Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

A new attempt at analogy to seek some perspective

I still believe one of the biggest problems here is perspective. What does this article look like to an experienced Wikipedia who never saw it before. Maybe it can help that I now see Dave souza is using an analogy to structure his thoughts: He sees the main concerns people have about his approach to the term "intelligent design" are similar to concerns someone could have about the term "creationism". Just examples:

Similarly, to modern readers creationism means the anti-evolution movement, not the doctrine that God implants the soul in the body. However that was once the dominant meaning: usage changes, and it's not for us to try to change it back. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC) What's needed ideally is something commenting on how common the usage was, of course like creationism earlier usage has now been drowned out by the prevalent creationist use of the phrase as a term for their package. Something saying that philosophers tend to call [the design argument] "intelligent design" could be useful, though I'm a bit concerned about WP:SYN. . dave souza, talk 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The keys [to the term "intelligent design"] have long gone, seized by ID in the same way as creationism has been seized by the anti-evolution movement and no longer primarily signifies a doctrine about implantation of souls. dave souza, talk 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC) philosophically ID is a subset of the teleological argument, just as in relation to science it's a subset of anti-evolution creationism. . dave souza, talk 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [ID is] a contested phrase or term, in just the same way as creationism. Theists who consider themselves creationist without rejecting evolution have just had to accept that the term has generally, though not entirely, been commandeered by anti-evolutionists. You may think it's a Great Wrong, but Wikipedia isn't here to right such wrongs. . dave souza, talk 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

BUT: interestingly, our creationism article does NOT show the problems some perceive in this article, and the lead has a much more (IMHO) neutral, inclusive, and helpfully clarifying character for any reader or editor; much like what I and many others seem to feel this article here is lacking and needing. As is normal policy and practice on WP, it seems written with the idea that confusing words are the reality that we have to find a way to clarify for readers in a logical and correct way. I am not holding this up as a perfect article, just asking that we compare it on this one aspect of how to handle multiple inter-related word meanings etc.

I can not help but contrast with the approach in our article here, which on the talkpage is often justified by what I consider incorrect interpretation of WP:UCN, which one could almost call "fundamentalist" in the sense that UCN is apparently put above other priorities such as clarity. This approach then leads to justification statements on this talk page like the above ones which effectively say "too bad what confusions might exist, this article is not for people interested in minority and/or archaic uses, and not a place to right wrongs etc etc; go make a fork". Apart from occasionally being a bit aggressive this is also a missed opportunity for discussion. The only "great wrong" people are talking about is the wrong against clarity and normal WP practice in handling multiple meanings. It's these types of remarks which switch discussions from policy and reasoning over to circular discussions. The other unhelpful assertion that gets made too frequently is that dealing with word complexity in the way our creationism article does (it admits several shades of meaning of one term and explains it a bit) is somehow a violation of WP:NOTDICT.

So what do I propose?

• Well, obviously in all our thinking, and our talk page posting, and in our copy editing of the article, we need to be clarifying what kind of "intelligent design" our sources are talking about; what kind our article is talking about; whether we are mixing them up wrongly and so on.
• A good way to do this is to force ourselves to use clear descriptives. The creationist article uses specific terms like literalist and fundamentalist in order to distinguish sub-types. Also Dave sometimes uses adjectives like "anti evolutionist" on the talkpage, and MisterDub has usefully noted the term Neo-creationism, which even has its own article. (We can add this to the list of articles which substantial and confusingly overlap). MisterDub gave a relevant quote from Pigliucci above which seems to say we can indeed use the term Neo-creationism for something very close to what MisterDub and Dave see this article as being about? The use of such clarifying words by Dave and MisterDub is good normal editing practice, not just in WP but anywhere and not about "righting great wrong" It is something we can learn from Dave and MisterDub for editing the article, I think, because we all want to make the articles we write clear to readers (and collaborators). Right?

At this stage I still can not say that I fully understand Dave's argument and sourcing, and that is apparently the argument and sourcing which is considered to be the established consensus for this article. Honestly, I do believe, after reading through this discussion several times, that there is no-one, not even Dave, who can clearly walk through a critical explanation of the definition of the difference between this article and all the highly overlapping ones.

If we look at our first sentence and second sentence, just for example:

• We first have a form of "creationism" equated to "intelligent design", sourced apparently from the abstract of Padian and Matzke. It seems at least possible that in their abstract they are referring to a movement.
• Then we have a direct quote for a definition in the second sentence, which we are again equating to Padian and Matzke's "intelligent design" and "a form of creationism". But it comes from another source, and that source says it is defining "intelligent design theory".
• Attempts to replace the pronoun with the words in the source were reverted, preserving the fact that WP now says Padian and Matzke's abstract is referring to the same thing in the second sentence from another source.
• That definition in the second sentence is a simple generic "argument from design" definition, and so by at least one reading (the problem is there are probably several readings possible) WP is saying Padian and Matzke are talking about an argument from design.
• I understand from this talk page that there is a pretty strong unanimity that this is not the intention. Right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't generally get involved in the day to day cut and thrust of debate on this talk page. However, I keep it on my watch list and monitor the to and fro here. It is not entirely clear here what you are trying to achieve. Your wall-of-words strategy seems to be an attempt to wear down your supposed opponents by sheer weight of words. You demonstrate a lack of the assumption of good faith by making allegations against those you disagree with that border perilously close to personal attacks. Please refrain from commenting on other editors here. In my experience there is real reason to question the actual intentions of editors who act like talk page warriors seeking to answer every point, argue every little thing said with an avalanche of words that whatever their intent, serve only to confuse anyone trying to follow what is going on here. I make the strongest possible suggestion that you abandon all the current discussions and start over on just one point. Keep all your posts to one paragraph. Avoid the use of bullet points and pay more attention to the indentation of your posts. Once a consensus has been reached on a point any changes can be implemented and then we can move on to the next point of contention. This is not a race, we do not have to fix every little peccadillo that you perceive in one fell swoop. There is plenty of time, allow the debate to occur and don't seek to dominate all discussion. Sooner or later if you continue down your current path you will attract the attention of some passing admin who might not be as understanding as the editors you have encountered here - I very strongly suggest you read and digest the information here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Strategy Nick? Yes AGF indeed, and "allow the debate to occur" indeed. I would call it an "attempting to communicate" strategy. If you wish to talk about perceived "pecadillos" in posts, I suggest please put it on my talk page or something? We don't want a wall of words at all, but there was one when I got here, and at least we should make it as on topic as possible, right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Religion

Hiya, everybody. Just a few ideas here. First, I do note that the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones (2nd edition) and Mircea Eliade (1st edition) contains a significant article on this topic. That source is one of the more highly regarded reference sources of any kind out there, having been the sole winner of a major Book of the Year award for its first edition, and, before anyone asks, I do believe that one of the "contributing editors" or topical editors is in fact a scientist, not a religion academic, although I don't know who worked with that article. In any event, I think it would be not unreasonable to look at what it says as at least a starting point for definition of term and weight to give various kinds of content in the article. There may also be significant articles in other reference sources as well, maybe of the philosophy type, but I haven't gone through them like I have some religion reference sources yet. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this suggestion, hope you don't mind me making this a new section as it seems worthwhile keeping this distinct from the draft proposal for the opening words. Google suggests it's on pp. 4515–4518 of vol. 7 of the 2005 edition, the snippets hint at the Pandas /DI version but the older argument could of course be there somewhere. Will try hunting for this without much optimism, so will be grateful if anyone can outline what it says. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Second sentence revert

I have been reverted again trying to adjust those first lines.

my proposal

reverted

'''Intelligent design''' ('''ID''') is a form of [[creationism]] based on the [[Teleological argument|argument from design]] and promulgated by the [[Discovery Institute]], a politically [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] [[think tank]] based in the [[United States]].<ref name="DI engine" group="n" /><ref name=ForrestMayPaper /> <ref name="PM 09" /> The common name for this creationism is based upon their frequent use of the "theory of intelligent design", which the Institute defines as holding "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]]."<ref name=DI-topquestions/>

'''Intelligent design''' ('''ID''') is a form of [[creationism]] based on the [[Teleological argument|argument from design]] and promulgated by the [[Discovery Institute]], a politically [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] [[think tank]] based in the [[United States]].<ref name="DI engine" group="n" /><ref name=ForrestMayPaper /> <ref name="PM 09" /> In the Institute's definition, the "theory of intelligent design holds 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]]."<ref name=DI-topquestions/>

The edit summary says partial rv - don't like the original wording, but this is not idiomatic English (no such thing as "a creationism" and "based upon their frequent usage" is not supported by the cited source an appears to be OR. I can state very concisely why this edit summary strikes me as quite strange:

• If this usage of the word "creationism" is wrong then it must also be wrong in the first sentence, which really does say "a creationism". (My edit did not.) Why is no one complaining about that?
• If the information is OR, then our whole "origin of term" section is wrong. Why is no one complaining about that?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs)

Your formatting was messed up, so the automatic signing didn't work.

• The first sentence says "a form of creationism" - the article "a" is connected to "form". Your text says "this creationism" - the article is attached directly to the word creationism. This is basic English usage.
• As for the second part, you say "this common usage...is based on their frequent use of..." (emphasis added). What source says that the "common usage" of ID is based on the "frequent usage" by the DI? To support that statement you'd need a source that says "intelligent design" is used to mean [this] because of the frequency with which the DI uses this term. That's not what sources say, that's your conclusion (which also happens to be erroneous).

I've avoided this page because I'm sick of your insistence on inserting your own opinions into this article. It's especially bad because your understanding of the topic is obviously limited, and you consistently draw incorrect conclusions. Your IDHT bullshit is tiring. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)So why not "this form of"?
• Look at our section which is called "origin of the term". Do you say it is wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "common usage" bit is a tautology. "ID proponents call their theory ID because that's what they call it." Well, no shit, Sherlock. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

MasterDub this is an example of the confusions we have in this article, and I do not deny I might be confused as a reader, but I have really tried and I am not the dumbest reader ever. But let me try: I have been told that the first sentence should be understood as talking about a creationism in the sense of a theory plus other doctrine, not in the sense of a movement, not proponents? Such a creationism can not call itself anything. You mentioned "ID proponents" which sounds to me like what people sometimes call the ID movement, right? But all attempts to insert clear wording to say that this is at least one thing we are talking about have been reverted. I have been told in simple words that this article is NOT about proponents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you are correct that Guettarda's objections don't make sense. Still, your changes do not clarify anything. We all seem to agree that your proposal is not an improvement. My objection, and I don't mean to be rude, is that "The common name for this creationism is based upon their frequent use of the "theory of intelligent design . . ." is garbled. Yopienso (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew, this article is about the theory, not the movement. But your edit didn't clarify the matter at all. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That could be MisterDub. Yopienso might be right that the English is clunky (might as well keep to that word). But if this is a wording problem discussion would be much easier? LOL. MisterDub can you deny that it appears that no two people editing this article (even just counting defenders of its status quo) seem to be able to explain what it is about in the same way? If I understand correctly for example, you would probably say it is about what better sources quite often are careful to call "intelligent design theory" (using the term the DI themselves use). Is that right? It returns me to thinking this article needs a more specific name. But in the case here I was writing based on recent feedback from Dave souza and I think he would insist it is not about what the DI themselves call "intelligent design theory", which is their argument from design, but about "a form of creationism", but this could mean almost anything, except for the things I know he says it is NOT (it is not the movement, and not their argument from design, although both could be "creationism"). Can you help me understand what he is talking about and what source we have for that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow. The essence of the subject is this: ID is claimed by its proponents to be a scientific theory, but scientists and philosophers characterize it as pseudoscience and/or (neo-)creationism. In other words, ID is a transparent ploy to get Christianity's special creation taught in US public schools. Maybe that helps? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my reply to Dave also replies to you, below. In your remark, ID clearly mean the "Intelligent design theory" which is an argument from design. But then when you make remarks which distinguish it, it has a "ploy". But surely the entity which has a ploy is the "Intelligent design movement". A theory can not have a ploy to get something taught. The only possibility left is the one I respond to below: that you see pretending to be science as part of the definition of intelligent design as opposed to just something we say the movement has tried to use the intelligent design theory as a tool to try to achieve its aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Kizmiller is a good source, note that Jones clearly distinguishes between ID itself, as a general topic including its claims to be a scientific theory, and the IDM. Clearly we can't entirely isolate one from the other, any more than an overview of the argument-from-design can leave out all mention of Paley. . dave souza, talk 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave but are you saying that Kizmuller says that "claims to be a scientific theory" are called "intelligent design" or are in some way part of the definition of "intelligent design"? Aren't these claims just referred to as something the intelligent design movement does?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fish with fins, dear boy. Sources discussing intelligent design cover this point. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

With such long circular discussions already can you please be clear and to the point in your answers? I think you mean this discussion? You broke off rational discussion there by just saying "You seem to be missing the point that this is a form of creationism, relabelled, and in that differs from the classical argument from design". You keep referring to it "fish with scales", "fish with fins" etc as if it is an answer. It is not. Just pointing to something that DI do which is not an argument from design does not mean anything?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you have distilled it. As written, the first sentence claims to be a definition of Intelligent Design (in general), not a discussion of the DI variant. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Except it explicitly states it is the DI variant. The generic argument is at teleological argument. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No it does not Dave. Really it does not. If you think it should, then the wording should be tweaked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Right at the top of the page. Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And then what does the first line of the article say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It defines that form/variant: Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Yopienso (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it defines a form of creationism, not a form of intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, look at the sentence itself. The subject of the sentence is "Intelligent Design", so as written it is making a statement about/defining intelligent design. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with it in the original formulation imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular discussion is not about the general question I think, but about the specific question of whether the first sentence implies that all intelligent design is promulgated by the Discovery Institute or not. How do you read that aspect?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Would changing the verb from promulgate to promote fix this? If so, let's do that. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what am I missing. The proposed and reverted versions share the very same first sentence, no? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The real fix would be to make the sentence actually say that the status quo supporters claim that it says. If it is a statement about the DI version of ID, then the SUBJECT of the sentence should be the DI version of ID , not just ID in general. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000, what would you propose as a change then? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

North, both versions proposed --the new attempt and the revert version-- achieve this! They both attribute ID to DI, and they both reiterate what DI says ID is. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The current version describes ALL ID as being what the DI promotes or promulgates, effectively indicating that there was nothing called ID before the 1980s, and that there is nothing outside the DI which is called ID. That is incorrect, and the hatnote does not tell readers otherwise. As far as I can determine the only source we have that takes the position like the Wikipedia lead is a blog by a biologist who was in an online argument with some creationists, but actually when he is read in context he is not as extreme as we are. We also have sources which show that this is an exaggeration. So: Anything which removes or reduces this exaggeration, clarifying the limits of the subject of this article, would improve the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

? Then can we PLEASE focus on identifying the real problem here? And stop vectoring into wild goose chases? Can we please? It's just filling this page with noise to continually move the goal post.

The "as far as I can determine the only source" you appear to object to I have difficulty identifying in the body of sources because almost the entire panoply of sources I've read is in accord with the statements made here. I've made many unsuccessful attempts to verify the claims made on this talk page that this article's based on "exaggerations".

