fact not only aware and sorry I was out of order, but nearly convinced the consensus is sound. (I still like my post of 05:03, 3 October 2010, and wish the article were so oriented, but it isn't.) --Yopienso (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Southern Methodist University visit

A visit by the DI to Southern Methodist University has resulted in a statement by eight professors (covering history, philosophy, biology and anthropology). One of them, John Wise, has produced a useful outline of Problems with Intelligent Design, which has links to other resources. There's also been other coverage, including this gem from a student reporting on the DI's presentation: "While some who study geology believe in the Cambrian explosion, in which animals did not evolve from small organisms but were created by a 60-million-year long explosion, Darwin thought otherwise." . .dave souza, talk 10:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Very true that Darwin was a total "gradualist". Remember, though, that the view of geologists until the last half-century or so was of an earth of fixed continents, sporadic volcanic growth and gradual erosion by water. Similarly the modern evolutionary synthesis taught to today's high-school and college students is a product of the last half-century, in significant part due to advances in our understanding of the geological history correlated with the ever growing fossil record (including many of the "missing links" traditionally used as a vehement argument by opponents of an evolutionary perspective). Thank heavens for progress. And thank heavens the ever expanding time span over which this all occurred has finally settled at about four-and-a-half billion years, when back in Darwin's day the supposed time span at the leading edge of geological research was millions of years--so it's grown by a factor of about a thousand--LOL. I refrain from comment about certain difficulties experienced by theistically oriented biblical literalists, except to note that it appears such difficulties continue to exist. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wee post-Darwin joke. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV tag

Someone please state clearly and precisely what is non-neutral in this article. Thank you. TimL (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. (Sound of crickets...) As I have said higher up in this talk, if editors who have POV concerns will state specifically what passages in the page are of concern to them, and why, I remain very happy to work with them to try to find consensus wording. We've already done that a few times, successfully I think, and there's no reason not to continue. But I see little benefit in continuing to argue that the page needs the tag, without moving on to addressing any content issues that might be the reasons for such a need. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears any specific complaints have already been answered, and the only remaining objections are clearly not related to NPOV (i.e. about citations/formatting) or are so vague as to make it impossible to determine what specifically should be corrected. Unless specific complaints are brought up, the tag really needs to go. Yobol (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thirded. The NPOV complaints I have seen here reveal a misunderstanding of the WP:UNDUE principle on the part of the complainers. They see an article that appears, on its surface, to be anti-ID, without realizing that the article simply states the consensus view of those knowledgeable about the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There will always be people who think the article is biased, even certain admins, but keeping the article tagged because of never-ending but baseless NPOV disputes is an abuse of process.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fourthed, support tag removal. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on a thorough review of the discussion I am removing the NPOV tag. TimL (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. But I want to repeat what I said above: I remain very happy to work with anyone who is concerned about POV issues. (Although I suspect that it is just a matter of time until we see an edit war over the tag, minus discussion of specific content changes.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to me to have the somewhat unusual characteristic of that the more familiar one becomes with the reliable sources on the topic, the more NPOV it tends to be. This of course assumes familiarity with WP content policies such as WP:WEIGHT. That said, I have no objection to revisiting the editorial issue of how detailed should be the description in the lead of the response by the scientific community and the education community (brought up below in this section). ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead is still painful to read, in part because of POV issues. It pushes certain facts so hard the second paragraph is almost entirely repetition. I've tried getting somewhere with this, but people seem to like padding the lead to make it "proportional." I'll bring it up from time to time to see if there are some people who understand that "tl;dr" really is a problem when a lead isn't simple enough, but I'm not going to spend much time fighting something out. This article isn't that important. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand where your concern is coming from, but I think it's more or less OK. The entire second paragraph is the part of the lede that contains "the scientific community disagrees with ID", but if we didn't tell who has those opinions (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), it wouldn't be much of a paragraph. It's an unfortunate reality that almost all the objections to ID are more or less the same, but since those opinions are a large part of the article, having them there is a necessary part of the article per WP:LEDE. MildlyMad^T_C 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sχeptomaniac: I understand if you don't want to bother, but, for what it's worth, I'm still perfectly happy to discuss changes. It sounds like you are principally talking about length and repetition, and, for the reasons Mildly Mad just described, we may not be able to do much with that, but if there are issues of choice of words (and the resulting tone), maybe I can help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead edits

There are four sources supporting "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." I think that it would be reasonable to leave that in the lead an move the details regarding what individual organizations say below into the body. Either that, or condense some of the statements, such as something like: "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community, as represented by organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is that intelligent design is not science."

The other part is the repetition of history summary in the latter half of the first paragraph and the whole third paragraph. I'd previously advocated removing the paragraph, but removing/relocating the two sentences at the end of the first paragraph would also be a way to condense the lead. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me (although I'm sure other editors will have issues). I like the idea of "as represented by organizations such as...". With regard to both points, we would have to be sure that anything shortened out of the lead would still be retained in the main text. What, if anything, would other editors find objectionable about making such changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Worth considering, the consensus details could usefully be moved into the body of the article, but the summary should be clear that it's pseudoscience, not just "not science". So, suggest something like "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community, set out by organizations including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is that intelligent design is not science, but rather is pseudoscience."

The first paragraph should show the relationship to creationism – as I've suggested before, we could use the more recent peer reviewed papers to condense the first sentence discussed into "This modern formulation of the idea is a form of creationism." However, the following sentence is an essential clarification, "Intelligent design's leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank —believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." That would avoid the repetition. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the objection to noting that, for instance, the National Science Teachers Association and other reliable sources in the scientific community called it "pseudoscience"? If so, I'd say the problem here is in part that a number of these reliable sources have made clear it's not just not science, but that it's essentially blatantly unscientific but which holds itself out to be scientific. This is very different from, for example, a situation in which the general public has misunderstood something to be a scientific assertion when it's not, thereby meriting a simple clarification from the NSTA, and/or the NAS or any number of other representative organizations., that they hereby correct the misconception and that something is "not science". Remember please that the documented strategy of the ID movement was to get a wedge in the door so as to change long-standing fundamental assumptions of science to accommodate their agenda--to allow the supernatural once again to be considered as a causative agent of natural phenomena and still be called science. I will, however, grant that AFAICT this is the first time since the most recent hullaballoo began here in which someone has identified a specific issue that might reasonably be characterized as related to NPOV. The issue is perhaps more closely related to the guideline WP:LEAD than to NPOV. But please do also remember WP:WEIGHT in deciding how to manage the current content of the second paragraph. And I appreciate the diligent efforts by current participants in the discussion to seek possible opportunities for improvement, whatever your perspective on the article may be. See y'all later. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I think, if I understand correctly, that the objection is simply to the length and repetitiveness. I also think (again if I understand correctly!) that making the edits in the way that Dave described would satisfy the cautions that you pointed out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I agree that the article does need to mention the various notable groups and what they specifically have to say about ID, including those who say it is pseudoscience; I just feel that the lead is the wrong place to list a bunch of them. I strongly feel the lead should be as straightforward as possible, avoiding too much repetition of very similar information. Right now, that second paragraph has four sentences that say "(notable group or groups) states that Intelligent Design is (not science/pseudoscience)." A combination of condensing sentences and moving information to the body would make the lead flow much better, rather than the stuttering we currently have. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I can throw in my two cents, the problem with the lead section is that the first, third, and fourth paragraphs read like well-reasoned encyclopedic entries, while the current second paragraph reads like an exercise in flagellation. While I understand the need to point out that ID was mostly a political gambit and not an actual scientific enterprise, this 'foam-at-the-mouth' approach looks bad (as though wikipedia editors believe that the project needs to browbeat readers into conformity with the scientific viewpoint). As far as I can see, that entire paragraph could be reduced to a line or two and repositioned at the end of the last paragraph of the lead (e.g. "Proponents of Intelligent Design present it as a scientific theory, a claim rejected by the National Academy of Sciences and the American association for the Advancement of Science, as well as by organizations such the American Teacher's Association. It is widely considered pseudoscience."). This would give all the same information without giving the appearance of an all-out assault by fanatics. A more restrained tone would allow the neutrality of the remaining paragraphs in the lead to shine through. --Ludwigs2 05:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Paragraph two engages in overkill--I don't think it's addressed to general readers, it's addressed to pita drive-by's and talkpage soapboxers. I acknowledge the challenge good editors face to be responsive readers...it's just that I think the pov warriors who haunt talk pages or bang on the mainspace can often trigger "overreaction". I think paragraph two is victim of it. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

well, ok. if no one else comments I'll try a revision along the lines I suggested; maybe it will stick. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my own slowness at this (increasingly, one of my shortcomings as an editor, alas). If you or anyone else does it first, all the better. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've suggested above, "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community, set out by organizations including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is that intelligent design is not science, but rather is pseudoscience." would work, regrettably the proposal by Ludwigs2 goes too far in suggesting equal validity of this pseudoscientific fringe view. As before, other aspects of this paragraph remain significant, and the detail of who says what is to be moved into the article. This isn't a big priority as far as I'm concerned, but will do something along these lines fairly soon. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way does what I wrote suggest equal validity? You'd have to squint at it like Mr. Magoo to read anything resembling approbation into that. besides, 'unequivocal consensus' is just deliberately tendentious wording; we're not playing academic smack-down here. As I said above, we do not need to browbeat readers into conformity. I'm willing to discuss better wording, Dave, but it's time to move away from the attitude of ferocious disapproval that the paragraph currently expresses. --Ludwigs2 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How on earth do you get "ferocious disapproval" from my proposal? It's a straightforward statement of the level of acceptance of ID within the scientific community, which unequivocally rejects ID as pseudoscience. Your proposal gives false equivalence by naming just a few organisations, and using the phrase "It is widely considered" as though there was some supposition that it isn't pseudoscience – all the sources are clear that it is not science, despite the rather self-contradictory claims of the proponents. A useful outline comes from the Southern Methodist University Department of Biological Sciences, must add a section on that. . . dave souza, talk 09:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... this is feeling unnecessarily confrontational here. Looking at the suggestions, I think that there is a problem with Ludwig2's suggestion, though. In order to convey the meaning of the second paragraph, I think we need to state that it is the scientific community, as represented by multiple organizations, which has rejected ID as science. Given that we have several sources for the statement that it is the scientific community, not just particular organizations, I think that would make for more effective wording. However, I also question the need for adding "overwhelming," as I'm not sure that adjective can add enough to an already strong word, "consensus," to make it useful. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

apologies, I was merely demonstrating my point. saying that the phrase shows 'ferocious disapproval' or represents a 'foam-at-the-mouth' attitude is exactly the kind of literary hyperbole as suggesting that there is 'unequivocal consensus' against something. it's not the kind of phrasing we want to use in articles, anywhere. If Dave objects to my use of the first phrase here, then he ought to object to the use of the other phrase in the article.

With respect to the more substantive issue, however, we need to be careful to distinguish between scientific and political issues. Most of these sources presented are opposed to the political act of trying to get creationism taught in schools, not with any challenge to mainstream scientific opinions. Scientifically, it's a non-issue: anyone who takes creation science seriously as a scientific theory will dismiss it in short order because of the tremendous flaws in its supposed scientific underpinnings. Scientists do not oppose theories for political reasons, they dismiss them for evidentiary reasons. In this regard we should treat ID with pretty much the same casual disregard that you can see on other invalidated scientific topics (compare preformationism). Claims that there is an 'unequivocal consensus' or attempts to reify a 'scientific community' that is unified in opposition are moves in a political game - attempts to create a scientific 'authority' whose word is incontestable law - and that's not the direction we want to lean on wikipedia. We have strong, reliable, deeply scientific sources that say ID is pseudoscientific and shouldn't be taught in schools. Why would we need to go beyond those sources to make some point that is not actually in those sources?

Honestly, the problem here is a general lack of faith in Wikipedia readers. The only justification for writing a tendentious paragraph like ¶2 is that there is an assumption that readers are quite dumb: i.e. that readers will not understand the import of having the NAS and the AAAS weigh in on the issue, that readers will not be able to evaluate the scientific merits on their own, that readers will not recognize that wikipedia has shifted from a descriptive to a prescriptive mode (and that readers will not become offended that wikipedia is using emotional/rhetorical techniques to try to prescribe a 'correct' position). I don't assume that readers are dumb, and I don't accept the need to prescribe 'correct' perspectives, so I find material like ¶2 distasteful. Do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As Dave Souza indicated, it's a fringe view. It's variously been characterized by scientific organizations as "not science", "unscientific", "pseudoscience", and by some scientists as "junk science". The statement that it's pseudoscience was just reiterated in a combined statement by eight faculty members of Southern Methodist University here, which said, inter alia:

"The Discovery Institute is a fringe group of pseudo-scientists who are busily trying to pass themselves off on the unwary as legitimate scientists."

Already cited in this WP article are four other references by professional scientists and/or scientific organizations which also state that it's "pseudoscience".

--David Mu, in Harvard Science Review: "In sharp contrast, for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience."
--National Science Teachers Association: "It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."
--American Association for the Advancement of Science: "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory."
--T. Gura in the journal Nature: ""But many scientists regard ‘intelligent design’ as pseudoscience, and say that it is being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools."

