Jump to content

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

Overlap, context & summary style (explicitly assuming a two-article model)

It seems likely that the above merge proposal will fail. It has however raised concerns, from both myself and others, about the degree of overlap between this article and related ones. Rather than continue to mix them in with the merge discussion, I thought it might be useful to spin it out into a seperate section.

In common with many other articles on Wikipedia, ID is both a subtopic of a number of other topics, and has a number of subtopics of its own. Per WP:SUMMARY it should therefore give a concise summary of these topics (as well as covering any ID-specific details of parent topics, and briefer mentions of anything relevant about second-order connections).

Upstream (parent) topics:

Subtopics:

Thoughts? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent list, Hrafn; I only have a few thoughts. One, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case was a reaction to the ID movement, so perhaps we should have a section entitled "Reactions" in which we can place it. We could then add the reaction from the scientific community in this section. Or maybe we make a section to highlight important legal battles (court cases, proposed legislation, et al.) involving ID and insert it there? I'm unsure if any other legal skirmish is worth putting in this article rather than the one on the ID movement though, so this may be unnecessary. Second, I'm not sure we need to narrow the "research efforts" to post-Kizmiller: I think a section discussing research efforts, sans timeline modifier, could explain changes in focus due to the Kitzmiller case (or any other event) with a quick sentence or two. Other than these very minor suggestions, I think your list is fantastic. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(i) Kitzmiller had two major impacts: (a) it killed Teach the Controversy (specifically called out as "at best a canard" by the judge) & (b) it badly punctured the scientific pretensions of the concept. As such, it is fairly pivotal in both the article on the movement and on the concept. (No other court case or legislation comes even close to its prominence -- the Louisiana Science Education Act would be a very distant second, and its impact is still being played out). (ii) I'm not suggesting that we ignore pre-Kizmiller research efforts, just that prior to that case ID's research side had been coasting for a number of years, and that after it there was a renewed effort (most probably in an attempt to restore ID's pretensions at scientific credibility) seen in creation of research institutions and publication of a number of books. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for working on these improvements, the list looks like a good way forward. One quibble, far from "teach the controversy" being dead, 2011 has already three new antievolution bills on a similar basis. As in Oklahoma, "informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of .... Controversial topics in sciences [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution."[1] . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant 'teach the controversy' as a specific wrapper/catchphrase/campaign-talking-point for the 'fair play'/'teach all sides' argument, which has since been 'critical analysis of evolution' and 'strengths and weaknesses of evolution' as well. Anti-evolution bills have been around long before ID, and will be around probably long after 'teach the controversy', and ID itself, are forgotten. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
A good point, my aim was simply to suggest that "Post-Kitzmiller research efforts" could usefully include a sentence about 'strengths and weaknesses' still being pushed by the DI but with little or no explicit mention of the discredited ID brand. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I could hardly consider that this is one of the 3000 best articles on wikipedia. The introduction is highly POV, while it should be used to introduce the basic idea of intelligent design it instead embarks on a rant clearly designed to discredit the developers of the "theory" that would be better assigned to the history section. a token sentence tells us "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." surely there should at least be a list of the basic ideas of which ID is composed, irreducible complexity, fine tuned universe, Adam naming the animals...

In comparison the introduction of the evolution article is excellent stating the basic concept, brief description of the process, the link of the theory to reality and only after this a paragraph explaining the development and original proponents. Whereas the ID article can easily be presumed to simply be an attempt to fit as many citations attacking ID as the author could find. Frankly it is embarrassing that this piece of work is considered in the top 0.1% of all Wikipedia's articles.

If I'd had the time or the will to read the rest of the article I may have discovered that the introduction is in no way reflective of the tone of the rest of the article, however I believe not even the greatest prose the world has ever seen could raise this article from the depths of hackery that the introduction plunges it. For god sakes change the introduction or remove the featured banner before we have to endure more cries of liberal bias in Wikipedia. 114.76.63.231 (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "liberal bias"? I don't see where this article is promoting a free market, sexual freedom, freedom of religion, or anything else that I have heard referred to as "liberal". Are you sure you got the right Latin word? Hans Adler 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
he jsut means that the facts presented in it disagree with his pre-established beliefs. it's how conservatives are able to indefinitely maintain a belief system so divorced from reality. they just label everything they don't like as liberal or something like that and then they can ignore it with out too much psychological discomfort. they do it constantly and there never really any rhyme or reason to it except for it minimizes the amount of new information they have to take in. so in a way its all about efficiency. anyways, you learn to just ignore it after a while. Kevin Baastalk 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Baas, the point you've just made is in total support of the comment by 114.76.63.231 that you seem to be attempting to discredit. Your point on the rather ludicrous way in which religious conservatives tend to label everything they don't like as "liberal" - even if it is nothing of the sort - just so they can put a kind of blanket over it and ignore it - supports the point made by the other user that this article's rather fiery introduction could fuel ludicrous claims from said "conservatives" about "liberal" "bias" on Wikipedia. Further detailing how ludicrously widely, pointlessly and indiscriminately this farcical label is applied as a debate-muzzling tool only strengthens the user's arguments for being wary of the dangers of enticing and encouraging such prejudiced, irrational spewing of bile with only a moderately fiery and rational introduction. Duster (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, civility please. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To actually answer the persons concerns, instead of just bashing them (I shouldn't need to point regular editors to WP:CIVIL and WP:NOOB. but in this case probably so.) 114.76.63.231, the article isn't biased in the way your thinking. At Wikipedia we have specific views on fringe-theories, and Intelligent Design, despite how you personally view or feel about it, is a fringe theory, for our policy see WP:FRINGE. The "theory" purports it's self as an alternative scientific theory on the origins of life, and as such, we evaluate it as just that, a scientific theory. When you view it under the lens of science, you see it's not scientific at all, and there is no scientific papers and evidence to support it. We have a policy called WP:DUE which means the tone and content of an article be based on reliable sources and since it again, purports to be a scientific theory, reliable sources for science is peer-reviewed scientific journals. Here the tone of the article is appropriate when you review what is available out there about ID. It's just not a theory backed by any real science, no published papers exist that back it up, and millions exist that refute it. There is really no other position that we can take but the mainstream science's position on the "theory." And note I put theory in quotes because it's not technically a theory, not in the scientific definition of it at least. — raekyt 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

perhaps kevin if you practiced what you preach you would have noticed that I didn't once mention any of my own personal beliefs about Intelligent Design, if you must know I am an atheist and it is clear to me that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is highly unlikely, my complaint was about the quality of the article and has nothing to do with the merits of the "theory". however this is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not an outlet for personal belief or opinion but an encyclopedia that should provide objective and hopefully readable information to users. The introduction for this article is simply not good and I believe that the featured status is unmerited while the introduction remains unchanged, I would offer to rewrite it but there is certainly someone better qualified to do so. Raeky I appreciate the civility however I do not believe that ID's pseudoscientific status is best presented with the current introduction as it is blatantly pushing an agenda, in much the same way that kevin describes conservatives, I believe Wikipedia is better than this and that instead of beating people over the head with our own beliefs we should provide them with the facts so they understand why ID is not accepted within the scientific community. Also liberal bias is a common phrase and regardless of wether it is or is not systemic in Wikipedia this introduction is not helping to quell that idea as you can see with the existence of such sites as Conervapedia :( 114.76.63.231 (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires articles to give WP:DUE weight to the majority POV. In this case the unequivocal viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is that ID is utterly without merit (see for example list of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design), so that policy requires the article to prominently reflect this viewpoint. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point to a few pages on wikipedia that I think support my point lead section and featured article criteria. The introduction "should... summarize the most important points" and "prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections" there is a section of integral concepts in this article yet none of these are mentioned in the introduction. "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." this is not well written it is a mish mash of citations and links and regardless of wether you believe it is neutral or biased it is poor prose. 114.76.63.231 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And it could be considered to be "the most important point" about ID is the fact that the scientific community considers it to be WP:Complete bollocks. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn, could you please try to treat the subject with some NPOV? Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What was not NPOV about that?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It didn't say what Cla68 wanted to hear. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the NPOV of the introduction, and I think the bias must be quite prevalent when a staunch opponent of ID (and strong atheist) such as myself cringes while reading it. I understand WP:DUE, but there's only a single sentence in the introduction about what ID is, and that's the definition from the DI. After that, the term gets defined as Creationism and slammed as such. Now I'm not saying this is not accurate, but we owe it to the readers to present a more informative introduction. I agree with 114.76.63.231 that the introduction should be rewritten to include mentions of the "Integral concepts" mentioned later in the article. Once the "theory" is explained to the reader in a paragraph, we can give the facts about its ties to Creationism and its lack of support from the scientific community. I'd like to suggest that the first paragraph keep its first sentence, then introduce the "Integral concepts". The rest of the paragraph can be moved down and combined with the other paragraphs of the introduction. That way, readers might actually know something about ID from the introduction, other than the fact that its proponents are religious zealots. Would this be an acceptable change? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is inaccurate to try to disassociate religion and creationism from ID, ID is after all rebranded creationism, proposed and supported by creationists, and has been blatantly exposed as just a "copy paste" replacement for the word creationism in the early drafts of Of Pandas And People. The court case exposed the origins of this "theory" quite well, and we would be doing a disservice to the reader if we don't immediately make those links and present that information. Are you trying to make the argument ID isn't rebranded creationism? — raekyt 16:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not come up with proposed text, and we can work on improving it. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
raeky, I am not suggesting that ID isn't Creationism. I'm merely saying that we should have more information in the introduction other than it is rebranded Creationism, which is pretty much what every sentence after the first says. The text I had in mind is something along the lines of the following.


That's my idea for the first paragraph (and it needs work), then the next paragraph can start with "Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists..." and include the removed statement from the first paragraph ("It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument...") before resuming as is currently written. Thanks for your consideration! -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: The second and third paragraphs currently both start off about the origin of the ID movement, but only the third paragraph is actually about the history of ID. I recommend dropping the first sentence from the second paragraph, in order to make it more cohesive. In doing that, the second paragraph would only be about ID's claim to being science, while the third would only be about its origin and major historical points. This would improve the overall readability of the lead. The IP also made a point about overuse of citations. Four citations for one sentence is a bit excessive to the point of being distracting, so perhaps we can review them and see if some might be redundant and/or less useful.Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I partially agree. The 1st sentences of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs are clearly duplicative. I'd suggest removing the 1st sentence of the second paragraph and merge the second paragraph with the first. I would however be extremely careful about removing citations. This article is heavily (I would argue excessively) scrutinised, so a belt-and-braces approach to citation is often needed to forestall needless arguments. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fused the two redundant sentences. I tried my best to make sure all the citations were moved as well. I'd be greatful if someone could check it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both of you about the first sentence in the second paragraph, though I think it may read better if that sentence is stricken and the entire rest of the paragraph is moved after the third paragraph. It does have a different subject matter (scientific claims vs history), so I think keeping the paragraphs separate would be better. However, this doesn't address the fact that the integral concepts of ID are missing from the first paragraph, which I believe is the more pressing matter. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't move or remove any citations without review and careful thought, but I don't think more than two citations in a paragraph really do anything to make it more resistant to challenge. If someone is doing so at that point, the citations aren't the issue.
If the first paragraph becomes more of a description of the tenets of ID, then I think all but the first sentence could be merged with that second paragraph. That would make the paragraphs break down into (1)the tenets of ID, (2)what ID is/is not, and (3) a brief history of ID. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent solution. By the way, does anyone have any comments regarding the rewritten first paragraph I proposed earlier? I know it needs work, but I think it's a decent start to adding the tenets of ID into the first paragraph. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that enlarging the first paragraph is all that good of an idea, because it would mean duplicating material that is already in the Creationism and Teleological argument articles, which are already linked. Basically, the tenets of ID are essentially the same as creationism, with the exception that God is not explicitly mentioned. I think "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" are best handled in the body of the article, not the lead. The words "As evidence" are incongruent with the rest of the sentence. The concepts are not evidence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Besides, I would clasify "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" as terminology, not as tenets.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I too didn't like the phrasing, "as evidence": though still technically accurate (something can be presented as evidence and still not be evidence), it should be amended to avoid the term evidence altogether (Suggestions?). I also agree that we don't want duplicate information, but we ought to introduce the "Integral concepts" of ID in the first paragraph so readers understand something more about it other than it is Creationism; we can elaborate in greater detail later in the article (as is already established). "[The lead] should... summarize the most important points" (Wikipedia:Lead section, emphasis added), which would include the "Integral concepts." -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
But is it really "something...other than creationism"? Beyond the big tent and the branding? Pandas began its life as a "creation science" textbook, and was converted to ID by cut-and-paste (resulting in the famous "cdesign proponentsists") and there's nothing specifically ID about Icons. IC and SC are the interesting bits of ID. But all the recycled stuff is still there, and is still being actively promoted as ID. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "integral concepts" is a slightly misleading term for IC, SC and the rest. The version that was promoted to FA simply called them "concepts". "Conceptual frameworks" may be more accurate, but it's clunky. And it doesn't quite feel right either... Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think MisterDub's proposed first paragraph is fine and although the irreducable complexity/information arguments may not truly be "evidence" you could probably say "these concepts are presented as evidence by proponents" but then qualify with another sentence saying that this "evidence" is rejected by the scientific community etc.

Reading through this article properly there seems to be a number of other problems as well, integral concepts is definitely misleading, it could almost be considered POV as it implies there is further "evidence" that is not included in this article I think concepts works fine as a heading. Also I don't understand how "Arguments from ignorance" or "God of the gaps" falls under the section "teaching the controversy", they could certainly be included in the article perhaps under a new heading like "philosophical arguments against ID" or something along those lines.