So let's dispense with the obfuscation and hone in on specifics...specific claims, specific sources etc. No more handwaving disguising what's *really* prolonging this. The *real* objection. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I face a dilemma here. This is the second time in rapid succession that you want me to give a new fresh summary, but this will make the talk page even busier and more repetitive. Above, I reacted to your first request by summarizing sources I thought relevant and giving remarks, all in a neat new section. My long structured postings are now interwoven with replies from Dave. Please advise what is lacking there so I can focus my efforts and avoid over-loading us all. The blog which I did not list there is Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb. The true origin of "intelligent design"; August 14, 2007 [1].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO

I have seen it said many times on this talk page that we can not discuss potential over-lapping terminology, and most recently not say something about a "term" because it is bad practice for a lead. I just want to give the above reference, and quote from it: "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." Maybe it helps communication if I say that this is pretty much exactly what I would like to see done in the lead for this article. Note that uncommon terms should be both put in context and defined. Just having a dab hat note does not achieve this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following this too. The draft change proposed above has less context and more esoterica than the current version. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This citation of policy is not just about one draft but about pretty much every discussion about the lead I have seen here. Most recently: dave souza, talk 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC) wrote: "Calling it a term goes against good practice and isn't how this is presented in good quality sources". Anyway I find your remarks a bit hard to follow if we just look at the draft above. There was no context removed, and by "estoterica" added I believe you are simply referring to the fact that I proposed to mention the way the name comes from (and is the same as) the "key term" that the group publicizes. As mentioned above, this is exactly what our article says in the origin of term section. And, looking at my MOS citation, clearly this is context. It is of course a frequent concern on this talkpage, mentioned over and over before I ever got here, that the first sentence does not define and does not give context. It drops readers into it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you've added this subsection in a section you've titled to relate to the article's subsection on Origins, but you're now talking about the MOS for the lead and referring to "above". Perhaps a little confusing? . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed and it led to me just posting in the wrong place. I will change the ranking of the section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Historic intelligent design material

Responding to comments that it never existed, and to make the proposal more specific, the proposal is to restore longstanding historical source intelligent design material, material and sources that have subsequently removed from the article:

The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove, and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin. The Paleyite botanist George James Allman used the phrase in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:

"No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design."

The biologist Alfred Russel Wallace also used the phrase in his book titled Darwinism (1889); according to Wallace: "There are some curious organs which are used only once in a creature's life, but which are yet essential to its existence, and thus have very much the appearance of design by an intelligent designer". The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design". A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, "Teleological argument for the existence of God": "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer". Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: "Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design". The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design? by James Horigan and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.

This needs an RFC to get some additional eyes on the question. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is the teleological argument is a distinct topic from the creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Since they are distinct topics, they should be handled in distinct articles. The quotes you list above are, at best, related to the teleological argument, not to the DI's political tool. Combining the two topics into one article, just because they happen to share a similar word or phrase, would be appropriate for a dictionary, but not for an encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave this for later and an RFC. But, briefly, that is just the point. These ARE related to intelligent design, but are not a part of the DI version. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

From the first source provided above...

"As everyone now knows, even though the ID guys will never admit it, "intelligent design" as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, with "intelligent design" being the new label chosen after the 1987 Edwards decision made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks."

"Pandas was the first place the term "intelligent design" was used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc."

"In a desperate attempt to obfuscate this basic historical point, ID guys have dug up various random instances of the words "intelligent" and "design" placed together (although they missed the 1861 Darwin letter, and the 1847 Scientific American article), most of them with absolutely no evidence of having influenced the actual actors in the 1980s who created the ID movement (there are some legitimate precursors, but they are in explicitly creationist works, e.g. Lester and Bohlin's (1984) The Natural Limits to Biological Change, so the ID guys won't cite them post-Kitzmiller)."

...it is clear that "intelligent design" is a modern creation. Attempting to link ID with "random instances of the words 'intelligent' and 'design' placed together" is not supported. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The usage in late 1800s as a phrase and concept in evolution debates is pretty obviously not random and reading them you see the phrase referred to as a line of discussion, and evidence of Google Books ngram viewer says it was a phrase that peaked around then. It's 1880 meaning may differ from that of currently the specific DI style ID, and DI seems to have come to the same phrase independantly, but that is only normal entymology with lexical definition and semantic drift for a living language. Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

North, as you well know, we can't discard sourced information in favour of original interpretation by editors...especially not an interpretation as bad as the one you presented. Guettarda (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That comment is unrelated to the above proposal. But I am not going to pursue it now. I will later as an RFC. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Naturally the words "intelligent design" can be found in old documents, but there is no connection between the historical usage of those words and the concept with the same name used in the last twenty years. Would you seriously suggest that "intelligent design", as used in Of Pandas and People, was proposed by Darwin and Wallace? Before wasting time with an RfC, please produce some reliable sources that connect the quoted usages of those words with the current movement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable argument based on the sources North has found that the idea of "Intelligent Design" and the Discovery based ID movement based on the idea are two different things and that the former is older than the latter. DI was clearly the first to use the term systematically as a key concept, but the concept should not be reduced to being the brainchild of the DI movement, since hat seems to be historically incorrect. Whether they should be treated in different articles is a separate question. North800 is clearly not suggesting that Darwin or Wallace proposed ID and attributing him that view is clearly a strawman. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you are correct that there are two different concepts here, and that the DI is not inextricably connected to ID. But I don't think anyone here is saying that. Most of us are saying that these two concepts already have articles: the "idea of 'Intelligent Design'" is presented under its prominent name, Teleological argument, and the "Discovery based ID movement based on the idea" is housed here, under its prominent name. ID is promulgated by the DI, meaning that it is made popular by them, and the facts bear this out, but this doesn't mean that creationism under the guise of science (i.e. ID) must always be associated with the Institute. That is a strawman. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think someone must have been arguing that because the article currently defines ID as "a kind of creationism promoted by the Discovery institute ...." which is not really an informative definition of ID at all. It also doesn't suggest that there is any possibility of intelligent design existing separately from the DI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it says promulgated, which, as I said earlier, merely means to popularize. This is indeed the case and does not carry a connotation of exclusivity. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think promulgate means what you think it means - to me and to several dictionaries it has a connotation of publicly proclaiming some orthodoxy, not simply popularizing - if popularizing is meant then that word should be used. Second the only definition was the association to DI and therefore a connotattion of exclusivity was undeniably there before I added a more descriptive definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure... we'll go with that. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, your descriptive definition is ok by me, but the piped link means that the subsequent mention of "teleological" has to also be shown as the design argument. To clarify that for those not versed in these religious arguments, I've made it clear that this is theological.[2] . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll view this as suggesting the person instead make a separate article for Intelligent Design (Historical Meaning), to handle the usage circa 1900 that was not related to conceptual forebears of contemporary article (e.g. Of Pandas and People) or the legal motivations (e.g. ID Movement). And then list it among the articles of the Intelligent Design (disambiguation) page. If it's any help, I believe that I did see the archives here link to a circa 1900 newspaper interview for debate on evolution, which quoted the proponent using that term as if it was something well knonw that he'd be easily able to dispute. Markbassett (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Such an article would be a content fork of Teleological argument. It would also be a coatrack article, as the sporadic previous uses of the term were independent coinages and had nothing to do with each other except that they refered to the teleological argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "Intelligent Design (Historical) seems more directly a subarticle for Evolution, if not an independant article. Why would you think it should go under Teleological ? Seems odd to me as it's neither about the final ends. Usage is not sporadic as ngram viewer says it was more common 1870-1890 than it was in 2000. Markbassett (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at teleological argument, also called the argument from design, with its premise of purpose which also features prominently in ID. Timing wise, usage of wording such as intelligent designer in the design argument was probably most common from 1802 to 1870.[3] Secondary sources would be needed for any subarticle about terminology rather than about the TE. . . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

??? Maybe missed the distinction of "Intelligent Design (Historical)" as being historical re evolution, circa 1880 evolution debates line of reasoning, before the 20th century ID. ID(H) is also not about teleology (of final ends and overall plan or of general direction things go toward). Having looked at the TE article and how it's drifted a lot from TE circa 2011, I'm thinking even more that a historical focus item ID(H) needs to go into a seperate article to avoid entanglements and toss-outs with modern issues that's been seen happening to it under the main ID article. And less inclined to add it as subarticle to Evolution because that article is focused to showing the theory and for similarly History of Evolution and History of Evolutionary Thought are focus of those topics not on the debate process or showing weaknesses and criticisms of the article subject.

I'll also highlight source for frequency of use rather than 'probably' is to try the mentioned Ngram viewer that shows frequency of use in all books. Percentage for "Intelligent design" peaked circa 1880 to 1886, and secondary documents of the era re the debates mention the phrase as an approach.

Markbassett (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What did "Intelligent Design" mean prior to 1880? Do we have a definition anywhere? Because we have sources saying it wasn't a concept back then. We can't do original research to counteract those sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the sourced statement that "it wasn't a concept then?" But either way, the material is sourced historic usage. not "concept" claims. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking century-plus old history and source documents, it is not 'original research'. Collection and summary or categorization is harder because the same phrase has gotten reused, and to keep confusion down that the earlier debates of the same label is not the current ID (defined by first line as from DI) with described derivation from court cases, crafting a new article seems a reasonable choice. The history of evolution (timeline of life on earth) doesn't seem a place for it. The history of evolutionary thought (series of thoughts re evolution vice objections to it) seems not right either. The Reaction to On the Origin of Species or History of the creation–evolution controversy seem closer to appropriate, but seems standalone article might be better sticking either of those with this as a sub-section. Markbassett (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to relate the result of 'separate article' -- the votes are in --- it was put through due process of WP:AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent design (historical) with conclusion delete. Seems some folks want historic material in ID, many do not, BOTH camps spit on the try of having historical material as its own article, and no one was voting for it to go to some other candidate document. Eh, I followed the dab note and it was not viable an alternative for this situation. Markbassett (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-DI ID

Hi everyone. Sorry for starting a new section but I just found all these discussions and there are several threads. I have now added this article to my watchlist. I have not come here with a ready made bibliography but I suspect North might eventually succeed to find evidence that the term "Intelligent Design" was not just two words that accidentally kept coming together before the DI. I think the DI took them over from classical philosophical terminology. (It is not exactly the combination of words a 20th century lobbyist would come up with, but it sounds very much like Socratic teleological terminology. There are passages in Plato and Xenophon reporting very similar terminology in Greek concerning an argument of Socrates versus the scientists of his day. The term looks very much like a medieval Latin name for that "argumentum".) Let's say such sources are found, then we will have to come up with a good solution. I suppose the first idea which comes to mind, as this article seemed so settled in its clear subject matter, would be a dab header to say that for discussion of Intelligent Design before the lobbying terminology, see... ? Maybe this can even be considered now. Sorry if this is missing something already discussed or in the article. I just got here and did not have much time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have to find it. It was already in the article (and well sourced) for a long time and then somebody took it out. The material that was in the article and the sources for it is in the "Historic intelligent design material" section above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that we already have this DAB to "Intelligent Design before the lobbying terminology"... it's the Teleological argument and, yes, it is classical philosophical and theological argumentation. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that now is the time, but briefly, my point is that they are all a closely related set of meanings for "intelligent design". The article seems like a "hit piece" against the other closely related meanings of "intelligent" design, by seeking to stifle those meanings of the term and in essence saying that "intelligent design" is just a modern political maneuver by the DI rather than other sincere beliefs which have "Intelligent design" (NOT "the telelogical argument") as their common name. And the fact that someone felt the need to remove historical sourced "Intelligent design" material from the article seems to reinforce that concern. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying there are three subjects here (the teleological argument, ID, and ID (Discovery Institute))? I don't see this as the case, but I'd like to know how we could possibly distinguish the teleological argument from an ID that isn't associated with the DI; the teleological argument doesn't rigidly adhere to this term and is thus often referred to as the "argument from design." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO they should all be clearly covered as closely related variants of intelligent design. The "telelogical argument" article is narrower or a sub-article because it is an argument not a belief set. BTW, as I think that you know, I don't believe in any form of ID. But we much check those beliefs/opinions at the door when we edit Wikipedia.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you are getting caught up in semantics. Intelligent design is not a belief set; it is either 1) an argument for a belief set (theism) or 2) a pseudo-scientific theory used to get theism taught in public school science classes. If you're claiming it is anything other than these two, I'd like to see the sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a dead end to worry about whether it is a belief set or an argument. The point is that this article is about a very specific term "intelligent design" which refers to what we now tend to call a teleology (but not only a biological argument against evolution). If the term is a valid and well-used term for teleology then on WP we should not be "giving it" to the Discovery Institute completely? Of course the practice of splitting a subject into two articles is normal and acceptable, but then we need to help our readers see that there are two articles about the same search term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just tried the search term in the google: the first page of hits is almost entirely about the DI version, mostly from the DI's various websites. The one exception is a rather fine titanium mouse by Intelligent Design B.V. of Utrecht, at http://www.intelligent-design.nl/ so do you think we should have a dab header for this splendid organisation? . . dave souza, talk 07:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe! But seriously, I think no one would be shocked to hear that DI has dominated a google search as far as this term is concerned. Maybe try adding a Greek search term. Anyway, this is kind a concern already in the back of my mind: we know DI wants to distort the media in order to achieve an impression of a new reality, and in effect your argument is kind of awarding them a victory? I am not saying this is a decisive point for me (maybe WP does have to accept it when propaganda changes the meaning of a term) just saying it makes me feel uncomfortable. That is why I take North's point seriously. We must absolutely avoid DI using WP to make sure searchers here on WP get redirected to them when that is not what they really want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ever since Pennock unmasked ID as re-booted creation science in the late 90s, ID proponents have been trying to graft it onto another rootstock. There was a time in the mid-2000s when the claim was bandied around that ID had a pedigree dating back to Aristotle. Like nouveaux-riches in search of aristocratic ancestry, these claims were repeated all over the internet, and several people tried to insert them into the article. Ultimately that spawned "compromise" wording (or maybe rebuttal wording), but ultimately this produced novel synthesis which might have been appropriate given the standards of the time, but isn't appropriate today.

Over the years, people have promised sources to establish this long-forgotten pedigree, but ultimately they have never materialised. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the DI deliberately took a term with a pedigree. Why wouldn't they? And it has to be said that they are not using it in a entirely un-connected way. Aristotle et al certainly did look at biological complexity as the most important evidence of design, and he even specifically used this terminology in retorting against older scientists (whose works are now basically lost) who argued that this biological complexity might have come about without "design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable conjecture, but it's incorrect. We know where the term came from because Thaxton explained where he got the term from - a NASA engineer, if memory serves, who was talking about something else entirely. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that. :) In WP policy terms, people are RS for their own ideas, UNLESS there is a suspicion they are making a story which is promotion or trying to give a false impression of some kind. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I have to ask: have you read this article? I ask because the fact that Thaxton adopted the term intelligent design from a NASA engineer is noted in the article. Unless you're doubting something else... ? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt Thaxton on this because no one else does. And if your supporters and detractors alike buy your account, we can't be the ones to cast on it, and certainly can't substitute other ideas. And Andrew, one more important point - the DI didn't pick the term. It didn't exist when Thaxton picked the term. The DI gathered the ID proponents into its orbit, it created a home for them, it supported them financially - but it didn't create ID.