... Kenosis (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone in this discussion is disagreeing with that. The debate we are having (and have been having for a long, long time) is over the difference between descriptive and prescriptive writing on wikipedia. I have no problem with describing the flaws in ID, or with describing the fact that very credible sources dismiss ID as pseudoscience. I do have a problem with writing that tries to browbeat the reader into a particular viewpoint. I don't care how well-sourced paragraph 2 is, it reads like an angry, didactic rant (the kind of speech that parents use to make their children feel stupid about their behavior - we all know how well that works, don't we?). is that what we want in a wikipedia article? --Ludwigs2 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I'm a bit confused here. The second paragraph presently reads:

Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory.[1] In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.[11] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[12][13][14][15] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[16] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[17][18][19] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[20] and some have called it junk science.[21][22]

There are four citations for "not science". Two examples are given in the paragraph of major scientific organizations which call it "pseudoscience", with four citations to RSs that term it as such. And two citations are given (with three actual reliable sources between them) of scientists who've termed it "junk science". Though there are many citations, the paragraph is brief and puts right up front in the article what ID is as seen through the eyes of the scientific community. What needs consolidation here? Let's suppose for argument's sake the editors choose something like, for example:

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not scientific; it has variously been characterized by scientific organizations as "not science", "unscientific", "pseudoscience", and by some scientists as "junk science".^{[cite to multiple RSs]}

The rest of the specifics can of course readily be placed farther down in the body text. But here's the problem as I see it: The excellent explanation by the NAS that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." is now lost to the unfamiliar reader. Put it back in? Then we're pretty much back to where we started. So I don't read it as browbeating the reader. The paragraph is brief and staightforward, and moreover, it's essentially the same second paragraph that was in the article when it achieved WP:FA and essentially the same as when it was twice reviewed in WP:FARs. At least that's my current take on this issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose two of the most tendentious statements in the paragraph to retain? I wouldn't be averse to saying the following, where we pick out the less argumentative phrases and build on them:

While proponents of intelligent design have argued that it is a scientific theory, prominent scientific sources note that theories which presuppose supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species - Intelligent design, creationism, and similar - cannot be investigated by scientific methods. Both scientists and educators consider the claim to be pseudoscience, and oppose the introduction of such material into school curricula.

support that with an appropriate subset of the current citations (there are too many citations in that paragraph, and too much argumentation going on in footnotes), and what you have is a nice, neat, succinct description of the the relationship between ID and the scientific community, one that does not indulge in excesses. we do not need to list out every bad label that different sources have used, we do not need build a unified scientific front condemning ID, we do not need to engage in hyperbole of any sort; we just say it and move on. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RE "why did you choose two of the most tendentious statements in the paragraph to retain?" : LOL, I trust you're probably referring to "unequivocal", which I left in there because I recall the discussions in which the editors' consensus was to make clear it's not just, say, a mild consensus or a solid consensus, but rather that it's an unequivocal consensus. IOW, ID is regarded by all the RSs representing the scientific community-at-large essentially as anathema to science itself, and not as, for instance, merely an alternative scientific paradigm with which present-day scientific consensus disagrees.
..... As to your apparent reticence to actually using the various terms quoted above which the scientific community has publicly used to describe ID (this is not just in the locker room here, but as I said, publicly in writing), I'm again confused. They're RSs by the scientific community and it seems to me our task to represent them in WP:Summary style to the reader, which among other things (to me at least) means not burying this important aspect of ID (the scientific community's views of it) deep in the body text where few readers dare to tread. That said, I'm reasonably comfortable with what you've just proposed immediately above as a starting point for further discussion. Though please remember there's some WP "peer-review" risk involved in deviating substantially from what was already thrice peer-reviewed in FAC and two FARs. And IMO a rewrite of the 2nd par. must include a reference to ID proponents' attempts to change the very foundations of science to accommodate it. Until we chat again, you take good care o' yourself, OK?. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

interesting shift to folksy at the end there. is that a sign-off from the conversation? at any rate, the 'tendentious' comment partly referred to the 'unequivocal' bit and partly to the hammer-down list of pejorative labels. not (I think) the most reasonable statements in the paragraph. but that's neither here nor there; I really was just curious.

I remember those discussions as well ('mild' to 'solid' to 'unequivocal' and eventually to 'anathema' - stellar example of group polarization effects). I disagreed with that movement at the time, and still disagree with it: it is clearly synthesis from sources to support an unsourced viewpoint. In the folksy spirit, "dat be wrong", per policy.

Also, the suggestions that ID was seeking to redefine the foundations of scientific methodology seems to be a questionable and hyperbolic interpretation - I personally don't think that the ID people were concerned about science at all except as a means to achieve a political goal. Clearly they would have to redefine science from a political point of view, but in fact the importance of the Kitzmiller case is that it the first time that anyone even tried to define science legally, so it wouldn't be a redefinition of the pragmatic meaning of science so much as a bad definition of the legal definition of science. Bad enough in its own way, but of no threat whatsoever to actual scientific endeavors. I'd have to read Meyers carefully to figure out what he specifically meant, but I sincerely doubt he meant what is said here (because no one in academia would take that statement seriously).

Finally, the purpose of reliable sourcing on wikipedia is to show that article content reflects what is said in the literature. We are under no obligation to use every available source, and we are under no obligation to report every little detail that every source says, and we really do have an obligation to show some restraint. The point to be made in this article is that numerous sources in the scientific community reject ID as poor science: using multiple terms that mean the same thing - pseudoscience, junk science, bad science, non-science, unscientific, and etc - to express that point is just a cheap form of magnification (like calling someone a stupid, dumb, idiotic, brainless moron, rather than just saying they are dumb). That's tendentious and unnecessary.

The thing so many editors fail to realize on this article (and on so many articles like it) is that you get much more milage from being understated and precise than from being overstated and zealous. One simple statement that ID is considered pseudoscience, cited with a couple of high-powered sources, is convincing; an entire paragraph dedicated to various strongly worded damnations of ID, with excessive and polemical citations, is overkill, and the only thing it's going to convince anyone of is that someone has an axe to grind with ID (which will ultimately only serve to make ID seem more reasonable and credible). Gotta see the bigger picture... --Ludwigs2 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to be approaching this from a position of ignorance with the idea that watering down plain statements somehow makes them more persuasive. Don't know why you've got this axe to grind, but our task is to accurately reflect the sources giving due weight to clear majority views of this fringe topic.
Since you seem unaware of the centrality of changing the foundations of science to make ID feasible, have a look at this source: ID proponents giving their expert testimony that "the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered" and "it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural". Also, this wasn't the first instance of defining what is and isn't science for legal purposes in relation to education, see McLean v. Arkansas.
As for the scientific community, we should be clear that their opposition to this is unequivocal, in a context where efforts are commonly made to misrepresent the level of scientific support for ID.
The sequence of opening summary, outline of the arguments over science, and main points of ID's career in relation to court cases works pretty well, in my opinion. The birth of ID in response to legal constraints on teaching creation science is so central that it should be briefly set out in the first paragraph, as is done at present. The main issues in the second paragraph are also essential, but as stated above I'm willing to see everything after the first three sentences severely truncated. It might be possible to add that shorter statement to the end of the first paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you'd be easier to take seriously if you didn't accuse everyone who disagreed with you of "having an axe to grind". The one surest sign of a fanaticism is the inability to understand or believe that anyone else might reasonably disagree with one's perspective. You might want to watch that.

That aside, you're correct: our task is to accurately reflect and give due weight to the sources available. That is precisely why we need to tone down the kind of zealous wikipedia editorializing that is so rife in paragraph 2. This is precisely what I argued above - not sure why you missed that, but you might want to go back and read over what I wrote previously. --Ludwigs2 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"However" at the start of sentence 2 in paragraph 2 did look a bit pointed as well as being poor grammar and not really needed so I have taken it out. I hope this is OK.--Charles (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK by me, it's an improvement in grammar if perhaps leaving the fringe claim a bit isolated: we can review that aspect. . dave souza, talk 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead edits 2, arbitrary break

Reading the most recent comments, I'm now actually glad that I didn't quickly make edits. I'm trying to assess where we stand now. Taking into account the concerns at the top of this thread, along with the most recent views expressed, I want to ask:

1. With regard to the second lead paragraph, how about keeping the National Academy quotation, but removing the last two sentences, the ones about the Teachers Association and AAAS, and about "junk science", from the lead, but placing them instead in the main text? That would shorten the repetition, but keep the parts that editors have said they consider important, I think.
2. The other issue raised originally was the lengthiness of the third paragraph, along with the last two sentences of the first paragraph. That material seems, to me, less of a POV issue than just an issue of length. In my opinion, the history in that third paragraph gets awfully long for a lead. How about: shorten the third paragraph to just its first two sentences, moving the remainder lower on the page, and combining it with what is now the fourth paragraph?

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The length of the lead is in no way excessive for the length of article so why is there any need to pare it down to an emaciated skeleton?--Charles (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a lead be padded to a certain size. Instead of ignoring the argument that the paragraph feels excessive, why not actually address what's said and give reasons why the paragraph is fine? A lead can be "proportional" and still be utter crap. WP:LEAD states in the introduction that a lead should be a "concise overview." Concise is the opposite of that second paragraph in particular.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the changes suggested, I think there's some debate about the wording, but there seems to mostly be consensus for condensing the second paragraph. As for the third paragraph, I've reconsidered how we might best deal with some of the redundancy with the latter half of the first paragraph.

I think we might get a better flow if we remove/rearrange the last two sentences of the first paragraph. By doing that, it would make the lead flow more naturally. Right now, it starts by discussing what ID is, then its history, then what it is/isn't, then more history. Moving that would make a distinct description section of the lead, followed by a distinct history section. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What specifically would you suggest doing with those last two sentences of the first paragraph, ie, where would they go? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most of it duplicates those later paragraphs, so I think merging in the refs and information would result in slight changes to that third paragraph, but much of those sentences ceases to be necessary when you look at it that way.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but in contrast to the second paragraph, this is not so clear to me. In merging the last two sentences of paragraph one into paragraph three, what would you delete and what would you retain? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some merit in rearranging the flow of the first paragraph, moving the current last sentence so that it becomes second last. We then have ID avoids naming designer > proponents believe designer God > formulated responding to rulings prohibiting teaching creationism as science > proponents claim it's science, scientific community says it isn't. The last part is currently the second paragraph, but if that's shortened to 3½ sentences it could be a continuation of the first paragraph. . dave souza, talk 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, sorry if I'm being dim-witted here, but do you mean that you want to switch the positions of the second-to-last and the last sentences of the first paragraph? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that what I'm thinking about. It's a bit difficult to describe concisely but I think it could work. The effect would be as my brief outline above, if you like we could put a draft here for discussion. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. I think drafts here would definitely help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Draft of lead; tightened up per discussion

As requested, here's a proposal for a tightening up of the lead, re-ordering the first para, trimming the second para and tightening up the third para. Having moved the development by creationists into the second para, I've added "is a form of creationism" into the first paragraph, that can be sourced to the peer reviewed papers discussed earler: Scott, E. .; Matzke, N. . (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (Suppl 1): 8669–8676. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8669S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. which is already cited, and Padian K, Matzke N (2009). "Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks". Biochem. J. 417 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1042/BJ20081534. PMID 19061485. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Details trimmed from the existing lead would be moved to the body of the article, unless already covered in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC) [the first paper was briefly cited, but was removed in restoring the lead]. . dave souza, talk 07:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

comparison of alternate approaches to the lead
Dave Souza's proposed revision	Ludwigs2's proposed revision
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, and indeed is pseudoscience. Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. In the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents gained support from the Discovery Institute, and funding for their Center for Science and Culture which advocated the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. These organisations served a central role in planning and funding the "intelligent design movement", which gained wide publicity in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.	Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. This modern formulation of the idea was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design originated as a response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Several books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, Intelligent design's leading proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and advocating more publicly for the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In Dover, a group of parents challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". Proponents of intelligent design argued that it is a scientific theory, while prominent scientific sources noted that theories which presuppose supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species - Intelligent design, creationism, and similar - cannot be investigated by scientific methods. Scientists and educators considered the claim to be pseudoscience, and opposed the introduction of such material into school curricula. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Alright, I've reorganized this as a side-by-side comparison, so that we can see the differences in approach to the topic. hopefully this will make things clearer. --Ludwigs2 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for providing some concrete "stuff" to work with here. I think both are a bit too preoccupied with Kitzmiller v Dover. I agree that current para 2 with the ad infinitum footnoting and the one-after-another parade of scientific associations blaring "ID sucks!" tone to it stands improvement...but isn't it too buried in either proposal? I tend to agree that both the "redefine science" and a tie in to DI should appear in the lead.Professor marginalia (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC) RE: Kitzmiller...I may be over-conditioned to see Panda's and read Kitzmiller--and I think what's really needling at me is that there is an underdeveloped component to ID with much higher aims than that textbook. The Dover case had so many obviously unconstitutional fingerprints that even DI scurried for the tallgrass early on. Panda's was just one side-show in the "big tent" ID movement. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the "redefine science" follows from the central ID aim of getting it into science classrooms, and must be immediately followed by the point that from the outset the scientific community has shown that ID isn't science, but rather is pseudoscience claiming to be science.
It might give that more prominence if we kept the "Intelligent design was developed...." sentence in the first paragraph. There is some logic in restoring it to the second last position it held previously, when I tried moving it to the end it made sense to me to make it the start of the "ID claimed as science" paragraph.
Of Pandas and People was the start of the term ID, from 1989 onwards intruduced the campaigning to have ID taught in schools, and in 1993 featured the first publication by Behe of his concept (though not the term) of irreducible complexity. Though Phillip E. Johnson is considered the father of the ID movement, his 1991 book Darwin on Trial does not seem to have promoted ID – "Although he does not find "creation science" any more credible than Darwinism as an explanation of the origin of Homo sapiens, he defines and defends as "intellectually credible" the concept of "creationism" as a theory of the origin of the universe."[1] The 1993 edition mentioned the phrase as previously having been used in Pandas. In a review of Pandas in the WSJ of 14 November 1994, Johnson "agrees that the underlying motivation of belief in a Creator cannot be ignored and that a more explicit expression of such intentions is in order. However, he countered: 'The fact is they're working against enormous prejudice here, and enormous bigotry. And they're vying to put it in terms that the courts and science will allow to exist.'"[2]
It's a fair point that the ID "scholars" developed their ideas before adopting the term ID, but crucially they continued to promote Pandas for schools right up to Kitzmiller – and they withdrew from that case because the school board was explicitly creationist, ruining their chance of saying it wasn't creationism. So the mention of Pandas is right, don't know if we can concisely cover the above more fully. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe the "scholars" didn't originate very much new. "Virtually all of the arguments later advanced by Discovery Institute Fellows (critique of methodological naturalism, "specified complexity", inadequacies of homology, gaps in the fossil record, "where does new information come from", and so on) are present in essentially modern form in the 1989 edition. Even Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument (though not the signature phrase) appears in print for the first time in the second edition of Pandas (Davis and Kenyon 1993), in a new section devoted to blood-clotting."[3][4] . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... part of the problem I have assessing the lead here is that I'm not sure precisely what the focus of this article is supposed to be. Is this article:

1. on the philosophical/scientific theory of ID?
2. on the ID movement as a political entity?
3. an overarching article covering ID in general, with child-articles covering the political and philosophical aspects in more detail?