Also it is irrelevant wether ID is true or creationism or pseudoscience people deserve to understand what it is after reading the introduction and at the moment there is one token sentence. If you look at the article on astrology you can see that although it shares the same degree of scientificness as ID it at least has three or four sentences introducting the topic and i do not think it gives undue weight supporting the theory. So if we are all as intelligent as we like to believe we are I think we can give readers a good idea about what ID at the same time as telling them that it is pseudoscientific drivle while NOT insulting their intelligence, then maybe this article will become deserving of FA status. I am the OP btw. Daftruth (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

@MisterDub and Daftruth: I'm getting the impression that you're thinking of ID as a discipline, rather than as a religiously motivated political strategy. It is not at all a coherent, worked-out, detailed, and consistent discipline. It is just a repackaging of standard creationist claptrap in quasi-scientific language.
No attempt has been made to develope it as a discipline. No research has been carried out other than quote-mining, and no attempt has been made to organize it into a coherent body of "tenets". Their argument is essentially the same as Cicero's argument from 2000 years ago, just dressed up in quasi-scientific language, and stripped of religious language. Its novelty lies not in its "tenets", but in its utility as a political and legal tool.
ID proponents have, on the other hand, presented their "theory" as if it were developed, internally consistent and productive to the public, judges, politicians and school board members, many of whom lack the background to distinguish science from pseudoscience, with the expressed intention of deceiving them into allowing the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. They purposely avoid presenting their "theories" to real scientists for peer evaluation and critique except in a courtroom or public forum setting.
Again, the "integral concepts" of ID are not scientific in nature, or even philosophical or theological. They are purely political and legal public relations stunts. This is better presented in the article on the Intelligent design movement.
Expanding the first paragraph, therefore, to present ID as a coherent body of knowledge or as well developed investigative methodology would therefore be misleading and POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Vobisdu: you're half right and half wrong. The effort to get ID categorized as a 'science' so that it could be taught in public schools was obviously a political gambit. As you say, no one ever really bothered to try to develop it (or creationism before it) as an actual science; they were just hoping they could smokescreen religious teachings back into the school system. That being said, the idea behind ID (and creationism) is a well-established religious tenet, and the ID proponents weren't just scurrilous miscreants intent on promoting pseudoscience, but rather well-intentioned people worrying about their faith. There is a very complex philosophical debate in the real world about the secularization of education, but unfortunately this article reduces those complexities to a fairly one-dimensional depiction. You have the same problem here that you have over on the global warming page (if you're familiar with that debacle): activists carefully focusing the article subject to prevent a well-rounded discussion of the topic. Nothing in this article is wrong mind you, but the common attitude among many editors on this page is that this page is only for material about the badness of the science; If you have anything positive (or even neutrally descriptive) to say about ID, you should try a different article.
In other words, this article is a well-established, well-written POV fork. Damned if I know what to do about it.
However, I did mean a while back to go in a do a weed & trim on the body of the article. maybe I'll do that this weekend, and come back to take a second look at the lead. --Ludwigs2 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


@Ludwigs2: As I see it, this article is about the incarnation of ID that began in the 80s and developed and championed by members of the Discovery Institute. It is not about creationism or the teleological argument in general, which, as you said, have firmer theological and philosophical foundations. I do not think that the editors here are excluding information to simply to emphasize the "badness" of ID, but to keep the scope of the article limited to the present day campaign by the Discovery Instute by excluding information that more properly belongs in the Creationism, Teleological argument or similar articles. I personally agree that the present-day movement is notable enough to warrant an article of its own, without contamination by information on other creationist, religious or philosphical movements of the past or the present day.
If you're thinking of trimming the article, 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, where they more properly belong, in my opinion. Readers would be less likely to think that the article has a wider scope than the present-day ID movement. A link should be provided to that article for those interested in the "prehistory" and philosophical basis of the present-day movement. As far as I'm concerned , ID as treated in this article started with Thaxton's conference in 1988 in response to the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.
I'm not sure if you are implying that there is any sort of theological or philosophical unity among the proponents of the current ID movement. Behe, for example, is a Catholic, and some of the minor characters are Jewish or Muslim. They have temporarily put aside their religious and philosophical differences to concentrate on the common goal of diluting the impact of teaching evolution in public schools by teaching their own "alternative theories". They are united in the same way that Catholics and Mormons were united in the fight agains Prop. 8, by nothing other than the immediate goal at hand. Rewriting the lede so as to give the impresion that the beliefs of the proponents of the present-day movement are more coherent, developed or internally consitent than they really are would be, therefore, inherently POV.
That the proponents of ID are genuinely motivated by sincere religious beliefs and a sincere desire to defend them against what they perceive to be a hostile world, no one doubts. That doesn't preclude, however, their being politically motivated as well, or being "scurrilous miscreants" in their efforts to circumvent court decisions. I, for one, feel like I should take a shower after I read the "wedge document. It is difficult to argue that they are unintentionally deceptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
@Ludwig and DV--How very refreshing to read your civil and insightful comments! I was long confused about the subject of this article. (Still am, actually.) It seems to me the consensus is that this article deals, or should deal, with the American ID movement. Therefore, I can't understand why it's separate from Intelligent design movement. To me, the concept of intelligent design--the perception/belief/proposal that everything that exists was designed by a superior intelligence--is somewhat different and much older than the movement. If we are dealing with the concept only as conceived as a dodge around U.S. legal decisions, why is that concept not merely part of the Intelligent design movement article? I would sincerely appreciate your clear explanation. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c/) @ Vobisdu: Just as an aside, one of the more interesting things about the formation of the US political system is that it is pretty much the first time in history that a political system was conceived that didn't rely on people being good, honorable, noble, far-thinking, or idealistic. It's a dirty, crappy, rotten, misbegotten little system that works as well as it does because it is flagrantly and self-admittedly dirty, crappy, and rotten. If you think the ID gambit was the worst (or even a notably bad) example of political chicanery in the US, you've been living on Mars. They gave it the old college try and got their chops busted over it - that's the way the system's designed to work. Strange, but true.
To my mind, a properly encyclopedic article on this topic would merge the 'ID' and 'ID Movement' articles together (there's no need for two articles), would spend roughly half of the article discussing the various principles and theories that have spun out of it, its history, its demographics, the conflict over secular education, things like that; and the other half wold be two major sections: one on the failed political gambit and one on the failings of the concept as a scientific theory. The problem with the article right now is that there's too much emphasis on the political machinations and the failed science - The article feels almost like its reaching to be anti-religious or anti-theistic (as you can tell by the frequency in which people complain about the article's tone). As I find myself saying frequently to wikipedia editors, being right about a topic does not endow one with the privilege of being a biatch about it; one needs to treat even stupid ideas with a modicum of respect, otherwise the encyclopedia starts to sound 'judgy'. Can you honestly say this article doesn't sound judgy? --Ludwigs2 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
@Yopenso and Ludwigs2: I myself was wondering why there are two articles on ID and the ID movement. I was just mulling over whether that's what L2 meant when he said this article is a fork. I don't see why the two articles couldn't be mearged, as long as the content was kept free, as I said, of potentially misleading contamination by information on other creationist, religious or philosphical movements of the past or the present day. Otherwwise, we're still going to have problems with readers misinterpreting the scope of the article.
I'm probably not the person to ask about the tone of this article. I'm a microbiologist, and, as you can guess, my animosity toward the ID movement runs rather high. When I compare what this article says about the ID movement with what my colleagues say, it seems fair, factual, and even restrained. Granted, it makes no bones about the fact that ID is utter bollocks. Like I said, I'm coming from an environment where ID is held in great contempt. Whether it is "judgy" or "biatchy" is difficult for me to tell. I'll grant you that it is uncompromising, but I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that.
I still disagree about rewriting the lead to make the movement sound coherent, complete or internally consistent, either "scientifically", or theologically, or philosophically. It is, after all, a slap-dash patchwork of (mostly) quote-mining and misquoting designed on-the-fly primarily to win over the public and win court cases. Presenting it as a monolithic unified system of thought or knowledge would be very POV. I am still also concerned that this article can start to reducplicate material already in the Creationism and Teleological Argument articles. I'm also not in favor of the approach "let the ID proponents make their case without interuption first, and then shoot it down."
And no, L2, I haven't been living on Mars as far as political chicanery is concerned. It's just, to me as a microbiologist, this particular chicanery cut too close to the quick. It's a matter of perspective. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, let me point out that you'd be out of a career if God hadn't made bacteria (...I say, then laugh with evil glee as I duck quickly behind the internet for cover).
Silliness aside, I think your perspective is fairly typical of a lot of editors on this page. Wikipedia tends to attract editors who are more highly educated, more cosmopolitan, and more secular than the population average, and pages like this tend to attract editors with strong opinions from that already loaded sample. The real problem with ID is the 'hubris' factor - not so much that they made a silly and otherwise forgettable assertion about the world, but that they (ignorantly) called into question the careers and professional reputations of entire fields of science. It's pretty much like when one of those annoying sophomores shows up in your class apparently convinced that he already (at 19) knows the material better than you do, except magnified by a factor of a thousand. Plus, western scientific logic began explicitly as a means of wrenching our understanding of the world out of the hands of Christian dogma; whether they knew it or not, trying to co-opt scientific language in order to reassert that very dogma was bound to get the same kind of reception as wearing an Al Jolson t-shirt to a NAACP meeting.
That being said, we do have to make an effort to keep out own POVs in check. I have to periodically remind myself that the point on wikipedia is not to get a point across, but simply to make a complete and accurate description. Don't magnify, don't reify, don't vilify... you know. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you know that ALL of my bacteria are good little atheists, thank you.
Get your point about keeping our own POV's in check. I'll try to put myself in the other guy's shoes, even if he slithers rather than walks. Wish you lots of luck with merging the articles. It's been a pleasure. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
{e/c} I've not seen editors do a better job of describing than you two. I hope you can merge this into the ID movement article. (Whoa--didn't see the consensus way up the page is against a merge. So, if that's not the fix, somehow this article still needs fixing.) We really don't want any pontification from the religious side nor any derision from the scientific. Yes, the article sounds POV, as many editors have commented over time. I agree that it's pretty much a reaction to ignorant hubris. We need a dispassionate, accurate description. You both seem remarkably cool and qualified. Yopienso (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand the animosity that most people here have towards ID, as an Australian I'm lucky to live in a very secular country and almost everyone I know is atheist, the one nutjob politician who seriously suggested ID ended up with an approval rating of like 8% so I like to think that I won't be biased against ID as some others on Wikipedia. I think that the idea of Intelligent Design can be kept separated from the movement even if only for style or presentation the ID article already has nearly 200 citations and the movement has 100 citations and granted there may be some overlap but if we can keep articles shorter and to the point it will make them easy to read and navigate.
Regardless of wether the concepts are coherent or not they are central to what ID is, if you can find a source why don't we just say these are the concepts, "however" there is no coherent/central doctrine. I said before that the "integral concepts" was kind of misleading as it implies some sort of consensus. btw I am 19, and totally offended Daftruth (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree that "integral" is confusing and inaccurate, so have removed it. As the section makes clear, even though forms of Irreducible complexity appear in earlier creationist publications, the term only appeared in 1996 and the concept related specifically to ID only appeared in 1993, four years after the first ID publication in Pandas. So, have removed "integral" from the section heading. . dave souza, talk 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Daftruth: don't worry, some 19 year olds really do know everything.
I'm not surprised that there have been merger discussions before (this page has 61 archives, for heaven's sake, which works out to roughly a 7000 page book). I'm sure they've talked about everything before. That's no reason not to talk about it again, however. see section below. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I leave for the weekend and this place blows up. :P
Guettarda, I didn't want to imply that ID is something other than Creationism, but it is an unique form due to its purportedly scientific nature. The only "work" ID proponents have done to convince others of this is IC and CSI, though both have been well refuted. This is the reason I feel they should be mentioned in the introduction: they set ID apart from the Creationism article.
Dominus, I completely understand your sentiments about ID--I studied Evolutionary Biology for four years before I changed to computer programming--but I disagree that it is only Creationism repackaged (see previous paragraph). I will actually grant that IC and CSI are decent attempts at providing evidence for ID, though critics have thoroughly demonstrated the conclusions ID advocates derive from them are invalid. Of course, the problem is that, rather than refining these concepts into something which can distinguish natural variation from artificial construction and submitting them to scientific journals for peer review, ID proponents continue to present them as damning evidence against evolution (which should be completely irrelevant to the discussion). This purported conflict between ID and evolution is the smoking gun proving that ID is a form of Creationism; however, it differs from Creationism because it employs the pseudoscientific claims of IC and CSI.
Lastly, I agree with Dominus regarding cutting the first two paragraphs from "Origin of the concept" since that information can be retrieved from the article on the Teleological Argument. I mostly agree with removing the first three paragraphs from the "Origin of the term" section as well, though I think they might simply be summed up into a sentence or two and added to the beginning of the fourth paragraph. In any case, this information seems to be rattled off without any coherent point. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that neither IC nor SC are part of the original formulation of ID. ID existed for over a decade before either Behe's or Dembski's works were published. Neither of them is fundamental to ID - Wells' Icons of Evolution and Johnson's work are integral parts of ID, and neither of them makes use of either idea. Darwin's Dilemma, similarly, does not rely on either concept. What sets ID apart from other forms of creationism is the 'big tent'. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What really sets ID apart

I'm not sure if even that sets ID apart -- the size of the tent had alternately grown and shrunk over the decades, with new movements being created and schisming/ejecting-'heretics'. If I had to define what differentiates ID from previous forms of creationism, it would probably be the hiding of God behind the 'intelligent designer' curtain (+ perhaps, due to having more philosophers in its ranks, having a more articulate/explicit/well-defined philosophy of pseudoscience than its predecessors). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point, but I know how to source what I said. And, of course, a classic case of missing the big picture by getting tied up in the fine print :) Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the distinction: ID advocates parade it as science in order to conceal the identity of the being they believe the designer to be (i.e. god). Currently, ID's most prominent and convincing "scientific" claims are IC and CSI, which I think makes a brief mention worthy of inclusion in the lead; I guess I don't see why they must be part of the original formulation. We could mention past claims such as Icons as well, but I think we ought to describe what ID is currently. Am I missing something or does anyone else share my concerns? -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • One problem with ID is very little of its contents are necessary or original (or in any way entailed by its original contents). It's all rather reactive and contingent. Edwards happened so Pandas replaced creationism with ID throughout & Plantinga, Johnson, et al developed theistic science/theistic realism as a response. A mathematician and a biochemist became involved so we got SC & IC. Given a differently worded court decision and a different set of initial recruits, ID could have looked very differently. So if we're going to describe ID at all, then we have to describe what it did become as a concept, rather than any (largely non-existent) necessary "original formulation". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
<ec> There's a need to keep the lead concise while maintaining the balance of majority views of the fringe claims. A brief mention might be added to the second paragraph, which would conclude:
"....and indeed is pseudoscience. The most prominent intelligent arguments, irreducible complexity and complex specified information, have been rejected as lacking any scientific merit."
Think something on those lines would be helpful? . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(Added a break, since this section is getting very long) I might not go with that exact wording, but I think Dave's suggestion has merit. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Guettarda: the wording isn't to my liking, but the gist of it is great. Perhaps something like the following will suffice:
-- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually they have been rejected for a number of reasons. The wording applies better to SC than to IC, but even there, it's more complex than that. We need something a little less specific, a little more nuanced. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought both of these concepts had that as a stated goal, though the specific details of them and their rejection is different (evidence of earlier, successful systems in the case of IC, and naturally-occurring CSI). We could just lop off that end part though and leave something like, "... which have been rejected by the scientific community." Or do you have any suggestions as to the wording? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How would this sound as a replacement for the first two paragraphs of the lead:

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 known as neo-creationism, whose goal is to restate creationism in purely non-religious terms. It is also 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 intelligent designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tan—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

It seeks to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science, and puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. The scientific community, including a number of prominent Christian scientists, rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, but a bit of a can of worms. We can't say that its "goal is to restate creationism in purely non-religious terms", as proponents have stated that its goal is to displace evolution as a creation story and restore what they imagine was a theistic basis of society, and more mundanely its clear goal is to evade court restrictions on teaching creationism in public school science classes. The phrase "theistic science" is their jargon for having the supernatural as the default explanation. The rejection is because ID is a "science stopper", being inherently untestable, and because it simply restates failed creatiohist arguments. In terms of philosophy of science methodological naturalism is an important issue, but it's inherent in science and not just because it's favoured or accepted. The idea of integrating IC and SC is good, but we shouldn't have the rejection by scientists too separate from the arguments in the lead: the interjection of "including a number of prominent Christian scientists" is a deviation from the topic, and not needed at that stage. Just my first thoughts, dave souza, talk 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the "goal" in question is that of neo-creationism (i.e. what neo-c is trying to do differently from earlier forms of creationism) -- and is simply a summary of that article's lead. This is not to say that ID is only a form of neo-creationism, and that it cannot have goals beyond this one. I agree that the Christian scientists bit isn't necessary, but it is useful -- in that it immediately undercuts one of the more manipulative creationist canards -- that the debate is theism vs atheism. It is helpful in framing the overall issue and dispelling a major preconception. As to the rest, I'm in agreement with it -- and thought that what I wrote was consonant with what you are saying (and that it at least did as good a job of highlighting these issues as the current lead). The third paragraph might be strengthened further -- but this runs into the balance between making the point and belabouring that point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
First, the second sentence in the first paragraph needs to be reworded. Intelligent Design is a what, not a who (referring to the clause, "... whose goal is to restate creationism..."). Perhaps we could change it to, "which aims to restate creationism in purely non-religious terms." I know, I know... I'm a grammar Nazi. :P Second, the first sentence of the second paragraph may carry on too much. I say may because I rather like the sound of it, but I can see how some would have trouble with both the appositive and preposition in the sentence. Third, I think "including a number of prominent Christian scientists" should be removed entirely; the sentence works well to illustrate that ID is not science and therefore theological in nature without mentioning demographics of the scientific community. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
On your first point, I'm more concerned about wording it so it's a bit clearer that it is Neo-C's goal not necessarily ID's (sole) one -- but it should be possible to do both. How about "It is a form of creationism known as neo-creationism, which is creationism that attempts to restate itself in purely non-religious terms."? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not bad, but it seems a little redundant to say "creationism" twice. How about, "It is a form of neo-creationism, which is creationism that attempts to restate itself in purely non-religious terms." -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That's very slightly inaccurate, as ID is the only known instantiation of neo-c (so it's not simply "a form" of it), but I don't know if there's a way of avoiding that inaccuracy without making the sentence clumsy again. How about "Intelligent design is neo-creationism, which is creationism that attempts to restate itself in purely non-religious terms."? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Playing with that a little, "Intelligent design is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. As such, 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." Note that it's not purely non-religious terms, as proponents do commonly use religious terms such as "the Logos of St. John", and creation science also went some way to avoiding religious wording. . . dave souza, talk 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, except for the "As such" -- which implies that "a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms" is equivalent to "a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument" -- whereas ID is both of those things independently. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair point, removing "As such" would be simpler and probably work better. My intention was to indicate that the TE avoiding naming "the designer" followed from it being creationism restated to sound secular, but the phrasing introduced more ambiguity than I intended. . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'd like to reprint Hrafn's quotation with the changes we've discussed in place:

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 neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms. It is also 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 intelligent 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.

It seeks to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science, and puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.

Does anyone have further concerns, or do we agree that this is an acceptable replacement for the current lead? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor tweak, I've wikified supernatural as in the present lead. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have two concerns, as follows:
  • (minor) the first paragraph is a bit redundant. the second and third lines should probably read "It is a form of creationism (neo-creationism) and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, restated to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer."
  • the second paragraph contains a mis-contextualized (or maybe improperly attributed) claim. ID did not seek to 'fundamentally redefine science'; ID sought to skirt laws about education. attacks on science were largely collateral damage in an overwhelmingly political war. If it hand't been for the secondary education issue, the ID proponents wouldn't have cared one fig about science. I'm not sure how we got to a place where we're casting the ID proponents as evil geniuses intent on overthrowing science itself; it was just a crass political gambit where (as is typical of such things) no one really thought or cared about collateral damage. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs, please give more serious attention to the topic of the article. "My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology. .... we propose actually to engage in a serious conversation with the mainstream scientific culture on fundamental principles, rather than to submit to its demand that naturalism be conceded as the basis for all scientific discussion." As was agreed in the Kitzmiller judgement, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” ID is predicated on supernatural causation. As for the first paragraph, it is certainly not redundant, it is a description of the basic argument presented for ID. . dave souza, talk 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Dave, the first paragraph is internally redundant (i.e. repeats itself), not externally redundant. look at the suggested revision I made.
As far as the quote you gave, please read it again. This is not a scientific claim; it's a political claim (effectively a "Science is not the boss of us" thing). The fourth and fifth words are "we affirm", making this a statement of belief, likely cast as an extension of the apostolic creed. It is precisely the statement that they had been making for perhaps the last century - that religion has a place being taught as a worldview - except now from a defensive posture where they have to mask the religiousness of it. None of these people want to challenge science or scientific methodology; they want to challenge science as an all-encompassing worldview that leaves no room for anything else.
A bit like some conversations on Wikipeida, now that I think about it. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"`Unnatural Science', `Creation Science,' `Theistic Science' - call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism." -- Alvin Plantinga. A research program that is "rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know or have reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, explaining things in science and evaluating the plausibility of various hypotheses, and among the things they should consult are propositions of theology (and philosophy)" -- J. P. Moreland. These are clearly talking about (purported) science, not politics.

Also, if we're going to define ID as neo-c (which we should), then I think we should at least briefly define what neo-c is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are talking about science: that's the political move. and you'll notice, in fact, that the statement is not at heart something a scientist would disagree with: scientists often consult "propositions of theology (and philosophy)" when developing theories, though they usually dismiss them (consider Einstein's famous 'god does not play dice with the universe', or the 'tao of physics' fad of a decade or so ago). this is a very well-crafted political gambit. a counter-factual thought experiment is useful here: what would the ID people have done if in fact they had their legal way of it? They would not have changed science in broad strokes (creationists are not luddites: they like technological advances as much as the rest of us, and recognize that those come from practical science). They would not even have deleted evolutionary theory, since the theory of evolution is at the root of a lot of modern medical advances. They would have insisted that religious beliefs get taught right along with scientific beliefs, and probably pushed for an unwieldy (almost dual-class) system. where most people got a heavy dose of theological indoctrination through secondary school, but those who went on to college and graduate school received a more secular, scientifically oriented education that allowed proper technological advancement. that's disgusting enough; there's no sense suggesting they were actually trying to rewrite science into a form that would have undermined the pragmatic functions of science. that would be suicidally silly, and I don't think even the ID people are sufficiently ideologically driven to force us all back to the stone age (you know, that dark, unenlightened era prior to the creation of the internet).
I don't really want to push this point excessively, because I'm not a fan of ID. I'm just trying to point out that this wording really over-estimates the scope to the discovery institute's goals. They don't want science to end or change significantly, they just want people to believe in the bible. it is their unfortunate downfall that they chose the worst part of the bible they could possibly choose to make their stand on. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"They don't want science to ... change significantly" -- but this is what they are explicitly stating that they do want -- the replacement of methodological naturalism with theistic science. What I "notice" is that neither of your examples support your claim that "scientists often consult 'propositions of theology (and philosophy)' when developing theories": (i) Einstein (a) was using "god" metaphorically not theologically in that quote & (b) did not develop quantum physics (the theory that quote is about); (ii) "the 'tao of physics' fad" was never part of science (see Quantum mysticism). "They would not even have deleted evolutionary theory..." This claim demonstrates a complete disconnect with the corpus of ID Creationist writings -- which have as their common, dominant, theme rejection of evolution. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
And what would that change amount to except a change of name and and the ability to add secondary school indoctrination? Again, Hrafn, you (along with many other editors, and a lot of people in the real world) are overestimating the ID movement. To reiterate, their master plan has always been simple: they want schools to teach children Christian values and worldviews, and are annoyed at legal restrictions against that, and so they concocted an elaborate ruse to get their way. The fact that so many intelligent people bought into their ruse enough to get outraged by it is interesting and disheartening, but doesn't really change the situation. I swear, if the scientific and educational community had been smart about this, they would have let ID be taught as an actual science, where it would have been quietly and mercilessly killed in a thousand classrooms across the nation, never to be heard of again - that's one of those 'be careful what you ask for' scenarios. instead we have this drawn-out political brouhaha that legitimizes ID even as people try to demonize it.
And I have to thank you for a really hearty laugh: asserting that Einstein used the word 'God' in a 'secular' way is a move straight out of the ID playbook (the converse of reframing 'God' as an 'intelligent designer' for secular acceptance). was that intentional? But it doesn't really affect my point. Scientists can and do get inspiration for their theories from any number of different sources, including religious and philosophical theories. it doesn't matter where they get the idea, what matters is whether the resultant theory can be tested and validated empirically. The assertion that the world came to be as it is through blind mechanistic forces (random or deterministic) is just as much a philosophical viewpoint as the assertion that the world came to be as it is because of God's plan; it's just that the mechanistic worldview has a universe full of evidence supporting it, whereas the godly universe has no evidence that would recommend it specifically and a number of internal logical inconsistencies that make it unattractive as a rationalized theory. --Ludwigs2 16:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs, it's very nice of you to tell us that you hold these biased views, but as you're not a mind-reader in any verifiable way, such speculations don't belong in Wikipedia. For myself, I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of the religious beliefs of ID proponents, and we have good third party sources analysing their views of science. You may find it more productive to follow Einstein in considering Spinoza's God, but any changes to this article have to be based on proper sources. . . dave souza, talk 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -- these are not the words of a man who uses the word "God" is a religious sense. As to the rest, Wikipedia does not care about your (or my own opinions) on topics, but rather what claims we can verify to reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The way I see this, we are both arguing the same point, you're just arguing for a harsh and exaggerated interpretation of that point. It's unfortunate that wikipedia has reached a state where otherwise well-intentioned editors use sourcing to dismiss common sense and subvert NPOV, but that is your issue, not mine. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not care about "the way [you] see this." Wikipedia is not interested in your unsubstantiated claims that others are "just arguing for a harsh and exaggerated interpretation of that point" and "dismiss[ing] common sense and subvert[ing] NPOV". Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources say about the topic of this article -- which reliable sources appear to contradict you on a wide range of claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is interested in a clear, neutral, and properly encyclopedic presentation of the material, which (as the 61 talk page archives of this page, as well as basic logic, will attest to) has not been achieved on this page. I understand your sourcing claim, and I also understand that even the best source can be misused by editors pursuing an agenda. Sources don't write wikipedia articles, hrafn, we do; if you don't understand how an otherwise well-intentioned editor can use a good source to bias an article unforgivably, please ask. I'm happy to explain it to you, with detailed examples from this very page. --Ludwigs2 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your failure to assume good faith and to adhere properly to talk page guidelines is extraordinary, as is your unsourced and rather ludicrous presumption that somehow you can divine that ID proponents are merely political, with no sincere religious motive for redefining science. Please cease and desist this tendentious behaviour, instead make specific and properly sourced proposals for improvements and stop denigrating the fully verified statements that have been made. . . dave souza, talk 18:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about this, but it seems like, with the exception of Ludwigs2, we are all on the same page. And I'm sorry Ludwigs2, but I agree with the others: yes, ID seeks to "skirt laws about education" and "teach children Christian values and worldviews," but it also seeks to redefine science (the objective study of the natural world) and include appeals to supernatural causes. Because ID is asserted to be a scientific theory and the truth of this claim is critical to this article, this sentence is not only true and verifiable by source material, but extremely relevant to the topic. Can we now call for any other concerns regarding the proposed lead, and/or vote to replace the current one with it? I'm not sure how this stuff works--I'm a relatively new editor--but all this arguing doesn't strike me as productive. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm simply explaining my rationale for the changes I suggested, in response to other editors' comments. You're free to disagree with my assessment, but nothing I've said here is in bad faith, and nothing is against talk page guidelines. please be civil.
MisterDub: I don't think a vote is needed - feel free to edit in your changes. As I said, this is not a major issue for me, just a minor example of the kind of bias this page demonstrates. I'll come back to it at a later date if I think it's needed. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
@Ludwigs, I assume Dave's comment was directed at your above assessment, which accused editors on this page of misusing sources to "push an agenda". I'm sorry to say, I agree that was uncalled for. I also agree with MisterDub, there has been a lot of arguments on this page in the past few weeks, without much discussion of specific changes or sources. Can we all try to be specific about our proposals, and insure we're backing everything up with already-cited sources? That might address a lot of this unproductive back-and-forth. Jesstalk|edits 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
@Jess: please read my comment; I made no such accusation. I merely pointed out that this can and does happen. To the extent that it's happened on this page, I doubt it's intentional; I would expect editors to take stock of their own edits and decide for themselves whether they might have unintentionally contributed to this page's intrinsic bias. Frankly, I wish you and Dave and hrafn would stop making pointed comments about me and get back to discussing content. Do you think would that be possible? --Ludwigs2 00:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to get back to discussing content... but it might be good for you to consider the fact that multiple editors have pointed out these problems in behavior now, and it might benefit you to consider that the way you're current phrasing things has come off to them as more aggressive than you have wished. I'd suggest you read over your comment again too, as it still seems to me to be saying what Dave implied. All the best, Jesstalk|edits 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think IDers want to redefine only that science with which they disagree. They want to maintain rigorous investigation, testing, and reporting in the areas where they think science is "right" but adjust it (redefine it) to suit their own beliefs where they collide with science. To me, this is a huge difference from a blanket statement that they want to "fundamentally redefine science." The science they want to fundamentally redefine is that which has to do with origins of life and of species. Origins. They agree with medical science and rocket science and chemistry and astronomy where they're not about origins and and and.... Is it worth making that difference clear? My suggestion:
In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science as it applies to the origins of life and species to include supernatural explanations.
I think we need to remember how little is testable when it comes to origins and not lean too heavily on that point:
The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge. Nat'l. Geog. (Too bad Nat'l. Geog. writes of "proving" a theory.)
It's the tweaking of all that's inconvenient that is so very unscientific and therefore so exasperating to scientists. What, in my mind, distinguishes ID is that it tries to be so scientific but must insert theology. Inconsistency, in a word, is the difference between it and the straight-up creationism that defies science. Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yopienso, you're correct that ID proponents only take issue with the disciplines and theories which conflict with their predetermined beliefs; however, seeking to include supernatural explanations in any field of science challenges the whole philosophy of science (i.e. methodological naturalism). This then filters to all sciences, not just the origins theories. So, though I understand your concern, the statement remains true that they are redefining all of science. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the planned changes are going ahead, so I will institute them at the end of the week unless anyone has any objections in the meantime. Thanks to all for the great discussions! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to disagree with you wrt your comment just above and won't throw a monkey wrench into the machinery, but to me it's a patent misrepresentation to say ID seeks to fundamentally redefine science. I would agree that it undermines the rigor or integrity of science, or that it sits on a slippery slope. You won't find an IDer arguing with Newton. There. I'm satisfied I've explained my viewpoint clearly enough to be understood and won't push to have it incorporated into the article, although of course I think it should be. Thanks for disagreeing with me so agreeably! Yopienso (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the changes have been made. Please read it over and ensure I made the changes as we've discussed. Also, I had a bit of a formatting problem between the second and third paragraphs and ended up using a BR tag to separate the two. If someone could figure out why this issue is occurring, I'd be much obliged. Thanks to all once again! -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me; thanks for your work. I wonder if we really need all those references? Yopienso (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Yopienso, the overabundance of references is distracting (and, I believe, the reason for the formatting issue I described previously). If it's alright with everyone, I'll go through the lead and remove the less pertinent references. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article changes under consideration

