Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 83

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

→

Archive 89

Proposal to Change Introductory Lines of Article

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I propose that we write, "Intelligent design (ID) is the theoretical view, etc.", instead of writing, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view, etc.", because of its biased association in the way that it is presently worded, and which wording borders on infringement of WP:NPOV. Perhaps, though, it can be remarked in the body of the article that there are some who hold Intelligent Design to be "pseudoscientific." The reason for my requesting this change in the article's opening statement is because often science itself is involved with advancing theories. There's nothing wrong, per se, with theories if they can be based on logic and reason.

Someone once wrote: "The first step in the process of scientific inquiry, and one of the most important, is often overlooked: observation and inquisitiveness."

Observation and inquisitiveness are also some of the first steps in understanding our Creator. For example, one of the rationales for having two eyes - besides giving us a better perception of depth, dimension and balance - is so that if one eye becomes impaired man would still be able to make use of his other eye - since eyesight is vital sometimes for his survival. The same logic can be said to be true about the necessity of having two nostrils, which are not merely needed for their olfactory function, but also for the intake of oxygen. If one becomes clogged, the other can be used; and if both are clogged, the mouth can be used as a last resort. So, too, the body's need for having two reproductive glands (the testes in the male, and the ovaries in the female), if one is impaired, the other can still be used for procreation. The rationale for having two ears and two kidneys falls along these same lines, viz., if one is impaired &c. Hearing is sometimes vital to man's safety, and warns him of incoming danger.

Now, if our bodies had merely evolved from a germ, the above rational scenarios would not have played any role whatsoever in man's development. Rather, there must have been something else at the very beginning which gave to the body this "life-saving" ability because of perceived dangers to the body, or to ensure its procreation. What limbs were meant to have a "back-up" could have only come from our Maker Himself, who is a rational Being. Although this view might fall under the category of WP:NOR, I wish to assure our readers that this view is not for publication on WP. However, we do find other reliable published sources that point to Intelligent Design. Scientist and quantum theorist, Robert Lanza, has written in his book, Biocentrism, p. 7:

“In the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the construction of the universe as we know it. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? For example, if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and life to develop. If the strong nuclear force were decreased 2 percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) would not ignite. These are just three of just more than two hundred physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random – even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics boldly suggests.” ----Davidbena (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Davidbena, I hate to tell you this, but no one here is among whom are concerned. The article is meant to be an article demonstrating that the Wikipedia position is that ID is pseudoscience. It's meant to discredit ID and you are proposing that the article be written in a neutral manner and the editors who have made the article clear in it's discrediting ID have no interest in changing the article to be neutral. They view themselves as fair and objective. So their POV must be the neutral POV. By definition. 70.109.184.25 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

But is that really fair, seeing that many in our English-speaking world, especially deists, may some day read this article entitled "Intelligent Design"? You admit that it does not reflect a neutral point-of-view, which in WP stated policy ought to reflect that view, unless you were to change the article's title to read something like: "Arguments in favor of rejecting the ID Theory," or something similar. The current title, therefore, is misleading, insofar that it takes the readers in a completely opposite direction, when, in fact, many well-grounded scientists still support the view of Intelligent Design. I personally know an Israeli nuclear physicist who believes that our universe was created by the Creator (i.e. Intelligent Design).Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read further in NPOV policy, you'll come to the #Fringe theories and pseudoscience section, which requires that a "pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." The opening sentence does that. You write of "the first steps in understanding our Creator"; a theological point, but ID is supposedly "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" – classic pseudoscience.
Of course there are theological discussions dealing with scientific evidence: I commend to you Finding Darwin's God, but ID tries to hide its religious basis. Your arguments are indeed original research unless and until you propose a published reliable source making these arguments.
WP:NOTAFORUM, but having just watched Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, your argument that the "design" of testes "could have only come from our Maker Himself, who is a rational Being" doesn't seem to work well with the point that the testes in fish are in their chest; in human embryos the testes start there and then migrate down through the abdominal wall to a cooler position. Thus rationally forming a weak point for hernias. Any attribution of hernias to our Maker Himself is theology, not science. . . dave souza, talk 06:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, inevitably, anyone who espouses the "Intelligent Design" theory is, in effect, admitting that there is a Creator, in the sense that he has master-minded and created our planet, all life forms in it, as well as the universe at large. It is, therefore, a matter of unavoidable coincidence and of semantics. It just so happens that this subject becomes invariably related to, both, theoretical science and to theology, although with no intention of belaboring the theological ramifications related to the theory, whose place is rightfully not here. The sole purpose here, however, is to discuss the logical sequences related to why, from a scientific-theoretical point-of-view, the theory of "Intelligent Design" is either logical or illogical, with due-balance given to both. Whether or not the topic itself is to be considered a "fringe-view," as you suggest, depends entirely upon what sources you bring down. There are many intelligent and reliable sources that would impugn that view. My argument here is that the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not at all a "pseudoscientific view," but rather a theory having its own scientific-theoretical merits, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity had its own scientific-theoretical merits until proven accurate. Also, the fact that there have been several theories (both, pro and con), which apparently don't agree with themselves, indicates that perhaps none of them are particularly supported, and WP:WEIGHT might come into play there.