ID, the topic of this article, exists because after McLean and Edwards, creation science needed to be rebranded to conform with the court rulings. And so it was. Read about the Kitzmiller testimony, about "cdesign proponentsists". Thaxton and the FTE weren't searching for a new philosophical approach, they merely needed a new word to replace creation science. And (as the article says) Thaxton found a good one. According to Google Books, Pandas only has one mention of Paley, and that was in a quote from Dawkins, while Darwin on Trial has none. Behe and Dembski do reference Paley, but even here the reason Paley is on the radar is thanks to Dawkins. It wasn't until philosophers were drawn into the fold that attempts were made to graft ID onto an older rootstock, something that increased post-Kitzmiller. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a reason to doubt the origins story (just based on what you say). You are saying the term was developed as part of a PR/defensive thing, or in other words to mislead. When you say no one doubts it, is there a good secondary literature about it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC) ADDED: you have to remember that the term was not new, and had a specific meaning, synth or not North's quotes show that, and as I pointed out, the word choice is not typical of anyone who has not become familiar with Aristotelianism. So it would be a BIG coincidence!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We do cover what may be the missing link, as shown in Barbara Forrest's testimony: "In a 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to Edwards v. Aguillard, Dean H. Kenyon defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how"." The phrase was part of creation science thought, and under Kenyon as editor of Pandas, ID inherited both the concept and the insistence that this was really really science. It went further in trying to hide the obvious point that the designer is the deity. However, we've got to be careful not to go beyond the sources by introducing any hitherto unstated conclusions. . dave souza, talk 21:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you also read the part where the word creationism was systematically search-and-replaced with intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People? In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, this was seen as a very strong indicator that the term was indeed adopted as "part of a PR/defensive thing." I know Nick Matzke was the person who broke the story (he discovered the cdesign propentsists mishap), but I'm unsure exactly which citation will have that information. Hopefully, this is enough to point you in the right direction though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are saying the term was developed as part of a PR/defensive thing, or in other words to mislead. No, I'm not saying that. It was meant to get around restrictions placed by the court. I don't personally believe that Thaxton or Kenyon set out to mislead anyone. Rather, it is my personal belief that believed that they had truth on their side, that they were doing the real science, and that the courts simply didn't understand what they were talking about. Overton's ruling in McLean laid out a standard that I suspect Thaxton believed they could meet. Scalia's dissent in Edwards gave similar hope. He was wrong, but that doesn't mean they set out to mislead.
• When you say no one doubts it, is there a good secondary literature about it? Obviously there isn't "good secondary literature" - it's a minor and unremarkable claim by Thaxton. No dissertations have been written, no scholarly societies formed to debate the point. But the people who have written about it have accepted Thaxton's claim.
• the word choice is not typical of anyone who has not become familiar with Aristotelianism. - Sure it is. Read Dawkins: "We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intellgient or knowledgeable engineer might build in order to achieve some sensible purpose, such as flying..." Reading The Blind Watchmaker does not make you "become familiar with Aristotelianism", yet you can come away thinking about intelligently designed life. Read the last 150 years of (Darwinian) biology - it's rife with teleological language - not because we biologists are "familiar with Aristotelianism", but rather, because "designed to do [x]" the language of our tool-making and tool-using culture. And quite frankly - read Behe's DBB. He's mostly responding to Dawkins, he's mostly trying to tell a contrary story in the intellectual space carved out by Dawkins.

  But whatever you do, do read. Learn a little bit about the subject matter before you make such boldly incorrect assertions. Which, sans sources, are entirely immaterial anyway. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Going over your points:

• We can quibble over the word mislead but my point still remains. The term in WP policy is "(self) promotion", and the thing is that you can't trust promotional material as an RS.
• I am not saying we have to remove the claim from our article, given that it is attributed and as you say, "minor". But in our discussion here this claim is being used by you to prove how we should structure the whole article.
• Dawkins seems to be trying to spell things out, with full knowledge of the terms commonly used in public and other debate. I find it hard to see the choice of the Scholastic word intelligent as a coincidence, whether or not people are actually conscious of it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• We can quibble over the word mislead but my point still remains. The term in WP policy is "(self) promotion", and the thing is that you can't trust promotional material as an RS. - Your statement makes no sense. Matzke and Forrest are "promotional material" for ID? What the heck are you talking about??
• I am not saying we have to remove the claim from our article, given that it is attributed and as you say, "minor". But in our discussion here this claim is being used by you to prove how we should structure the whole article. Again - what? Structure the whole article? Dude, seriously...
• Dawkins seems to be trying to spell things out, with full knowledge of the terms commonly used in public and other debate. I find it hard to see the choice of the Scholastic word intelligent as a coincidence, whether or not people are actually conscious of it. So you're claiming that only someone "familiar with Aristotelianism" would use the word "intelligent"? That seems a little bizarre. So you're saying that you don't believe that the term could have entered the conscious or subconscious of people by reading The Blind Watchmaker? You're saying that it's more likely that people who have read Dawkins would have gotten the term from Aristotle (which very few of the people people involved here are likely to have read). And you want us to alter our article based on your "difficulty" in seeing this? Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Guettarda Aristotelian terminology has a major impact in all our language and concepts, but this specific usage is notably retro, presumably because it belongs in the wordlist of biologists interested in the history of their field. Concerning Matzke and Forrest, the way I understand it their ultimate source is still possibly self promotional?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pre-DI ID is all clearly covered in the teleological argument article, which includes both the design argument and the narrower pseudoscientific argument known to all as "intelligent design", and is linked in the DAB header. That's what reliable sources state, and they are clear both that ID is a specific variation on the generic teleological or design argument, and that ID proponents have claimed that they got the phrase from other sources; Thaxton had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term". It's an argument in the philosophical or theological sense, odd that proponentsists should try to distance themselves from theology.... Summary style coverage of this in the History section is currently appropriate and proportionate. dave souza, talk 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for inserting but I think Dave is on the most important thread. I think the point is that a reader searching for something about "intelligent design" might be looking for the pre-DI article, an explanation about how DI use the term, or (and I think it is very likely) they might be searching for some hints to help understand what the link is between the two (and indeed if there is any). It is the bit in bold I think our article is not serving. I tend to think sources can be found for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone reading the article would find both the dab and the article's lead pointing them to the teleological argument. The link is explicitly discussed in the article, I suggest that you should look at the sources cited therein. . dave souza, talk 07:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors here that the "History" section needs to be restored as it appears to have helped give background and context to the ID philosophy as it currently exists. Any objections to it being added back? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a diff of the exact text under discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's at the beginning of the "Historic intelligent design material" section above. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the proposal is to add the text from #Historic intelligent design material above. That text starts with 'The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American' which is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH in action—give an appealing name to a political movement then articles can be used to list "precursors". We saw this beautiful strategy applied in full force in the Jagged case where various scholars who lived more than a thousand years ago were found to have used words that could be interpreted by the modern ear as referring to currrent science. However, in the Jagged case, and in this article, a secondary source is needed to assert that there really is a connection between the historical text and the modern phenomenon. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not need to nor does it assert a connection to the DI version. It is simply coverage of intelligent design, just as the coverage of the DI version is. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No article should use the dictionary approach of covering the disparate usages of a term. The only thing that stops this article being deleted per WP:NOTDICT is that it is not about the words "intelligent design". Mentioning other usages of a term is WP:SYNTH because it is the editor's opinion that the terms are connected. Presenting what was written sixty years ago in Scientific American as related to the topic of this NOTDICT article would mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, at the outset of this discussion I asked for the sake of discussion that we begin by considering what we would do if reliable sources do show that this is not just a coincidental similarity of terms. And it would be a remarkable coincidence? (Wouldn't announcing such a remarkable coincidence on WP be OR?) Having said all that I am not certain that the text and sources proposed so far by North are quite clear enough yet given the controversy here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the article, reliable sources do show that "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God... traced.. back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." Reliable sources also show that ID does not officially acknowledge that the designer is God, and its proponents claim it "is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution" that was "first formulated in the late 1970s". [4] So, it's not a coincidence, but a connection denied by ID proponents. It also differs theologically, by requiring repeated miracles and not being open to the deistic interpretation that Paley would accept. The words intelligent and design were at times used for what was commonly called the design argument, more formally the teleological argument. It's easy to do original research and find "intelligent" and "design" together in older primary sources, but there is a lack of a secondary academic source showing that "intelligent design" was a term for the design argument. Go thou and seek one, rather than speculating "what if'.... . . dave souza, talk 06:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you request for a more clear secondary source, and in fact I would say WP owes it to the world to define whatever the connection is between ID as we know it know, and teleological arguments more generally. Where are we defining the link? I do not have such a source on me, but I'd be surprised if none exist. (I hope the DI controversies have not made our task more difficult here.) I also agree that this theory was not originally bound to God, at least not in any simple Christian sense going beyond the existence of a mysterious cosmic intelligence. Just for the record I think what you are separating out as the teleological argument or "argument from design" originally comes from Parmenides if not Socrates. But already the Greeks used the singular word "god" when discussing this, and it did lead to a kind of rationalist monotheism, which BTW clearly had an influence on the development of the monotheisms of today. (People tend to forget that when Christianity first appeared it was bound to Greek rationalism and the best scientific understandings of the day. It was associated with missionaries who were very good in exposing superstition.) By early modern times this argument was strongly associated with Christianity and still had clear pre-Christian roots.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, Wikipedia doesn't do original research, it shows what reliable secondary sources say about such links. The article is clear: the dab says "For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)", the first paragraph says "It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God,[n 1] presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"." Do you have specific wording you would like to see included in this article or in the articles linked in the dab? (By the way, my recollection is that Plato attributed the design to a demiurge rather than to God, and early Christians rejected some Greek understandings such as eternity of the universe, which was inconsistent with Creation). . dave souza, talk 08:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave the header and the opening do go a long way in helping answer my concerns. Concerning Plato of course he said very little in his own voice, and his dialogues say different things, but it is clear the word "God" got used in discussions like this one. The demiurge is a difficult subject, as indeed is the Timaeus. BTW there is also Xenophon's Memorabilia concerning what Socrates says. He certainly includes a design argument which uses words very similar to the ones found in Plato's Philebus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One underlying complexity is snowballing an artificial division (between closely related meanings) into incorrect statements. It's sort of like saying:

• Step 1 The Motorcycle article will cover only 2 wheeled motorcycles. For three wheeled motorcycles see "trikes"
• Step 2 Make false statements based on the chosen division, as if the chosen Wikipedia narrowing has changed (overruled) the real-world meaning of the term. Such as "A motorcycle has two wheels"

Both are problematic, but right now I'm pointing out what happens in step 2. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But North does Step 1 necessarily lead to Step 2? Such splits are common on WP and indeed "policy" or at least a recommendation. I do agree that we must in any case avoid giving a new Wiki-reality just to make neat articles, but as mentioned above, Dave's responses sounded like the right ones to me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, step 1 doesn't necessarily lead to step 2. But it has in this article. And you are right that splits happen in Wikipedia. But they are rare and probably a bad idea when splitting between closely related meanings, so closely related that an average person would consider them to be the same meaning.North8000 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess the crux is in this last bit. Perhaps it helps to divide it this way:

• The question of what average people think is relevant to the need for clear dab efforts, which was my concern. Dave's responses helped reduce my concern. Why do you disagree with about Dave's responses to me?
• The question of what average people think is not relevant to content itself. That's where we have to look outside average people and rely on what sources do, and I do sympathize with the argument that the term "intelligent design" is recently something which has a clear separable literature block that does not overlap terribly neatly with the bigger subject of arguments that nature shows evidence of intelligent design and having ends. So there is a case to consider for this being "splittable" based on how sources look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. There are two subjects here, and they are named according to WP:UCN. One is the general design argument for the existence of God, and the other a specific design argument, presented as science, relying on the concepts of CSI (complex, specified information) and IC (irreducible complexity) to justify teaching what has been well determined to be religious beliefs in public school science classes. "Intelligent design" is the common name for the latter; arguments from design, even though they may refer to intelligence, are known more commonly as "teleological arguments." Their relation, that ID is a teleological argument, though removed of its theological vocabulary, is made known in the article. Want to read more about arguments from design? That's why we have the DAB and wikilinks pointing to the page about them, the teleological argument. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)@Andrew Not that they address all of the questions, but I really don't disagree with Dave responses, except that he uses the term "ID" to mean "The DI version of ID". And if the article were to avoid that same practice, it would no longer be making "motorcycles have 2 wheels" type statements regarding ID. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could that header be tweaked a bit perhaps to make it more clear that a very similar term is used in other ways?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting and constructive suggestion, Andrew. Do you have any ideas as to how it should be tweaked? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One idea is when statements are made in the article regarding the DI version of ID, that is says that rather than just (all) ID. It would take a bit of prose effort to do it smoothly but I think it could be done. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In normal modern usage, ID is the DI version: the historical equivalent is consistently called the design argument or the teleological argument. Occasional references over the past century or so don't change that. Similarly, to modern readers creationism means the anti-evolution movement, not the doctrine that God implants the soul in the body. However that was once the dominant meaning: usage changes, and it's not for us to try to change it back. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Pandas was the first place the term "intelligent design" was used systematically, defined in a glossary-" oft cited above by Matzke
• "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin" -- Encyclopedia Britannica
• Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature." - intelligentdesign.org - owned by DI's Center for Science and Culture.
• "The campaign for equal time to be given to what was called “creation science” in the schools eventually foundered on the ACLU’s ability to show that its tenets were inspired by Genesis and not derived from any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. If creation science was fundamentalist Christianity in disguise, then the first amendment to the Constitution—designed to ensure the separation of church and state—forbids its teaching in the schools. The later movement known as Intelligent Design (ID), which focuses instead on a modernized version of Paley’s argument from design, was introduced to bypass this problem, and its campaign continues unabated today." - Peter Bowler, 2007
• Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005
• "..."intelligent design, a relatively new strain of anti-evolutionism that became prominent in the 1990s" - Jason Rosenhouse, 2012
• These and scores more like them have been cited here ad nauseum. In the interest of minimizing the time sink, I suggest we gather them together in one spot, in a subpage, and just point to it as needed. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - I have started a conversation on the dispute resolution noticeboard in the hopes that we can get this resolved, rather than pick up the same discussion again later. I have tagged several editors here and notified you about this on your talk pages. For anyone else who wants to comment, or if I forgot anyone, please feel free to add your input. Thank you. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search can help in identifying the frequency of the term's usage prior to DI, such as by singling out 19th Century literature. Seems to have been widely used as a term even in the 1800s and some even refer to it as the "theory of Intelligent Design" rather than using the term as some sort of placeholder. Due to that, I think a terminology section would be in order here. As for how to use the term in the rest of the article, I think we should stick to the normal term as opposed to adding a qualifier as this article is about the DI formulation of the same name. We only need to qualify the distinction where necessary to define the subject. The reader should just be able to recognize that we are using "Intelligent Design" as a term for the DI formulation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not learned the posting procedures used at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so I am posting here. Please consider yourselves free to make this a new subsection or a new section. I have read parts of the discussion "Pre-DI ID" (which seems in places to refer, more inclusively, to non-DI ID). Some recent non-DI references to "intelligent design" (the phrase and the concept) are at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=intelligent+design&p=par. Those references may or may not be useful to the discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

TDA-the process you're describing sounds like WP:OR. We're wikipedians, not historians. We don't data mine historic texts to overturn the authoritative WP:RS. We'd need older sources that describe it as a "thing". That's clearly what it is now-- Professor marginalia (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So by your logic it is impermissible original research to cite historic texts just to accurately note how they use a term, but we should all get along with promulgating a view of the subject that is demonstrably false because modern academics can't be bothered to research more thoroughly before making claims about views they detest. Do you know why WP:IAR exists?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

By my logic we adhere to policy and concentrate on putting together a useful, no-fee, no-strings encyclopedia where people can come to look stuff up. By my logic, "come-one-come-all-do-it-yourself research debunking the real world experts" is clearly contrary to mission. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC) PS - Do you know that it's just as absurd to invoke WP:IAR when arguing to ignore WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V as it would be to invoke WP:IAR to ignore WP:IAR? It's useful in cutting through pedantic bureaucratize. It isn't useful if invoked to justify a fan-fictionalized encyclopedia filled with anybody/everybody crackpot D-I-Y debunk-ery. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes TDA, it's impermissible to "cite historical texts" in order to prove that modern academics "can't be bothered to research more thoroughly before making claims". Why? Because we can't come up with novel interpretations of facts. Because we aren't supposed to use our great skills to prove the expert wrong. And, because, most of the time, when someone comes up with new-found wisdom that all the experts have missed, it's because they don't understand the subject matter (either that, or they're selling something on late-night infomercials).