From a predator drone perspective, what we see is a long-standing concern in the US Christian right that the government is interfering to make education increasingly secular. This results in a generally increased focus on biblical fundamentalism, and on the creation story in particular (since that has been a litmus test since the Scopes trial). That focus begins to crystalize around the philosophy of science (what does it mean to be a scientific theory? if evolution is just a 'theory' why can't other 'theories' oppose it?), and people begin fleshing out various versions of 'creation story as scientific theory'. The only real difference between ID and earlier theories is that ID becomes overtly de-Christianized (removing any implication that the 'designer' is the Christian God), which has two effects: it allows legal wiggle-room under the Establishment clause which its proponents try (and fail) to exploit, and it allows a bit of a philosophical renaissance since its proponents are no longer bound by strict biblical referents. To that extent the Discovery Institute is more of an outgrowth of a long-term trend than an instigator or motivator of a movement. So which path is this article following? Is it looking at the philosophical trend - the general development of the idea from early Christian ideology to late philosophical rhetoric? or is it aimed at the political trend - the progressive secularization of the education system, and the various political efforts to reintroduce ecclesiastical elements into education? or both, in measure? --Ludwigs2 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I also thank both of you for giving us something concrete. I also think that both versions are improvements over the status quo. Overall, I prefer Dave's version, on the basis that it flows better and puts more emphasis on the concept and less on the court history. I have somewhat the same reaction that Professor M did: that we should put less of the lead (than either version here) into narrating the history. My preference would be to shorten the last two paragraphs of Dave's version, as follows:

Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. In the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents gained support from the Discovery Institute, and funding for their Center for Science and Culture which advocated the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What I tried to do there is basically just shortening it. In doing so, I made the two paragraphs into one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like that myself. let's assume that we use Dave's first two paragraphs and the third paragraph you've proposed here: would that work for everyone? The only other thing I would ask (personally) is that we pare back some of the redundant citations - there are more than we need to verify the text and the lead looks a little congested with all those brackets. but that's stylistic more than anything. --Ludwigs2 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it too. Could we be more specific, as in, "Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard barring the teaching of creationism in public schools"? That more neatly closes the circle between the first and last sentence in the paragraph. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and I'm receptive to other tweaks as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of other tweaks, I'm not sure about the wording of "and funding for their Center for Science and Culture". Should that be "funding from"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be something like: "In the mid-1990s, the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture became a focal point for Intelligent design proponents, advocating for and funding efforts to place the theory of intelligent design in public school science curricula." At any rate, that's a bit more grammatical. --Ludwigs2 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised proposed draft

Taking the above discussion into account, there seems to be reasonable agreement about the proposals for the first two paragraphs, and a desire to combine the last two into a shorter paragraph. The existing paragraphs have a lot of finely nuanced information, but here's a version incorporating modified versions of the points proposed in discussion. Good point about clarifying the relationship of the earlier reference to court rulings to the Edwards v. Aguillard part, note that creationism had already been relabelled creation science to try to get round previous judgements, and it's worth linking the Separation of church and state in the United States as showing the principles behind the ruling. Have rephrased the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture part, see how that works for you. We're now skipping over the other books, not sure if that's an issue. The version below has a comparison to the original. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

comparison of alternate approaches to the lead
Proposed revision as discussion above	Current version as existing
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, and indeed is pseudoscience. Intelligent design originated in response to the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement". They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.	Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. This modern formulation of the idea was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank —believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science. Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula. With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Dover trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Support the new version on the left. Good work, Dave! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. looks good to me. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections after a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to go ahead with this change. Please double-check my edit, particularly whether I get the sources correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I moved some of the material that we shortened-out to the "Defining science" section lower down, so please also check that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Politics of ID

Much of what is stated in this article is about the POLITICS of Religion vs Science. There should be a section titled "The Politics of ID", since when do the courts decide theology (or science) and how many blief systems or sects of ID are there ? This article talks as though there is only one denomination in the canon of ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.226.239 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be looking for Intelligent design in politics or Intelligent design movement. Please take a look at the navigation template on the series of ID articles, visible at the top of the article page on the right, with the image of a watch followed by ordered groupings of links. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design in politics and Intelligent design movement , I see activism is alive and well in this Wikipedia. You people are so steeped in your agendas you can't see how partisan these articles on ID appear to the dispassionate observer. Why don't we just call the whole ID subject here just another bias problem as exemplified in CAGW on Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.227.66 (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific suggestion for improving this article, this is the place to make it. However, talk opages are not for use as a forum to post your views.[5] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The RfC is now over.