As for your statement about fish having testes in their chest, you've missed my point altogether. The import here was that where there is a likelihood of losing a vital organ necessary for reproduction, such as the external organs of the testes (and which must of necessity be external in order to regulate their body temperature for the production of sperm), two were made to ensure its survivability. This is not related to a fetus where the organs are still undeveloped and are not exposed to any threat; neither is it related to fish, although a parasitic disease in one organ would justify having two also in fish.Davidbena (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/70.109.184.25, and User:Dave souza, would you think that it would be better for us to have two separate WP articles on Intelligent Design, one pro and the other con (as is currently the position of this article)? The reason why I'm asking you is because the proponents of ID have a valid argument when they say that the earth and the creatures therein have been created by a Rational Being, and that there was never merely an "accidental" existence where we and the creatures on this earth evolved over a long period of time from a living germ. For had there been as the Darwin theorists claim, we would have been able to see, not only for man, but for all living creatures, a vital and living connection today of intermediate stages - all in between - for every animal on this earth. We would be able to see apes just now beginning to speak and to utter words similar to those of man. In reality, however, there is still a long-shot between man and ape, and therefore it is only in the realm of theory. Nowhere do we find the intermediate links between all living species for there to have been a perpetual evolution.

Moreover, if life evolved over a long period of time, who was it that gave the intelligence to the evolving body (i.e. amoeba) and told it that it just might need a pair of eyes to get along in this world, so that it naturally sent out the signals to the body to develop eye-sight??! An amazing feat of evolution, wouldn't you say, that gave to itself the knack and know-how to develop such a sense of sight in order to keep the body from falling off cliffs, and stumbling in the dark, etc.??? And who gave intelligence to the human body to develop bones (a rib cage) around the vital organs in order to protect those same organs from injury, or who gave to it the understanding so that it would make for itself an enclosing membrane around the brain in order to hold the brain in tact and to keep it from becoming a jumbled mass of blood and matter when the head is violently shaken?? And who gave to that amoeba the intelligence to know that a man's fingers should not be made with smooth skin, but rather with skin that has ridges and grooves etched deep within the skin of those same fingers in order to facilitate the grasping and holding of objects without them slipping??!! The scenarios are endless, but if I were to write them all down here I’d be accused of WP:OR, which I have no mind to do here, although everything here points to Intelligent Design. What I am saying, however, is that it suffices us to recognize the research done in this field from respected scientists or laymen, and for us to admit that our modern science of today is often based upon speculation ---- i.e. speculative science. Speculative science which points to evolution (to be distinguished from mutations and cross-breeding in species, which are proven) has no more weight in our presentation of ID than do the theories advanced and which advocate Intelligent Design.