This is precisely why NOR exists.[5] Guettarda (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I recall a rather long discussion concerning the wording of our policies which was about a case where a reliable source was wrong about the earliest uses of a term, and it could be shown easily. I forget the exact result but I believe that at the very least there was no strong consensus that the letter of the policy pages should be used to block common sense. We are not supposed to cite policy from blocking people saying that the sky is blue. Please do keep in mind that what we have here is a modern promotion machine that wants to create a particular impression about a particular term. Some caution is called for. (But note I am not making any particular proposal for change to the current article, as discussed above.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I recall a rather long discussion concerning the wording of our policies - seriously, cite a fucking source already.
• a case where a reliable source was wrong about the earliest uses of a term, and it could be shown easily - irrelevant here because (a) it's immaterial when the phrase was first used - it's an common English pairing of words, and (c) no one has bothered to show that the sources "are wrong".
• there was no strong consensus that the letter of the policy pages should be used to block common sense - replacing sourced text with novel synthesis by Wikipedia editors is not "common sense"
• We are not supposed to cite policy from blocking people saying that the sky is blue - This isn't an attempt to insert "the sky is blue", it's an attempt to use Shakespeare's statement "being mechanical you ought not to walk on a labouring day without some sign of your profession" to show that automobiles existed in Roman times, since there were obviously mechanics to fix them.
• Please do keep in mind that what we have here is a modern promotion machine that wants to create a particular impression about a particular term. Some caution is called for. Umm...so you're saying that since we have "a modern promotion machine" we should do their bidding, and ignore scholarly sources? That seems pretty absurd. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Guettarda your latest two posts are a little combative and not to the point, and I think you should reflect upon what we are discussing in practical terms. I am proposing no changes. Dave's responses re-assured me. I am simply trying to give background comments which back-up North's valid concern, and help everyone understand it. I'll address your last bullet because there seems to be a real misunderstanding: I am saying that we are already performing the bidding of the DI. They wanted to own this term, and we are giving it to them. By using our own editor "OR" which relies on things like google searching, we naturally will end up giving a modern propaganda machine the benefit of the doubt when we find all the hits. I have already written above that to some extent we can not avoid this. But we need to be vigilant about keeping links to the more general topic. I am not arguing for more than that, so please lower your weapons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

search for modern secondary sources

So Alvin Plantinga goes from talking about Behe's arguments for intelligent design, and then without making any distinction, talks about the teleological argument for intelligent design ("Design Discourse", chapter 7 in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 225–340. It's obvious that for Plantinga, at least, the "intelligent design" of DI and the "intelligent design" of the teleological argument are the same subject. I believe the same is the case for J. P. Moreland, and you see it in related sources: Collins, R., "The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe", chapter 4 in Craig & Moreland (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), pp. 202–281; Dembski, W., "Natural and design", chapter 10 in Craig and Moreland (eds.), Naturalism: A Critical Assessment (Routledge, 2002), pp. 253–180. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think there is any disagreement that intelligent design uses a version of the teleological argument. It does include further arguments, such as its central opposition to methodological naturalism in science. . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was saying more than just "version of"; it was that the same term (ID) was used for both and considered by the author to be the same subject. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As Plantinga is an ID proponent, he's a primary source to be treated with care. Exact quotation, please. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what is clear is that for Plantinga the "intelligent design" which the teleological argument is supposed to establish, and the "intelligent design" which Behe is supposed to establish, are the same thing. The relevant material is in Plantinga 2011, pp. 225-240 (I meant 240 above, not 340). Some reviews which cover this are: Schmidt,Metaphysica 13(2) (Oct. 2012), pp. 229-236; Monton & Gage, Int. J. Philos. Relig. 72(1) (Aug. 2012), pp. 53-57; Boudry, Science & Education 32(5) (May 2013), pp. 1219-1227.

I general I'm a big skeptical about this article. It's sort of like having the article on Historical Jesus being mainly about the Christ myth theory. If I had to offer a plan: Roll most of the content here which isn't already duplicated into Intelligent design movement, Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, etc. This article should be about intelligent design mainly according to the best scholars. Really right now it is largely citing Discovery Institute published stuff, journalists, etc. So instead you cite Ruse, Boudry, Sober, Plantinga, Ratzsch, and so forth, and leave most of the kooky stuff out (most, but small summaries and links would be fine, just as Historical Jesus refers to Christ myth theory). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers, but since we don't have access to the book, please provide a quotation which you think shows him presenting ID and the theological design argument as the same thing. Odd that you seem to be proposing removal of an article on the distinct "theory" promoted by both Plantinga and Behe. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(See my comment below for a related thought): He's not saying that any teleological argument is the same as ID. I'm not sure what that last comment means...are you saying that Plantinga and Behe have a theory of ID distinct from others'? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See "fish with fins" etc. below. . dave souza, talk 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Given the current content of this article, and the justification for separating it from other articles about argument from design, I am in fact surprised to here there is another article about the Intelligent design movement. Surely a merge should be proposed? What is the justification for having two articles about the same thing? If we merge to there we could make this article a short one about the history of the term, which might start as pretty short, but I think it could eventually become quite interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is the main article about the topic generally known as intelligent design, the "movement" article is a sub-article going into more detail about what has been called the ID movement, and as such is summarised in the main article. It might be nice to have a sub-article about the history of the term, perhaps cdesign proponentsists, but we don't currently have many good sources about its etymology and previous use compared to ID. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dave (ec), concerning being careful of "proponents" that is a good principle. But the article is not really sticking to it right now? (For example citing blogs which are associated with gathering anti-DI arguments.) I do BTW accept that evolution is science and not just an opinion and all that, but when we come to the subject at hand which is the naming of this movement, we have a fuzzy looking everyday debate in my opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that intelligent design is not the same thing as the teleological argument? That it is a separate, scholarly subject that just happened to have its identifying phrase appropriated by creationists? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, who is this addressed to? I do not get the question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew... this was an edit conflict and I was addressing Atethnekos. I posited the same exact question to you at the bottom of the following section. It seems to me that you may be saying that "intelligent design" is a subject that is distinct from both the teleological argument and the ID of creation scientists (which is almost entirely associated with the DI), and therefore deserves its own appropriately named article in this namespace. I'm asking if my impression is true. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that strictly they are not the same thing, no. A teleological argument is an argument which is supposed to establish that there is intelligent design. But the converse isn't true: It's not the case that intelligent design is an argument which is supposed to establish that there is a teleological argument. For the second question, if I take your meaning right, I wouldn't say that, no. Creationists, generally when they are talking about "intelligent design", are talking about the same hypothetical thing as the others. So it's not that when creationists are talking about intelligent design they are just happen to be using the same identifying phrase as the others who are discussing "intelligent design", but rather, usually, they are referring to the same hypothetical thing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). "Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks", is explicit that ID and the traditional design argument are not the same. They quote Pandas – "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." Is that the same hypothetical thing as the teleological argument? . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be, depending on which teleological argument is being employed, for example if it's the teleological argument that Davis and Kenyon use to reach that conclusion. That's why Padian & Matzke explicitly say with regards to this quote that is represents the "‘ID’ purveyed by the DI", and don't pretend that it is accurate for all versions of ID. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Ratzsch, Del, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)[6] for more. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, that shows it pretty well. The title is Teleological Arguments for God's Existence, it equates that to arguments from design, and only uses "intelligent design" to refer to the modern variant promulgated by the DI. . dave souza, talk 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So I think that the wp:OR is trying to say that the the DI version is completely different than the other related meanings of ID. And, as I understand it, the "difference" that this wp:or was constructed on is that for legal maneuvering reasons, DI doesn't say that God did it, even though "everybody knows" that they really mean (but won't say) that God did it. North8000 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that seems broadly correct though as a revised version, modern ID is not "completely different". Don't see where you get wp:OR, these points are very well supported by sources cited in the article. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Dave I was just doing a similar search on google books and found this and many others, and I think one relevant conclusion for us is (as per the edit I just did) we would definitely be distorting what the literature says if WP writes in its own name that before DI the two words "intelligent" and "design" just happened to sometimes come together. This was clearly a set term for a key point of the Design Argument right back into the 18th century. It is the standard term that dozens or maybe hundreds of authors used, for what people who use this argument see in nature that leads them to make this argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The "just put together" summarises what's put in the cited source, so another secondary source is needed to go beyond the point that the phrase was used in describing the design argument. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the source you mean is a blog post by Matzke? OK, I see it says "random" but looking at more sources, that is clearly wrong, and now that I see it is a blog post with a POV theme, I am kind of wishing I'd kept more notes while googling because I was thinking you were insisting on top quality sources. There are certainly modern secondary sources with no iron in the DI fire which for example describe the Timaeus as containing an early intelligent design argument. I note an article on JSTOR from well before DI refers to something like "what we tend to call intelligent design", and there are 19th century sources that talk about the intelligent design "hypothesis". (I think so far that the term originates in commentaries of Timaeus.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not ideal but Matzke is an expert about ID and creation science, not so much about theology and philosophy. What's needed ideally is something commenting on how common the usage was, of course like creationism earlier usage has now been drowned out by the prevalent creationist use of the phrase as a term for their package. Something saying that philosophers tend to call [the design argument] "intelligent design" could be useful, though I'm a bit concerned about WP:SYN. . dave souza, talk 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dave. I meant an assertion that they are so different that one is identified as "ID" and the other isn't. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@ North8000, nowadays one is identified as ID in numerous sources, the other isn't. Got a source showing otherwise? .. dave souza, talk 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave I wish you would avoid doing that even if it is common tactic in Wikipedia. Make an unsourced assertion, and then essentially say that the unsourced assertion stands unless someone meets the high standard of finding wp:RS's that address and disprove the unsourced assertion made by the Wikipedia editor. In general, sources do not address assertions by Wikipedia editors, and the more implausible the assertion, the less likely it is that the particular assertion was addressed by a source. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000, please assume good faith and stop accusing others of a "common tactic". The Kitzmiller judgment and Ratzsch as above are two example from after 2004, your turn. . dave souza, talk 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A useful website for searching early modern classic texts is http://oll.libertyfund.org/ . This gets around all the clutter one can come across by just doing a google search. Doing such a search there for "intelligent design" certainly gives a strong impression that this was a standard term, both in native English works and translations, for some perceived to be seen in nature which proved the existence of an intelligent creator/manager god with human-like intentions. (It is also apparently less commonly used to refer to very wise founding fathers of human government constitutions.) This is still, I know, just adding to an overall impression is is not a recent secondary source, but I thought it worth adding to this previous discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful source in general. However, my search there for the exact phrase only brought up 5 hits, three of which were about intelligent design by governments of their projects, the other two both coming from Francis Hutcheson, Logic, Metaphysics, and the Natural Sociability of Mankind and using "intelligent design" as a descriptive phrase rather than as a term. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only 5"? This is not google remember, so of course there are not so many works in this collection. It was only intended as a feeler. Doing date limited searches on google scholar and google books gives many more hits, including clear hits in proper secondary literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just the way it worked for me, secondary literature would be good. . dave souza, talk 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To avoid the DI hits, I tried searching on google books, but limiting the time of publication. As a non-American a lot of these old books only come up as snippet view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It still sounds like all this stuff is WP:SYN. We need a source saying "this is where the creation scientists got the term," and we have sources in the article regarding this. Speaking of design was common in creationist lingo, and then intelligent design systematically replaced the word creationism in Of Pandas and People when Thaxton heard it from a NASA engineer. It's popularity exploded from there. That is the history of the term as far as this subject (ID) is concerned, according to the sources. If there are sources showing otherwise, please present them. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No that is only one source. The blog source our article currently really cites as it's primary source on this is even seems to me to clearly admit that there is at least a well-known claim that the term connects back to the older terminology of older arguments from design. The only counter argument proposed on the blog to this is that only two examples are named, but as we have seen just using google that is an extremely weak reply. So are we now already perhaps giving undue weight to a weak source, in order to satisfy the preconceived ideas of WP editors? That is the concern, and it should be treated seriously.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some examples of use of the phrase

Just SOME of the 100s of examples of the older use, not modern secondary sources linking to DI as such, but I'll discuss further below...

• 1834. This is a sermon speaking of "the idea of intelligent design" as if it were a known term.
• A 1960 discussion of Kant
• 1834
• 1967
• 1934 (this one specifically asking whether "intelligent design" can be substituted by Darwinism, as if the term is known on its own)
• 1966 The philosopher Han Jonas.
• 1948 "This reaction of Socrates against materialistic physics and his quest for intelligent design"
• 1950, given in a list of "theories" without explanation
• 1940 "Whether one believes in evolution over many centuries or Intelligent Design" (sounds like a name of a known theory; note the capital letters)
• 1968 "The wing of a butterfly, the eye of a mite— these are sufficient to prove intelligent design"
• 1955"this sentiment of purpo- siveness in the motions of a machine in effect reproduces the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design, here applied to human intelligence"

At what point do we say that what is effectively being demanded here in terms of sourcing is unreasonable? We can source the term, its meaning, and its continuous use. We also have lots of blogs and lower level sources from the post DI era who are happy to say the opposite of the blog we cite, and claim that ID still means what it used to mean. Isn't it odd to say the burden of proof is upon editors who think that a term used in two places is one term, even when it is spelled the same, used the same way, in precisely the same contexts, and which is claimed by the more recent authors themselves to derive from old ones. The pre DI philosophers and theologians all seem to see this term as a standard term. On the other side we have one blog saying "yes sure but I personally only know of couple of pre DI cases". Is that enough to put the burden of proof on the other side?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think there are enough examples of primary sources there to say that the words "intelligent design" have been used numerous times in conjunction when discussing versions of the teleological argument. The last source directly uses it as a phrase identifying the specific argument for the existence of God, but it remains a primary source as an example of usage. I'd really like to see a source saying that the phrase or term has commonly been used in this way: if a blog, one that complies with WP:BLOG as the view of an identified topic expert. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Right but do please consider the other point I am making which I think is also North's point: there is a logical problem with the invocation of the burden of proof rule which can lead to two sides demanding it of each other. Is it reasonable to ask for the burden of proof to be on the side of an editor who says a word used, spelled and defined the same way in many many places is the same word being continuously in one language, and that this is not just something which came about by coincidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, we have a problem. The source you've labelled 1955 appears to have been published by Lexington Books on September 18, 2008, "1940" Publication date: 3/15/2009. The "1934" source seems to have the right year, it doesn't put quote marks around intelligent design, but uses the phrase in a paragraph discussing what it calls the design-argument, so it seems clear that it's being used as a descriptive phrase, or at most a synonym. . dave souza, talk 09:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Might have erred somewhere on that one case, but anyway this section made its point don't you think? Your whole discussion was based on this type of OR and a blog post. So my OR has shown your OR to be dubious. I made no effort to try to collect all examples when it became clear to me that any reasonable person would get it, and you did seem to accept that at the time. (I note that after originally accepting it, you are now back here looking a bit harder?) We could continue this discussion somewhere, but for this talk page what is much more relevant is that modern secondary sources often use the term "intelligent design" to mean the same as "argument from design". So even if the term were invented in the 1980s (which it clearly was not) that would make no difference. Consider that we do not see people arguing that Aquinas had no "argument from design" even though the term was not invented yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Two cases, "1955" and "1940", as far as I've checked. No one is disputing that the phrase is earlier, but on its relationship to modern ID we only have Haught making the connection. In the post-1990 examples, Ayala refers to "Intelligent Design: The Original Version" without actually discussing earlier use of the phrase. . dave souza, talk 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Providing sources for discussion

Let's just try to mutually sort this out rather than slipping into the common maneuvers in Wikipedia (where everyone tries for the brass ring of "my assertion wins unless you meet a bulletproof standard of proof that it is false"). The sourcing/sourcability requirement in Wikipedia is for content in articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000, "common maneuvers in Wikipedia"? Please assume good faith, and provide good quality sources as requested. . dave souza, talk 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) I didn't say that anyone here was doing all of that, I was saying lets avoid that. But I was indicating that the idea that a particular assertion "wins" unless it is dis-proven by wp:rs's is not valid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:NOR – an assertion shown in rss's stands unless disputed or disproven by other rs's. WP:notaforum! . dave souza, talk 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But Dave, do you see how citing this policy in some cases can simply lead to a circular discussion? We have imperfect sourcing for all possible ways of writing about this subject, as our material now stands. We need a practical compromise. We should not be trying to lock discussion into a circle. (Please note that the policy does not say that "the blogs used as sources by editors who got to an article first are counted as better sources than anything cited by later arriving editors".) :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you've fully complied with WP:TALK by putting forward sources for discussion. Regrettably, I can't recall North doing that when dismissing these assertions. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, just because your can't recall North doing so does not mean he/she did not (in fact North has cited sources dozens of times as well as other critics of this ostensibly-biased article). North has been a champ (for not giving up a year ago, which is, I believe, the goal of the defenders of the non-neutral POV defenders). WP:AGF must apply omnidirectionally. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but that is not the only way to contribute to a discussion. Anyway maybe it should be pointed out that there is no deadline. I have had the honour of seeing both you and North contribute to discussions, and I think it is important to realize that no one is desperately pushing for fast changes. I think the aim is to think about where this article might evolve towards. North's claim, or maybe it is only one of several, is that WP is currently not doing a good job of covering ID as a common thread between DI and other historical and contemporary people and movements who have used the ID concept. (And as I said a few times, this means we hand the keys to DI for this ancient term, once associated with non Christian philosophers.) None of us are claiming to have a miracle cure though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The keys have long gone, seized by ID in the same way as creationism has been seized by the anti-evolution movement and no longer primarily signifies a doctrine about implantation of souls. If we can find adequate sourcing, there might be a case for an article on intelligent design (term) as a sub-article of both this article and the teleological argument article, though that might not be a good title as if piped it could be a bit of an easter egg. Perhaps a more ancient version of the term would work better. . dave souza, talk 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But there is no doubt that any version of this article must include DI. I think we've lost sight of the fact that the discussion started with a pro-active idea from within wp that non DI ID had to be to some extent excluded from this article. That argument was based on the idea that the sources show a major discontinuity, but that assumption is I think now being questioned. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thaxton choosing term ID

Thaxton is the person responsible for its current popularity and he got it from a NASA engineer:

Story sounds plausible but is not verifying: I see the evolutionnews article that claims Thaxton said it started by NASA usage and then seeing in back issues of Science -- but lack verification ? Science magazine online search from say 1989 to 1950 does not find that, I'm not finding a NASA pub from that era either, and I'm not seen another source of Thaxton saying this. Maybe an urban myth or mis-remembering ? He may have meant intelligent signal (SETI) or Nature magazine or something heard wrong by the Evolutionnews reporter ... is anyone else seeing something I've missed in other source that Thaxton said this or that able to show actual usage pre-1989 by either NASA or Science ? Markbassett (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

“ As the academic editor for FTE, Thaxton was then serving as the editor for Pandas, and as it neared completion, Thaxton continued to cast around for a term to describe a science open to evidence for intelligent causation and free of religious assumptions, a term without the religious baggage associated with "creation" but one less ponderous than "intelligent cause," and, at the same time, more general, a term that could refer to the design theory in toto.