I've been reading over the article prior to beginning revisions, and consistent with Jess' 05:32, 23 January 2011 assertion that this article should be about the 'argument' of intelligent design, while the political and social aspects should be over in the ID movement article, I am considering (at first blush) the following changes:

  • Adding a {{see also}} at the top of the page which says "This article is about the ideological and philosophical arguments of Intelligent design. for information about the Intelligent design movement and its politics, seeIntelligent Design movement"
  • Removing all of the political and legal information in the lead and refactoring them over to the 'movement' page
  • Removing the entire 'Movement' section of this article and integrating it into the 'movement' article
  • Removing the Kitzmiller Trial section and integrating it over into the 'movement' article
  • Also, I think I'll need to trim the current 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section by something like 60%-70%. There's a ton of wp:COATRACK material there - It seems as though someone decided they needed to define science in detail for the purposes of refuting ID. While I agree that this section is necessary, I think the current presentation is much too involved and goes much too far afield to be kept as it is.

I'm posting this in advance because I suspect these changes will be contentious. I want to make sure that we all agree that they are consistent with using this article to talk solely about the ID argument. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Right away this sounds like a very bad idea. This is the main article about ID and much of this is essential, with an appropriate summary of the aspects dealt with in more detail in sub articles in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. Since you seem convinced that an article about the 'argument' of intelligent design is feasible, you might like to try drafting that as a sub-article while taking care to give due weight to majority views on the argument or arguments. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dave, that's not my idea, that's Jess' idea. All I was asking for was a better clarification of what the distinctions between the various articles were, to remove a lot of useless redundancy.
Now, this whole 'Main article about ID' rubric is a new one - what does that mean, exactly? I'm not averse to using this article as the main article and converting 'ID Movement' into a restricted daughter article, but that would still call for the kinds of changes I listed in points 3, 4, and 5, above. I am dead set on imposing some order on this semi-random aggregation of pages, but I don't really have a firm opinion on how that order should be imposed. Do you think this is a better approach than Jess'? --Ludwigs2 21:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is and has always been the main article on ID. The intelligent design movement has always been the daughter article. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, this article maintains a summary of the daughter article, on that's complete enough to stand on its own in this article. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
'Always been' is not something i can judge (and is apparently not what other people on this page believe - see the above discussion where no one mentioned the idea), nor is it particularly relevant to this discussion, except as a kind of footnote. besides, this article goes WAY beyond being a summary of the IDM page, and the 'always been' point doesn't address the COATRACK issue I raised even a little bit. I mean, I take the point as far as it goes (it's a good point), but the point doesn't go very far, all things considered. --Ludwigs2 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I did not intend to assert that this article is only about the philosophical notions posed by the ID argument. My point was that the two articles had distinct domains: This one being about the whole of the argument (or topic, if you will), and the ID movement article being about its political and social implications. Dave and Guettarda are right that this is the parent of the other, and that's the way it should be. If you feel the 'philosophical' arguments of ID aren't presented in enough detail, and that seems to be a just opinion given the article's present state, then I think Dave's suggestion to draft one is good. Just be sure to fairly present the mainstream scientific view of every claim, and contextualize the argument's standing outside of creationist circles appropriately. Jesstalk|edits 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Since this is the parent article, it should include a summary of the daughter article. Whether it does it well or badly, that's the intent of the first paragraph of the "movement" section. All things considered, it's fairly short. The second section, "religion and leading proponents" is actually an integral part of this article. You can't understand ID without understanding the motivations behind it. Even if the movement section was entirely removed, this would belong here. Similarly, the information in the "polls" section belongs here, as it is important part of the context in which ID exists. If it belongs in this section is another issue. Finally, the "film" section shouldn't stand on its own. It's worthy of mention, but it suffers from "recentism" that has become dated. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)A simple examination of the history of the two articles can establish that. The intelligent design movement article was created as a redirect by Dunc in 2004, and the ID movement content was spun off by A ghost on June 13, 2005.
As the death knell of ID, Kitzmiller pretty much needs to be a stand-alone section. The "controversy" section has suffered a little bloat over the last few years and could use a re-write. Guettarda (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Jess: no, I understood you perfectly. I've just been running into so much flak on this page trying to have a relatively simple discussion that I'm having to resort to logical jiujitsu just to get any openness on the issue. My original concern (lost now among various sidetrack arguments) was that we have at least two (and probably more) articles with largely overlapping content (plus a good bit of off-topic COATRACK material). Logically, what we ought to have is (pick your favorite):
  • one article
  • two+ independent articles, each with clearly defined subjects and little overlap between them
  • two+ interdependent articles, with a clear hierarchy and little overlap between them aside from necessary summary material in the parent articles
I'm good with any of those three; I've just been trying to establish which of those three we're aiming for so that I can go ahead and start shifting material around, trimming down the articles in the process. I don't see this as a problematical effort, do you?
@Guettarda: I'm not to worried about what information goes in which article, so long as there's not a lot of duplicate material. I just want to rationalize the cross-page structure. Frankly, if I were to follow what you say above, we'd probably have to stubbify the ID movement page, since most of the material there would have been presented in this article (in which case we might as well just have one article, as I suggested previously)
@ everyone: since no one has so far commented on it, can I take it that I may start weeding out the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section? as I said, I think most of that section has to go per wp:COATRACK. --Ludwigs2 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not to worried about what information goes in which article, so long as there's not a lot of duplicate material - there needs to be a lot of duplicate material, since each article needs to be able to stand alone, to be comprehensible to a reader without reading the entire other article. That's basic article writing.
  • if I were to follow what you say above, we'd probably have to stubbify the ID movement page, since most of the material there would have been presented in this article - very interesting. I never said that any more of the content from the ID movement needed to be added to this article. And, obviously, most of the content in that article isn't presented here. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't attribute that nonsense to me. I said nothing of the sort.
  • While I cannot comment on why no one has responded to your "coatrack" comment, quite frankly I saw nothing in it to respond. It is utterly devoid of specifics. What do you consider a "coatrack" and why? So far, all I can discern is that there's something about the section you don't like. That's great. But unless you're paying my salary I see no reason to spend my time trying to discern what the heck you're talking about. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I support all of Ludwig's suggestions except the part about removing the entire "movement" section. I think a short, two paragraph section summarizing the Movement article can remain. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
@Ludwigs, If you think you understood me before creating this section, then you still don't, because you misrepresented my position rather grossly. I'm happy to take the blame for not being clear, but at this point I'm not sure how else to rephrase my comments which sidesteps that ambiguity. I'm not currently in a position to discuss your proposal, except to say that it in no way stems from what I posted above. On a broad level, I also disagree with removing content from the article which is necessary to properly contextualize the topic. Jesstalk|edits 04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize if I've misunderstood you, and if you agree with dave and guettarda that this is the 'main' ID page, I'll shift gears and we'll work from that perspective. And no one (certainly not I) is suggesting that we remove necessary content; I am suggesting that we trim out unnecessary COATRACK material and remove redundancies between related articles. do you object to that? granted that there should be some discussion about what material is and is not necessary/redundant, but if you guys don't want to discuss it then will use my own best judgement on the matter.
I am trying to work with you all here, but I can do the work without you if it comes to that. are you guys willing to work with me, or not? --Ludwigs2 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For starters, you could try being specific. What do you consider coatracking? Apart from that, you could try to avoid twisting people's comments to mean something quite different to what they have said. In a word, you could try to listen instead of making a whole host of demands. I responded to several of your points, but rather than address what I said, you just go on and on about how I did not respond to your point about coatracking. Stop being so rude, stop demanding people cater to your every whim. And do take a moment to familiarise yourself with basic concepts like main articles and daughter articles. Then maybe we can have a constructive conversation here. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe the only demands that I've made here, Guettarda, are that people be clear about what they mean and engage in reasoned discussion. My assertion that articles should be clear, concise, and on-topic is not a demand, that is a normal expectation of encyclopedic writing. If you have some particular demand I made in mind that you object to, please provide a diff so that we can talk about it. otherwise you will force me into the position of reminding a sysop about the constraints of wp:CIV, which will be uncomfortable for both of us.
With respect to your request for specifics on coatracking: If you start reading the 'Creating and teaching the controversy' section, it stars off ok (discussing one of the ID Movement's political tactics), but by the third paragraph the section begins editorializing. The first line of that paragraph - "Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories" - is (1) not a fact, but rather one among several theories in the philosophy of science, and (2) not directly related to ID. Of the next 20 paragraphs, roughly half of them are simply discussions of science and scientific methodology (with token references to ID), and of those that are closer to being on topic, much of that is argumentative statements spoken in Wikipedia's voice: e.g. this line from the beginning of paragraph 5 - "Intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred." - which sounds very much like Wikipedia calling ID proponents illegitimate/irrational. Editors are using this section to draw in an entire discussion of scientific methodology (and not even a good one, mind you) because that gives them a platform to indulge in some pointed editorializing about the topic - pretty much the definition of COATRACK, no? I can go into more detail if you like. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • the third paragraph the section begins editorializing. The first line of that paragraph...is (1) not a fact, but rather one among several theories in the philosophy of science, and (2) not directly related to ID
  • The sentence cites a source that addresses this issue in the specific context of intelligent design. So no - this isn't editorialising. And it's not "coatracking", at least not the way that it's described at Wikipedia:Coatrack (which is, after all, just an essay). When it comes to complex topics, there's always the question of what we should include and what we should leave out. It's always a challenge, but the best way to decide is to follow the experts. So, nope.
  • Of the next 20 paragraphs, roughly half of them are simply discussions of science and scientific methodology (with token references to ID),
  • Again - I don't see it. The next 20 paragraphs discuss the topics that have been at the heart of the debate, and they discuss them in the specific context of that debate.
  • Intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically...
  • Yep, that's a problematic sentence. Glance back a few hundred edits and you will see that it used to say "Critics have asserted that..." A much less problematic sentence except that (a) it was uncited (but accurate) and (b) it has the infamous "critics say" formulation. My guess is that in trying to fix the latter problem someone created this problem. But it's not coatracking.
  • Editors are using this section to draw in an entire discussion of scientific methodology (and not even a good one, mind you) because that gives them a platform to indulge in some pointed editorializing about the topic - pretty much the definition of COATRACK, no?
  • Let's see... (a) that sort of ABF is unacceptable - please check your attitude; (b) As far as I can see, editors have followed sources. They have followed the actual structure of the debate. So no, you're not even kinda close. Guettarda (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Intelligent design movement is a subtopic (and arguably the biggest single one) of Intelligent Design, not a separate topic. Therefore a summary section is more appropriate than a 'see also' tag at the top.
  2. Kitzmiller had at least as big an impact on the credibility of the concept as it did on the movement, and involved several of their 'theoreticians' making expert statements and/or testifying, and so a section on it belongs here.
  3. Both Edwards and Kitzmiller were important milestones (some would argue millstones) in the concept of ID, so mention of them does belong the lead. I would however like to see Theistic science/Theistic realism (currently implicitly discussed but not explicitly mentioned), IC, SC (and possibly Fine Tuning) and the intelligent designer also mentioned in it.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn: ok, I can work with those points. so long as there is not an extensive discussion of kitzmiller in both articles. I think we can easily work IC, SC, and etc ideas into the first paragraph of the lead. shall I give it a shot?
also, would you mind terribly If I edited out some of the more overblown language in the lead? I mean, phrases like "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, and indeed is pseudoscience" would choke a cow. the simpler statement "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience", or even better "Intelligent design is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", would go down easier.--Ludwigs2 17:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit that I've been dipping in and out of this discussion, but that change in wording does, indeed, seem fair to me. Let me suggest going with the middle version, simply on the grounds that it is a slightly more incremental change to the existing wording (ie, still "consensus" as opposed to "considered", which I imagine will attract a [who?] tag). In my opinion, making further edits along those lines, without changing the wording too much, but just deleting hyperbole, would be quite reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
While the change may well appeal to your sense of fairness and supporting the underdog, we should be clear that "an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution."[2] Any change should continue to give due weight to this degree of rejection of ID by the scientific community, and ID's failure to gain any acceptance in the scientific consensus. We can review possible rewording based on newer sources, but the point remains that intelligent design should properly be described as pseudoscience. Similarly, Creating and teaching the controversy could usefully be revamped using newer sources and probably with a clearer section title: the teach the controversy campaigning is one aspect which probably only needs to be briefly covered in summary style, the "whether ID is science" aspect is central and should be tightened up. . . dave souza, talk 17:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Dave, I'm not sure I understand where you stand. Do you think that "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience" is a good revision, or not? Are you suggesting there is no COATRACK material in that section (as it seems obvious there is)? I'd really like a clear statement, because I plan to start revisions later today or tomorrow, and I want to make sure we're on the same page. frankly - based on the previous history of this page - I'm anticipating tendentious reverts when I start editing, and I am trying to give every opportunity to avoid that kind of thing through discussion here, first. I will take tendentious reverts very badly, and likely start demanding administrative sanctions for editors who revert me without discussion, which is a mess I just don't want to get involved with if I can avoid it. so please, be clear about what you want so we can work out a viable compromise. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to head this one off before it rears its head... without seeing the exact content you're introducing before you make changes, editors are well within their rights to revert without discussing it first, and it would be inappropriate of you to respond to that by going to ANI. If you want to avoid being reverted at all, for some reason, then propose the exact changes you want here before making them. If you're intending to make broad and controversial changes, then there likely will be some back and forth in either case, so it'd probably be a good idea to be prepared to handle that collaboratively either way.
With that said, I agree with Dave that we should be presenting the degree of rejection, rather than simply toning it down to "consensus". We might be able to rework that sentence, but not by ditching its intentional reference to the "overwhelming scientific agreement". After all, there are other topics which benefit from "scientific consensus" without nearly touching the level of entirely unanimous support we're talking about here. Jesstalk|edits 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
@Ludvig2: first of all, it should be "the overwhelming consensus". Consensus is practically unanimous on this point. Weakening the statement by leaving out the word "overwhelmingly" would be POV.
Second, if you don't want to get into a mess of contentious editing, remember that that can be largely avoided by discussing all of your proposed changes on the talk page FIRST, and building consensus among your fellow editors for those changes BEFORE you actually make them. The best way to build consensus is to assume good faith, remain civil, and take the time to seriously consider the arguments of those who disagree with you. It helps the article when the editors work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and good will. Threatening "administrative sanctions" beforehand does very little to foster good will, and threatening to "remind a sysop" about WP:CIVIL was uncalled for.
It would also help if you reconstructed the article as you saw fit and post it for comment before you made changes to the actual article itself. So far, you have been rather vague about the changes you wish to make, so it's difficult for the other editors to know what exactly you have in mind. Remember, the devil is in the details, and so far you have only focused on the big picture.
Last of all, no one here seems to share the sense of urgency you feel about the changes you would like to make. Your changes will be a lot better received if the other editors see that you have taken your time and carefully considered their input. Haste would only make waste. And bad blood. It would not do the article any harm if you took some time off to calm down, and then contribute with a cool head, one step at a time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
actually, I haven't been vague at all: there just seems to be a resistance on the part of people here to engage the issue. I have no problem with making a contentious change and having it reverted, so long as the change/revert is discussed properly and thoroughly in talk. I do have a problem with making contentious changes and having it reverted with some snide edit summary and no further discussion. That is page ownership, and doesn't sit well with me. So, I'm using the following process:
  1. I've done (am doing) my best to discuss proposed changes
  2. When I feel this discussion has either reached a dead spot or a fruitful conclusion, I will start editing the page
  3. If I get reverted, I expect it to spur further discussion. If it doesn't, I'll re-edit in my changes.
  4. If I'm forced to do that a couple of times, it will become clear that editors do not wish to discuss proposed changes and do not wish to discuss actual changes, and that will be time for ANI, don't you think?
As far as me making specific proposals here: honestly, I've lain out my concerns in general, you either see them or you don't, you either have something to say about it or you don't. I have a very hard time understanding why you all don't see the the rationale behind what I'm saying, and it's very difficult for me to explain what I see when I can't understand what you don't see. Either you need to lead me to what you're missing with appropriate questions or I just need to do it and explain it after the fact.
finally, I am always happy to consider other editor's input. I will do so (as I have been doing all along) when an editor has some input for me aside from "you're annoying me". To be honest, I was having a nice, mild-mannered discussion above (see the #Introduction POV, Why is this a featured article? section), and I was very happy with that until a couple of editors decided to jump on me. This is how I get when editors jump on me. Don't worry, I'll cool off in a few days and get back to my normally genial, laid back self. in the meantime, I am intent on getting some work done here. okie dokie? --Ludwigs2 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The logical sequence would be to get back to your normally genial, laid back self BEFORE getting some work done here. Follow your own advice, which you gave only a couple of hours ago ("You knew these edits were contentious, and you powered through on them anyway; go slower, discuss more, be less POV about the whole thing, otherwise this is just going to deteriorate into a fight. I don't want that, do you?"). Hope your headache gets better. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment For the most part I tend to just watch this page, but Ludwigs2 some of your comments here raise a big red flag to me. You seem intent upon barging through with some fairly radical edits to this page without any clear consensus to make what you admit right from the get go are going to be controversial changes. Then, before you even start, you talk about what "sits well" with you as if that is some sort of standard for what should or should not happen on Wikipedia, and go on to state that if people revert your changes you will seek administrative sanctions against them. What gives you the right to decide unilaterally what should or should not be in this article? How dare you threaten your fellow editors like this? It is blatantly obvious from your own words that you are the one intent upon disrupting the orderly editing process of this page. Let me make something clear to you in reply. Should you make any changes to thie article that are not previously discussed in detail and have at least a rough consensus for established on this talk page, I will revert you with an edit summary "revert change made against consensus". Is that clear enough for you? This is supposed to be a collaborative project. Collaboration does not mean deciding on your own what is going to happen and then telling everyone else you intend to do it, regardless of any others' thoughts, and threatening them if they do not agree with you. If you are serious about wanting change on this article, and not just trying to pick a fight, then please use one of the suggestions already made to you here: discuss individual changes - in detail; or create a new version of the article in your talk space. Then, once a consensus for the changes has been established, edit the article in the knowledge that your edits are not likely to be summarily reverted. Don't do that and I guarantee that they will be and the fault for that will lay at your feet not those of the editor reverting you. - Nick Thorne talk 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Dominus, Nick: thanks for the advice and insights. I'll take that under advisement. And dominus, you picked the wrong quote from that page to comment on. read a little more deeply there, and you may find the quote that gives you a better understanding of what's going on here. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific creation metaphor for evolution