Lord Jonathan Sacks has given some thought about science and creationism in his book, The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning, (pub. New York: Schocken Books 2011), and where he discusses life on earth. He gives to the proponents of evolution the benefit of the doubt and assumes, for the sake of argument, that all life, at first, propagated itself asexually, by cell division, budding, fragmentation or parthenogenesis, all of which are far simpler and more economical than the division of life into male and female, each with a different role in creating and sustaining life. When, then, we ought to ask ourselves, did these simple dividing cells comprised of two similar organisms “decide” to come together to perform the first instance of sexual reproduction, with male and female, and each with a different role in creating and sustaining life? Why was this necessary for nearly all animal species, and for some tree species (e.g. date palm trees and terebinth trees, etc., where there are, both, male and female trees)? When we consider, even in the animal kingdom, how much effort and energy the coming together of male and female takes, in terms of displays, courtship rituals, rivalries and violence, it is astonishing that sexual reproduction ever happened at all. This, too, points to an arrangement that only a Supreme Being could have made possible, since the human species and the division of life into male and female, was made to provide the maximum advantage in pro-creation and in sustaining life, with pair-bonding and the sharing of different responsibilities until the child can grow up to stand on his own. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't separate articles into pro and con versions. See WP:POVFORK. Please try to keep your responses focused on suggestions for article improvement and listing sources. Discussion of the topic is not appropriate per WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Special:Contributions/Mann_jess, so can we think about making this article more neutral, with a view to representing (with a certain scholarly respect), both, the proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, and those who do not buy-in to the theory? The current opening statement is, to say the least, quite biased. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Davidbena, a lot of thought has already been put into making this article fully neutral and compliant with WP:NPOV policy in full, including the due weight and Fringe theories and pseudoscience provisions. Perhaps you've not noticed the header note For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument; your comments look more related to that article. Your lack of scholarly respect for the various scientists and educators cited in the article is noted. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the short reply. Basically, wikipedia works differently than some other publications. We exclusively report what the reliable sources say, and we have a bias to the academic, scientific perspective. When we use the word "neutral" on wikipedia, that's what we mean. We don't mean giving equal time to both "sides". So, the question is, does the article represent the best sources we have? Based on the sources I've seen, I think it does. If you have other sources you'd like to propose we include, feel free to list them here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, that's just the thing. From the moment that I began reading this article I took notice of the fact that the article is NOT neutral, and has generally neglected other academic, scientific and scholarly views. I have already mentioned two. With all due respect to the sources quoted, the writers of this article could have done much better. There is a clear, pre-meditated slant that points in one direction, and which generally seeks to denigrate the theory of Intelligent Design. This should not be our aim as editors on WP.Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You've mentioned two sources: you misrepresent Lanza's book, and while the book by Saks is less readily available online, considerable clarification would be needed to show any relevance. . dave souza, talk 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the edification and amusement of others, Robert Lanza; Bob Berman (21 August 2013). Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe. BenBella Books, Inc. pp. 53–54. ISBN 978-1-935251-24-8. has the only two references to "intelligent design" in the book, and includes the statement "One is to say 'God did that,' which explains nothing even if it is true." That looks like a pretty good summary of ID, but doesn't seem to support Davidbena's assertions. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Dave souza, you seem to have only partially quoted from Lanza. Had you read further along, you would have seen that Lanza concludes that no matter how you wish to view our universe and life upon our planet earth, "one has to come to terms with the fact that we are living in a very peculiar cosmos." He moves on from there, where he begins talking about the Big Bang theory. You see, he is trying to build a picture of the whole of our existence, and to make sense out of it all.