Is the article neutral? There was a dispute about its overall neutrality on the talk page. The NPOV tag was added but has been removed. There is now a dispute as to whether the NPOV tag is being used appropriately. Input would be appreciated, particularly from uninvolved editors. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Comments (no threaded replies in this section, please) Keep the tag. If I'm in a minority of one about the need for the POV tag, I certainly won't restore it, but I got the impression several people felt the article was POV. Am I alone in thinking that? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. I certainly don't. While I haven't read the entirety of the article within the past few weeks (or longer?), I haven't seen anything pointed out here which I agree is POV, and the solutions to this undefined problem I've seen have been wholly unacceptable. Further, I don't see any discussion actively taking place, nor any new solutions being proposed which haven't already been met with consensus objection. Tags are intended to point out that active discussion is taking place, not to mark the article, so unless anyone has something new to say, I support removal of the tag. Jesstalk|edits 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. As can be seen in the recent article history (yesterday and today), Elektrik_Shoos and I agree it's no longer needed, at least absent a significant, ongoing substantive discussion, which hasn't occurred in a week. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove I'm not sure there's a good reason to keep the flag. In the above discussions, I saw a whole lot of hand-waving and pointing at WP:NPOV, but not a whole lot of suggestions for areas of improvement (other than "This entire article needs to be re-written!"). I'd like to see a concrete explanation of why it's non-NPOV before we keep the tag. Mildly MadTC 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) RfC Comment such as it is. I don't edit this page, and I don't plan to start now. I haven't looked in detail at the content issues of this page, but when I saw this RfC, I found it, well, ironic. Editors may (or perhaps may not) find an interesting compare and contrast at Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/POV tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. I don't see any compelling reason for a POV tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove The article is well-sourced. If there are particular claims that need to be included that aren't included that can be traced to reliable sources then we can include them. The fact is that the vast majority of reliable sources (i.e. judicial decisions, peer-reviewed scientific literature, etc.) has come out overwhelmingly against ID. An article that reflects the balance of sources is neutral. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Keep the NPOV Tag - I agree with SlimVirgin that this is not so much an article on ID as it is a demonization of ID and its proponents. Example: in the lead we find the statement "The idea was developed by a group of American creationists ..." altho well documented statements later in the article it is made clear that the idea is in fact very old. Keep the NPOV tag until these internal contradictions are ironed out. Plazak (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Remove NPOV tag. No compelling reason has been offered to keep it, as far as I can see. If there's a perception of POV because readers get confused between an old and a new concept that both have the name "Intelligent Design" then perhaps the article should better clarify the distinction between older and modern usage. As to SV's question "am I alone?" Answer: No. Every creationist and ID supporter who comes across this article and feels the need to comment on it, says it's biased. This isn't something new here, as you can see from the voluminous archives. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC) RFC Comment: If there is an ongoing discussion about NPOV, then the tag is entirely appropriate. In terms of disagreeing whether it should stay, then the party arguing for keeping the tag could be thought to have the burden of proof to demonstrate there is an ongoing WP:NPOV_Dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Article is not neutral. This is not a topic I'm familiar with, but from even a cursory reading the article clearly pushes a POV. Having introduced the topic as if presenting a balanced understanding of how the theory relates to mainstream conventional scientific view, it then proceeds to make assertions biased towards the latter view, as if setting out to disprove the theory. For example: A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy".[126] But in fact, there is no such controversy Contrast this with two other possible ways of presenting the matter: Biased the other way: A key strategy of the scientific community is hiding from the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The intelligent design movement stresses the importance of uncovering this debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". The scientific community denies the existence of a controversy, but in fact, the intelligent design movement demonstrates that the controversy does indeed exist. Neutral: According to the intelligent design movement, there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". The scientific community, however, denies the existence of this controversy. I appreciate your approach, but your "neutral" version in inaccurate. When IDers say "Teach the Controversy," they mean "Teach that evolution may be (or probably is) wrong," not, "Teach that there is debate among scientists." The scientific community itself does not deny the existence of controversy, but is actively engaged in it. Some activists do deny it, and some textbooks and popular publications ignore it. Note that your "biased the other way" suggestion likewise asserts the scientific community is hiding, etc., whereas although the scientific community, including some activist WP editors, does ignore or de-emphasize it when arguing with IDers or textbook publishers or interviewers or when editing Wikipedia, they don't exactly hide it. Any simple layperson who makes a casual study of these questions is aware of the open disagreement between Dawkins and Gould.--Yopienso (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC) This is not a case of fixing one or two isolated statements; bias seems to run through the whole article. Though certain statements are presented neutrally (such as, "Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance."), much subject-matter is not. For example, an entire section, with associated daughter article, claim that ID advocates are "creating the controversy"; moreover, sundry biased statements jump out all over the place ("Intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer ... ", "Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case", both of which even open paragraphs). All in all, this does not come over as a neutral, encyclopedic article. PL290 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Keep the tag. This article has some major POV issues. Cla68 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. Claims that statements such as "Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case" are POV show basic ignorance of the subject. ID has no scientific case at all.--Charles (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Keep the NPOV tag. I am a an uninvolved editor who has read this article for the first time today. For background, I am a Christian, but one who believes in evolution and a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth. I say this to make it clear that I am not here to advocate for intelligent design. This articles comes across with a strong point of view and is decidedly non-neutral. Most of the problem is with the lead, which reads like a very intense attack on the idea of ID. There are two major problems that I see. First, there is too much reliance on obviously-partisan sources (for example the Center for Inquiry which is a specifically secular-humanist organization). The opinions offered by some of these sources are restated as plain facts in the lead, whereas the opinions of the ID supporters in the lead are quoted. This has a significant effect on the editorial voice of the lead, and is decidedly non-neutral. Secondly, there is much WP:OR. Too many opinions are offered as fact based on an interpretation of remarks made in a court hearing. Overall there is a great deal of obvious bias here. The article is extremely non-neutral. Thparkth (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. From what I read above a few people have claimed that the lead is not neutral, but I read it and it is purely factual. The POV tag should be removed unless specifics can be provided by those claiming to the contrary.Chhe (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Keep The Tag. This is definitely not a neutrally worded article. As an example in the second paragraph: "Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11]" This statement in the lead of the article is presuming to know the intent of the people advocating intelligent design. In the lead it is effectively prejudicial. There are many other instances, but this is a fundamentally controversial topic. Given human nature, I know if this article will ever be neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Remove - I think a few of the examples offered above do raise POV concerns, but the article as a whole doesn't strike me as inherently biased. I think we might better address individual POV statements using the inline-POV tag. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Remove. Well sourced article that is overall neutral. Agree that one or two sentences could use with tweaking, but many of the complaints noted by those who want to keep the tag are unconvincing.Yobol (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Remove None of the opponents of the tag have presented any reason for it. Intelligent design (ID) even though it follows earlier arguments for the existence of God is modern. It is rejected by scientists because it attempts to make conclusions beyond the scope of science. TFD (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Remove The article is well-sourced and presents a correctly balanced perspective on ID.Desoto10 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Remove The proponents of the tag have offered no evidence that it is necessary. Just because they don't like the tone of article does not make it an NPOV violation. The article basically states that ID is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community as non-science. It is not POV so state so, especially when that position is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. In fact no reliable sources exist that support any interpretation that ID is in fact actual science. Therefore no NPOV violation exists and the tag should be removed. - Nick Thorne talk 04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Keep and Demote from FA SlimVirgin has rasied some very Valid points, The concerns of an Off-wiki mailing list in general compound this situtation. This needs clean up. BB7 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Remove the tag i've compared the two versions and kenosis's is more in keeping with notability and weight guidelines while also being (a lot) more informative. Kevin Baastalk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, and since there are no threaded replies in this section, horses are on the brink of extinction and astronomy is an elaborate hoax propagated by the radical left-wing media. boo-yah! Kevin Baastalk 20:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Keep the tag. two reasons: The article (while I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it 'biased') is clearly slanted to an unfortunate degree and could use some balancing. Dispute tags should never, never, never be removed until the dispute is discussed and resolved. editors who do so without good reason (IMO) ought to receive sanctions for tendentious editing. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) In fairness, I feel the need to point out that the editors who removed the tag (not me) did so after discussion in this talk, and were not being tendentious. People here have strong opinions, of course, but this isn't, in this case, something where sanctions should be considered. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Keep the tag. When you can tell the point of view of the people who wrote the article, it's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.6.22 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Noted. sorry, I've seen too many cases where editors edit war over dispute tags specifically to prevent an issue from being noticed and discussed; that behavior really irks me. if that's not happening here then all's well. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) No problem. I know what you mean. I've had experiences like that myself, which helped draw my attention to this RfC in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Keep the tag. The article is not neutrally worded from the offset. The introductory paragraph does so to a degree that it undermines the credibility of the entire article. 109.156.110.166 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Threaded discussion NPOV tags are supposed to be used to signal to readers that there's a POV problem, if attempts were made on talk to sort it out and failed. The efforts failed; every edit designed to fix it was reverted, and editors resorted to insults. It's therefore being used legitimately. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) By using language like "attempts to fix it", you're signaling that there is a legitimate POV problem. However I don't see agreement that's the case, which means the tag isn't being used to point to discussion about a content dispute, but instead that you feel the article shouldn't be taken seriously as written. That isn't a productive or collaborative use of the tag. If there isn't active effort to improve the article, it only serves to smear the article's reputation... and that's not what tags are intended for. If you disagree, could you point me to the guideline which states that NPOV tags should be placed on articles where there's no active effort to improve the article, or no consensus there's even a problem? Jesstalk|edits 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC) There was an active effort, with a fairly detailed list of the problems. But it was ignored, and efforts to fix were reverted. That's why the tag was added. The same editors are now reverting the tag, which is surely inappropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (ec) Here is the list of issues I posted. The ones I tried to fix were reverted, and every argument, from myself and others, was ignored. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't notice any insults. (diffs please?) But what happened, SV, was that your rewrite was rejected, as were your varied assertions about why the FAC and two FARs had it wrong when they judged that the article was fully in keeping with NPOV. As I pointed out several sections above, giving selected old versions for comparison, it's very much the same article as it was at the conclusion of the last FAR except for the addition of some updated material and some relatively minor tweaks that were very cautiously consensused, which can be seen in the archives. What you substituted instead was a complete rewrite using Thomas Nagel's view as a countering POV, giving him equal WP:WEIGHT with numerous sources including major scientific organizations, educators, independent analysts and a federal judge. Nagel has been duly noted in the article as having published a response to Judge Jones's decision, stating a significant aspect of his basis for argument against the decision, which is reasonable WEIGHT. If you wish to revisit the substantive issues I expect to have some time over the next week to revisit the issue of Nagel which you used in support of your POV in the article. If not, then I, for one, consider the disagreement closed. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting. In [this diff you say editors "resorted to insults". Then, poof, it was gone. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon me. This error was due to this reshuffling of the order presentation of comments. That edit summary says "Removed edit conflict, and moved User:K's comment down where it seems to have been intended". Hadn't known about the reshuffling until I re-examined the whole section. Which unfortunately still leaves open my question about which comment(s) SV perceives as insults. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Please don't import toxicity, Tryptofish. You were alone in insisting you keep the POV tag on that article for one year, and it was eventually removed because no one else supported you. I've posted an RfC to find out whether I'm a lone voice or not, something you never did, and I did not keep restoring the tag for a year. But regardless, it's extremely poor form to import an old dispute that's unrelated to this article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'm responding to an RfC, and I'm not in the import business. And your account of history is not particularly accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Procedural note: SlimVirgin, please don't use the unattributed passive voice as if you're observing others' actions. It's too vulnerable to inadvertently misleading others and thereby biasing their responses. Please instead say something more accurate such as "I added the NPOV tag but several other editors recently removed it", or "The NPOV tag was added by me, and has been repeatedly removed by several other editors". Thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) RfCs are supposed to be written in a disinterested tone, and passive voice helps that. I don't think it matters who added the tag. People will see the article as neutral or not neutral regardless of that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) SlimVirgin, you have completely removed my procedural comment here without any edit summary whatsoever. So here it is again, submitted as a comment: Procedural note: SlimVirgin, please don't use the unattributed passive voice as if you're observing others' actions. It's too vulnerable to inadvertently misleading others and thereby biasing their responses. Please instead say something more accurate such as "I added the NPOV tag but several other editors recently removed it", or "The NPOV tag was added by me, and has been repeatedly removed by several other editors". Thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't remove it; I moved it here. It's directly above my last post. K, I think you should allow others to comment here; that's why I posted the RfC. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks, I do see it now. My point, though, was that the language is disinterested only in style, not in actuality. In fact you were the user who placed the NPOV tag and there were several others who removed it. Anyway the issue should now be moot because the opening statement is now clarified just above. As to your new request that you think I "should allow others to comment here", I think it ought not deserve a response, but I'll respond quickly. Since you've retroactively turned this talk section into an RfC, I'm willing to let it proceed in keeping with the normal conventions of an RfC. Of course I reserve the right to participate further if it seems to me appropriate to try to clarify any mistaken or potentially misleading assertions. Thank you SV. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (copying above) Keep the NPOV Tag - I agree with SlimVirgin that this is not so much an article on ID as it is a demonization of ID and its proponents. Example: in the lead we find the statement "The idea was developed by a group of American creationists ..." altho well documented statements later in the article it is made clear that the idea is in fact very old. Keep the NPOV tag until these internal contradictions are ironed out. Plazak (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'm getting interested now. I can see how the example to which you point is a matter for factual correction, but how does that make it an NPOV issue? For the page, as a whole, to reflect the balance of views among secondary sources, that ID is not supported by science, does not amount to demonizing its proponents. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I made a simple edit that I think (I hope) addresses the specific point you raised, by making clearer that this is the modern-day version. Is there something else? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) IIRC, this line of thinking has been pretty well hashed out in previous discussions (somewhere in the hellish depths that are the Talk:ID archives). I believe the consensus was that, while the ideas in ID have their roots in some pretty old thinking, and the phrase is occasionally used in passing throughout the development of evolutionary thought, ID didn't develop on its own (i.e. become notable) until sometime around the 1970s or 1980s as more or less a euphemism for "creation science," and this is reflected in the article. The problem we are experiencing here is that "Intelligent Design" has also (to a lesser extent) become the umbrella term for the Watchmaker analogy and similar arguments, but really only as a result of relatively recent developments; thus, they are given their due in the article as well. Mildly MadTC 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Hellish depths: why am I not surprised! :-) Anyway, I hope my edit was helpful rather than making anything worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC) It was coined as a term replacing over a hundred instances of the terms "creationism" and "creation science" in the 1987 revised draft of Of Pandas and People, first published in 1989. And yes, it has been very thoroughly hashed out, viewable as said in the "hellish depths that are the Talk:ID archives". ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (first comment below copied from above) Article is not neutral. This is not a topic I'm familiar with, but from even a cursory reading the article clearly pushes a POV. Having introduced the topic as if presenting a balanced understanding of how the theory relates to mainstream conventional scientific view, it then proceeds to make assertions biased towards the latter view, as if setting out to disprove the theory. For example: A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy".[126] But in fact, there is no such controversy Contrast this with two other possible ways of presenting the matter: Biased the other way: A key strategy of the scientific community is hiding from the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The intelligent design movement stresses the importance of uncovering this debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". The scientific community denies the existence of a controversy, but in fact, the intelligent design movement demonstrates that the controversy does indeed exist. Neutral: According to the intelligent design movement, there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". The scientific community, however, denies the existence of this controversy. This is not a case of fixing one or two isolated statements; bias seems to run through the whole article. Though certain statements are presented neutrally (such as, "Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance."), much subject-matter is not. For example, an entire section, with associated daughter article, claim that ID advocates are "creating the controversy"; moreover, sundry biased statements jump out all over the place ("Intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer ... ", "Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case", both of which even open paragraphs). All in all, this does not come over as a neutral, encyclopedic article. PL290 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) There is no debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. That is a lie; one of many. If the article looks one sided that is because all the evidence is on one side. We do not have to equivocate between fact and complete bollocks, nor should we.--Charles (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC) The problem is not the weight given to either view, rather that it's presented as Wikipedia's voice. Instead of neutrally presenting both the consensus of the scientific community and the view of the ID advocates, giving whatever is the appropriate weight to each according to WP:NPOV, the article argues like an essay, presenting Wikipedia's voice instead of that of the sources. PL290 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Please read WP:FRINGE: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." The fact of the matter is, the "relevant academic community" has thoroughly rejected Intelligent Design. Keep in mind that "NPOV" does not necessarily for "no point of view." Mildly MadTC 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed; though surely when ID has set out to "thoroughly reject" the adequacy of conventional science to deal with the matter in the first place, it's axiomatic that the scientific community "thoroughly rejects" ID? Note, too, the verbs used in your two FRINGE bullet points: report, and document. Those are things that can be done without departing from WP:ASF (part of WP:NPOV): When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. PL290 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I think that the comparison of three possible versions by PL290 is very useful, but it seems to me that the "neutral" version is not, in fact, neutral. I believe a more neutral version would be: Neutral: According to the intelligent design movement, there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy". The scientific community, however, actually has a widely held consensus that no such controversy exists. I changed two things. First, I added "supposed" before "debate" in the second sentence. Second, I rewrote the last sentence to remove the innuendo of claiming that the scientific community is "denying" something, and instead framed the sentence to reflect what the preponderance of secondary sources appear to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think your version is good; only the somewhat value-laden supposed lets it down slightly (such a debate would be better). Still a vast improvement on what's currently there (though as I said, that example was only one I picked out at random; the issue appears to be widespread). PL290 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'm trying to see both sides of the arguments here. My reasoning about the value-laden supposed is that there is already the value-laden existence, where in fact most sources say the debate does not exist. I suppose we could say, instead, "recognizing what they say is the existence of this debate", but that seems wordier to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (first response below copied from above) Keep The Tag. This is definitely not a neutrally worded article. As an example in the second paragraph: "Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11]" This statement in the lead of the article is presuming to know the intent of the people advocating intelligent design. In the lead it is effectively prejudicial. There are many other instances, but this is a fundamentally controversial topic. Given human nature, I know if this article will ever be neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The ID movement admits to redefining science to incorporate "other possible explanations". So too do the courts per Kitzmiller, in addition to a variety of other prominent reliable sources. See the sources listed in the sentence you quote. Everything we have says this is the case. It's not POV to say so; it would be POV not to. Jesstalk|edits 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Does anyone object to manually archiving this thread? The actual discussion's been done for weeks now, it's just sporadic anonymous replies to the (closed) RFC that are keeping it here now. Mildly MadTC 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I just collapsed it, then we can let the bot do the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor structural change

I have split the original "Notes" section into two parts: Notes and References. Putting the parameter group="n" into the <ref> tag will cause a reference to appear in the Notes section, otherwise it will appear in the References section.

I thought it would be good if the explanatory notes and quotations were categorized differently than simple citations. There's probably some decision to be made where to draw the line on how to categorize some of them.

This is just a start. I didn't move all the references that contained quotations. I did this just so people can review the new structure. I won't be put out if consensus deems that my changes should be reverted to the old structure. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's an improvement. Looks like it was a lot of work—thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

why is quote required ?

why is a quote required in the first sentence of the article ? Cant the author say what intelligent design is by himself ? if not perhaps he should not be writing on the subject. Perhaps all subject should start with a quote from a dictionary maybe ?

WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
you are all scum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.206.119 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) well, I'm certainly scum. I can't speak for anyone else, however.

the quote got used because there was a lot of debate over how to define this topic (much of it contentious, between the kinds of people who like to call each other 'scum'). It became evident that we needed to have a definition that clearly came from an external source, because we couldn't agree on one on our own. is that acceptable? --Ludwigs2 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trolololo.

If you think about it in some small way I've just beat in the game of "world of wikipedia".

109.64.206.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

If that's the way you want to think about it... For me, it's an encyclopedia, not a game. the page has a few problems from an educational perspective, but those will get worked out slowly over time.

Now, if you'd like to help improve this page, I'm open to any reasonable suggestions you have. if you just want to discuss the ins and outs of Wikipedia a bit more, then it would probably be better if you used my talk page. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: WP:DENY. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what Ludwigs2 is doing. Hans Adler 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity?

The summary of this article is far from objective. It would be wise to save criticisms for a section labelled as such. Allow the subject to assert itself as if in a vacuum despite it's obvious conflicts. Then outline conflicts further in appropriate sections. It seems to me that summary is not a place for talking about the biases of it's proponents, or it's conspiracies. Entires on Aether, Alchemy, and Flat Earth theories are more objective and approving in tone than this one. Thank you. Dave (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• "It would be wise to save criticisms for a section labelled as such." -- no, this is in fact directly against WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE.
• "Allow the subject to assert itself" -- fine: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski. Should we put that in the summary? ID is notorious for speaking out of both sides of its mouth and equivocation. In any case ""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 a direct quote from the DI.
• "It seems to me that summary is not a place for talking about the biases of it's proponents, or it's conspiracies." Failing to give readers some inkling in the WP:LEDE that ID is considered by the scientific community to be utterly and completely without merit would appear to be misleading in the extreme.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the objections are supported by WP policy. TFD (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the lead was very recently rewritten in response to POV concerns, so please refer to recent talk. On the other hand, if there are specific suggestions for changes, there is no reason not to discuss them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dahh Hrafn, if you can't detect that some one has an axe to grind exhibited in this tome, you have a cognitive disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.189.253 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oui, but addressing their issues point by point according to policy does shine a spotlight on the fact that we're not acting arbitrarily. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

consideration of further revisions

Now that we've revised the lead, I think it's time to turn to some of the other sections and remove or rephrase some of the more pointed or off-topic elements. I'm particularly thinking of the Creating and teaching the controversy section, which (on my first read through) seems to have a lot of material that borders on editorial synthesis, as well as a few coatrack issues. I'll need to read it more thoroughly, obviously, but first inspection leads me to think it desperately needs a workover. I'll give more details after I've read it through a couple more times, but I thought I'd upon up the discussion for any preliminary comments. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any to offer yet, but I'll be watching. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section could be much shorter and focused. A dedicated article already exists so this section should just emphasize the main point that there is no scientific controversy whatsoever and that the claim that there is is deceitful. I think one paragraph should do it.Desoto10 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article, but would you consider altering the following sentence from ...

But in fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[99][100][101] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God. to ...

"In reality, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[99][100][101] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God".

Sentences should not begin with the word 'but', and 'in fact' is a slightly 'wooly' term (like 'wooly') —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leor klier (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, perhaps we could add in relation to George Coyne, that he is a Roman Catholic priest, and was the director of the Vatican Observatory?Leor klier (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS How do I sign my posts?!?! - I am following the instructions, but it doesn't seem to work.