One thing I've noticed in so-called "scientific" literature, is a tendency to use creationist metaphor for evolution itself. See for example Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape":

“While the possibilities of human experience must be realized in the brains that evolution has built for us, our brains were not designed with a view to our ultimate fulfillment. Evolution could never have foreseen the wisdom or necessity of creating stable democracies…” (p. 13)...and it goes on.

You see how you could replace "Evolution" with "God" and you'd have a design proponent there? I just picked this example because I happen to have it on my nightstand, but I've seen this sort of metaphor many times. Talk to enough people that claim to be scientists and you'll hear a surprising amount of them talk about how biological structures have "purposes" and such. Clearly, this sort of thing is counter-productive to the scientific community's attempts to refute intelligent design, and it belies their own understanding of the alternative theory of evolution. I was wondering if a comment on this point (supported by examples from published popular scientific sources of the sort I've given) has a place in the article? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.182.128 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't quite sound like it belongs in this article. It could perhaps belong to the article on Darwinism (under the "Other uses" heading?) or Scientism, but seeing as how it doesn't relate to the theory of Intelligent Design as defined by the Discovery Institute, I don't think it's pertinent here. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is what still confuzzles me about this article. The title is entirely misleading. The consensus seems to be that this article is about "the theory of Intelligent Design as defined by the Discovery Institute," which to me should be the scope of the Intelligent design movement article. I still don't see why, since this one is entitled "Intelligent design," it includes only that portion that pertains to the movement. ???
How my logic works: Intelligent design is a concept that has permeated man's thinking for 10,000 years and includes much, much more than the DI's philosophy and activities. The DI is an activist think tank that propels the movement. Yopienso (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yopienso, I think the difference is the terminology: the teleological argument, which is often termed to be an argument from design, is the "concept that has permeated man's thinking for 10,000 years." Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept based on the teleological argument and couched in scientific terms. If I am wrong about this, however, we could use some sources to disambiguate these two definitions. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you, the light's beginning to dawn. We're differentiating here between, say "paper handkerchiefs" and "Kleenex." Yes? Thank you for not blustering at me! :) Yopienso (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If the article is about the recent concept pushed by the Discovery Institute it shoud be titled Intelligent Design with an upper case D. The present page title implies a broader use of the term.--Charles (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that capitalization. Is the phrase usually capitalized in secondary sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I did some searching around and, though I've always capitalized the D in design, that doesn't seem to be how the secondary sources treat it. Unless there is some Wikipedia rule of which I'm unaware--quite possible, as I'm relatively new here--I think we have to leave it as is. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 21:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Just seems like good grammar to treat it as a proper noun when it is a deliberate strategy. Very mixed in sources as I see it.--Charles (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh... it's clear my original point went completely over your heads. Oh well, I was trying to throw the ID crowd a bone. Personally, I'm a scientist myself, so I don't care if the ID proponents can't get out of their own way. Good luck, guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.182.128 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point, though the discussion did quickly get off track. This article is about Intelligent Design, not about how scientists can use similar arguments in support of evolution or other scientific theories. Therefore, I don't think that conversation belongs in this article, though it may be appropriate for others (e.g. Darwinism, Scientism, Teleological argument). Also, you'd have to obtain some sources citing this kind of criticism. I don't think that would be too difficult, but I doubt they will mention ID, which would be necessary for inclusion in this article. If I am mistaken, please return with the sources and we will be sure to incorporate them here. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
RE: "You see how you could replace "Evolution" with "God" and you'd have a design proponent there?...". Absolutely not. In fact, the main point of the sentence seems to be precisely that there is no design component. certainly the phrase "our brains were not designed" would still be there. As would the phrase "...could never have foreseen the wisdom or necessity of...", a strong argument against the mere possibility of design, as design is by definition deliberate and thus necessarily presumes foresight. In fact, The whole quotation in question is entirely anti-teleological. Replacing "evolution" with "god" -- far from supporting the aims of the (ironically title) "discovery institute" -- would turn the statement from a remark on the non-teleological-ness of evolution into a strong argument against the existence of "god", as traditionally defined as a deliberate creator. Kevin Baastalk 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To boldly went...

This edit boldly unsplit an infinitive. I'm not very hot on that grammatical rule, but in my view changing "it seeks to fundamentally redefine science..." to "it seeks fundamentally to redefine science..." is awkward and changes the meaning. In a spirit of compromise I've substituted "It seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way which would include supernatural explanations...". An alternative formulation would be "It seeks a fundamental redefinition of science which would include supernatural explanations...". Thoughts on the best option? . . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