He found it in a phrase he picked up from a NASA scientist--intelligent desgin [sic]. "That's just what I need," Thaxton recalls thinking. "It's a good engineering term.... After I first saw it, it seemed to jibe. When I would go to meetings, I noticed it was a phrase that would come up from time to time. And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." Soon the term "intelligent design" was incorporated into the language of the book.

Engineering, Information Theory, and the Theory of Intelligent Design

The term intelligent design was already a functioning term in science, and it was just a matter of extending the term to the process of design detection in natural structures. "I knew from Polanyi that the laws of chemistry and physics were not responsible for the sequencing of the nucleotides," Thaxton said, "but I didn't know how to link that to intelligence till I read Hubert Yockey's paper in 1981 that there is a structural identity between the nucleotide sequences in DNA and the alphabetical letter sequences in a book."

Yockey wrote, "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." Yockey is not a proponent of intelligent design, but the passage marked a turning point for Thaxton: "As soon as I made the connection that it wasn't just analogy but the treatment of these was mathematically identical, I said, 'Well, if the treatments are mathematically identical and I know that intelligence is responsible for the alphabetical letter sequence, then I'm on safe ground when I say that intelligence is responsible for the sequencing of the nucleotides.'

”

Jonathan Witt "Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design"

Yockey wasn't referring to evolution, but the origin of life:

“ 6. Evolution and the origin of life are separate questions. My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded. There are many things in science and mathematics that are true, but unknowable. The earlier children learn about the scientific and mathematical concept of unknowability, the better they will be able to grasp the concepts that currently are re-shaping mathematics and science. ”

... and says that Thaxton, "a novice to the subject," misunderstood the article:

“ Point One: the leaders of FTE, including Charles Thaxton, clearly do not understand my 1981 article

My 1981 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, "Self-organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," does not support FTE's assertion in its 11/4/2005 amicus brief, "Yet by the early 1980s... information theorists had determined that the mathematical treatment of these biological message texts was identical to that of human written language," as FTE’s citation of my paper claims.

”

Hubert Yockey Hubert Yockey reply to FTE amicus brief

It seems quite clear that the term was picked because it sounded good and was used "occasionally" in science magazines, not because it had a pedigree known to Thaxton. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think that the point you are making by that is is "DI didn't pick it because of it's known pedigree". (?) I don't think that that addresses the question at hand which is "Did or does ID have a pedigree outside of the DI version?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 August 2013‎

Actually, that doesn't matter. Wikipedia articles are about subjects, and this subject is ID, the pseudo-scientific theory. Previous use of the term, if it does not apply to this subject, is entirely irrelevant. If you think that the term is used as a primary identifier for the teleological argument, you may ask to move that article to its now-revised common name, and we will have to change this article's title to accommodate. If this is the way you want to proceed, please start the move request on Talk:Teleological argument. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Important point. Your write "this subject is ID, the pseudo-scientific theory". Who decided that? The answer is wikipedians, and wikipedians are now questioning whether this is the best way to cut the subject up and handle it. This article has no good clear source saying that the ID of DI is a new invention that is discontinuous with pre DI ID. The sources currently being used to make that claim are in two cases derived from ID propaganda, which as article (and the third source, the blog) explains means they are clearly exposed to accusations of self-promotion. The third source, the blog, is actually in my opinion being wrongly used in the article right now. It clearly says that the ID of DI has precedents in pre DI ID, but of the creation type, not the more philosophical flavour. The article can be improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not only have one source though do we? The Matzke quote which our article currently cites as its only source concerning any link between DI ID, and pre DI ID, says (emphasis added)

As everyone now knows, even though the ID guys will never admit it, “intelligent design” as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, with “intelligent design” being the new label chosen after the 1987 Edwards decision made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks. Pandas was the first place the term “intelligent design” was used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc. In a desperate attempt to obfuscate this basic historical point, ID guys have dug up various random instances of the words “intelligent” and “design” placed together (although they missed the 1861 Darwin letter, and the 1847 Scientific American article), most of them with absolutely no evidence of having influenced the actual actors in the 1980s who created the ID movement (there are some legitimate precursors, but they are in explicitly creationist works, e.g. Lester and Bohlin’s (1984) The Natural Limits to Biological Change, so the ID guys won’t cite them post-Kitzmiller).

That is not agreeing with the source cited above, and in fact it is not really simple concerning what it is claiming concerning what ID folk say themselves. The clearest thing it is claiming is that ID sources themselves, which are the ultimate source for some of the claims in both these sources, are not reliable concerning this point because they are trying to obfuscate certain associations (to old ID which is purely creationist Christian), or imply certain others (ie a connection to any old references to ID which were not obviously Christian creationist, for example any by philosophers). This distinction might indeed be important for the legal cases, but does not seem to be important to the pre-Darwinian philosophers and theologians who apparently all felt they were using a well-known term for a logical (not faith based argument, at least before Darwin) that could be used by Greek pagans or Christians equally. After reading it through a few times I have to point out that "“intelligent design” as such originated in" is clearly referring to the subject of the blog which is the modern DI movement. The blog writer is clearly for example not claiming there was no "legitimate precursors" because there were: "they are in explicitly creationist works". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We do have other sources, cited in the Pandas section. Have a look at the Safire citation, which also discusses previous uses of the phrase for the teleological argument. Also note the shifts in meaning: theological argument for existence of God>creation science argument for evidence of divine intervention>ID argument for unexplained supernatural intervention. . dave souza, talk 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely different ID arguments, for example compare Plato (not a christian, and of unknown religiosity) and Aquinas. But at least pre DI, people talking about these big differences still used one word to describe something in common. It is clearly not hard to find claims that DI ID shares this something, at least if we may use blogs, etc. I noticed one Catholic theological blog arguing that DI is not Thomist, but more Platonic (and therefore not really Catholic I guess).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that intelligent design is not the same thing as the teleological argument? That it is a separate, scholarly subject that just happened to have its identifying phrase appropriated by creationists? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you posted this in two places, and presumably it was meant here. Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is the word which has long been used to describe what some people claim to see clear evidence of when they look at nature. So people look at "N" and see evidence of "ID", and then claim as a conclusion, "I", a cosmic Intelligence, a human-like guiding force controlling (D) nature (N). Claiming that conclusion is "The argument from design", or "the teleological argument". It is logically true that you can plug different details on to this basic argument. For example you can say I is the Christian God, and you can visualize his designing (his effect upon nature) in different ways. Hope this helped. Perhaps it is also worth remarking that until Darwin, this was considered a quite scientific argument by many more well-informed people than today. Today, believing in this argument is very difficult without at some point deciding to have faith despite evidence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but I'm a little confused still. Are you saying intelligent design and the teleological argument are separate, distinct subjects each deserving of their own, separate article? If so, where does this leave the ID of creation scientists (i.e. the Discovery Institute's ID)? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Had to add something after finally taking time to read the Safire source: you can believe in evolution and also believe in the argument from design. That is, you can claim to see evidence, perhaps in evolution itself, of the "designs" of higher intelligence. I will get back to you on your question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer: a claim to seeing ID is part of any teleological/design argument. I am not sure they deserve separate articles, but I am also not sure that we should have separate articles for "Intelligent Design" limited to the movement's version, and "Intelligent Design Movement". The DI's ID kind of seems to have two articles? I think ways of splitting and merging subjects vary and can themselves evolve as material gets added and editors raise valid issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you may be right about separate articles for ID and the ID movement, but that is not what I'm asking here, and it really hasn't come up to any significant degree in the past. What I want to know is how ID differs from the teleological argument, if ID is not the DI's ID. Also, you are correct that people can accept the teleological argument and still believe in evolution, but this is not the case for the DI's ID, which denies evolution by definition. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I answer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Perhaps I just don't understand this statement: "a claim to seeing ID is part of any teleological/design argument." Can you elaborate/rephrase? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not helping me see where the problem is but I'll try citing a famously clear and very early version. In his Memorabilia 1.4.8, Xenophon describes Socrates asking a friend sceptical of religion "Are you, then, of the opinion that intelligence (nous in Greek) alone exists nowhere and that you by some good chance seized hold of it, while - as you think - those surpassingly large and infinitely numerous things [all the earth and water] are in such orderly condition through some senselessness?" This is basic non-ornamental statement which includes an assertion that there is evidence of Intelligent design. In the quote as I have given it however, there is no discussion about yet about any second step to this reasoning, by actually pointing out that this implies something like a god. If there is no argument for the existence of God (or a god type thing) then we do have an "argument from design [for the existence of God]".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, to use your earlier phrasing, it is possible to believe in evolution and also believe the design argument for the existence of God. e.g. Asa Gray.[7] ID is distinct as it directly and centrally contradicts evolution: see the "fish with scales" statement above. From the same source:

Contrary to Paley, the whole point of ID is to establish that miraculous supernatural intervention was required in the history of life. The possibility of a lawgiving God is not good enough; what is desired is scientific confirmation of an Old Testament God, actively and personally interventionist. ID is not a generic religious apologetic for the existence of God; it is a specific apologetic for the existence of ubiquitous miracles, i.e. the sort of God that fundamentalists believe in.

That's why a specific article is needed for this creationist "theory" which uses the design argument. . dave souza, talk 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well,I think that one little piece for the puzzle that we can all agree on is that the DI version of ID requires substantial coverage. And I think that most would agree that a separate article for the DI version of ID is/would be OK, whether or not they think that such is the optimal approach. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Delighted to have that agreement! Now, how can we improve this article? Implicit in this discussion is the thought that ID proponents deliberately took a term which had for centuries been associated with the design argument, but concocted a story that it originated from a sciency NASA phrase. Unfortunately, I think that's original research. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Do contemporary non DI teleologists like Ayala or Arnhardt ever refer to the ID argument/term?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000, the "separate article for the DI version" is this article. If you want to create a new article about the term, or about a new subject that commonly uses that name, you can start a new page. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, in that quote Padian & Matzke are explicitly referring to the "'ID' purveyed by the DI". That is a great source, but it is not saying what you think it says. Another great source: Ariew, André, "Teleology". chapter 9 in Michael Ruse & and David Hull, The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 160 & 162:

Teleological arguments of one form or another have been around since antiquity. The contemporary argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802. Both argue that nature exhibits too much complexity to be explained by "mindless" natural forces alone [...] Michael Behe, a contemporary advocate of intelligent design, labels the sort of complexity "irreducible complexity"

To sum up, the Platonic and Aristotelian agree that materialist explanations insufficiently explain good arrangements, especially ones that allow the system to flourish or even ones that perform their action in the best possible manner (as Plato believed about the cosmos). They disagree on where to locate the purposive force in nature. A modern day advocate for intelligent design as well as its Victorian cousin (Paley’s) is a Platonist. She believes that good natural design must be the product of a designer just as well-designed artifacts must be the product of intelligent and talented designers. The Aristotelian position constitutes an alternative to the Platonic metaphysics, eschewing designers for inherent goal-directed tendencies imbued in the matter of living organisms. On the face of it, our discussion of the difference between Platonists and Aristotelians changed the essence of what teleological arguments purport to explain. For Paley and contemporary proponents of intelligent design what is to be explained is complexity. Aristotelians and Platonists aim to explain either orderliness in the cosmos or biological arrangements that lead to flourishing of organisms.

I think all the good sources agree with this view, whether Padian, Ruse, Hull, Sober, Boudry, etc. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, philosophically ID is a subset of the teleological argument, just as in relation to science it's a subset of anti-evolution creationism. Ariew fails history a little: Paley was Georgian, not Victorian. . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Still his statement in the first box is clear concerning continuity, and this is RS, better than pretty much anything else we have and just what was demanded?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it supports "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." So guess we could add it as a supplementary source, but does it add anything to that? I don't think it says that earlier arguments were actually called intelligent design, however similar the arguments. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It says "The contemporary argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802." It states that there is continuity in the use of this term. This is precisely the type of thing which it was being claimed that no sources could be found for. And that assumption was the argument for trying to create an article about ID which is only about DI.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Afraid I don't read it that way. Paley's argument has consistently been called the design argument, and ID's argument from complexity varies little from the design argument in philosophical principle, though it varies significantly in specifics such as its insistence on "abrupt appearance" which Gray specifically rejected. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I do not quite get the distinction you are trying to make here. I think we've established that the terms "intelligent design" and "argument from design" are both commonly used terms for the same general kind of discussions which is referred to as a standard topic with many various insignificant name variations. In fact it is pretty obvious that "argument from design" is a short form term for a common argument, and that the adjective "intelligent" is implied before "design". All such arguments have in common that you first claim to see evidence for "ID", and then you draw conclusions. The only variations are in which evidence you point at, and which exact conclusions you draw about the designer. I noticed that some sources even use the Greek word "noetic" instead of intelligent by the way. (Of course if you are going to reply to this by saying this is all SYNTH, please explain exactly what kind of sources you want and please be prepared for a reply which points out once more that presuming a discontinuity in basic meanings of English language terminology is the more striking and less obvious position to take, and therefore more in need of sourcing (rather than pointing to lack of sourcing saying the precise opposite as if that is positive evidence). I've seen no sourcing proving that there are multiple meanings of "intelligent design" only sourcing which says that the movement associated with the term deliberately write in a confusing way (for legal reasons), even though they are clearly using the term in the same way which originates outside their movement.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No one before the 19th century used the word "epistemology", but everyone agrees that Plato discussed epistemology. And when Plato discussed epistemology, he was on the same topic as when Edmund Gettier discusses epistemology. I would say the same thing here: When Paley discussed intelligent design, he was on the same topic as when Michael Behe discusses intelligent design. Or when Aquinas discussed intelligent design, he was on the same topic as when Alvin Plantinga discuses intelligent design. But then why make the Discovery Institute and thereabouts the main aspects of intelligent design to discuss? To be honest, I'm guessing that they are mainly kooks. That's why the article ends up being cited mainly to self-published statements on DI and such websites, DI-related not-so-"independently" published books, journalists, judgements from courts convened to deal with these scoundrels, and the few legitimate scholars that condescend in the hope of informing the poor souls that follow the non-scholarly literature. My alternative is to stick to the best academic publications. This doesn't have to be done at any particular time. Maybe over the next few weeks/months/years (who knows?) we could start a draft in user or talk space and try this method out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atethnekos (talk • contribs) 22:38, 22 August 2013‎