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but what he's not doing is calling it intelligent design, so that doesn't work as a source for this article. . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, the statement is implied. Anyone reading Lanza's statement clearly understands that Intelligent Design is implied there. One doesn't have to be too smart to see that. Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he calls his idea "biocentrism" and explicitly avoids the label "Intelligent Design" as "a Pandora's box that opens up all manner of arguments for the Bible, and other topics that are irrelevant here, or worse." Your original research is equally irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 05:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, while Dr. Lanza might have purposely avoided using the term "Intelligent design" in his book entitled Biocentrism, without question, he alludes to it by his undertaking the tremendous task of explaining consciousness in all that pertains to those things in our cosmos. In fact, if you remember Dr. Lanza's exact words in the quote that I brought down, "...These are just three of just more than two hundred physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random." These words speak for themselves. For Dr. Lanza, consciousness is another way of saying a Rational Being and, by extension, Intelligent Design. As you said, perhaps Dr. Lanza chose to pursue his theoretical discourse in this not-so-conventional manner in order to avoid the theological ramifications and/or stereotypes that would otherwise be implied by doing so. Notwithstanding, his approach to this subject fits within the scope and parameters of Intelligent Design, and are relevant to our WP article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, User:Dave souza, your deferral to the article Teleological argument, a lesser known term used to describe "Intelligent Design," is a way of deferring our attention from what is clearly known in theological and scientific circles as "Intelligent Design." Maimonides refers to it under the name "Intelligent Design" in his Guide for the Perplexed. This article, therefore, is the proper venue and place for discussing all sides of the argument relating to Intelligent Design.Davidbena (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh no it's not, have a look in the archives. The teleological argument article might have been called "intelligent design" if that was the commonest term for it, but unfortunately cdesign proponentsists pinched the words as a supposedly non-religious label for creationism. You're too late. . dave souza, talk 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the general meaning and use of the term "Intelligent Design" is not made subject to, nor is it dependent upon, discussions about this term in the archives of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, since you are an administrator on WP (while I am not), would you agree that we seek more professional advice, say, through mediation, whether or not there is a place to make this current article conform to the WP standard of WP:NPOV? I, of course, will not risk being blocked because of my convictions. The truth is, whenever I contend with an administrator (i.e. disagree with him), this is always in the back of my mind. We all, I'm sure, only want the best for Wikipedia articles.Davidbena (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You need reliable, published sources before any change can be made to the article or before anyone will treat anything you say as credible. Until that point, everything you're saying is a waste of editors' time. It's ludicrous that you think there's a need for mediation based on your sourceless opinion that the ID needs to be treated as more credible. Rwenonah (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already mentioned two reliable, published sources, whose opinions are also worthy of taking into account, since - after all - we are discussing theories here. I can also bring down many more. In the weeks to come, hopefully, I will lay forth my suggestions on this Talk Page what I think should be changed in the article, based on those sources. Give me a few days or weeks to collect this information.Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Be concise, show exactly what the sources say, and take great care to follow core policies, specifically WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Don't expect long screeds of original research to be persuasive. . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, please remember that "this article is about a form of creationism". It is NOT the Teleological argument, nor is it about the phrase "intelligent design" and its use outside creationism. Myrvin (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Myrvin, if, as you say, this article is not about the phrase "intelligent design," then why are the words "Intelligent design" used as the title of this article?Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's about the concept, not the phrase. Generally, articles are about the concepts or things they are named after, not the names themselves. This is fairly self-evident from the article's content. Rwenonah (talk)