how about "it seeks to take the definition of science back hundreds of year to before there was such a thing as science." certainly more accurate.
seriously though, if you take science, and remove falsifiability and empiricism, well then you don't have anything left. to call that a "fundamental redefinition", well if i said that was an understatement, i'd be giving it too much credit. it obliviates the very foundation of science, leaving nothing in its place. calling this "redefinition" is like calling demolition of a building "redecorating"; it's not an understatement, it's quite simply the wrong word. Kevin Baastalk 19:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Source? The existing understatement is well supported by "It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept.", and "defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."
Oddly enough, ID doesn't exactly remove empiricism, instead it insists on empirical theology which in their belief must automatically support their religious views. A theological debate dressed up as though it was science. Anyway, improved wording with suitable sourcing is worth reviewing. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ya, you're not going to find ID sources that say ID isn't science. No surprise there. Sources? Not being brain dead. Kevin Baastalk
They do not have to be ID sources, and the source to which Dave has referred is not; it is the finding of conservative Judge John E. Jones III in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. Judge Jones also found the "rigorous attachment to 'natural' explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention" (emphasis added). Thus, we have a non-ID source, a legal court case presided over by a conservative judge, which states ID is attempting to redefine science to include appeals to supernatural entities because it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Conclusion). How could this be any more NPOV? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
NPOV requires the we present all significant viewpoints in a fair and balanced matter. See the intro to the Intelligent_design_movement for a significant POV distinctly different from judge jones' and is not presented here. for instance, a part of the view that is not presented is that id's goals are not educational or scientific, but purely political, a view that stands in direct contrast to judge jones' opinion, as well as Professor Fuller's. in general, judge jones's opinion gives id a measure of credibility that the scientific community at large flatly denies it. The scientific community at large, as elucidated by said intro, says that far from "changing the ground rules" of education/scientificness, id isn't at all educational or scientific in any way by any stretch of the imagination, and denies even the premise that they are at all trying to be in the first place. Altogether a distinctly different POV, held by quite a large and significant body of people. Kevin Baastalk 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Judge Jones's ruling doesn't lend a shred of credibility to ID: it thoroughly illustrates that ID is not science (as ID proponents claim it to be), is religion, and therefore cannot be taught in public schools. This in no way contradicts the fact that ID proponents are politically motivated, which is handled by another statement currently in the lead ("Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling..."). If you feel this is not blatant enough for readers, please suggest an addition or alternative. Personally, though, I think the lead does a great job of taking ID to task for its claims. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jones's ruling didn't deal with assertions by ID critics regarding the extent and scope of political motivation to push a particular religious world view with its attendant sociopolitical trappings, as this analysis would have been well outside the issues being decided in KIitzmiller. The issue needn't be included in this article, especially in an already conceptually complex lead such as is the case with this inherently complicated topic. There are, IMO, adequate wikilinks in the lead to guide the reader toward such further reading as they may choose to do if they wish--e.g., Discovery Institute, creation science, theistic science, etc., and at least one link later in the article to intelligent design movement ... Kenosis (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well there yes that's what I'm trying to say. And I do agree with the whole limitation of scope in the legal proceedings. As a practical matter it'd probably be legally irrelevant what the motivations of the defendants were and a bit egregious for the judge to opine about it in their opinion. (though it certainly wouldn't be the first time a judge would be so vociferious in their written opinion.) As to whether these criticisms, not brought up in the rulings -- whether on account of practical considerations or simply that such criticisms were not harbored -- should be added into this article, well, i'll leave that for others to discuss if they like. i just wanted to note their absence and at that it seems i have succeeded. :) carry on. Kevin Baastalk 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Dave, I agree that, though grammatically correct, the end result is rather clumsy. I rather like your last suggestion ("It seeks a fundamental redefinition of science which would include supernatural explanations..."), as that seems to flow from the tongue more smoothly. I would also suggest something similar to the old structure, but with the term fundamentally shifted: "It seeks to redefine science fundamentally to include..."). I think I'd still go with your suggestion though.
Kevin, your comments aren't helpful. If you feel that a particular word isn't accurate, please suggest a NPOV alternative; simply bashing the current sentence is not productive. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not simply bashing, it I'm being quite clear and specific about it's shortcomings. The sentence as is certainly is not NPOV. It's solidly an ID point of view. (And one that betrays a gross misunderstanding of core concepts.) Kevin Baastalk 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
How about just (politely!) reverting the change -- as being "the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
—WWoods (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
How about just eliminating the adverb "fundamentally"? I rarely find instances where such adverbs add value to a sentence. This, frankly, doesn't seem to be such an instance. "Seeks to redefine science" says it all. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer to put the word back, on the basis that it really does seem to be a fundamental redefinition, as opposed to just an adjustment around the edges. But I don't see this as a fighting issue, and I'd like to know what other editors think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Trypto. The word "fundamentally" further specifies the sentence. One could "redefine" science in a very minor way - by arguing over very specific details, for example. ID wishes to completely throw science out the window and propose a whole new thing under the same label. Without "fundamental", we don't properly convey that. If we can do that with a different word, that would be fine too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with removing the adverb, so long as we explain how science's definition will change ("to invoke supernatural explanations"). But perhaps we should restructure that first sentence altogether and explain why this fundamental redefinition would have to take place to see ID as science. For example, "Since science relies on methodological naturalism, Intelligent Design seeks a fundamental redefinition to allow for supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." Even without restructuring, we could use "It seeks a fundamental redefinition of science... " to avoid the split infinitive. Any thoughts?-- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that harks back to my point, they're not really trying to redefine science at all -- they don't give a damn about science -- they're just trying to dress up an antiquated idea in clothes that simply don't fit. They're trying to put pants on a fish. And to do that they have to cut off the legs. But they don't want to cut off the legs so they'd rather cut up the fish. And in the end it doesn't help the fish swim any or keep its extremities warm because, well, it lives in water. But that doesn't matter to them because they don't really care about the fish -- or the water -- they just want to sell the pants. Coming up with a better, more practical definition of a fish, or even something that a fish would find useful, really never entered their mind except maybe as part of an advertising campaign for the pants. Kevin Baastalk 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I can wear (Trypto)pants. ;-) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I undid the deletion of the word fundamental before I saw all of this discussion, sorry. However, If we are going to state that the ID folks want to redefine science, then it should definitely be described as a fundamental redefinition. Otherwise it could be interpreted that the redefinition is minor (although I am not sure what a "minor" change could possibly be!).Desoto10 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. That's the same thing I said above, and Trypto also seems to agree it's more descriptive, so, I think it can be left in for now, until we get consensus for a change. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed additions to "Arguments from Ignorance" and "God of the Gaps" sections

Hi, Aaron here. The content in these two areas seems a bit one-sided to me, and I think they could be balanced by adding the following.

First, to the "Arguments from Ignorance" section:

[Begin] On the other hand, philosopher of science (and atheist) Bradley Monton argues that Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is not an argument from ignorance. He says:

“When Behe appeals to irreducibly complex biological systems, he’s not simply saying that we don’t know how such systems evolved. He’s giving a positive argument that it’s unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer.” (Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science (Broadview Press, 2009), p. 114.)

For this reason, he also rejects the idea that Behe takes any perceived failure of evolution to be a victory for design:

“There are lots of biological systems for which it’s the case that we don’t know exactly how they evolved, but Behe’s argument doesn’t utilize all of those. Instead, Behe picks out certain biological systems that ostensibly have the biological property of being irreducibly complex.” (ibid.) [End]

Second, to the "God of the Gaps" section:

[Begin] On the other hand, philosopher of science (and atheist) Bradley Monton argues that there are three problems with this criticism of ID (Monton 2009, 115-116):

First, as noted above, there are reasons for thinking that at least some ID arguments are not Arguments from Ignorance, and if that’s right then they’re not “God of the Gaps” arguments either. Again, Monton’s interpretation of Behe is that he is not appealing to ignorance, or a knowledge gap, but that he “is giving positive reasons that the sequence of events that would have to happen for irreducibly complex systems … to arise via an undesigned process is an improbable sequence” (Monton 2009, 115).

Second, the fact that, historically, (some) gaps have been “filled in with naturalistic scientific investigation” doesn’t show that “every gap in the future will be similarly filled in”. Consequently, Monton sees the appeal to the historical successes of science in filling gaps as constituting only a "relatively weak inductive argument”, and one that is matched by the so-called “pessimistic-induction argument”, which, noting that the history of science is littered with the corpses of once popular but now discredited theories, concludes that currently popular views are probably false, too.

Third, Monton observes that there are longstanding gaps that science has not yet been able to close, concerning, for example, the nature of consciousness, the relationship of consciousness to brain activity, why the universe has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, the nature of mass, what the universe is made of (dark matter, yes, he observes, but we don’t really know much about its nature), and of course we don’t yet have a “theory of everything”. So, Monton concludes:

“One can’t just say: all gaps in the past have been naturalistically filled in , so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well, because in fact there are some persistent gaps that have never been naturalistically filled in.” (Monton 2009, 116)

[End]

Anpreston (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of these concepts involve the idea of the "nature" of some things. From a certain perspective, this whole concept is utterly meaningless in the first place. We can describe things in a matter that we find familiar and hopefully is useful to us in some way. Whether this is the "nature" of things? Who can really say. Ever. At all. In the slightest. Fortunately, nobody really cares. A useful and familiar description, such as, say, quantumn physics or something like that, is after all, so much more practical!
As regards mass, well, the real curiosity there is why do things such as, say, electron, protons, etc., have the particular masses that they do. Or is there really no reason at all; are they just arbitrary numbers. I.e., they had to have some mass so i suppose these will do, and there's really no meaningful relationship behind their particular masses. That is really the main problem in physics concerning the "nature" of mass. Well, that, and rectifying general relativity w/quantum physics. (Which Paul Dirac actually made significant progress on before anybody really ever heard of quantum physics.) But you see, no self-respecting physicist really talks about any of this with any degree of seriousness as regarding the "nature" of mass -- or anything. It's a matter of theory and experiment, prediction and practicality, familiarity and usefulness, etc. Ask a real scientist what the "nature" of something is and all you'll get is a puzzled, somewhat mocking expression, saying essentially: "Well what the hell do you mean by that?"! Kevin Baastalk 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, as a first approximation, by “nature” I mean the attributes that make something one kind of thing rather than another, or alternatively those attributes that define kinds. I understand that certain perspectives on the nature of science entail that it can’t address questions about natures, but not everyone agrees with this. I don’t know whether any of these views are supported by a clear majority, but it seems to me your claim that a “real” scientist would feign incomprehension simply begs the question concerning whether or not science can address questions about nature. Anpreston (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No. you made a false assumption right away. they wouldn't "feign" incomprehension. the question simply isn't meaningful. in the quizzical expression they are being genuine and serious. in order to get a specific answer you must ask a specific question. they are saying "tell me what you mean by "nature" and i will tell you the "nature" of it. but without such a definition the question is innately nonsensical." i though i was clear on this already. Kevin Baastalk 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Temporal dimension well there simply wouldn't be any physics without change / novelty, so that one's a given. Spatial dimensions, well, 2 dimensions would limit the dynamics to only stable periodic attractors, so in any case the one that we see in as much as it is must be one that is at all possible to "observe" (in that we see (or hear or feel, whatever) it) -- that is, one that is capable of conveying information (novelty) over distances -- must have at least 3. this is mathematically necessarily.
Re consciousness that can be summed up in the sentence: intellectual states have physical correlates. simple enough. the rest is philosophy and delusion. (and sometimes the two overlap!) Kevin Baastalk 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That there is a temporal dimension may be a given, but *what* it is, its nature, is not. For instance, there are open questions about whether time is substanival or relational, whether it is tenseless (e.g., Minkowski) or tensed (e.g., Lorentz), and so on. It may be that science can’t answer such questions, but it seems to me that whether it can is also is an open question. But even if it can’t, the questions don’t seem to be meaningless or unimportant or uninteresting.
As to the 3 spatial dimensions, I’m not sure what your comments are supposed to show. If I understand you correctly, you’re basically pointing out that *there being 3 spatial dimensions* is a necessary condition of *our having the kinds of perceptual experiences we do in fact have*. That’s an interesting observation, but I don’t see how it either (1) answers the question of why there are 3 dimensions (surely you’re not suggesting the answer: “so that we can have the kind of perceptual experience we do”…), or (2) shows that this question isn’t worth asking (because it’s unanswerable by science, or for some other reason).
Concerning consciousness, there is a vast body of literature in cognitive science/philosophy of mind about the problem of qualia. The problem is that qualia seemingly cannot be reduced to or otherwise explained in terms of the physical correlates of consciousness, which is a problem since qualia are the most conspicuous and characteristic attributes of consciousness, and so among the best candidates for belonging to the nature of consciousness.
In any case, I don’t think we need to get bogged down in debate over Monton’s list of examples – the fact that there is informed, even scientific, debate about them, and about whether they’re even fit topics for science, is enough to establish his point. And indeed we can strike the full list from the proposed addition, as Mister Dub has done below in his revision. Anpreston ([[Use

r talk:Anpreston|talk]]) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Anpreston, I think we ought to cut down the amount of copy a bit: we can paraphrase and simply add to the last paragraph of the "Arguments from ignorance" section, removing the last sentence thereof as it seems to be irrelevant to the section anyway. We can also add a small paragraph to the end of the "God of the gaps" section as well, though, personally, he seems to be committing the same type of fallacy of which he complains. He first states that these gaps cannot be assumed to be filled in naturally even though natural explanations have closed others, then lists current gaps apparently as evidence that some gaps can never be filled. That's not to mention the concerns Kevin raised, which are very relevant to even viewing these as gaps within scientific knowledge. And then there is the additional issue that science relies on methodological naturalism and therefore must appeal only to natural explanations to fill these gaps. Does he address this issue in his book? If so, I think that needs to be included, since ID claims to be science. Otherwise, I'm hesitant to even include that new paragraph because it may give undue weight to ID.
"Arguments from ignorance" section:
Added paragraph to "God of the gaps" section:

-- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Mister Dub, I like the idea of abbreviating the proposed changes, and endorse your revision of the “god of the gaps” section. I think, however, that the bit for the “argument from ignorance” section should be tweaked a bit to make Monton’s perspective even clearer, as follows:

“Philosopher of science Bradley Monton defends Behe by noting that Behe does not appeal to every complex biological system whose evolution is not currently known, but only to those exhibiting the purported feature of irreducible complexity. this shows, Monton continues, that Behe is not appealing to ignorance but is rather "giving a positive argument that it's unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer."” Anpreston ([[User talk:Anpreston |talk]]) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


I've done some additional fact-finding and came up with the following quotation from Monton's book:


Matt Young, Professor of Physics at the Colorado School of Mines, has responded' to this with the following:


Robert T. Pennock also has the following to say, in his article "Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited", published in Synthese:


I'm not sure exactly how to incorporate these new facts into the suggested copy in order to present a balanced account of the arguments in question. Any suggestions? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Mister Dub, perhaps we can side-step the debate over the relationship between methodological naturalism (MN) and science by focusing just on Monton’s central observation about the categorization of Behe’s argument as an “argument from ignorance” or a “god of the gaps”, namely: that it is neither since Behe does not appeal to ignorance/ knowledge-gaps, but rather to a purported positive attribute of the structure of certain life forms (i.e., that they are “irreducibly complex”). The claim here is that Behe’s argument does not have the form of an argument from ignorance or a god-of-the gaps argument, and hence that this is a mis-characterization of the argument type, akin to classifying a modus tollens as a modus ponens. And this claim does not depend on Monton’s views about MN and science.
It is true that Monton’s other arguments concerning “god-of-the-gaps” arguments are at least indirectly related to his views about MN. If that’s a problem, we can strike them, leaving only the above argument about mis-classification.


Still, for the record:
Pennock’s passage is rhetorically impressive, but the challenge of the demarcation problem still remains. Perhaps he has proposed a new solution to it in the paper you quote, but whether it is a successful solution remains to be seen. The history of the problem suggests that there will be counterexamples to his criteria found in short order, and the debates over how to demarcate science from non-science, and over whether we really ought to be having such a debate at all, will go on.
Also: I’m not sure that Prof. Young characterizes Monton’s view correctly. As I read Monton, his view is that science *should not be* committed to MN, because *if* it were then it *could not be* committed to the discovery of truth simpliciter, but only to naturalistic truths (as the quotation you provide says). For instance, on p. 51 of _Seeking God in Science_ he says that “it is counterproductive to restrict scientific activity in such a way that hypotheses that invoke the supernatural are ruled out”. This is different from saying that science *is* not committed to MN, as Young says.
Furthermore, I am truly puzzled by Young’s claim that Monton commits the straw man fallacy, and I think it is based on a misunderstanding of Monton’s argument. Young says:
“…he sets up a straw man, that science could not investigate evidence in favor of the supernatural if it is committed to methodological naturalism; therefore, science is not committed to truth.”
But this is not at all the structure of Monton’s argument. Rather, it runs as follows (this is my own reconstruction, but I think it’s true to what Monton’s getting att on 51 ff of his book) :
1. Either ID is inherently supernaturalistic (ID S), or it is not (ID –S).
2. Either science is inherently committed to MN (SCI MN) or it is not (SCI –MN).
These two disjunctions yield four possible combinations, with certain implications for whether or not (1) there could be scientific evidence for ID, and (2) ID could count as a scientific hypothesis.
- If ID S and SCI MN, then there could be scientific evidence for ID, but ID could not count as a scientific hypothesis.
- If ID S and SCI -MN, then there could be scientific evidence for ID, and ID could count as a scientific hypothesis.
- If ID -S and SCI MN then there could be scientific evidence for ID, and ID could count as a scientific hypothesis.
- If ID -S and SCI -MN then there could be scientific evidence for ID, and ID could count as a scientific hypothesis.