No one before the 19th century used the word "science" in its modern meaning, but the central purpose of ID is getting their religious views taught in science classrooms. The article also uses very reputable academic publications, the best in this topic area though not necessarily the best in the field of philosophy. For your interest, this article from an impeccable academic source discusses versions of the design argument which are almost completely at odds with the ID version. Your draft will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many good sources in the article, the problem isn't that the article is based on those sources, it's that those are the minority and the majority of sources are DI-related sources, journalists and court material. If the article was limited just to sources like Padian, Ruse, Stenger, Dawkins, etc, then there wouldn't be the same problems. The most immediate example is already covered: The very first sentence ("Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.") has only Padian & Matzke 2009 cited for it. As was shown though, Padian & Matzke clearly communicate that DI's ID is one version, and Paley etc. were also advocates of intelligent design. I think Ruse, Boudry, Stenger, Plantinga, etc. all confirm this. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and there was a reason I said "maybe we"...because really I hope someone else does it and I could avoid getting my hands dirty! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will say that changing the opening line is a third practical suggestion, apart from fixing our reporting of the Matzke citation, and reinserting better discussion of non-DI usage of the term. I feel more confident about these suggestions knowing that there is already another article about the movement itself. There is a well-known term "intelligent design" which is the same term taken up by the said movement. This article should complement the other articles we have and logically it makes sense that it should focus on the common thread of this term in both its DI and non DI usage. (By the way, before someone mentions it again, I think the concept of splitting out an article named "Subject (word)" or "Subject (term)", on a parallel with such common titling as "Subject (movement)" or "Subject (book)" is kind of a way of getting a subject away from the attention of Wikipedia readers, i.e. censorship. It makes no logical sense to me at all to make proposals like that. I have seen a couple of such proposals lately but the ones I have seen were all rejected by experienced authors. The fact of the matter about ID is, that it gives us a challenge as editors, because I can understand people do not want to make DI look more legit than it is by seemingly connecting them to philosophers, but we also may not dump or distort our reporting about the real philosophers just because we want to make our editing job easier.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion: Drop the NASA That went into many other things, but the conclusion here seems that the story about Thaxton said he got it from NASA and Science journals is not supported. There's only the one hearsay article that does not check out when you search NASA or Science, and no one provided additional substantiation. Will post again loweer down to check conclustion. Markbassett (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Issues with common names

Andrew, you said, "Important point. You write 'this subject is ID, the pseudo-scientific theory'. Who decided that? The answer is wikipedians, and wikipedians are now questioning whether this is the best way to cut the subject up and handle it."

I agree. The more important question is "how should these subjects be covered according to Wikipedia policy?". Over and over again, it seems like discussion here is trying to argue about the common names of different subjects. So, maybe we can all just figure out what the heck we're talking about first? How many subjects are there? And what are their common names? I'll start... I only see two subjects here, the teleological argument and ID (the pseudo-scientific theory whose history is with the creation science movement). Furthermore, I think these are, currently, appropriately named according to WP:UCN. This article is about ID and therefore needs to present an accurate history of it, beginning with the creation science movement, as I believe it does. I think sources already presented in the last couple days adequately supports this view. If you are of a different opinion, please answer these questions and present sources to justify splitting these subjects further or changing their article names. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a common problem. The term "intelligent design" has been partly taken over by a group whose success is mainly in non specialised media local to the USA, but also quite well cited in the media in other western countries. But the other meaning still exists, and it is older and not the result of an ephemeral propaganda campaign that might be forgotten in a few years. Furthermore there is clearly continuity between the two, and something which binds them. Does WP currently do a good job of explaining this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, what are the common names for these two meanings? Remember, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and covers subjects, not terms. If the term itself is notable, a new article should be created. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which two meanings? Look at all the evidence brought to the discussion. There is one meaning of intelligent design. Our sources for showing a discontinuity are poor and being badly interpreted. The sources which say the contrary are at least as good to say the least. I would agree if your question was about whether there was one famous organization right now associated with it. But who is disputing that? "If the term itself is notable, a new article should be created." But the term we are talking about is "Intelligent Design" and that is the name of this article??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The one meaning of modern intelligent design is anti-evolution creationism, which in part uses a modified version of the argument from design. We do show the continuity, and also show that when expedient cdesign proponentsists deny that continuity. Can you propose sourced wording that would improve how we show it? . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"But the other meaning still exists[...]" implies two meanings. Article namespace is treated under WP:UCN, and "intelligent design" is the common name for the DI's creationism. If you want an article about the term, we would have to discuss how these two articles are then to fill their appropriate namespaces, either Intelligent design and Intelligent design (term), or Intelligent design (Discovery Institute) and Intelligent design. Either way, I think it's abundantly clear that this article is about the creationist "theory" and not the term. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

First to policy. WP is not a democracy guys. Here is what WP:COMMONNAME says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." So if a philosophical term is being used by a political movement in one country, who is the better source for defining that term? Philosophers (who all seem to know feel this is a well defined term) or a certain percentage of American creationists?

Second, I see a real doubt that to the extend DI and its critics have any consistency when they use this term, that they are not just basically using it the same way as everyone else does. We have a source above saying this clearly, and even our critical blog source says this, when read properly.

So coming to proposed changes, we should report that blog properly for one thing. And the other proposal which is clear is that North felt that there material about ID outside DI should be allowed in this article.

MisterDub one more point: I am concerned at the idea of content forks which came about because of WP editors who wanted to work on different things, rather than WP editors who were trying to properly represent what the best sources say, looking at common themes, discontinuities, articles sizes and so on. The term is "POV fork".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the policies. So, "intelligent design" is used as a common name for a philosophical subject? I didn't see any modern secondary sources to suggest this. Please provide them. Furthermore, since that concept is frequently referred to as the teleological argument, I think that subject deserves the namespace it already has. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well in the example sources I gathered above I deliberately removed sources after 1970 in order to avoid the accusation that every philosophical discussions after whatever date DI started with the term is actually by definition derived from them in some kind of coincidental "rebirth" of the term. But the hits keep coming after that data, of course. As I already mentioned above, the term is particularly associated with discussions of Plato's Timaeus, and the reason for that seems clear (this is where the intelligence of nature is described as a kind of professional contractor or builder, which is a jarring metaphor; there is nothing obvious about describing the intelligence of creation as someone doing designing etc). There are post DI sources which discuss the term without mentioning DI, or mentioning DI, and also ones which mention both DI and non DI uses, like our article already implies. Also, as has already been explained, at least one of the anti-DI sources we currently have in the article to say that there is a discontinuity actually clearly state that there is not. It clearly states that DI's use of the term is not unique, and that it derives from one subset of the others (the creationist subset). (And it accuses DI sources of trying to obfuscate this.) If you can define what more sourcing you need, that might be helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

On that basis, it does sound as though a philosophy of intelligent design might be justifiable, but do these sources avoid using the more usual terms of "teleological argument", "design argument" or "argument from design"? Why can't the topic be included in the TA article? Indeed, if it were a new article, it should have a summary style section in the TA article, just as intelligent design has. . .dave souza, talk 10:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I certainly think we should avoid making lots of article which substantially overlap.
• Concerning "philosophy of intelligent design" I see no justification for such a title given that no one ever refers to such a thing. The subject "intelligent design" is a term or concept discussed in philosophy and theology and creationism debates. It is not "a philosophy" as such.
• Proposing such a complex name also seems strange given that there is an article named Intelligent design, this one. Currently it has been argued based on poor sourcing and source interpretation that this article has to ONLY be about the Intelligent design movement, which has its own article, but this assumption is now questioned.
• If this assumption had not come to be questioned, I think I would be proposing a merger of this article and the movement article. And in any case I also think it needs to be pointed out that the present article is puffed up by enormous amounts of discussion about the movement which is not specifically about the concept of intelligent design. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can propose summary style condensations of points which are better developed more fully in the "movement" article, that could be helpful. The fact remains that in nearly all areas, and in a large number of academic publications, intelligent design means what we cover in this article, which is intricately tied in with its proponents and is not an abstract philosophy. You've yet to demonstrate that there is philosophical usage distinct from the teleological or design arguments: the sources for the sandboxed version all seem to have titles relating to teleology, evolution or creationism. By the way, how do you propose divorcing creationism debates from the movement? . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Academic publications relevant to this subject? No, I think you mean the media, and blogs etc. Expert reliable sources in this field and the mass media in the USA have a slightly different perspective on this term. That seems pretty clear to me now. Please keep my citations from WP:COMMONNAME in mind. (I hate citing policy, but this one was cited at me numerous times first.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, I have to quibble with a statement of yours which is important here. Policy says that sometimes a term can be an encyclopedic subject and an article topic. But more to the point, and article can be about a closely related set of meanings, defined by a term. I think that that is the case with Intelligent design. I'm not saying how it should end up, just that such a not-always-true statement should not limit the options. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See weight and article size constraints. . dave souza, talk 10:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But possibly that can be fixed by looking at the article compared to Intelligent Design Movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Weight requires us to fully cover the issues with ID in this main article, detail can split into sub-articles but the summary must still show due weight. . dave souza, talk 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding articles and their scope and titles, there are many different ways that would work. Not sure which one we're talking about here. IMO probably the best one would be to keep the same title for this article, make it's scope ID overall (the closely related meanings). Expand it by about 30%, the 30% being the non-DI ID material. Use and rely on the TA article as being a "sub-article". And so the current DI-ID article would constitute about 2/3 of the expanded article. Again, this is just one of many potential ways to work it out. Sincerely,

The TA is not a sub-article of ID! ID is a subset of the TA, as sources have made clear. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It think ID is a type of proposed observation of nature, and TA is a type of proposed conclusion about what causes nature. The A is for argument by which is meant a pretty basic syllogism. I am not by the way personally confident about how common the term "teleological argument" is compared to "argument from design". Keep in mind though that "argument from design" is shortform basically understood as something like "argument for the existence of God based upon the evidence of intelligent design in nature". It strikes me that you could observe evidence of intelligent design in nature and conclude that nature is teleological, having some kind of ends (and therefore intelligence) but leave it open as to whether this is a deity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Misterdub. Sorry that I was not clear. By "sub article" I meant explaining the less well-known term TA. I would argue that TA is narrower than the broad common meaning of ID, but I know that that is debatable. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

m

Andrew, I'm not sure how the editors at Teleological argument decided that was the common name for their subject. Sounds like a question for them. Honestly, due to the nature of this discussion, I think we want their commentary anyway. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Workshop for proposed new/restored text about the origin of the concept and term

Well, here's a start. Please feel free to move it elsewhere or to put it under a hat.
Sourcing has been named as one of the bugbears, so please be careful about that and OR. Yopienso (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

commenting here since there seems no other place put for it. Would suggest drop 'Origin of the Concept'. Given the article topic is ID as promulgated by DI, start with DI selection of the term. The current material is hypothetical linkage and conflicting. Go with the statements about getting it out of NASA journals as a nice-sounding phrase would seem a simpler place to start. Markbassett (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Markbassett the current coverage of this article is under discussion and it was suggested that drafting should be attempted. Yopienso, this is going to swamp this already-busy talkpage, as I said. Maybe not everyone is unhappy about that, but I find it concerning. That is why pre-existing drafts of this were done elsewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Yopienso, just to be more clear, I request that you either move this large fully formatted draft somewhere else as per WP:DRAFT or else delete it; and instead, if you really need to discussing drafting of a section concerning which the basic principles are not yet agreed, please just work here on small blocks of draft text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but on 3 September in the section "Origin of the concept" on this talk page, Dave, who has more experience than I, asked that it be put in a new section on this page. See my opening comment on this section: "Well, here's a start. Please feel free to move it elsewhere or to put it under a hat." I looked at the WP:DRAFT you kindly pointed me to, but am not up to learning that new skill right now. I don't own it and won't be offended by anything you do to it. I forget right now how to hat it or I would. Yopienso (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if you don't mind I will delete it (we can recover it from the history if it contains new work, but I think it is just a copy of the existing article?). Concerning what to do instead it depends a bit on what you are aiming to achieve, so you need to explain it. But I get the impression you are hoping other people will work on it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[Deleted: very large fully formatted excerpt from present article]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'd done some trimming and rearranging, but I still have it in my sandbox. The Ayala essay you quoted the first line from recently would be an excellent source for the history. It's not so hypothetical as MarkBassett suggests. I think Ayala in a refereed journal is plenty reliable. Only drawback is you have to have access, which is inconvenient for many editors but fine by policy. Ayala is a harsh critic but has put together a coherent pedigree. Yopienso (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately I also do not have any academic library or online access. I can only see the snippet of what he says in that particular case. If anyone has access I'd love a copy. From articles of his we can see online it is clear he cross references some of his clearest words back to his books? Anyway, I'd like to remind everyone that Atethnekos already did a lot of homework on texts that take us beyond google books and open access journals. I have in the meantime obtained a full copy of Sedley on classical creationism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have online access but the digital article is protected from copying and is far too long for me to type out. I read almost all of it and skimmed the rest. You may be able to find a hard copy in a library near you or order an electronic copy via an inter-library loan. I gather you aren't in the US so don't know how things work where you are.

A quick overview from "The Blasphemy of Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse. The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest; Paul R. Gross Review by: Francisco J. Ayala History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2006), pp. 409-421 Published by: Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn - Napoli Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23334140 .:

p. 409--Aquinas

410--briefly, St. John Damascene, Luther and Calvin

410--Ray, Paley

413--"The strength of the argument against chane derives, Paley tells us, fromwhat he names 'relation,' a notion akin to what some contemporary proponents of ID, such a Michael Behe, have named 'irreducible complexity.'" 2 parags.

414--Bridgewater; Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells, "have revived the argument from design. Often,however, these authors sought to hide their real agenda, namely the ID could be taught in the public schools . . ."

End of 414 finally starts reviewing Forrest's book! Praises it and debunks ID through p. 421. Last sentence--"This conclusion is warranted: Intelligent Design is blasphemy." Yopienso (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad we found this one!

The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument. The first prong asserts that the universe, humans, as well as all sorts of organisms, in their wholes, in their parts, and in their relations to one another and to their environment, appear to have been designed for serving certain functions and for certain ways of life. The second prong of the argument is that only an omnipotent Creator could account for the perfection and purposeful design of the universe and everything in it. In the thirteenth century, St. Thomas Aquinas formulated in the Summa Theologiae five arguments, or ways, for demonstrating God's existence by reason. The 'fifth way' is an argument from design, based on the designed purposefulness of the universe: 'We see that things that lack intelligence act for an end, which is not fortuitous but results from design ... directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence .... Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.' Aquinas's argument was founded on the universe and its parts, all harmoniously fitting together and thus evincing their design.

Dave I believe that the breaking into two tines is exactly what you wanted above when you asked for a new source recently?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be cautious about judging a source from the abstract or first page, but as far as I can see this looks good. it gives useful confirmation that the general term is "argument from design" and, in the context, "now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID)" evidently refers to this specific form of creationism. Other sources subdivide the argument differently, but this seems a reasonable explanation. . . dave souza, talk 06:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s You've missed out the last words on the page: "The argument from design had been already proposed by some Fathers of the Church in the early centuries of the Christian era on the basis of the overall harmony and proportion of the universe. Augustine" dave souza, talk 06:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am looking at the whole review now, not an abstract or first page.
• You write that Ayala is "evidently" referring to "this specific form of creationism". He does not use the word creationism in the article except to refer to the title of the book being reviewed I believe. I am just pointing out that this is only your SYNTH. If I misunderstand, please just let me know.
• You mention "other sources" saying other things. This is vague, and I am interested to hear from you which sources say which things. Please? It sounds relevant?
• I want to draw your attention to your demands above for "another secondary source beside Haught" (10:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)) for something which looks like it might be related to the concept of their being "two tines"? (You unfortunately would not answer my request for clarification.) Is this what you meant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ayala is reviewing Creationism's Trojan Horse. The Wedge of Intelligent Design which is about this creationist ID, and goes on to say that "Creationism's Trojan Horse is an extended, detailed, and incisive exposure and criticism of the policies, strategies, and vacuous arguments of modern intelligent design." As distinct from "the argument from design, or teleological argument". Paley made the strongest case for [modern] intelligent design, that doesn't make it a term for the old argument.