I think my comment flushed out a big part of the problem here. Myrvin (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested URLs

The following two URL's give a general overview of what someone should expect in an article treating on this vast and important subject, with, of course, the pros and cons of the theory which might be lacking in those articles: The first, [1]; and the second, [2]. I have examined some of the research conducted in this field, and in a few days I will be presenting my findings.Davidbena (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

These are rather in-universe, the first is an ID website listed under Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, the second is the New World Encyclopedia — "an Internet encyclopedia that, in part, selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values." So, not a reliable source, a pointer to Moonie thought. . . dave souza, talk 06:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Moonies? - good grief ! NWE: "The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. NWE editors and contributors promote the ideal of joy and universal happiness." All this seems very disruptive, and is not getting us anywhere. Isn't it time we moved on? Myrvin (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the motives or beliefs of the party who wrote the article in the second URL, that is beside the point. We are only concerned here with the theory of ID and how it plays out in science. I hope that editors here will be able to distinguish between the two. Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not beside the point. We don't treat sources written by "Intelligentdesign.org" or with deliberate bias toward the ideas of the Unification Church the same as sources written by reliable, neutral bodies. The "general overview" those websites are going to present is obviously going to be massively biased toward "pros". Maybe read this Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rwenonah (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is time Davidbena made the argument for his proposal citing reliable sources that accord with Wikipedia policy. I looked at his supposed sources and they are not sources of the quality and reliability that an encyclopedia requires (just read the NWE article on Darwin to see). Yes good grief! The Moonies??? and a source that is an apologist site for intelligent design. Davidbena you are so so wrong that the beliefs or motives of an author or authors of a site or other publication are beside the point. They have a significant bearing on judging why someone is arguing what they are arguing. Make the argument. Support it with reliable sources and references. Or just accept that you will not win here. Write a blog instead where you are free to preach anything you like.Robynthehode (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I will present the arguments for changes in the current article in a few days, based upon reliable information gleaned from trustworthy academic sources. Please be patient. Your mentioning of the Moonies again has absolutely nothing to do with the second link that I posted here, but is only a distraction from the main issues at hand. To mention his or their religion is like mentioning Einstein's religion in an effort to discredit any scientific views or theories that he might have. That would be a non sequitur. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the second ref. At the top it says "See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design." They are linked. Myrvin (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, the scientific information disclosed by an individual or organization is still valid and must be judged on its own merits.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, you seem to misunderstand the implications of WP:SOURCES policy for science related topics, and policy on WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI. Try to understand these linked policies, and follow them properly. . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, even in the link that is brought down here, in the beginning of this article, it admits that "the theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion that can be adequately explained by only natural causes." You can see it here: [3] by scrolling down to the caption: Intelligent Design. In any rate, it is NOT considered "pseudoscience" as is wrongly portrayed of the ID theory at the beginning of the main article. It is, therefore, perhaps better to use the wording: "Intelligent design (ID) is the theoretical view, etc.", instead of writing, "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view, etc." In this way, we can open-up the article for a more neutral presentation about the subject matter.Davidbena (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Chill all. Hmm, methinks y'all too obviously just having fun piling on there and perhaps a bit too obvious appearance of hypocrisy over when you want to say 'pseudoscience' or 'teleological' or reason about fish testes it doesn't have to pass any test but those suddenly show up whenever he mentions anything ? I mean he's hardly the first - or tenth or fiftieth maybe - to say the "pseudoscience" does not belong. It's an obviously biased article on a topic that was contentious, would it not serve the article and participants a bit better to just calm the enthusiasms or exaggerations and claims to high ground a bit and keep the perspective in mind ? Markbassett (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Without question, the present article is biased when it says of the Intelligent Design theory that it is "pseudoscientific." Anyone looking at the link at the beginning of the article can see that it disagrees with such a determination. Rather, there it says: "Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." You can see it here: [4]. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ID is pseudoscience by every conceivable definition of the word, as infinite numbers of sources have affirmed. ID conforms exactly to the definition of pseudoscience. Even ID proponents acknowledge that it's not a valid scientific theory while continuing to try to present it as equally scientifically valid to evolution. The source you presented above, which incidentally isn't in the article that I can see, is from an organization explicitly established to promote intelligent design. Present some neutral, reliable sources please, or see your claims continuing to be discarded.Rwenonah (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. WP states: “Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods.” See: [5]. The “scientific method” is defined as a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Proof of "scientific method" as defined above can be seen in the dialogue between two professors on the subject of Intelligent Design on this YouTube video, [6], beginning from 11:57 – 20:46 on bacterial flagellum, but especially from 24:06 – 32:32, in which Dr. Behe speaks about the evolutionary laboratory experiment conducted by him. If you were to follow the arguments presented by these two professors, you will see that Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, meets these qualifications of presenting “scientific methods” of analysis when speaking about ID. He uses scientific standards and methods to support his theory. Therefore, the term "pseudoscientific" in this case, for the Intelligent Design theory, is without question inaccurate. Davidbena (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the articles about Michael Behe and Irreducible complexity? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 01:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I spent the greater part of the day at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, reading different books on the subject of Intelligent Design. Since the subject is very broad, I have not yet read the article that you mentioned.Davidbena (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, you should make yourself familiar with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science. Since you've been trying to whip up stuff about flagella, this is discussed at Page 76 onwards. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