The interesting case is the first one, in which ID is supernaturalistic and science is committed to MN. In that case, there could be scientific evidence for ID under exactly the sort of situation that Young proposes when he says:
“If we found enough miracles for which we could not develop a naturalistic explanation, we might, by a diagnosis of exclusion, tentatively accept the supernatural hypothesis.”
Monton uses a thought-experiment involving a quasar pulsating in patterns recognizable as Morse code, sending messages to the effect that there is a God and he’s communicating with us right now through this quasar. His point is that even within the constraints of MN, there might be evidence for a supernatural hypothesis. That’s because the evidence itself is not supernatural – it’s just empirical data that fits a recognizable pattern. SO he and Young agree about this: that a science committed to MN could indeed find evidence for a supernatural being.
However, this does not entail that the hypothesis itself is compatible with SCI MN. Unlike the evidence for it, the hypothesis IS supernaturalistic, because it refers to a supernatural entity. And this means that, if we hold fast to SCI MN, we cannot, contra Young, accept the supernatural hypothesis as a *scientific* hypothesis, not even tentatively. Of course, we could still accept it as a (possibly) true, non-scientific hypothesis, but that would just show what Monton now claims: that holding fast to SCI MN under these circumstances entails that science isn’t interested in the discovery of truth simpliciter, but only in naturalistic truths.
Monton’s point here is that, under circumstances like those of his quasar example, or Young’s miracle example, we are faced with a dilemma: either accept the hypothesis as a *scientific* hypothesis and reject the constraint of MN, or deny the hypothesis *scientific* status in order to retain MN. Monton’s view, like Young’s, is that that the latter option should be rejected. But if we’re willing to make that move, that shows that we cannot really be committed to SCI MN, since MN rules out the possibility of making this move. Anpreston (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so just to make sure I understand, the copy I proposed for the first section ("Arguments from ignorance") is fine the way it is, but the second section should be altered so only the first sentence remains? We could then place this sentence in the paragraph immediately following the standard form for this type of argument:


If you'd like to leave in the discussion of whether science is wedded to methodological naturalism (perhaps using something close to my past suggestion), we can certainly reference the methodological naturalism page and pull a quote from there to show that this point is contentious (e.g. "In a series of articles and books from 1996 onwards, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson." from the last paragraph in the History section of the Methodological naturalism page). I don't mind either way, I just want to make sure we present it properly.
I've also noticed that we have the "god of the gaps" argument currently written two ways (god-of-the-gaps and "god of the gaps"), which I think we should universally convert to God-of-the-gaps, as is stated in the God of the gaps page. What do you think of this and the suggested copy? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 22:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is logically impossible for anything in science to be "super-natural", because from a certain perspective the concept of "super-natural" is intrinisicly absurd. As soon as a reliable empirical casual relation is found, well then it is no longer "super-natural", it is now simply natural. And it certainly obeys the laws of physics as we know them, as we have just written it down as one such law. Before that point, it isn 't even possible to determine whether it is real or imagined, nonetheless what it is or what it does. As we have nothing to distinguish it from anything else; nothing to say whether it has or has not happened. But you see as soon as we do that -- as soon as we make such distinctions -- it becomes a testable empirical hypothesis. Furthermore, in science, phenomena always take precedence over theory. So it is never an event or observation that is "wrong"; nature can never be "un-natural". it is always our description of it that is somehow flawed. Science takes the term "supernatural", stands it on it's head, and calls it instead a "falsified theory". There is no assumption about "existence" or "non-existence" of the supernatural -- there cannot be any, because the idea isn't even meaningful. In science, there is no such distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". If it happened, it's "natural", if it didn't happen, well then it didn't happen. Kevin Baastalk 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I claimed below that your objection to using the Pennock line presupposes an equally contentious view of what science is and how it functions vis-à-vis the natural/supernatural distinction. Let me explain:
You say: “It is logically impossible for anything in science to be "super-natural", because from a certain perspective the concept of "super-natural" is intrinsically absurd.”
Now, this follows only if the “certain perspective” indicated is the perspective of science itself. But that would seem to presuppose that science is indeed committed to naturalism of one sort or another (methodological, metaphysical). Unless science itself assumes that either reality, or knowledge, or scientific knowledge is limited to “the natural”, I don’t see why it would be logically impossible for anything *in science* to be supernatural. So your view seems to assume a contentious position in the debate.


You say: “As soon as a reliable empirical casual relation is found, well then it is no longer "super-natural", it is now simply natural.”
But whether this is the correct understanding of “natural” is a matter of contention:
For one thing, historically, all of the following, in combination and in isolation, have been taken as definitive of “the natural”, and the list is hardly exhaustive: the sense-perceptible/empirical, the material, the measurable (quantifiable), the mechanical, the predictable. It’s not clear which of these, if any, draw the correct line between natural and supernatural.
Second, I’m not sure what you mean by “ empirical causal relation”. David Hume (in)famously rejected the idea that causation is empirical: all you can ever get empirically is a regular pattern of proximity of purported “cause” and purported “effect” in space and time. And even apart from Hume’s specific worries, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to whether we ever find causation rather than mere correlation. So you can note a reliable relation of empirically given phenomena, but that it is a causal relationship is not empirically given. That gets us a key feature of “positivism” – a historically prominent perspective on the nature of science and knowledge, but one that has fallen out of favor in the last half-century.
Third, supposing we can make sense of the notion of a “reliable empirical causal relation”, if X’s playing a role in a “reliable empirical causal relation” is sufficient to render X “natural”, then conscious states should be natural. For instance, my conscious awareness that there is a grizzly bear on the path ahead bears a “reliable empirical causal relation” to my leaving the area. But despite this nearly everyone who works on consciousness with any degree of sophistication agrees that we do not presently have an adequate naturalistic/scientific understanding of consciousness. At the very least, this would seem to indicate that all these people see X’s playing a role in a “reliable empirical causal relation” as inadequate for counting X as “natural”. For example, Chalmers (in the paper linked below) says that a naturalistic explanation is an explanation in terms of structure and function/dynamics. And it is because we do not have an explanation of consciousness in these terms that it does not count as “natural” even though it plays a role in many “reliable empirical causal relations”. Anpreston (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Kevin, I don't quite understand how your comments relate to the proposed additions. Could you please explain how these changes would be affected? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
My comment is in regards to the quotation: "In a series of articles and books from 1996 onwards, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson." , and particularly the highlighted part. My point is that Robert T. Pennock does not go far enough in divorcing science from the misconceptions of it espoused by Phillip E. Johnson. That his rebuttal is still based of faulty implicit assumptions and misconstrue the true disposition of science. I bring this up in the hopes that a better source can be found that doesn't have such shortcomings. That can more faithfully represent the scientific POV which provides balance to Phillip's. Kevin Baastalk 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I will wait to hear from Anpreston (and/or others) as to whether or not we omit the section about methodological naturalism altogether. If we decide to keep it, I will try to find a better source. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mister Dub, et al.:

I think we’re agreed that we can

(1) Add to the “Argument from Ignorance” Section:

“Philosopher of science Bradley Monton defends Behe by noting that Behe does not appeal to every complex biological system whose evolution is not currently known, but only to those exhibiting the purported feature of irreducible complexity. This shows, Monton continues, that Behe is not appealing to ignorance but is rather "giving a positive argument that it's unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer.”

And

(2) Add to the “God-of-the-gaps” section:

“A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions. Philosopher of science Bradley Monton states that Behe's claim of irreducible complexity is a positive claim rather than an argument from ignorance, and therefore not a God-of-the-gaps argument.”

But there is still some disagreement over whether to say anything about methodological naturalism (MN), and if so, how to say it. I think it would be worthwhile to raise the issue and link to the existing MN page, because this is central to the question of whether ID should or could count as a scientific hypothesis. Here is one way we might raise the issue while avoiding some of the more particular statements with which Kevin Baas has taken issue. This would come on the tail-end of the addition to the God-of-the-gaps section as I have it above:

“Monton also argues that, contrary to popular opinion, “God-of-the-gaps” arguments are not inherently fallacious. On the one hand, even if every historical gap had been "filled in with naturalistic scientific investigation," this would not entail that "every gap in the future will be similarly filled in." On the other hand, it is not true that every historical gap has been filled in. Monton references a list of longstanding gaps which science has not yet been able to close, such as the nature of consciousness and its relationship to brain activity. Some, such as David Chalmers, have argued that this gap is not only unfilled, but in principle unfillable given our current understanding of what it means for an explanation to be “scientific”.([[3]]) Such claims raise the question of whether science is necessarily committed to methodological naturalism, about which Monton also has much to say since the answer has implications for whether ID could possibly count as a scientific hypothesis.”

I suspect that Kevin Baas will object to Chalmers' idea that the current understanding of "Scientific" renders a scientific or naturalistic account of consciousness impossible, and that he will do so on basically the same grounds given above (e.g., science doesn't distinguish between the natural and the supernatural). More on this above, under Kevin's comments. Here I'll just note that I myself have no problems with using the line about Pennock that you (Mr. Dub) suggested using. I don’t think we’re going to find a neutral statement about what MN is, any more that we’re going to find a neutral statement about what science is. Furthermore, I think that Kevin Baas’ objection to using the Pennock line presupposes just such a contentious view of what science is and how it functions vis-à-vis the natural/supernatural distinction. Whether or not Pennock gets it wrong, I think the line about Pennock is a perfectly legitimate line, and furthermore a useful one since, even if it’s true that “real” science doesn’t distinguish between the natural and the supernatural, most people do, so it’s a useful device for communicating to most people. Anpreston (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what's "supernatural" about "consciousness". (Though i'm not quite sure what "supernatural" is supposed to mean, anyways - it doesn't seem like a coherent concept.) And by calling it "supernatural" (which nobody has provided any justification for, nonetheless an explanation as to what that even means), one is assuming the conclusion that it can't be addressed by science (that it is an "unfilliable gap"), and there's really no point in continuing along such lines 'cause ipso facto the argument is already circuitous. I'm not sure if that's the same line of reasoning, maybe elucidated a bit more.
On a more directly content-orientated note: In that last para there are opinions masquerading as fact. for instance " Monton references a list of longstanding gaps which science has not yet been able to close" , it is, as discussed above, an opinion -- and a questionable one at that -- both that these are in fact "gaps", and that they are not "closed". But the para presents both of these opinions as undisputed fact. Kevin Baastalk 13:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Anpreston, I've removed some unnecessary information and rephrased a few things from the copy you've proposed. Please let me know what you think of this revised version (sections printed in full, with emphasis on the new content):
"Arguments from ignorance"
"God of the gaps"
Kevin, I wrote this before I saw your post and am having difficulty altering the bit about the "gaps" Monton presents, as per your latest comment. Do you have any suggestions on this or any other parts of the copy in question? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I was just thinking a simple fix would be to add attribution. e.g. where there's something like "there remain some gaps..." replace it will something like "so and so claims there are some "gaps"..." and then add balance where possible, e.g. "...while others, such as ... don't see these as "gaps", but...." Kevin Baastalk 13:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
also, reading through the content there, do we really need to havbe bradlye morton in there? he clearly is a very confused person who has no idea what he's talking about and repeating stuff that comes out of his mouth -- which gets just about everything wrong -- only serves to make the reader stupider. i know that may sound like i'm just being offensive, but i'm absolutely serious. he doesn't seem to even understand the first thing about e.g. argument from ignorance or black and white fallacy. he simply compounds their very definitions with more fallacies! (and rather transparent ones, at that.) and that, yes, if people emulate that, will make them stupider. Kevin Baastalk 13:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yeah... that should be an easy change. I'm going to wait to hear from Anpreston before revising again, as I'm not entirely sure I represented the Chalmers thing correctly. As for using Monton at all, I'd say he is blind to the agenda of ID proponents and/or the necessity of methodological naturalism for scientific progress, and thus disregards the complete lack of evidence in favor of ID. That said, I believe his defense of irreducible complexity is well worth including and, though he makes precisely the same error for which he criticizes the God-of-the-gaps argument, I think his comments raise a key point when talking about ID: science relies upon methodological naturalism. I guess the last paragraph of the God-of-the-gaps section addresses this as well, so we could omit the entire paragraph I proposed. As I told Anpreston, I don't mind if we keep it or not, I just want it presented correctly. I guess we'll wait and see what Anpreston (or anyone else) thinks. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Miser Dub, Sorry for the delay. Yes, I think your proposed changes are fine. Regarding the paragraph still under dispute, I like it very much too, and think the article would be enriched by its inclusion. I continue to be puzzled at Kevin Baas's resistance to it, and his insistence on labeling views that differ from his as "confused". Since the debate about the nature of science, including such things as its relation to naturalism, is still "live", it is misleading to act as if the issue is settled. It may be settled in the minds of many scientists, but some scientists and philosophers of science disagree. These people (Monton is one) have excellent academic credentials and offer cogent arguments which, as Mister Dub notes, at least have the virtue of raising important points. Consequently I think it's worth mentioning them in an article attempting to provide a non-biased introduction to the debate. Anpreston (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Anpreston, perhaps you are puzzled because you make a number of bold and unjustified assumptions, and follow that up with an incorrect usage of logic. In particular you assume, firstly, that i am against a position or someway opposed to a particular group of people. (you also falsely assume that i am somehow innately restistant to changes to the article. On the contrary, I welcome them. I just think we should try to make them as good as possible.) From that, you seem to erronuously use the ad hominem fallacy to "discredit" what i have said. ironically, with out at all saying anything that has anything to do with what i've said. you also assume falsely that i insist on labelling anything, and in particular "views". or even that i have any such powers. (i do not, things simply are what they are whether i or anyone else likes it or not. i have no control over it.) also, whether there is "debate" is quite irrelevant to whether or not certain statements are just plain wrong. there will always be debate on even the most trivial issues. and i am not saying we shouldnt include it. but on matters of record and the like, the record speaks for itself. and it is clear that Monton, in fact, is quite confused on matters of logic and critical thinking, quite regardless of what his particular views are or what mine are. and equally regardless of any "academic credentials" he may have. (such things do not make a thing true or false.) this is clear not from my views or his view or how they relate to each other, but how his particular statements hold up to the scrutiny of well known rules of critical thinking, and how accurately or inaccurately he portrays such rules.
on another note, you have stated your opinion that his arguments are cogent and his points are important. whereas i can demonstrate, to the contrary, that his arguments are not cogent, and he does not raise important points. his arguments are at best specious, and his points, at best, illusory. and that is why i have said what i have. not because he happens to have such and such a view or whatever. frankly, i couldn't really care less about such things.
i shall not go into more detail here 'cause this is not supposed to be a forum. by the same token, i think it would be better if there was less ad hominem and more ad content. thank you. Kevin Baastalk 20:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I've taken and taught my share of logic classes, and I just don't see where either I or Monton have made any logical errors in what we've said. Nor do I see where I've characterized you as being "against a position or someway opposed to a particular group of people" or that you are "innately restistant to changes to the article". Rather, I made the much narrower claim that you were resistant to the inclusion of the paragraph on the relationship between methodological naturalism, at least in the forms it had taken over the course of the above revisions. Looking back over your comments, this still seems to me a fair characterization of your position. Perhaps most important, I don't see where I made the alleged ad hominem argument against you. My argument was that your resistance had mainly taken the form of assuming the truth of disputed points, and thereby begging the question against your detractors. Accusing someone of begging the question is not an ad hominem.
I of course agree with you that there will always be debate and that a person's credentials don't determine truth or falsity. Even so, credentials do serve an important pragmatic purpose in helping us to separate views that warrant a hearing from those that don't. While hardly an infallible guide, the fact that a person possesses the right credentials gives us a prima facie reason for taking their views seriously within the debate. In hotly disputed matters, where you're likely to get a lot of polarization, looking to a person's credentials is often the best we can do in determining whether their views should be aired in a venue like Wikipedia, e.g.: "A,B,and C say Monton's views are obviously false and his reasoning bad. X,Y and Z say his views are almost certainly true and that his reasoning is cogent. Should we mention his views and arguments in the article or not? Hard to say with all this disagreement, but he's got good credentials, so maybe his views merit a hearing even though they're controversial." This approach seems reasonable to me, despite the fact that it comes with no guarantee of truth.
Finally, if you can demonstrate that Monton is in error, that he violates well known rules of logic and critical thinking and so on, perhaps the best way to settle the matter would be to provide the demonstration. Surely you don't think you've already done this with what you've said about about the notion of the supernatural being incoherent/meaningless form a scientific standpoint. If you do, this is again one of those case where I'm going to say that you're begging the question by assuming a controversial position on the nature of science. Anpreston (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
your argument, and your reasoning, is categorically ad hominem. as you have stated, you assume i hold a pre-established position: "assuming the truth of disputed points", and furthermore that because, as you assume, i hold such a position, it follows that i am "begging the question", and that therefore my argument is fallacious. That is a perfect example of ad homimem fallacy. in fact, the "begging the question" assumption form is the epitomy of ad hominem fallacy! (and, ironically, "begging the question"!!)
Looking to someone's credentials is what you do when you don't understand their argument or in any case aren't capable of examining its merits. as such, it's properly a last resort for those with developed formal reasoning skills. on wikipedia, however, we are presenting information which in some cases include views and the question is primarily of notability and verifiability, not "truth".
now i've looked over the paras in discussion mentioning monton's views, and i have to say in most if not all of them i dont see any logic in them at all. that or they are too nonsensical to sort out any kind of coherent chain of reasoning. so i must admit i'm at a bit of a loss here for want of amenable substance. Kevin Baastalk 17:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