Haught describes the argument-from-design as a three part syllogism, which may be the best summary for the purposes of this article. Pennock also outlines the argument in different ways.

Can you find another secondary source besides Haught for the co-option by ID proponents of the older phrase "intelligent design"? That could improve the "origins of the term" section. . . dave souza, talk 08:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave are you joking with this post? Firstly, why suddenly come back to post here without remarking it down where the current discussion is? Secondly your attempt to twist Ayala is extremely strange, and your sentences are incomplete and do not connect. Apparently you are somehow mixing words (for example the comment about Paley) from different articles? In summary I just can't see what your point is. The only thing I think I understand is that you'd like us to start doing some googling OR about the term history again, but as I understand it, the "co opting" is difficult to source because shaded in deception, right? But what we can source is that "The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence" is "now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID). I think that is pretty clear, relevant "now", and not from Haught.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change lead

The lead has been changed and reverted and, to avoid an edit war, I've copied it to my sandbox. Let's work together to make proposals here or edits in the sandbox before changing the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You did more than revert a change to the lead didn't you? Following is a summary of various edits all reverted in one action by Dave souza, which action has then been repeated by MisterDub after North8000 reverted Dave and tried to start discussion here on the talk page. I'm sure this is normal for anyone who tries to improve an article right? (Sarcasm.) I do hope MisterDub and Dave souza will show good faith and respect my efforts and give relevant reasonable responses to each bullet below. I have broken it up with separate signatures so that people can insert responses at those places. But to repeat, I do feel Dave and Dub have some moral obligation to answer EVERY one, because they reverted EVERY one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's better, please now discuss in accordance with WP:BRD and don't rush changes. . dave souza, talk 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Dave, when you edit on this article how do you first ask permission? Just wondering, because I think you are one of the most active editors here. Maybe you just send an e-mail to yourself? Just wondering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, folks... I've been really busy today and haven't had a lot of time to devote to this. I've worked up a proposal in my sandbox that I think may be a good start. I've jostled around the first and second paragraphs to present a more coherent account, but left the third paragraph essentially untouched (I made a Wikilink). One of the more contentious aspects of this draft is the removal of the DI from the first paragraph. I think mentioning the DI is a very easily recognizable way to recognize ID, but I hope its removal will ease concerns about ID being solely a product of the DI. Also, I think the second paragraph says scientific way too much... perhaps some suggestions can resolve this?

As to the input requested below, please be patient with me as I still have personal things needing tending; I will get to them when possible. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MisterDub for this rejoinder. It is appreciated. (Not sure why you made such a BIG revert if you had no time though.) BTW, here's your revert: [8]. I do not think I removed the term Discovery Institute? But I did try to reduce the population of "scientifics". So why did you not like the edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate: "As to the input requested below, please be patient with me..." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

1. FIRST SENTENCE CHANGES.

• Insertion of word "theory" into opening words, with the same reasoning as the expansion of the pronoun in the second sentence (discussed below) which was effectively part of the same edit: making pronouns and verbs etc all line up clearly, and making it more clear in which cases a theory or explanation of some kind is intended and in which cases a group of people is intended.

COMMENT. I note from the talk page and fa review that problems in this regard have frequently been remarked. This article is filled with apparent confusions about whether a movement or a theory is being referenced whenever the term "intelligent design" is used, partly because many of the editors are apparently not keeping it clear themselves. Helpfully, both Dave and MisterDub have made it very clear on this talk page that they have no problem with defining the subject matter of this article as the "intelligent design" theory, as opposed to movement or anything else, and so I think this should not be controversial unless there is something else to their thoughts on this matter - possibly thoughts about the propriety of me trying to edit this article at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources consistently refer to intelligent design as the field of enquiry, which is broader than any specific argument used in this form of creationism. The theory isn't opposed to the movement, it is clarified and promoted by its proponents who are part of the movement. You're trying to narrow the article topic to exclude aspects of this creationist topic, at the same time as diverting it to a specific philosophical or theological argument. Doesn't work. . dave souza, talk 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As has been requested before, please bring sourcing to show that the term "intelligent design" is clearly used to refer to something more than either the argument from design, or the intelligent design movement. Our article currently lacks such sourcing. What we have instead, which I did not put there, is a legal ruling which says "intelligent design", by which it is clearly referring to all aspects of theory and argument used by the movement and referred to by this term, is the argument from design, as used by Paley and Aquinas. Obviously I can not ignore that our source and our article actually say the opposite. Secondly it is also not irrelevant that the movement itself defines its intelligent design theory that way. And thirdly Dave, did you not keep telling me this article is about intelligent design theory? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in the article, ID is a suite of creationist arguments presented to circumvent constitutional law, not just a theological argument. Re "thirdly", don't think I did keep telling you just that, you're welcome to provide diffs or date and time of any statements you've read that way. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is it in our article? Anyway, the ruling we quote says it is just a theological argument. Our article takes the position that the ruling is wrong. On the basis of what? Concerning you and MisterDub and "theory", see the following.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's why a specific article is needed for this creationist "theory" which uses the design argument. . dave souza, talk 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Either way, I think it's abundantly clear that this article is about the creationist "theory" and not the term. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• This article, currently, is not about the term but about the purportedly scientific theory that is called ID. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• This page is about the "theory" of ID; the movement page is about the movement behind it. As dave souza stated, we would expect some relation and a summary of that article here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not accept the proposition that intelligent design refers to proponents: it clearly refers to the group of arguments, the "theory", put forward by proponents. dave souza, talk 17:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• the movement is so named because of the theory it promotes; [...] the general argument is covered in Teleological argument, and the scientific theory is here, at Intelligent design -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC) NOTE what followed: (a) I asked "MisterDub, did Dave actually make the argument you say he did? I do not see it." MisterDub then quoted the post above by Dave (I do not accept...). Dave later responds that "MisterDub has answered this cogently in his comment above at 05:32, 1 September 2013. As shown in a huge number of sources, including HowStuffWorks, the "theory" is one thing, the movement is another."

• Ah, I think I see your misunderstanding: the article is about the so-called theory, including its claims to be science and its intended purposes, but not exclusively and narrowly about the "theory": it has to examine the proponents and movement to fully explain the theory. Equally, it's not an article about the movement, its an article about the specific form of creationism dubbed intelligent design. Sorry if you found my earlier wording confusing, I will of course aim for increased clarity. . dave souza, talk 04:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, but can you clarify. To put it in broad terms, is this article about explanations/ideas or is about a group or movement of people? A major practical question I've been trying to get discussed is the distinction between different highly over-lapping articles. This is clearly a widely shared concern or confusion about this and related articles, so I am sure it should be of interest to you to be part of conversation about making the articles more clear, and where necessary, adjusting things. Sorry to make it personal but you and your good will are needed as a guide in these articles. Their rationales and sourcing are not immediately easy to understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave, you said you would aim for increasing clarity on this point. For my part, all those quotes I pulled (which you asked for) are very clear. Your temporary response says "the article is about the so-called theory [...] but not exclusively and narrowly about the "theory"." That is not really clear. Is this article about the movement AND the theory for example? Or (based on some of your remarks) is the "form of creationism" (neo-creationism, it seems to be called) a third thing, able to be discussed separately from both?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion is being had, for one. One of the problems with the article is that the sources used, despite being de jure authoritative can simply be de facto incorrect. The article Dave Souza is citing is in fact incorrect given what we already know about Intelligent Design, namely that ID does not entail the existence of God while creationism does. I know this treads awfully close to original research, but such a fundamental feature of Intelligent Design cannot be contravened because of peer-reviewed editorialization. BabyJonas (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As shown extensively, ID entails the direct intervention of the Christian God, with the unconvincing proviso that it might have been aliens or time travellers, but its proponents don't actually believe that themselves. . dave souza, talk 04:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to clear up the misinformation, pronto. First, let's be clear about what "entail" means. See Merriam-Webster def 3, and entailment on wikipedia. If ID "entails the direct intervention of the Christian God", then there is no room for the designer to be aliens, time-travelers, or anything else. But there is room for the designer to be aliens, etc. So, ID does not entail the direct intervention of the Christian God. In fact, ID does not even entail the existence of a God. This should be obvious by now. I hope this has cleared things up. BabyJonas (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@ BabyJonas, Ayala disagrees with you: "They claim that the Intelligent Designer need not be God, but could be a space alien or some other intelligent superpower unknown to us. The folly of this pretense is apparent to anyone who takes the time to consider the issue seriously. It is nothing but a vulgar charade.". . . dave souza, talk 07:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually BabyJonas is right about this. I agree with our sources, who believe it is obvious what they really think. But intelligent design theory itself is not how our sources come to the conclusion that they are Christians. Furthermore please note that none of our sources seem to say that the "promulgators" are faking their belief in the argument from design. It is a real argument, known by them and their critics as "intelligent design" and it is logically separable from their Christianity, if it is not reasonable to claim that it is not logically separable from their belief in an intelligent creator. As editors, we should not mix all these things up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave Souza, that statement by Ayala is a good example of editorialization by a reliable source (an issue raised elsewhere on this page). This is made evident by his rhetoric; nobody uses "...a vulgar charade" to state an encyclopedic fact. His statement not only contradicts what we know about ID-theory (that the role of designer is not limited to a deity by ID theory), but it contradicts existing sources referencing quasi-panspermia hypotheses, non-theistic ID theorists and other non-religious features of ID. I know the name Ayala carries weight, but Ayala editorializing is still editorializing. Also, it's important to mention the source of your quote is a written debate between Ayala and Del Ratzch, who took the opposite position. Claims in a debate cannot be taken to be encyclopedic, as you surely know. Such a claim does not stand up to scrutiny once you look at it closely. For reference, see Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology, p.372. BabyJonas (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but trying to find out which sources you use to make this comment is difficult. Sorry for being thick, but where is it from? I can see that the ID of the DI is associated with "fundamentalism", and that Padian and Matzke seem to see this as a less science-friendly sort of Christianity. No problem mentioning that in the article (if I understand it anyway) but where is the source for saying that there is something called "intelligent design" which is clearly NOT the argument from design, or the intelligent design movement? Also, we need a source for your definition of creationism as anti-evolutionism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My problem with this change is that ID is commonly known by that name, not "intelligent design theory." If you want this to be the common name for it, we should start a move request and then bold the entire common name. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Think with me then: how do we avoid the problem we have now where it is never clear even on this talk page what different authorized editors of this article mean when they say "intelligent design". Normally wording tweaks would fix it, but they seem forbidden. The lack of clarity seems to be desired almost?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be using the common name to refer to the subject, and AFAICT our sources predominantly use the words "intelligent design", not "intelligent design theory". I'm hesitant to use the word "theory" without explanation since the ID movement is all about passing ideas off as a scientific theory, even when they are not. If that's the common name, then we should use it, and explain. If it's not the common name, we should avoid it, and maybe explain later.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we can not use the common name policy in any simple way like that to solve this particular case. There is clearly a movement which goes by the name of "intelligent design", or at least that is what Wikipedia says. If two things share a name then what do we do? Then we aim at clarity. We are not doing that now. Some of our sources also are not good on this, but that does not mean we have to follow them. Anyway, in this particular case the source itself does actually say "intelligent design theory". Common name use is not really relevant there at all, we are simply distorting the source, and that is not good. What our current opening sentence says is that intelligent design is "creationism". That could be referring to the movement. So our wording is also confusing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Simpler English sentence construction of first sentence: "is a form of creationism based on the argument from design" replaced by "is a creationist argument from design"

COMMENT. It is fewer words and it says the same thing. Plus it makes it clear again that we are talking about the argument and not a group of people. It seems uncontroversial copy-editing? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't say the same thing. It is a form of anti-evolution creationism, which in this case uses multiple arguments. Once again, you're trying to change the topic of the article. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what do you mean? Neither version used the words "anti-evolution"? I do not see any difference in meaning. You can see that the wording looks like it should be shortened right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In common usage, creationism is generally taken as meaning anti-evolution, but you appeared to ignore that earlier so I added it here for clarification. It's clear enough in the first paragraph from the reference to natural selection. There is a clear difference in meaning, so why are you so keen on changing it? . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Creationism does not mean "anti evolutionism" except in very specific circumstances. This is why I tried to raise with you before. It is not important if you can prove it sometimes means this, but what is important is that this definition you are using is certainly far from any sort of consensus you can assume that every source is using and that all our readers will understand. I for one find it totally confusing! Anyway, the main reason for this change is that as a copy-editor it is a sore thumb and obviously a sentence which can be shortened. If your disagreement helps us understand each other all the better, but I still find your remarks very surprising, and nothing to do with any sources you've shown me so far? Glad I started this thread.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Online dictionaries disagree with you: "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."[9] "(Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation rather than to evolution", or "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."[10] There's also the creation of souls, which is much less common: these indicate that in common language it implies anti-evolution. . . dave souza, talk 05:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again what I am seeing is you moving your position by changing the definitions you are apparently using for words. Saying that creationism simply means "anti evolutionism" does not correspond to the definition you have just given. There is a difference between being "the colour red" and "a red thing". I think this particular point might not be particular relevant though. If I understand correctly, reading you again and again, the objection here is fairly straightforward: this article is about a movement and not about a doctrine. The only problem is that this is the opposite of what you guys have been arguing for quite some time. We are back to the question when which came up before then: why is this article not called intelligent design movement or neo-creationism?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with dave that this changes the meaning. ID is not a creationist argument, but a form of creationism, a pseudoscience, or a purportedly scientific theory. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And is the only source for this the Padian and Matzke article or do you have another one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal certainly changes meaning. I don't see evidence to suggest ID is a single argument, which would be needed for this change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe this is leading somewhere useful.

• Until today I was being told that this article is about the theory of the intelligent design movement, which I've understood to mean their argument from design (which is how they and the ruling both define them), perhaps along with some additional theory supporting the core argument. At one point I was told, and it makes sense, that the intelligent design movement is named after the term for their theory.
• Now I am being told that intelligent design is NOT theory and NOT an argument (broadly: not explanations), but in fact "creationism". But what does that mean? (And how is it sourced?)
• Creationism is a word which can itself mean a movement (broadly: group of people) or describe a belief/proposal (broadly: explanations). So putting these new remarks together I can handily say that they amount to saying "intelligent design" is creationism but not the explanations. So it is the movement? (That is indeed one obvious way for any reader to understand our first sentence, even though this crashes into the second sentence with the mis-quotation.)
• So someone please tell me again what is the difference between the subject of this article and the intelligent design movement article, which does indeed have extraordinary overlap. The difference is certainly not clear by looking at the articles. The temporary explanation of recent weeks has also apparently been dumped.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're asking us to jam the concept of ID into a single word, like "theory", or "argument", but rejecting answers that don't imply the article should be changed. ID is creationism; it is a concept concerning the origin and development of life which is religious and political. It consists of (or refers to) arguments. There is a movement centered around it, people and organizations who promote it, and campaigns to popularize it. This hierarchy (outline, really) is reflected in the sidebar at the top right of the page.