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 12th, with 14247 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Better a lengthy talkpage (and I've seen far, far worse in the past) on a controversial topic than continual WP:EDITWARing -- particularly on a topic that is "is subject to the Arbitration Committee's Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions" (see header). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we running out of kilobytes?173.156.63.227 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeh -- so could you run down to the store and pick up a few more for us -- but get the red ones, 'cause they're faster. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about definition

Is intelligent design necessarily a form of Creationism? The definition of intelligent design provided is the belief 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." Could that be compatible with theistic evolution? While DI and the like have created the controversy as to the truth of evolution, which is accepted by such an overwhelming majority of scientists that it could not be called controversial, the existence of God is indeed a controversy. I suppose my question is about what ID encompasses. The term itself was created by the Discovery Institute, as sort of a "back door" creationism, but the term has become common enough that I am wondering if it could now be applied to other belief systems. Gtbob12 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is creationism. It has at its heart the claim of the scientifically-verifiable existence of a designer, and as Kitzmiller v. Dover points out:

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer

could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including

Defendants’ expert witnesses.

TE holds that life/the universe developed through natural processes, including natural selection but holds, as a theological point, that this was set in motion by God. So no, ID isn't compatible with TE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, quoted St. Augustine as saying that time is a part of God's creation. So "set in motion" might not be the main point. Nor the question "What was God doing all that time before he got around to creating the Universe?", which was Augustine's topic. His Confessions was a meditation on the verse "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well our entire linguistic structure is predicated on the existence of time -- so even if we're talking about something outside of time, it has to be in the language of time -- either that or make up an entire grammar and vocabulary to cover the new situations (shades of Douglas Adams claim in the HHGttG series that the main problem with time travel is grammar, not time paradoxes). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion both religious fundamentalists and critics of religion take the Bible (as well as texts of other faiths) too literally. It is possible to believe that God is the creative spirit of the universe without thinking that He made it from scratch in six days. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a competing question would be how little you can take the bible literally, and still have a viable claim to believe in something. Bishop John Shelby Spong's views would be an example of those that raise such a question -- I believe that he's even questioned the historicity of the Christ's resurrection (not an unreasonable view for an agnostic or atheist, but one which, from a Christian theologian, does raise some questions). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Most people (besides atheists and fundamentalists) flip back and forth between a spiritual and a scientific view of things. (I know I do.) I'm not saying this is good or bad. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the theory allows for theistic evolution, because God would have designed the universe so that life would evolve and may have guided evolution. But believers in TE would probably not teaching TE. TFD (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think this thread is getting off track. For the purposes of the article, the question of whether ID is creationism should be settled by reliable sources, not WP:OR. The statement that it is creationism in the lead is cited to the most prominantly reliable source on Creationism -- Ronald L. Numbers. This view is supported by the likes of Barbara Forrest, Robert T. Pennock and the Kitzmiller decision. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

I think I phrased my question wrong. Let me try to put it this way. Is ID a subset of creationism, or is creationism a subset of ID, or should they be seen as two different things all together? 208.22.79.251 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ID is a subset of Creationism -- specifically, the sole example of a thread of creationism known as Neo-creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Q1 of the FAQ at the top of this page. Gabbe (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that ID has no relation to Creationism... in theory. Don't go getting crazy on me: I've studied Biology quite a bit and have defended the teaching of evolution for several years now, but I think ID has, at its core, a very sound, scientific hypothesis. How else would we be able to determine if life on Earth was created by a super-intelligent race of extraterrestrials? It's actually quite similar to the hypothesis of panspermia, which states that life began elsewhere and somehow came to Earth before evolving into all the different forms we see today. Both are scientifically valid and compatible with evolution; they're just neither very informative nor interesting. I think for purposes of NPOV, we ought to make the effort to distinguish between ID theory (sound science) and the common application of ID theory (pseudoscientific, political and religious BS). I don't think it'd be too difficult to keep creationism out of the definition, yet show how the most renowned ID proponents are using ID to sneak creationism into US public schools. MisterDub (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Image in template discussion

See: here. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject expansion proposal

There is currently a proposal at WT:WikiProject intelligent design#Formal proposal to expand this Wikiproject to the wider topic of creationism to expand that project to cover Creationism generally (in part in response to a stillborn proposal for a YEC Wikiproject). As there seems to have been little attention paid to it, I thought I'd give it greater exposure by mentioning it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't a creationism project, there should be. ID is only a subset of creationism, so to have a project on it (but not its parent field) doesn't make sense. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Synthese on 'Evolution and its Rivals'

Synthese Volume 178, Number 2 / January 2011 is an entire issue devoted to 'Evolution and its Rivals'. It includes articles by such heavyweights as Robert T. Pennock, Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, Sahotra Sarkar, Niall Shanks, Barbara Forrest & James Henry Fetzer. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Athiesm is religion!

WP:SOAPBOXing irrelevant to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Athiesm isn't scientific either in that there's no more proof of not-God than there is of God. In fact, of all the religions, Athiesm is the one based on the greatest desgree of fear (fear of God... existing). For a judge to say that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" is silly IMHO, because to exclude it is to pander to the religious athiests. Intelligent Design is a worthwhile scientific exploration, and although many of the people behind it may be of Christian belief, it doesn't change the fact that it (Intelligent Design) isn't, and doesn't need to be affiliated with any mainstream religion. Just my 2 cents. --Rebroad (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Your two cents may go further on Conservapedia or Creation-Wiki than here. It doesn't add to your credibility, either, that you can't even spell "Atheism". This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for soap-boxing and ranting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote v. quotation

I think the reversion was a mistake. quote n 1. (Business / Commerce) an informal word for quotation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quote

Merriam-Webster doesn't even give a definition of quote as a noun. Yopienso (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I was mistaken about that. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quote?show=1&t=1293079561 Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; you were correct to fix it. I think the use of "quote" as a noun is done informally, but "quotation" is more appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "quote" can be used as a noun, and that in some contexts it may make more sense to use it as such than quotation -- but in this context I think quotation is more formal and makes more sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

demarcation problem etc.

I think there is an organizational problem with the "Creating and teaching the controversy" section. I tries to discuss three related but different problems:

1. A philosophical one, the demarcation problem, what is and isn't science according to various views on the philosophy of science.
2. Is intelligent design scientific (according to intelligent design proponents, the scientific community, philosophers of science, ...).
3. Is there any controversy on the status of evolution as a scientific theory (and the "teaching the controversy" campaign).

All of these are interesting topics to be discussed, but not all of these fit under a header titled "Creating and teaching the controversy". The first point is discussed in the various subsections, is important for the 2nd and 3rd point, but currently is mostly written in a form to support the 2nd. However, the subsections are all in a section indicating it will discuss the 3rd. —Ruud 00:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

US bias

The following sentence appears in the first paragraph and is a little too absolute for my taste:

“ Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. ”

Even though the statement is mostly true, I'd argue this is more coincidence than a defining characteristic: the ID movement is prevalent in the US and the US population is predominantly Christian, therefore most proponents happen to be Christian. However, one of its leading proponents also associated with the DI, David Berlinski, is an agnostic Jew. Even though the God of Christianity is the God of the Jewish and Muslim religions as well, I feel this statement is at least misleading, if not entirely false. Consider also the fact that many Islamic countries strongly support ID, even though they seem not to have an organized movement promoting it (or maybe I'm wrong?). And what of Israel and the Jews who support ID? My point here is this article seems to conflate what ID is with how it's used in the USA as a smokescreen for religious politicizing. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I think we could make this article conform more to the NPOV standard than it currently is. Does anyone else share my concerns?

Any objections to changing "God of Christianity" to Abrahamic God? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. That would definitely correct the problem with that sentence, but please check the comment I added to the "Question about definition" section as well. I think this article has the more prevalent issue of conflating "what ID is with how it's used in the USA as a smokescreen for religious politicizing," and I'd love for some input on that. Thanks! MisterDub (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is unsourced, the statement is carefully and accurately sourced and these sources refer to the "God of Christianity". Berlinski is a prominent proponent, but hardly leading in that he appears to have produced no arguments or statements of substance. Similarly, "what ID is" has been explicitly defined by its US proponents, with some support from spin-offs in other countries but no evident original input from other countries or cultures. More high quality sources will of course be welcome. Remember, or course, that the sources have to refer to "intelligent design", not some investigation of alien intervention that you think has a resemblance to the ID arguments . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The two sources used for that statement appear to indicate that those particular individuals quoted in the sources believe that the ID God is the Christian God. To make the statement be more neutral, those individuals who are making this claim should probably be attributed in the sentence, i.e. "So-and-so and So-and-so have stated that, based on their research, it appears that the God involved in the ID theory is the Christian god" or something like that. If there is another reliable source with a different view, then that, of course, can also be included. For example, does the Sternberg paper, which was published in a peer-reviewed science journal, discuss the nature of the God in the ID theory? Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Meyer's 'Hopeless Monster' (it is inaccurate to call it "the Sternberg paper", as Sternberg did not write it) does not in fact discuss ID in any depth, it merely parachutes in ID as the conclusion, after (rather inaccurately) discussing the Cambrian explosion in the body of the paper. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave, do you think readers share your distinction between a "prominent proponent" and a "leading" one? I mean no offense, but I think to most people these terms are synonymous. Aside from that, the text regarding the "God of Christianity" was taken from the Kitzmiller case, and the ID proponents in this case were Christians talking about the God of Christianity. It seems misleading to me to equate ID proponents in a single court case with all ID proponents. Also, I have no qualms with the first sentence (the definition of ID from ID proponents), I just think we should exercise caution in concretely labeling ID as creationism. Again, I propose separating what ID theory states (an intelligence is the best explanation) from how ID proponents use it (creationism). I'm not saying we should dispose of the information present, merely redress it to be more neutral. For example, we could, as Cla68 suggests, state that Judge Jones found the defendants' witnesses to be speaking of the God of Christianity, rather than implying all ID proponents are Christian. Likewise, we can say that ID proponents use the theory as a means to insert creationism into public schools or that Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", rather than stating that it is creationism. This may seem trivial, but I think it'd make the article more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave is perfectly correct -- Berlinski makes a lot of noise, but little in the way of new arguments --therefore he is not in a position to lead ID anywhere. It should also be noted that although he's a prominent advocate in the ID movement, he's not actually an advocate of ID itself -- he advocates for ID's anti-evolution arguments, whilst carefully avoiding being drawn on the existence of the Intelligent designer that is meant to be the alternative to evolution (or any other alternative for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Berlinski has presented no new arguments for ID, but that is not my concern. My concern is implying that Intelligent Design proponents are all Christian, though significant support arises from those of other faiths as well; I merely used Berlinski as the most obvious, specific example. Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction you make in the last sentence: all ID advocates of which I'm aware take care not to mention any characteristics of the proposed designer, not just Berlinski. Perhaps I mistook your meaning though... could you please elaborate? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS to substantiate your claim that "significant support arises from those of other faiths as well" -- to my knowledge support comes mainly from conservative Christians, and the very occasional conservative (observant) Jew. In fact ID advocates have admitted, on occasion, that the Intelligent Designer is merely a politically correct name for God. There is no substantive division between "separating what ID theory states (an intelligence is the best explanation) from how ID proponents use it (creationism)" -- the former was concocted purely to provide an umbrella for the latter. Oh, and anything that simply states that something is "the best explanation" is not a "theory" -- it is merely an assertion. A theory is an explanation, not an assertion. And ID doesn't actually explain anything, beyond the fact that certain people want a God-shaped-gap there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be misrepresenting what I'm saying here, and perhaps I'm not being clear enough. The fact that the article has a section regarding ID's relation to Islam should be enough of a case to support my claim that Christians aren't the only ones who support ID. Note, that I've never claimed most of the support comes from anything other than conservative Christians in America; I just feel we cannot make the absolute statement implying this demographic represents the only supporters. Also, you needn't sell me on the underhanded and malicious actions of ID proponents: as a former student of evolutionary Biology, I've been defending science against the ultra-religious for close to a decade now. Again, I'm not saying that ID has been used as anything but a religious philosophy; I'm just able to recognize that the "theory"--the terminology is of no consequence to me--as defined by ID proponents has a sound, testable, and scientific basis. If, in the future, ID proponents stop trying to circumvent the scrutiny of the scientific community's peer review process and present evidence from reproducible experiments, their "theory" will provide an explanation for how life first arrived on Earth, just as panspermia would if it were to gain acceptance. I know it is difficult to make changes which might be seen as legitimizing the ID movement (believe it or not, it's difficult for me as well), but that is precisely why I am asking to divorce the definition of ID from how its proponents use it, in order to provide an accurate and unbiased article to the public. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually that section says absolutely nothing about a single Muslim being involved in the ID movement -- merely that a single Muslim has signed the Scientific Dissent (an anti-evolution, not explicitly pro-ID, petition) and that Berlinski (who is a fan of anti-evolution arguments, not the Intelligent Designer) has spoken in Istanbul. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but again I feel I am being misrepresented. I didn't say Muslims were involved in the ID movement, I said they support ID. And they do, insomuch as "Muslim creationists have partnered with the Institute for Creation Research for ideas and materials which they adapted to their own theological positions." (emphasis added) Please consider also the article Under God or Under Darwin? Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations by Mustafa Akyol, "a Muslim writer based in Istanbul, Turkey, and one of the expert witnesses who testified to the Kansas State Education Board during the hearings on evolution." -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: Please carefully reread what you are saying, what Mr. Dub is saying, and what the article says. The article clearly says, as Mr. Dub does, that creationism is supported in Islamic nations. The information is carefully sourced; here are excerpts from two of the sources:

From the NCSE, 1999: In April and July 1998, BAV held 3 "international conferences" in the major cities of Turkey, with a theme of "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation" [see sidebar, p xxx]. Joining Duane Gish and John Morris to support Turkish creationist academics were creationist luminaries Michael P Girouard, Edward Boudreaux, Carl Fliermans, and David Menton. These meetings were well-attended and well-publicized, producing successful, organized media events for creationism.

On the other hand, the same NCSE article says, in apparent contradiction to the next source, . . . the latest high-profile wave of creationism appears to have prompted defenders of evolution to attempt a stronger response. Shortly after the BAV conferences, the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA) condemned creationist efforts in a statement to the press, warning that "certain interests are continuing a war against the secular system and free and modern education." Declaring that evolution is a vital, well-confirmed part of modern science, TUBA pointed out that creationism was spread by Christian groups but had "been completely rejected in scientifically advanced countries."