But let me find the bit of illogical that originally aggrieved me so: "Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Philosopher of science Bradley Monton defends Behe on this point, noting that Behe does not view every complex biological system whose evolution is currently unknown as irreducibly complex. This shows, Monton continues, that Behe is not appealing to ignorance, but is "giving a positive argument that it's unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer."
Here Monton's "rebuttle" does not even throw the tiniest bit of doubt on whether or not behe is appealing to ignorance. He is simply euphemisitcally rephrasing the very definition of argument from ignorance! Which demonstrates to me that, when it comes to fallacies such as, say, appeal to ignorance, he doesn't even comprehend their basic definition! (which really makes me wonder how he could possibly pass a meaningful test on comprehension of logical fallacies. which makes me seriously question the methods of whatever university he got his degree at.) I needn't go any further on this 'cause there really is no further to go - monton already shoots himself in the foot here pretty hard core. now this is a perfect example of how listening to him makes you stupider. because having heard his "rebuttle" here, if one makes the mistake of accepting it as a legitimate rebuttle, one no longer (if they did before) comprehends what an "argument from ignorance" is, and certainly it will be that much harder to grasp. Kevin Baastalk 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
....oh, but I can go further. i almost forgot: "...noting that Behe does not view every complex biological system whose evolution is currently unknown as irreducibly complex". This again a gross misunderstanding of "argument from ignorance", and simultaneously a non-sequitor and a black-and-white fallacy! There is nothing -- nothing at all -- of argument from ignorance which requires one to be completely ignorant of everything. that would be absurd! that's such an superficial and elementary error that again leads me think that he hasn't even read the definition! and the fact that even in (very incorrectly!) defining a logical fallacy he makes such a simple and egregious logical fallacy without skipping a beat --- well, makes him look a bit oblivious to the whole subject area. like a kid stumbling over every step. (and someone who took dancing lessons from him would certainly not get commended for their grace -- to get back to the "listening to him makes you stupider" thing -- u see i really was being serious.) Kevin Baastalk 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So we have now totally turned this into a forum. I suppose it will get collapsed and i apologize to everyone for our digression. Kevin Baastalk 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Kevin, I know of no standard logic text (and I have nearly 20 on my shelf here) that counts “begging the question” (a.k.a. “circular reasoning”, “petito principii”) as a form of the ad hominem fallacy. For one thing, begging the question is usually counted a formal fallacy while appeal to ignorance is an informal fallacy. If you want a good example of an ad hominem, just look to your line “bradlye morton [sic] …clearly is a very confused person who has no idea what he's talking about and repeating stuff that comes out of his mouth -- which gets just about everything wrong -- only serves to make the reader stupider.”
Of course, you support your ad hominem attack with the claim, repeated again later, that Monton does not understand the form of an argument from ignorance. At first I had no idea what you had in mind, but your most recent comments have made it clearer to me (I think). You’re quite right that “There is nothing -- nothing at all -- of argument from ignorance which requires one to be completely ignorant of everything. that would be absurd!” But that’s not what Monton is saying. I think this fact was clearer in my original proposal for the addition, and that successive edits have somewhat obscured it. But here I’ll try to be even clearer than I was in the original:
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of appeal to ignorance which is, happily, consistent with what most logic texts say:
“Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false.”
This is how Monton understands it, too. His claim is that this definition does not match up with Behe’s irreducible complexity argument. If it was, we could expect Behe to look for as many cases of biological complexity as he could find in which irreducible complexity has not been disproved, and claim that in those cases it must be true. This is why it’s relevant to note, as Monton does, that “Behe does not view every complex biological system whose evolution is currently unknown as irreducibly complex”. Indeed, the current article has a line that says:
“…, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any [!!!] perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design.”
In the line you’ve questioned, Monton is rejecting this type of construal of Behe’s argument. He doesn’t look to any and every perceived failure of evolution; rather, he’s selective, looking only to cases that seem to exhibit irreducible complexity. He purports that irreducible complexity as a positive attribute of certain biological systems, and then offers intelligent design as a “best explanation” for this attribute. This is inference to the best explanation, not appeal to ignorance. By the same token, it’s not a “God of the Gaps” either.
As to the views that you assume, here are a few:
1. That the concept of “nature” is “utterly meaningless”.
2. That we can’t say what something’s nature is “Ever. At all. In the slightest.”
3. That “nobody really cares” anyhow.
4. That the purported puzzles about consciousness can be solved “in the sentence: intellectual states have physical correlates. simple enough. the rest is philosophy and delusion.”
5. That “It is logically impossible for anything in science to be "super-natural", because from a certain perspective the concept of "super-natural" is intrinisicly [sic] absurd.”
6. That “As soon as a reliable empirical casual relation is found, well then it is no longer "super-natural", it is now simply natural.”
7. That “in science, phenomena always take precedence over theory”.
In each of these cases you dismiss contrary views out of hand by invoking 1-7, without offering much in the way of argument for 1-7. The one exception is #1, in relation to which you note that to make the notion “meaningful” you have to say specifically what you mean by “nature”. I don’t think that meaningfulness depends on specificity (there are perfectly meaningful vague terms, after all, like “tall” and “short”), but there is an important point to what you say in this case. The thing is that you persisted in treating the notion as meaningless even after I said more specifically what I meant by “nature” (“the question simply isn't meaningful”), which leave me wondering what your criteria for meaningfulness really are.
Are your uses of 1-7 cases of begging the question? I think so. To take one example, let’s look at #4:
Your claim (as I understand it): There are no gaps in our scientific knowledge of consciousness because there are physical correlates of conscious states that we know a lot about, and this is sufficient for scientific knowledge of consciousness.
My reply: Knowledge of the physical correlates of consciousness is not the same as knowledge of consciousness, so the former is not sufficient for the latter, and there is still a gap in our scientific knowledge re: consciousness. (See the vast literature on the so called “explanatory gap”.)
Your reply: the idea that knowledge of the physical correlates of consciousness is not the same as knowledge of consciousness is just philosophy and delusion.
My reply: it’s only “philosophy and delusion” (i.e., something of which we can be dismissive) if “your claim” is true, but that’s precisely what we were arguing about, so “your reply” is question-begging.

I don't know where this leaves us with regard to the proposed additions, but hopefully this at least makes clear that Monton doesn't misunderstand the nature of arguments from ignorance. Anpreston (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh it is utterly clear that he does. And now it is clear that you are equally confused. And it seems that like Monton, you don't understand the definitions of the words and phrases that you use (e.g. "assumption"), or even have a basic understanding of what it is that you're talking about (e.g. science). And it appears you are incapable of incorporating new information that may alter your beliefs. Typical. And furthermore that you haven't really understood anything that i have said. And what is all glaring clear from these results is that trying to reason with you is utterly pointless. So I'm not going to bother anymore. Kevin Baastalk 12:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay guys, this is ridiculous. I'm going to be bold and make the following changes:
1. Add two sentences to the "Arguments from ignorance" section (Philosopher of science Bradley Monton defends Behe on this point, noting that Behe does not view every complex biological system whose evolution is currently unknown as irreducibly complex. This shows, Monton continues, that Behe is not appealing to ignorance, but is "giving a positive argument that it's unlikely for such systems to evolve without an intelligent designer.")
2. Add one sentence to the "God of the gaps" section (Philosopher of science Bradley Monton states that Behe's claim of irreducible complexity is a positive claim rather than an argument from ignorance, and therefore not a God-of-the-gaps argument.)
If people take issues with these additions, they can start a new topic and present well-sourced criticisms of Monton and his views. As it stands (and as someone who could care less either way), I think we have a duty to present a defense of Behe's irreducible complexity without belaboring the point that, in order for science to produce valuable innovations, it must seek natural explanations for phenomena. It is with this goal in mind that I am adding the sentences mentioned earlier, but not the paragraph proposed for the "God of the gaps" section, which seems to distract the reader from the topic and toward a discussion of methodological naturalism's utility in scientific research.
Also, on a personal note, there is no reason to have tempers flaring, accusations of ad hominem attacks, or a complete shutdown of the conversation. If you cannot understand each other, calmly ask for reiteration or clarification. Remember, we're all trying to improve the article. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks! Anpreston (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine Tuned Universe

This bit about the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems out of place:

Proponent Granville Sewell argues that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, and that it thus violates the second law of thermodynamics and so supports intelligent design.[73] This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles.[74] The second law applies to closed systems only. If Granville's argument were valid, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. Neither evolution nor the growth of living things violates the second law of thermodynamics because living things are not closed systems—they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.

Does Sewell connect thermodynamics and fine-tuning? Also, is there a reference for the counter claim that Sewell's argument is incorrect?Desoto10 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a Thermodynamic subheading, but I still think there needs to be a reference for the counter-argument that specifically addresses Sewell's. I also thought that ID had essentially abandoned the 2nd law argument.Desoto10 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I did some looking for a reference from the "Laws of thermodynamics" and "Second law of thermodynamics" pages, but didn't find any sources easily attributable to these refutations. I do have a Chemistry textbook at home though, so I'm sure I'll be able to add references later. Of course, more sources are appreciated as well. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a reference that specifically addresses Dr. Sewell's misconception of thermodynamics rather than a textbook that would seem to refute it. There are many blog-type entries available from noted scientists with well-established credentials in thermodynamics, but I am never fond of those.Desoto10 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename "In Islam"

I'm concerned that calling the section "In Islam" is biased against Muslims. The article notes a single Muslim in Canada believes in ID and that Turkey (a country with many Muslims) translates many books on ID. I'm not really sure this constitutes a significant enough portion of Islam to be worth noting. I think replacing it with a "Turkey" section (and possibly a "Canada" section if you can find more than one Muslim who supports the idea in the country) would be more appropriate. O76923 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find more information about Muslim beliefs about ID? If you don't like it, fix it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, non-English sources are fine, as long as they meet WP's guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, Cla you'd be right, except for the fact that WP:NONENG exists. Moreover, why would we assume that a Muslim source would not be in English? I wouldn't. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_62&oldid=1136357585"