ID is sometimes called a theory, and it may sometimes be useful to use that word as shorthand here. It is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a theory in the sense of a singular definable idea. ID is a political attack on evolution. Just because editors call it an argument or theory on the talkpage sometimes doesn't mean they're being disingenuous when they say the article shouldn't reflect it as a single argument or theory. I would suggest you not imply that editors are being sneaky whenever you've failed to understand them. The sources defining ID as creationism are plenty; they've already been listed and are available in the article. I don't think belaboring this point to change the scope of the article is likely to be useful; there is a political concept which attempts to skirt evolution in public schools under the heading of "intelligent design", and we're reflecting that concept here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am understanding right that your concern with the word "theory" is that it implies science? I do not really see it that way, at least when we talk about old metaphysical theories, but anyway the word is used in sources. I think we can probably find alternative words though (accounts, explanations, doctrine). My bigger practical concern is simply "what is this article about" and in particular, how does it differ from such articles as intelligent design movement and creationism and creation science? I had understood that this article is about "doctrine" (words, explanation, stuff like that) and not the movement as such. Right or wrong? Or maybe not everyone has the same vision on it? Anyway we must avoid having lots of articles which are significantly overlapping.

I am however, please note, not necessarily saying we need to CHANGE the definition of what this article is about. I am saying that for proper editing we need to have a CLEAR definition. Frankly the way the article is written now does not make it clear, and this talkpage gives the impression is it not clear to editors.

For myself by the way, what I have seen sourcing for shows "intelligent design" is used in carefully written sources to mean the movement on the one hand (which is BTW sometimes called creationism so that might explain the sources you've seen? anyway we need sources which use clear definitions), and the argument from design on the other (especially but not exclusive the argument from design of the intelligent design movement). I've not seen a reliable source which says otherwise in a clear way? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Pacing things a bit differently by adding a "which is" in "the Discovery Institute, which is a politically conservative think tank".

COMMENT. I just think it is better to read, and quite conventional. The kind of advice any writing manual might give. Or did someone see a problem with this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, for me it works either way. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and promulgated by the Discovery Institute" (part of the definition of "intelligent design" in the first sentence, changed to "but specifically the term normally refers to forms of this argument promoted by the"

COMMENT. This change makes the English clear. In the earlier version, it is strongly implied that there is no such theory-like thing called "intelligent design" except that of the Discovery Institute, and so before them it did not exist. As I have remarked on this talkpage, this is a major concern that many good editors seem to see, because our best and clearest sources seem to directly say the opposite.

EXTRA COMMENT. Is this the one edit out of many which has caused MisterDub and Dave souza to knee-jerk revert ALL my edits? (I hope they will respond.) It should be noted that it directly comes from some small bits of progress I thought we'd had on this talk page. To explain:

• Everyone seems to agree that this article is indeed only about an argument (and theory connected to it), in other words "explanations" (to look for a good broad term), and not "people" (the movement, the proponents, the promulgators, institute etc). Agreed?
• Both have insisted that they see this article as currently being about one distinct FORM of teleological argument, so it can be seen as treating a "section" from teleological argument, meaning that our wording should reflect that. Agreed?
• Dave wrote 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) : "What Andrew has shown so far is that the philosophical or theological reasoning in defence of divine intervention is commonly known as the argument from design, also the teleological argument, the phrase intelligent design is often used to describe this argument, and less often argument from intelligent design or intelligent design is used as a synonym for the other terms." So that's also clear.
• In recent days Dave and MisterDub have given responses to this much-discussed concern which express surprise that I (and others) even see any implication that the first sentence looks like it is saying that there was no "intelligent design" before the Discovery Institute and there is none outside it now. So presumably if I make the sentence more clear about this, that should be acceptable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're basing this on the incorrect claim that this topic is only about an argument, as stated above. This article is primarily about creationism relabelled and presented with the claim that it is a scientific theory, the topic areas include creationism, science, the philosophy of science, education, U.S. constitutional law and theology as well as philosophical arguments. As for the claim that there was intelligent design before Pandas, you've misrepresented sources above and it looks increasingly as though this was only a phrase used in connection with the topic consistently labelled the argument from design or design argument, or the teleological argument. Detailed analysis is needed of all sources put forward to show their context, not how they appear in a google clipping. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well in fact Dave although I won the OR competition concerning old sources, which was fun, it is not relevant, and I have no desire to play a game which goes forever. You should not have been using OR and blogs in the first place. Strong modern sources NOW use the term to refer to people who are not DI. It is they who are relevant. The exact legal ruling we cite to say the opposite says that in fact intelligent design as promoted by DI is the same as Paley's and Aquinas' "argument". That's a pretty big problem in your position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is used, I'm unconvinced that this in any way a common term. Usage is obviously a primary source, and needs always to be shown in context: you seem to be engaging in synthesis, which is against policy. . dave souza, talk 05:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No our article is based on SYNTH and OR already, or at least that is the concern. In other words it is you who appears to be relying upon google counts for your defense of the status quo. I have cited (1) the ruling, (2) the IDM's own definition and (3) Ayala, whose clear statements all agree. You have cited no clear source which says the opposite, and even if we find one, we can not ignore those three. It is, just for reference, not against policy to use SYNTH or OR on a talk page to show problems or doubts about INCLUDING a source, but it IS against policy to base an article on SYNTH or OR. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Very clunky sentence. I'd say stick with changing the verb. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, clunky is bad, but this is one case where I believe meaning was intended to change, in order to resolve some of the biggest debates on this article. Did you consider that aspect? It seems to me to be more important than style. (And we can probably neaten the sentence, if we at least are allowed to get the principle straight.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Change of verb promulgate to promote.

COMMENT. As I understood it, this change was proposed by Maunus on this talk page and accepted as correct, but never put into effect? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This was proposed and discussed, I had to look it up and my dictionary has it as "promote or make widely known (an idea or cause)" which fits well. The DI do more than promote the idea or cause. . dave souza, talk 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it. So you personally discussed this with the consensus off-wiki (why waste time) and decided the talk page discussion could be ignored. No problem. Phew. Great article you got here Dave. Nice fencing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes you say that? You really appear to be on the offensive, it's my clear recollection that this was discussed on the article talk page. Given your rush here for answers, I'm not going to seek it out right now, and since I've been getting edit conflicts I'll leave it now for the night. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave you reverted it. So you should have an answer handy. It is pretty clear by now to everyone that this was a knee jerk revert. And yet at the same time I get über-lordly comments like the ones above telling me to be careful to remember this article has special rules etc, and "that's better" when I (unlike you, and for the 100th time) give detailed reasoning on this talk page. This is disruptive WP:OWN behavior that is hurting this talk page and this article. Hope that's clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't much care which of these terms is used. I have no problem with promulgate, but if it's a problem, let's change it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I very much prefer promulgate, as it is more specific and accurate. This isn't simple wikipedia. We can use the right words.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record I just thought I was doing what had been agreed here. I was surprised to have my edit treated as it was.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly asked to put proposals on this talk page for discussion, I appreciate that you're now doing that, so thanks for doing so. dave souza, talk 05:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not quite interpret the build-up discussion in this way, but I'm happy if it is now helping. But Dave, you've mentioned the discretionary sanctions as if they mean that WP:BRD does not apply to this article, and I also think I understand you are saying that I should consider you as being in a different situation with regards to what happens if you edit. Is that a correct interpretation? I mention it here on this talk page because I want to make sure everyone with something to add is not frightened to contribute (or that they are at least well informed of the risks). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. It should be implemented. The fourth bullet fixes a significant problem, replacing an assertion which conflicts with the sources to one which is consistent with the sources. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Think this has been superseded. One point, in Kitzmiller ID is also described as a strategy. . dave souza, talk 08:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you are posting here. But no Kitzmiller might use the word strategy, but you are constantly confusing descriptions and definitions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2. SECOND SENTENCE REVERTED CHANGES.

• Moved a footnote out of mid sentence as per style norms of WP.

COMMENT. By the way there are still too many footnotes in the lead and in general the referencing format and quality (including how sources are "interpreted") of the article is poor. I note this has been remarked for years, even in the fa process.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Expanded the "it" in the second sentence into what the source says "it" is defining, which is "intelligent design theory".

COMMENT. The "it" has no clear precedent and I am just using the source's exact words so this seems very uncontroversial and indeed arguably necessary? See comments about first sentence, because this is part of a group of changes improving the continuity of both.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this was even changed; the "it" obviously refers to ID. And if you wanted to change it, you shouldn't quote words that aren't in the source in that exact sequence. You could try saying just "theory," but that might be a problem because theory has a different meaning/status in science compared with the general public. Maybe just "ID"? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub I think your answer explains perfectly why it needed to change. The was, you correctly say, implying the word meant "intelligent design" whereas the clearly source was a definition of "intelligent design theory" (and by the way it matches a generic argument from design and hence matches the ruling and Ayala 2006). Even the OR Dave now appears to be trying to promote above about there being a third thing called "intelligent design" which is neither intelligent design "movement" nor intelligent design "theory" clearly needs this point to be cleared up. How can you say this should be kept misleading?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No OR in pointing out that it is a form of creationism rather than a movement or a theory. In the context of the frist sentence as at present I think it may be possible to review this and combine it with the second part of the third sentence. Will think this over, given time. . dave souza, talk 05:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem so it would be good to have editors sharing an interest in resolving it. It is not good for anyone, surely, to have things like unclear referents for pronouns and apparent switching between what is intended with specific terms. I'll discuss your OR elsewhere, but one real issue with it which is relevant here is that I think still do not have a clear and final definition of what you are saying when you vaguely contrast "a form of creationism called intelligent design" with "the argument from intelligent design" and "the intelligent design movement" and indeed "neo-creationism". The same problem as the opening lines of this article appears in your discussions about "creationism" as a definition: you seem to slip between seeing it as a groups of doctrines and a group of people in a movement. It is just a common type of error but we need to be able to talk about it more clearly get the target to stop moving.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously small and good. Why does this even need discussion? Why was it reverted? North8000 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that Dave and MisterDub find it objectionable to give the exact words from the source in the second bullet, because it could confuse readers about the reality according to Wikipedia. This might well soon be moved entirely to a footnote like the other troubling sources. I also suspect that diversionary and massive footnotes in the middle of sentences in a lead are not entirely just an accident, but have either evolved through a process of natural selection in the presence of many predators, or perhaps even as a result of intelligent design.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The extensive footnotes arise from demands for justification of each line, in accordance with policy. My response is given above, no need to guess or to disparage the reality shown by reliable secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 05:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think such a situation is unavoidable or good. Thinking about the causes of problems is a first step in trying to find solutions, and should be encouraged by you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, back to the subject (once again!): can you please clarify if your statement here was intended to oppose moving a footnote to the end of a sentence? Or was it just a general comment? Can you please move the footnote out of the middle of a sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

3. SECOND PARAGRAPH REVERTED CHANGES.

• Removed a sentence which seemed in the wrong place. This was proposed here on the talkpage.

COMMENT. I see no rational reply to my comment, and I see it as uncontroversial copy-editing. The information in the sentence seems covered by everything in the lead already, but just messy and awkward and in the wrong place. I presume it is just a fossil from a long past version which someone forgot to delete. Maybe people have been scared off from trying to discuss such copy-editing points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this one, if it refers to the one that I think it does. . North8000 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this one [11].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the DI wishes to define ID as a science, it is necessary to explicitly detail the scientific community's response. A major part of that response is to show that including ID within science would require a fundamental redefinition of "science". That should be said plainly. If the sentence is redundant, we may be able to combine it with those other areas of the lead. Right now it is adjacent to "The scientific community rejects the extension of science..." We can't say that without first explaining what "extension" is being proposed, so it appears to me that the sentence is both necessary and correctly placed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We already report them, so this seems quite redundant and not fitting in the flow of discussion. Why combine it with sentences which say the same thing. BTW this is the lead. There is too much repetition and jumping to details in the lead of this article, and too many obvious cheap shots where we throw in hits but give no reply. (Jess you seem quite open in wanting more of this.) This should all be done more properly in balanced extended discussion in the body. By the way my posting here is very close to concerns mentioned in the fa review some years ago but it seems almost as if the article has gotten worse. So it is not just me: these are obvious problems to any experienced editor who will come and look at this article, for example in a new review of the article quality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

4. EXPANSION OF ORIGINS SECTION.

• I won't summarise it all but it included at least four new good sources. On this talk page such expansion of the origins section has been in discussion and seemed to be "called for"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is well sourced, encyclopedic information on the topic. Of course this should be in. Why was it deleted? North8000 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As discussed extensively, this is original research using Andrew's interpretation sources unrelated to this specific topic. Ayala is a better source. It's also in the wrong section: it's about the concept, not about the term, which was more concisely and accurately covered before. So, it doesn't belong there, and the issues are already covered in the origins section. . dave souza, talk 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I am slipping here, but can you please give any diff or link of some kind to any discussion about this material being called "original research"? If you can't, then can we have that discussion now please? I note you have first refused to discuss it here, and second deleted it again once my efforts to talk here showed no objections. I know of no objections at all, let alone "OR" objections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've hardly refused, it's very hard to discuss things when you go on these blitzes of putting up text and sections, and there are frequent edit conflicts. As far as OR is concerned, you've produced these sources as examples of usage with no connection to the modern ID. They may well be good sources for the TA, but it's synthesis to use them here. I've increased coverage in the appropriate section. . dave souza, talk 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Another unsolicited ad hominem accusation instead of straight answer Dave, so let me defend myself again: When I came to this talkpage there was a demand for someone to spend time on reasoning and sourcing and I've been doing that as well as I can. I can't help noticing that you demand that I approach everything in a way which will create the most verbiage and time consumption on this talk page, and then you try to blame me for this. What I see from past discussions is that people who do not persist are bullied off, and forgotten as quickly as possible, meaning that this article is stuck in a long term problem. Your arguments are tendentious in the extreme and WP:IDNHT, over and over, and these cheap shot accusations are a smoke screen which surprises me a lot. You clearly have no intention of even considering allowing any change to what you consider to be your article. How else can your actions be interpreted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave: do you have ANY other argument? Because I see no reason not to ignore such a reply which is basically a fake answer and some ad hominem. You know very well I've given these sourced materials about the history of the argument from design, which is certainly a topic of relevance to this article, as you have allowed on several occasions. It is not true that the sources I have given make no link to modern ID. Just for example you have commented on Sedley yourself on this talk page after I first brought the source here. (My sources and usage of sources is, I'm afraid, quite different from the ones you use for some of the most important points concerning this article.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD Dave, as you say. You are doing R but not doing D. You have deleted a large amount of material with good sourcing and made an accusation that it is OR. But you have presented no argument for this (despite suggesting that you have). If you just find it confusing or you do not have time for it, then you should not be reverting everything I do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The section is about history of the term, not history of the argument or concept. I've reviewed your proposed sources and amended both sections accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And you now post this here, some days after discussion has started about this in a specific new section. Odd. My point about you doing R without D, remains valid. This attempt to patch it up is unconvincing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

LAST POINT.

Not to forget it, we must also keep in mind that Dave says (in his edit summary) these edits were discussed on this talkpage and rejected as a bad thing and a major change? Or did he say they were not proposed? Anyway I think he should clarify about his accusation(s) as such because it reflects upon me and could clearly give people the wrong impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I'm hoping Dave will be explaining here why he indicated that all of the above changes had already been discussed here and found to be major changes and a bad idea, as per his edit summary. And then as a second step he should ALSO explain his above remarks indicating that all of the above changes had not been proposed and discussed first, and that I have been rushing edits! Did anyone notice some massive knee-jerk reverts? Seriously everyone: if anyone here wants a "high road" discussion then it is not hard to see which things have to stop. If I may show a tiny bit of immodesty I do believe that you will not frequently see someone try as hard as I have in the last few days to stick rigorously to sources, policies and reasoning? The response has been far from attractive to behold and does not bode well for this article unless that sort of thing stops. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, and please discuss this civilly: discuss article content, not other editors. . dave souza, talk 05:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for clarification about points you have been making repeatedly Dave, and even in your latest posts you continue. (You have repeated the claim that I did not discuss any proposals on this talkpage, whereas your edit summary when reverting says the opposite. Why'd you make such a comment about an editor?) Can you give clarification of YOUR point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)