From the HSS, 2008: Islam has been the world religion that has proved most resistant to Darwinian evolution. Creationist distortions of science enjoy considerable support among modern Muslims. Among devout Muslim intellectuals, antievolutionary views are not fringe ideas but mainstream options. And Islamic versions of creationism have enjoyed official support to a degree that is the envy of American creationists. In many ways, the world’s most successful creationists are those who rise up to defend Islam, not Christianity.

This sentence, "Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][4]—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity," belongs in the Intelligent design movement article. From a global perspective, creationism is not solely promoted/believed by Christians, although, as the NCSE documents, Christians are certainly promoting creationism within the Islamic world. Please agree that although Christian ID promoters believe "the Christian God" is the Intelligent Designer, many Muslims believe Allah is. Since I'm American, it's hard for me to remember this, or to see ID outside the U.S., but there we have it. What this discussion really does is make an argument that ID is not an exact synonym of creationism. And that's without even mentioning Hinduism. . . Yopienso (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• To MisterDub & Yopienso: as the fact seems to have slipped both your minds, this article is on intelligent design, NOT Young Earth creationism (making ICR somewhat of a non sequitor already, and the long list of YECs "to support Turkish creationist academics" even more so) nor Creationism generally (which article does mention Hindu creationism). Please familiarise yourself with this article and those, to a sufficient level that you can tell whether an individual is a supporter of ID, or some other (or some vaguer) form of creationism. Then you might be able to provide WP:RSs that are actually relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Since neither of us mentioned or alluded to YEC, I don't get your point. Did you notice the sources from which I quoted are from footnotes 192 and 193 of the article? I believe they are altogether relevant. 05:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Research=YEC, Duane Gish=YEC, John D. Morris=YEC (and from the context, I'd suspect that so are Michael P Girouard, Edward Boudreaux, Carl Fliermans, and David Menton as well). Not all things mentioned in sources cited in an article about ID will themselves be about ID. In this case, the section in question would be more accurately described as "creationism in relation to Islam" than "intelligent design in relation to Islam". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, other than Berlinski's somewhat equivocal support, and Mustafa Akyol (not a particularly major figure, and again one "associated with the Discovery Institute"), no advocate of ID appears to have been even mentioned in this thread. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, now I get your point. This article is really hard to sort out to everyone's satisfaction because of the tangling of ID and creationism. What do you think about what I said above wrt the initial question of this section of the talk page? "This sentence, 'Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][4]—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity,' belongs in the Intelligent design movement article." My reasoning is that a movement will have leading proponents (like the leading v. prominent question above) but an idea, though it can be propagated and promoted, won't. Where do we go from here? Maybe we should distinguish between the modern ID promulgated by Christian creationists in the US and the many other peoples and belief systems that propound the existence of an intelligent designer of the Universe or Nature or the World or whatever. Or even limit this article to that. If we all put our heads together I think we can find a way forward. Yopienso (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) I'd say "all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute" is pretty close to perfectly accurate -- as I cannot think of a proponent of ID of any stature that isn't so associated. (ii) For "believe the designer to be the God of Christianity" it becomes only slightly more murky. Who are the most prominent Jewish and Muslim (or other) proponents of ID (as opposed to an opponent of evolution in Berlinski's case). Probably David Klinghoffer & Mustafa Akyol, who I'd consider 2nd and 3rd tier, respectively. So I don't really have a problem with that claim. (iii) The "leading proponents" of ID would be Phillip E. Johnson, Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski & Michael Behe. Thereafter, there'd be a fairly large step down to the second tier. (iv) This is the article on the Neo-creationist viewpoint that calls itself 'intelligent design' -- if you want other related views that generally don't call themselves that, then look up teleological argument, natural theology, etc. What 'intelligent design' is has been fairly voluminously defined and described in such books as The Creationists and Creationism's Trojan Horse, among many others -- and the focus of this article is not likely to change to contradict such scholarly works. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"the focus of this article is not likely to change to contradict such scholarly works." Who is advocating the elimination of any of the current sources? However, if a reliable source contradicts The Creationists or Creationism's Trojan Hourse, then the contradicting opinion may need to be included. We report what the sources say. If they contradict, then we may have to present both by attributing both as in, "So-and-so states that ID is.... but so-and-so disagrees stating that ID is..." Attribution of any sweeping generalizations included in this article would help it be more more neutral. Cla68 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso was arguing that the article should include, or be restricted to, "the many other peoples and belief systems that propound the existence of an intelligent designer of the Universe or Nature or the World or whatever." That is is in contradiction to the sources I mentioned that situate 'intelligent design' at the article's current focus (Yopienso's "the modern ID promulgated by Christian creationists in the US"). As we have no reliable sources (and most certainly no more authoritative sources) situating ID elsewhere, I see no reason for such a refocusing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was only floating that idea as a possible way out of this morass. What I specifically asked you, Hrafn, was if you think the sentence inside the giant blue quotation marks at the beginning of this section should be moved to Intelligent design movement. Do you? Yopienso (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is both accurate (see above) and relevant, so why shouldn't it be in this article? Neo-creationism/ID is simply an attempt to 'hide God behind the Intelligent designer curtain' -- so I see no reason not to put that central point front-and-central in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Hrafn: Thanks! @ all editors--the appropriateness of that quote was the whole point of this section. Is there a consensus to leave that line alone? I'm pretty neutral on this as a WP editor. (That means I could discuss it ad nauseum, but won't here.) Yopienso (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that it went off track when people (yourself included) kept loading it up with irrelevant and unsubstantiated claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, you are correct. I wrongfully assumed that Berlinski was an advocate of ID due to his fellowship with the DI, yet research shows that he has not supported ID specifically, but rather sticks to criticizing evolution. I also agree with your list of leading proponents, and will therefore withdraw my concern. I'd lastly like to respectfully request you be a little more polite in these discussions; there's no need to insult those who are trying to improve an article. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposing a merge with Creationism. It is redundant to have both, since ID is just Creationism trying to be taken seriously by (dishonestly) masquerading as a pseudoscientific secular movement. Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, just look at the thread above this one to see how that wouldn't work. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never read of or met an ID "scientist" who didn't automatically leap from "there's some evidence that there might be some design in the universe" to "the Church of _____ is exactly right." -- Deus Ex MockinYa (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: ID is one of a number of forms of Creationism, and as it happens one of the two most prominent at the moment, therefore the two articles are not "redundant". The two articles are 180k & 110k respectively, most of it non-overlapping, so the combined article would be nearly 300k in size -- sufficiently large that we'd immediately have to split it up again. None of this makes any sense, so I'd suggest that Deus Ex MockinYa learn a bit more about Wikipedia, and perhaps read WP:MERGE & WP:SIZE, before making such suggestions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hrafn hits the major points. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ditto. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's plenty enough content for both to justify separate articles. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - whilst ID is a sub-set of creationism it is more than sufficiently noteable in its own right to warrant a separate article. Hrafn's points about the likly future prospects of any such merged article are also entirely germane. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - a few but not all ID proponents accept a common ancestor. Other creationists do not.Mange01 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - both articles are too big to merge; ID is also notable in its own right to justify its own article. There are many, many articles on WP that are a subset of something else. i suggest we close this merge debate soon, it's obviously not going to happen. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Intelligent design and Creationism are in fact two very different topics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.112.72 (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per all above.Moxy (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I understand what the nominator means, but, while ID is a type of creationism, that doesn't mean they should be in one article. ID is a sufficiently unique aspect of the creationism movement that it can sustain its own article, and would be difficult or impossible to merge. It's similar to Guernseys or Holsteins, which are Cattle, but rightly have their own articles as well. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categories

I have reverted the addition of Category:Scientific theories to the article because, per the article, the fact that ID is not a scientific theory has been well established. Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also rv'd the addition of Category:Intelligent design controversies because it seems rather circular. It's the main article of the parent cat. Guettarda (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The assignation of categories is supposed to be neutral and intended only to group related articles together for the benefit of the reader. I did read the article and it appears that some advocates of ID want it to be seen as a scientific theory. Therefore, that category is appropriate. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia regards it as a scientific theory, just as Wikipedia isn't concluding that it's pseudoscience. We just present what the sources say and the readers make up their minds. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

'I did read the article and it appears that some advocates of ID want it to be seen as a scientific theory. Therefore, that category is appropriate. - no, it absolutely inappropriate. We do not categorize something on the basis of what its advocates say about it. We describe it on the basis of what neutral, unbiased sources say about it. And in the case of ID, those sources are wholly unanimous in describing it unscientific. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say in Wikipedia's policies that we don't consider the views of advocates if they're reported in verifiable, reliable sources? Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reported in" reliable sources and "supported by" reliable sources are two entirely different concepts which you seem to be conflating. If the New York Times prints the sentence Astrologers maintain that Astrology predicts the future, then by your logic it would be perfectly appropriate to edit the Astrology article to say that Astrology predicts the future. Raul654 (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say, "The New York Times says that Astrology predicts the future." Anything wrong with saying that? ID is a notable topic, therefore it has a Wikipedia article. Do any of the leading advocates of ID claim that it should be considered as a scientific theory? If so, then their claim is part of the topic's integral definition of what it is, and should be listed as such. We have a lot of articles listed under "Cateogry:Pseudoscience" with varying ranges of opinions on to what extent each topic merits that description. Our readers look at each one, checks the sources, then decides if the topic really is a pseudoscience or not. The same goes the other way, as in whether ID should be considered as a scientific theory or not. If we don't do it this way, then it means that we (Wikipedia) are taking a side on the debate. That's a no-no under our policies. Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say, "The New York Times says that Astrology predicts the future." Anything wrong with saying that? - yes!! The New York Times is not making that assertion! The advocates of astrology are! In your paraphrasing, you have attributed the "astrology predicts the future" position not to the unreliable party making that claim (advocates of astrology) to a reliable source (the New York Times). It would be OK to say "The New York Times says that astrologers claim astrology can predict the future" or simply "astrologers claim astrology can predict the future", but it is NOT appropriate to say that the New York Times supports that position.

Do any of the leading advocates of ID claim that it should be considered as a scientific theory? If so, then their claim is part of the topic's integral definition of what it is, and should be listed as such. - their position should be reported in the article as an assertion. It should not be uncritically accepted as a fact - either in the body of the articel or as a categorization - unless it is accepted as a fact by neutral sources. Which in the case of ID, it is most certainly not. (Quite the opposite). The same applies to all the articles listed in Cateogry:Pseudoscience. Raul654 (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The same goes the other way, as in whether ID should be considered as a scientific theory or not. If we don't do it this way, then it means that we (Wikipedia) are taking a side on the debate. - except that it's not one of those "which is better - vanilla ice-cream or chocolate ice cream?" questions where there is equal validity to both sides. It's a question of one side being precisely correct (the ID is not scientific side) and one side being precisely wrong (the ID is scientific side). How do we tell the difference? Well, fortunately in the case of ID, it's extremely easy - one side has a veritable mountain of reliable sources supporting it, and the other side has none. Zero. Nada. Not a single one. It is absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia to "take sides" in the same way that our Earth article "takes sides" in the flat earth versus round earth "debate." Raul654 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be "taking a side". Again, you would not be asking these questions if you took a moment to read and understand the topic. Guettarda (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia "takes a side" anytime we say anything is factual that anyone disagrees with. Flat earthers claim that the world is flat. Creationists claim the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Holocaust deniers claim that only a few hundred thousand Jews died during World War II. Should be write articles to take these competing claims into account, in order to avoid taking sides? Should we describe the earth as "allegedly round" because doing otherwise would be taking sides in the flat earth "debate"? No, obviously we do not. Obviously, we should not. We have to use our critical thinking skills (*gasp*) to sort out which assertions are true and which ones are not. On Wikipedia, this is done by using reliable sources. If, on the whole, reliable sources assert that something is true, we take it as a fact. This approach works pretty well, even in cases where (like ID or astrology or flat eartherism) the proponents of a particular idea assert something that is contrary to what the reliable sources say. Raul654 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article you would have realised that it has been established that, contrary to what some may say, ID is not a scientific theory. If you want to add categories to articles it is imperative that you read them carefully. Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would point out that prominent ID advocates themselves have admitted on a number of occasions that ID doesn't have a "theory" yet. A theory is an explanation, and ID actually explains very little -- it is more of a hunch or an intuition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  E.g.: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem." -- Paul Nelson (creationist) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we do not categorize something based solely on what advocates call it. That is clearly not neutral. I note the irony of adding a creationist theory to a category called "scientific theories" when there is a well-known controversy over the use of the term "theory" in the context of creationism and evolution. Yobol (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you all are saying that adding a category to an article is not necessarily a neutral action. Do I understand this correctly? If so, then the "Pseudoscience" category probably needs to be reviewed for deletion, because of the variability in support for classifying the different articles under that title. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please read WP:FRINGE#Pseudoscience: "Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." (Italics mine) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla, if you read Yobol's link, you would understand that s/he's talking about factual accuracy here. The term "theory" in science has a specific meaning. It's certainly very rude, and verging on disruption, to engage in this sort of fact-free dialogue. Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, an article should not be placed in Category:Scientific theories unless it meets the standard/definition contained in scientific theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla, you seem to have forgotten your recent admonishment from the arbcomm, I suggest you re-read it, carefully. You really need to take heed of their warnings and ensure that you do not return to that sort of behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Guettarda, this has been a productive content discussion, so please don't disrupt it by personalizing it. I left you a note on your talk page, and encourage you to return to civil discourse as we work on improving this article's content. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other editors who say that it is better not to add those categories in this case. I think that if one goes down the road of calling things "scientific theories" just because someone, somewhere says so (even if verifiable), that's a road with no end in sight. Here, I don't see how it would help our readers to add those categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to Cla68, all I see here has been a good faith edit, followed by explanations of the reasons for that edit after a talk thread opened about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the sequence of his edits. It's POINTy editing that stems from an argument at FTN. Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I said that, the category Theistic science made its appearance, so maybe I spoke too soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not thrilled by some of the comments here, I'm inclined to agree that the Scientific Theory category isn't really appropriate to this article. It's too contentious, and not likely to really be that useful in this case, anyway. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have read through this section very carefully, as well as perused the list of policies and guidelines and cannot locate Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a science for purposes of categorization. WP:PSCI discusses the treatment of science theories in article content, but doesn't prohibit or provide guidance on categorizing topics. Could someone point me to where a guideline or policy does give direction on categorization? Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The guideline on categorization appears to me to indicate that this article should include the appropriate science category. The guideline states, "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the [Category unsourced] template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the [Category relevant?] template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category." Since ID's advocates claim that it should be treated as a scientific theory, then it should be included in the appropriate science category. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • What constitutes a science is not defined by policy because such a definition would be redundant -- we define it the same way everyone else does. Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that in a policy or guideline? Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Let's start with all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source.-Wikipedia:Verifiability, which (among other things) means we don't just get to make up our own definition of what is and is not science. Or how about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which defines pseduoscience as theories that "fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods", thus implicitly defining a science as a field which follows the scientific method. Raul654 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• For starters, "things which have been established to be non-science" would be excluded from such a category. See the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, and the supporting references: Intelligent_design#cite_note-11, Intelligent_design#cite_note-teachernet-12, Intelligent_design#cite_note-13 and Intelligent_design#cite_note-14. Anything more than that isn't relevant to this article. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• We obviously have several sources that say that ID is not a science, which is why the "pseudoscience" category is appropriate. Don't we, however, have people who are saying that it is a science? Aren't we, as in Wikipedia, constrained by our policies from deciding who is correct? Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nope.[6] Guettarda (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• We have no reliable sources saying this [stating this as fact] -- just a number of "unduly self-serving" claims made in [by] WP:SELFPUB sources [and/or quoted or otherwise reported by other sources, which present these claims as an individual's opinions]. See also WP:GEVAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, to see if that was true I just entered "Intelligent Design" and "Science" into the search boxes in Infotrac which returned several hundred hits, including this one: Haber, Matt. "Not so innocent: methodology and metaphysics of evolution." BioScience 58.11 (2008): 1088+; which says, "Sahotra Sarkar has set a difficult task for himself: to assess intelligent design (ID) creationism as a science without consideration of political motivations. What makes this task so difficult is that ID creationism is predominantly politically motivated, and it is just those motivations that explain, in large part, why ID creationism is such lousy science and lousy philosophy." This academic journal paper (Forrest, Barbara Carroll. "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse: a closer look at intelligent design." Georgia Journal of Science 63.3 (2005): 153+) quotes a proposed education bill from Missouri stating, "Missouri Standard Science Act," would have required that "if scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught and given equal treatment" (39)." Perhaps a category called "Theistic science" should be created for theories like ID? Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• So...you have a book review. And from that book review you take a quote out of context, and present it as it if said the opposite of what it said.

  Sarkar accepts the ID creationist gambit for the sake of argument, taking seriously the claim that ID creationism should be considered on scientific grounds as a credible scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. He is even gracious enough to provide an argument for this where the ID creationists have not, by providing historical examples of cases where new theories replacing old ones entailed major shifts in our metaphysical assumptions (e.g., Newton’s mechanics required acceptance of action-at-a-distance). Drawing on these examples, Sarkar identifies criteria by which to judge such proposed adoptions and then proceeds to demonstrate why ID creationism fails badly by every measure. He includes a useful history of conceptual debates within evolutionary theory, culminating in a nice encapsulation of the modern framework of evolutionary theory and current controversies. (Emphasis added.)

  Again, let me remind you that one of the reasons you are topic banned from climate was your "inappropriate use of sources". Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cla, you cannot seriously be arguing that ID is a scientific theory - contrary to the numerous, reliable, directly-on-point references already supplied - on the basis of (A) one out-of-context book review (B) a proposed cirrculumn in a conservative state with the worst schools in the country. (You have heard of the Kansas evolution hearings, right?)
• Perhaps a category called "Theistic science" should be created for theories like ID? - In order to put ID in such a category, it would have to be scientific, which it is not. Not to mention that that category is an oxymoron. Science is, by necessity, naturlistic and materialistic. A Supreme Being *cannot* exist within a scientific framework. As soon as it does admit such a possibility, Last Thursdayism kicks in and "because God did it that way" because the answer to every unsolved scientific question. Raul654 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aren't we, as in Wikipedia, constrained by our policies from deciding who is correct - No, we are not, as has already been explained to you. Raul654 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, my search in Infotrac, as I referred to above, found quite a few reliable sources, including academic journals which explained ID's proponents reasoning for including ID in science curriculums. What I saw, however, is that the advocates appear to be saying that ID fills "the gap" between what reality and what science can explain, according to them. Therefore, it appears to me that we need a "theistic science" category for theories like ID, which combine science and religion. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am unimpressed by the sources you cite. Simply put, they are not credible - not even close.
• the advocates appear to be saying that ID fills "the gap" between what reality and what science can explain - Yes, the "We don't know what causes X, so it must be caused by Y" argument is called an argument from ignorance and it is a well-known fallacy. Just because science cannot yet explain something does not mean that God 'dun it. It's also why ID is not science - because science requires positive evidence for a supposition. Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Therefore, it appears to me that we need a "theistic science" category for theories like ID, which combine science and religion. - Just because ID deals with the same issues that evolution does, it does not make ID a science. I've eaten matza before - that doesn't make me Jewish. Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• From the Georgia journal article, "Most worrisome is Meyer's contention that the 1987 U. S. Supreme Court ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard, which outlawed creationism in public school science classes, "does not apply to design theory" since ID is science." So, we do have a reliable secondary source stating that ID proponents believe that ID is a science. They are not all self-published as Hrafn claims above. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

??? How do you interpret this passage? The context is key-the context is the Edwards v Aguillard decision. Because I will tell you the author of the passage you quoted was a key witness in the Dover trial who resoundingly testified otherwise. She continues a few sentences later with "Yet their own words show that ID is characterized by that hallmark of creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of creation by a supernatural deity". We can't take one ID proponent's "self-claim" and bolster their alternative reality on wikipedia to lend it legitimacy. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, you seem to be conflating "reported in" and "supported by". The Georgia journal quoted Meyers. The Georgia journal (a reliable source) is *not* asserting that ID is science; Meyers is the one making that assertion. The Georgia journal is reporting that Meyers made that assertion. In fact, I don't even need a reliable source to tell me that -- I will gladly concede that Meyers and every other ID proponent claim, in public, that ID is science. (On the other hand, what they say to each other when they think nobody is paying attention - ala the wedge document - is substantially different than what they say in public)
• But just because the proponents say something, and just because what they say is quoted in a reliable source, does not make it true, nor does it mean that that reliable source supports it as true. Raul654 (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I never said it was true that ID is a science. Remember, we don't do truth, we do verifiability. I know you know the policy so I won't insult you by linking to it. The discussion here is whether we have a reliable secondary source which states that ID advocates propose that ID is a science. We do have that, do we not? If we have a reliable secondary source stating that someone, somewhere believes that ID is a science, then why shouldn't it be given the appropriate science category, which I propose is "Theistic science theories." Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no real dispute over whether or not ID claims to be a scientific theory. The dispute is over whether or not their claim is sufficient to introduce it here as one. For example, why wouldn't the category "Theistic pseudoscientific theories" be a better fit? This is the source of the pushback-not the idea that anybody is pretending ID proponents aren't aspiring to be considered a scientific theory. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ID proponents know they don't qualify as a science as currently defined. They seek to redefine it to incorporate theorizing of the supernatural, untestable. Science is today delimited to the "inductive" - the "empirical" (and supernatural phenomenon is seen as outside the scope). So we bump into this confusion again and again in this article. ID knows it is disqualified under today's consensus definition of science. The movement is concerned that the practical dimension that defines science is encroaching and/or being used to answer metaphysical questions - so this is a battle over how to define science. But even ID proponents acknowledge they don't qualify per the current definition. I don't think "categories" should be used as "definitions" or "qualifications" so I won't confuse the point giving an opinion on that. But the ID movement wants to redefine science in order that their theory qualifies. There's no mistaking this point. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ID's proponents want it taught on equal terms with evolution science. From what I saw in the articles I perused in Infotrac, they don't appear to be arguing that it is a hard science, but instead a theistic science that uses hard science as much as possible then uses supernatural explanations for the rest. So, it appears to be a hybrid science/religious theory on the evolution of life. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "hybrid" part is the bone of contention...it's the one essential in all pseudoscience: take a bit of "science", add all kinds of unscientific assertions to it, then tout it as "science". The piggybacking of unscientific claims dressed up with cherry picked scientific facts from here and there. That's what the "pseudoscientific" entails--every time.Professor marginalia (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you include even the slightest whiff of the supernatural into the equation what you have is not science, no matter how much otherwise excellent scientific material you may also include. The supernatural is an automatic disqualification from being science. Including "just a little bit of the supernatural" is exactly the same as being a just little bit pregnant. It doen't matter what ID proponents want, ID is not on equal terms with evolution for the simple reason that ID is not science, end of story. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care if it is or not. Do any of ID's advocates claim that it is, or contains, any science? The sources appear to say that at least some them do claim this. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla68: NOBODY here is disputing the fact that there are sources which state that ID advocates claim, at least in public, that ID is a science. There are PLENTY of reliable sources for that. However, this is immaterial. What is being challenged is whether ID proponents are reliable sources on what is sciience, and what is not. And quite clealy, they are not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hrafn above is disputing whter there are reliable sources which document that ID advocates claim it is a science, but I'm glad to see that his objection is, apparently incorrect. Anyway, it could very well be that ID advocates are wrong about the validity of their theory as a science, but it's not up to us to make that value judgement, at least as far as categorization is concerned. Cla68

(talk) 08:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he is't. He is saying that the sources themselves cannot be used to support your claim that id is science. Quite a big difference. Your blatant mischaracterization of Hrafn's position, in spite of it having be explained to you by NUMEROUS other editors NUMEROUS times, makes me question your good faith and your intentions here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't make value judgments. We shouldn't foster false equivalence either. That's the dispute. Not that dissenting opinions don't exist - but wikipedia isn't to be used to bolster momentum or compensate for or lend legitimacy to every underdog's opinion. Wikipedia should reflect judgments, it shouldn't make them. But granting opinions here a greater weight or airing here than they receive in the real world is, in reality, making a judgment. So again, I think the question isn't well framed. I think this point is really one of misdiagnosing the conflict. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, Cla68, Wikipedia does, in fact, care. We can, as the article does last I checked (admittedly a while ago) report that ID's advocates claim it is science, but we cannot in any way simply label it a science, which is what your category additions would do.Farsight001 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla, why are we wasting time responding to your comments here if you are not going to read our replies. By my count, this is the fourth time you've made this claim (#1#2 #3 #4) that somehow we aren't supposed to "enter the debate" and contradict anyone out there, no matter how absurd their claims are. Each time you say this, it provokes a chorus of No's that you just ignore. You move on, and then bring it up again a couple of paragraphs later.

So, let me summarize here and put an end to it: Your claim is explicetely contracted by the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Here is the lengthy response I provided the first time you made this claim. Please read it, and please cease your ad nauseam arguing. Raul654 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy that really applies here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It would be best for CLA68 to read that section, and the posts he is responding to, CAREFULLY, before he continues this pointless, circular argument. He seems to be engaged in a war of attrition. Excellent behavior in the courtroom, but not on Wikipedia, Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did hear your side. If I understand correctly, you all are saying that since mainstream science and the courtroom rejects ID as a scientific theory, then it can't be included in a scientific category in Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that our policies don't allow us to act on that conclusion. Because ID's advocates claim that the ID theory does include at least some science in its scope, we have to consider the the stance of both sides and categorize the article accordingly or else we violate WP:NPOV. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Clearly, current consensus is against adding a science category to this article, although I don't think policy supports the majority position. Cla68 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A wise move, and it reaffirms my faith in your good faith. Keep up the great work, and best of luck!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Theistic science theories

Cla68 is attempting to create this new category for this article. Discussion at Category talk:Theistic science theories. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion, ID with ID movement

Per the discussion above, I'm considering merging these two articles. they overlap significantly, and where they don't overlap they tend to be bloated, so... However, I want to get a sense for what objections will arise; can anyone lay out argument/rationale for having two articles?

Please, this is not a vote (or even a request, yet) so no need to register your 'Support' or 'Oppose' comment at this time. I'm just getting a feel for the philosophical lay of the land. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think such a merge is non-viable, as (i) both articles are quite large & (ii) there has been a considerable amount of political activism (e.g. the Santorum Amendment, the Kansas evolution hearings and a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns) and organisations (Discovery Institute, Access Research Network, Intelligent design network, Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, Foundation for Thought and Ethics) that would more accurately be linked to the movement, rather than to the core concept of ID. I do however think that more careful thought needs to be put into the demarcation and overlap between the two articles. Intelligent design movement could also really do with a rewrite. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I haven't read the entirety of both articles in some time, so I can't comment fully on where there is and isn't overlap. However, conceptually the two topics are different, and should contain different content. This article should be about the "argument" of intelligent design, what is being proposed and how that has been received in the media and scientific communities, and the ID movement article should be about the political effort to get those ideas accepted. Of course there will be overlap, even in an ideal world, but we can't possibly contain all that information in a single reasonably-sized article, and all of it should be available somewhere. Skimming the TOC of both articles, this seems to be more or less the case already. There is, perhaps, an argument to be made for trimming content from either article since it is contained in the other... but a merger seems inappropriate. Jess_talk|_edits 05:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is, obviously, no policy reason to merge these articles. Intelligent design movement is a legitimate daughter article of this one, and is compliant with WO:CFORK. Both articles are long, and the amount of overlap is only moderate. Current guidelines suggest that an article over 60k readable prose should probably be split, while those over 100k almost certainly need to be. This article has 62985 characters of readable prose, while the intelligent design movement article has 53371. So this article is already in the size range where further splitting would be justified on the basis of length. If you took out the Intelligent_design#Movement section and simply replaced it with the intelligent design movement article you'd be over 100k readable prose.

  That's not to say that there aren't other ways to skin the cat. But even if someone were to write an article that replaces both of these and does it in a manner that's both complete, concise and well-written, there would still be reason enough to have the 'movement' article, simply to expand on the topic. After all, people have written book-length treatments of the movement. So neither on the basis of length, nor on the basis of content, can I see any reason whatsoever to merge these articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since you're just asking for the lay of the land, I'll agree with the three editors above that there is plenty of material for each page, and there isn't a compelling reason to merge them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

After carefully reading both articles, I've come to the conclusion that they are not a fork, and that, because of their length, it is not advisable to merge them. Even more so now that Hrafn has begun to reorganize the article on the ID movement.

I am concerned about the scope of this article. It should be limited to ID as preached by the Discovery Institute, and not any other historical or present-day religious or philosophical movements, inluding Creationism in general.

Again, I would suggest moving the first two paragraphs of the section "Origin of the Concept" and the first three paragraphs of the section "Origin of the Term" to the article on the teleological argument. This material really has nothing to do with the present-day ID movement.

I would also drasticaly scale back, or even delete, the following sections: "Movement", The first part of "Creating and teaching the controversy" (up to "Defining Science"), "Kitzmiller trial", and "Status outside the United States". This material should be presented in the article on the ID movement, and only VERY briefly summarized here, if at all.

The sections on "Irreducible complexity", "Specified complexity", "Fine-tuned Universe" and "Intelligent designer" should also be shortened, and interested readers should be refered to those individual articles for details. A lot of the info presented in this article duplicates that presented in these articles. What's the point of having the other articles if each concept is treated in great detail here?

I am also concerened about synthesis. The ideas presented by the DI are very disjointed and incoherent. They have not really developed or organized their "theory", except as a PR, political and legal tool. Presenting their ideas as if they were part of a unified and systematic discipline would therefore be POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since the move for merger got a snowball close less than two weeks ago I think the consensus against merging is clear. I heartily agree with Hrafn that "more careful thought needs to be put into the demarcation and overlap between the two articles." Whoops--e/c there with DV. Excellent suggestions! Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, the merge proposed two weeks ago was with the Creationism article, not with the Intelligent design movement article. Thanks, Yopienso! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. Yopienso (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think since we have a substantial section regarding the ID movement in this article (and it seems to me the "Creating and teaching the controversy" and "Kitzmiller trial" sections would be subsections of this), we could combine them into a single one. The only concern I'd have is the size of the article which, as others have pointed out, will most likely justify the split. If enough information is duplicated in the articles, I'd support a merge; however, I think this is not likely. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I'm understanding these arguments correctly. as far as I can tell from looking at the two articles, the only places they do not overlap is that the ID page has a more detailed discussion of the scientific failures while the ID Movement page has a more detailed discussion of the structure and activities of the organization. even the bright-line criteria for distinguishing them given above are not really bright line criteria

• Mann-jess says "[The ID] article should be about the "argument" of intelligent design, what is being proposed and how that has been received in the media and scientific communities, and the ID movement article should be about the political effort to get those ideas accepted", but in fact much of the ID article is about political aspect of the movement, even to the point of editors dismissing discussion of the arguments as pseudoscience, and some of the Movement page deals with the argument.
• The size argument is irrelevant: since much of the material is redundant, and a good bit of it seems to be coatrack, a combined article would be substantially smaller than the two articles together. If not, the single article could then be content forked, but such a content forking would not have the clear overlaps that these two pages currently have
• I also commend hrafn for going ahead with a restructuring on the other article (which I will comment on below), but that makes no difference to this discussion whatsoever - if the articles need to be merged, they can be merged regardless of how much effort he pours into the other article now.

In fact (like many fringe topics) the ID argument is substantially presented only by the ID movement, and so it makes a certain sense to discuss the two in the same article. I don't really see the advantage of having two articles (aside from the size issue, which may be a non-issue after appropriate trimming). --Ludwigs2 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but editors dismissing the arguments of ID as pseudoscience has nothing to do with politics... it has to do with our reliable sources saying that ID is pseudoscience; Most of that sourcing comes from the scientific community, not the political arena. As I stated in my reply, I can't attest to the level of overlap... but conceptually the two are different. You've replied to that by saying "there's overlap". I'm not sure how to handle that response... If you feel the two articles could be merged into a reasonable size without losing content, I think that your best approach is to merge them in your userspace and propose it here when done. I'm dubious that it can be done, but if indeed there is so much overlap that one reasonably-sized article could be created without losing content, then I wouldn't oppose it. With that said, I think our best course of action is instead to work on the section below and decide which content can be pruned from each article. This would still leave us with two articles, but that seems both preferable to me, and in line with consensus. Jess_talk|_edits 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with the sourced assertions of pseudoscience that are in the article, but if you look over the talk page and archives you'll quickly find examples of editors claiming (in one way or another) that we should focus on the refutation of ID rather than on claims of ID, because ID is a fringe position. That kind of reasoning is (in fact) why the lead to this article has always been heavily skewed towards the legal and scientific failures of the movement. and please note, most of the scientific criticism that comes from the scientific community is in response to matters in the legal and political arena - ID has never entered sufficiently into scientific discourse to have gotten any direct scientific critique.

As to our best course of action... that would be for us to look at the issue dispassionately and have a clear, unbiased discussion about whether we need two separate articles (which is what I was trying to do by opening this thread). You're right, of course, that if that 'best course' proves impossible then I'll have to do it myself.

And please - consensus is not a voting procedure (and certainly not a majority rule thing), but discussion procedure. we disagree, and the object is for you to convince me of your point of view or for me to convince you of mine. You'll find that I am rarely convinced on the strength of numbers (you'll note above that I addressed the arguments made). I am not convinced that you have made a case for two separate articles either on the 'article size' point (which wouldn't be very convincing in the best case) or on the 'clearly different topics' point. I'd suggest that you explain more clearly why the discussion of ID itself needs to be separated from the discussion of the ID movement (on an analytical basis), because that would convince me if you cold do it (and on the contrary, it ought to convince you of my point if you can't). --Ludwigs2 02:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's not much point in me rehashing my opinions further. I think all points have been made as clearly as is necessary, and as far as consensus has yet formed, it seems in favor of keeping our current format of two articles. Again, if you can demonstrate that the two can definitely be merged without losing content, I think you'd find more sway with other editors here. As for placing more emphasis on the claims of ID, that is a separate discussion, and should have no bearing on whether we decide to have one or two articles. Jess_talk|_edits 03:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• That "the ID argument is substantially presented only by the ID movement" does not support the conclusion that "it makes a certain sense to discuss the two in the same article" (to the extent that a second article on the movement is redundant). Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on both an ideology, and on the movement that attempts to implement it. Leninism and Bolshevik would be one of the more prominent examples. WP:SUMMARY entails a cascade of articles, dealing with subtopics in increasing detail (to the extent that the subtopics still retain "significant coverage" individually). In this case, the existence of intelligent design movement allows this article to concentrate more on ID's core, pseudoscientific, claims, without being made too unwieldy by having to provide a sufficiently comprehensive summary of the movement to provide context to the large number individual articles on aspects of the movement. On the topic of WP:CONSENSUS, there appears to be a fairly strong consensus developing against merger. I would suggest that it would require some fairly compelling arguments to alter this momentum (and I for one have found the arguments for merger to date to be wholly uncompelling). Lacking such a 'game changer', I would suggest that this topic is a WP:DEADHORSE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hrafn: honestly, I don't really see much point in discussing this matter with you. In the last several dozen interactions I've had with you you've shown no inclination to have an open mind about anything I've said, and I'm tired of you turning every conversation we have into a grumpy head-butting session. Remember, while there may be no point in beating a dead horse, there is often value in beating a stubborn mule, and (as you ought to know by now, from experience) I am not averse to doing that if I need to. Since there are several editors arguing on your side of the debate, I would take it as a personal favor if you would back off and let someone more reasonable carry the discussion. thanks in advance. --Ludwigs2 06:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ludwigs2: I would agree in the lack of point in further discussion, but would attribute that to the weakness of your arguments. That I have been unwilling to entertain your views can be attributed to (i) this weakness (which others have commented upon) & (ii) your unfortunate tendencies to pervasively assume bad faith and/or burnish your own halo -- which does not do much to win you friends. I dispute your characterisation of my above comment as "a grumpy head-butting session". If anybody is 'butting heads' it is you, given that you are persisting in this long after it has become clear that the "lay of the land" is that you have no support for this. There is no policy reason why I should not point out the vacuity of your arguments, and no reason I should feel obliged to do you a "personal favor", so you can take your self-serving and unreasonable demand that I "back off" and stuff it (I could make a suggestion where, but that would violate WP:CIVIL). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you need to take the personal comments about eachother's editing to userspace. It doesn't help to further the article or generate a positive, collaborative working atmosphere. If this sort of thing continues, another editor is likely to take you both to a noticeboard, which won't likely result in anything good. Let's forget about any "last word" silliness, and just let the whole thing drop. I'd suggest, in the future, that you both try to ignore personal insinuations the other has made, or specifically address them on talk pages. As a note, this isn't addressed at either of you in particular; The whole thing is unconstructive. Jess_talk|_edits 17:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, for what it's worth my support is for keeping the two articles, and rejecting the suggested merge. Can we put a hat on this proposal as no consensus to change? . . dave souza, talk 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree to a hat. If Ludwigs wishes to open a formal merge proposal, he's welcome to do so. Jess_talk|_edits 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn: I'm not sure I see how what you wrote translates into article divisions. For instance, the Pandas and People and Watchmaker Analogy only strike me as 'upstream' in a historical sense - from the perspective of the topic they would be downstream links ('further reading' material as people go through the concept of intelligent design). If I were to organize this material as a topic it would look something like this:

• (over-arching topic) conflict over secularity in education
  • (other topics, such as education of women in Islam)
  • Christian theological conflicts (mostly with respect to evolution, since that's been the perennial hot-button)
    • (other topics, such as the Scopes trial)
    • Creationism, broadly put
      • (other topics, such as neo-creationism and the teleological argument)
      • Intelligent design
        • History of the movement
          • Origins
          • Political activism
          • legal battles and judgements
          • reactions of scientists and educators
        • ID concepts and arguments
          • Intelligent designer, watchmaker analogy
          • irreducible complexity, specific complexity, et al
          • failure of id as a scientific theorem
        • ID outside the US

That (starting at the ID header) should cover most everything in the two current article, and ought to be able to do it within the scope of one article. or am I missing something obvious? --Ludwigs2 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: we have at least a dozen articles whose main topic is ID political activism (with a number of other articles that are partially on the subject), at least half a dozen on organisations lobbying for ID, and you want to squeeze the WP:SUMMARY of all this into the 'History of the movement' section along with the other sub-topics of it you've listed. "Within the scope of one article"? I don't think so. The section on merging the two articles is the one above. Kindly leave that WP:DEADHORSE there. (And my main issue was explicitly article overlap, not article divisions.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn: you are confusing 'the way things are' with 'the way things should be'. One of my strongest criticisms of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is that though it often covers individual topics well, when it comes to meta-structure and cross-article organization it is piss-poor, haphazard, misconstructed pile of sludge. The fact that we have a dozen articles covering this topic is not a reflection for the fact that we need a dozen articles; it just means that a dozen different editors started articles on the topic without doing any cross-checks. Articles should not be like walled cities defending themselves against conquest and submersion into other articles; Instead, we should be putting a lot of thought into the Big Picture, and merging articles as and where we can to keep out bloat.

I accept the fact that you don't think it's possible. I am offended by your refusal to think about it beyond that. Seriously, wouldn't you rather have 1 (or 2, or 4) properly organized articles on the topic than a dozen randomly overlapping ones? --Ludwigs2 05:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you're still asserting that it's possible to do something you haven't yet demonstrated. I agree that the merger discussion doesn't belong in this section, and absent any major developments in the section above, that proposal appears to be closed. If at all possible, we should keep to the respective topics, and try to make headway with what consensus we do have. Jess_talk|_edits 06:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. over the next few days I'm going to be shifting material between articles along the lines you suggested, removing redundancies and coatrack material, and when we're done I'm going to come back to this merger discussion - at that point we should have a clearer idea of the size of the combined articles. sound fair? --Ludwigs2 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds rather dubious, trust you'll find if fair that any changes unexplained on the talk page can and will be reverted. Please provide justification and seek consensus for any such change. Your persistence in trying to push for a merge against a clear consensus is also noted, please don't be tedious. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) This particular "should be" (a) already has a section of its own -- #Merge discussion, ID with ID movement -- so any further discussion (if you can find anybody interested in listening to you) should be in that; (b) there is already a WP:CONSENSUS that it's a should not be -- making your raising it here WP:DEADHORSE. (ii) this section was started by myself to discuss overlap etc under a two article model. (iii) Your "criticisms of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" is (a) off-topic here & (b) of profound disinterest to me. (iv) I've spent considerable time over the years in the creationism area cleaning up demarcations between articles and merging smaller ones, so do not accept that you're in a position to lecture me on the subject. (v) Given the amount of time you've spent burnishing your halo & mud-slinging, I really don't give a toss if I've "offended" you, particularly on this WP:DEADHORSE issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And you opinion is simply not worth listening to. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, please try stay on topic. This isn't even vaguely relevant. Nor it is even a potentially constructive comment on Hrafn's editing. Personal attacks like this are entirely inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I give what I get, such is life. I don't mind that hrafn disagrees with me, mind you, I'm just tired of his offensive, obstructionist approach to discussions. He may very well be right (time will tell), but I'm not going to be treated like some POV-pushing newb because he can't focus sufficiently to engage in civil dialog. I'm sorry if you find it problematic that I stand up for myself in the face of that kind of behavior; if you have a better way of dealing with it than shutting it down and shutting it out, I'd love to hear it. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to be treated that way, stay on topic. And "he did it first" is never an excuse. Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

point taken, and I'll give your suggestion a try and see how it works (it should be an interesting experiment, even if I already know the outcome). I trust you'll be observing as well. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)