My point, User:Dave souza, was that this particular argument is based on solid scientific principles. But this is, by no means, the only argument or logical sequence used to support the Intelligent Design theory. William Paley’s watch analogy uses a basic argument which would have us consider the intricacies of a pocket-watch; all the fine components working together to produce movement. Most would agree that our universe and planet, or, for that matter, the human body itself, is far more intricate and complex in their design. Now if the earth’s existence was random, or man’s existence was random, meaning, the universe was fine-tuned to promote life on earth after many years of evolution, is it conceivable that in 4.6 billion years a pocket-watch could have ever evolve? Hardly likely! Yet, the human body is far more complex and intricate than our common pocket-watch! This kind of analogy is called an A Fortiori (an inference from minor to major premise) showing how it strains credulity to think that our own complex human form can evolve of itself in 4.6 billion years or more. If a pocket-watch cannot evolve, which is far less complex than our bodies, how much more then is it impossible for our planet and universe and our bodies to have evolved without a Designer!

According to the book, Evidence and Evolution, by Elliott Sober (Cambridge University Press 2008), p. 120, Paley writes in Chapter 15 of his book Natural Theology, that "the eyes are so placed as to look in the direction in which the legs move and the hands work." The obvious explanation, Paley says, is intelligent design. This is because the alternative explanation is chance; if the direction in which our eyes point were "left to chance [...] there were at least three-quarters of the compass out of four to have erred in" (Paley 1809:269).Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, you are using a pseudoscientific argument, one in which the conclusion is known and the argument is fitted to match the conclusion. Science does not do that. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ, my good friend, User:Binksternet. If you were to read Phillip E. Johnson's book, Defeating Darwinism (pub. in Illinois in 1997), pp. 80–81, he argues there: "Science also means 'applied materialist philosophy.' Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly materialist explanations of every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist." In other words, they'll say while trying to trace and describe the cause of all things in the universe that everything is the result of a law of Nature, and that everything is the necessary result of the motions and influences of the spheres, and, in the case of our own existence, that "ultraviolet light from the sun and lightning synthesized amino acids and these gradually combined into proteins, enzymes, and evolved eventually into living cells." However, as Phillip Johnson continues in his book (ibid.), he brings down the respected opinion of one of the most influential biologists in the world, Richard Lewontin, who has written: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." In conclusion, Johnson writes: "In other words, evolution is not a fact, it's a philosophy. The materialism comes first (a priori), and the evidence is interpreted in light of that unchangeable philosophical commitment."

Taking this one step further, when speaking about the alternative (i.e. Darwin's random or "accidental" evolution), Sir Karl Raimund Popper, a renowned philosopher of science, once wrote (Paper entitled: "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status," published by David Miller 1985, pp. 241-243; see also Popper 1978): “When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.”

Therefore, based on WP:UNDUE, which states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." With this as our guideline, an article treating on the Intelligent Design theory should at least represent the pro-active views on that theory - both, pro and con views. ----Davidbena (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave souza, in answer to your last statement to me, the link that you copied in your last post to me states explicitly that research is still ongoing in the subject of bacterial flagellum. Furthermore, the arguments raised against Dr. Behe's conclusions can mean very little without hearing a rejoinder from Dr. Behe himself.Davidbena (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course scientific research continues, that's a characteristic of real science. However, there's been a continuing failure to produce any ID research: Behe's The Edge of Evolution isn't peer reviewed, and has such howlers as divine Intelligent Design intervention supposedly being needed for malaria to evolve and kill more babies, or to produce HIV: see that article for the scientific status of these claims. . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

My friend, we have already shown that Dr. Behe's words are not merely idle protestations, but are and have been demonstrable with scientific (not pseudoscientific) research.Davidbena (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly this article should present the views of ID adherents, but not without couching those views in pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already shown in unequivocal terms how that in Dr. Behe's presentation of ID there is nothing that would suggest that it is pseudoscience, but only a scientific theory, equal to and/or comparable with any other scientific theory.Davidbena (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed you actually used a book called Defeating Darwinism as a source. That's not a reliable source in any sense of the word (on the contrary, it's a book about how to undermine evolution and make people believe in intelligent design). Any claims it makes are probably fringe and biased, and we can't and shouldn't give them equal validity to commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. One fringe and obviously biased source isn't sufficient to dismiss mainstream scientific consensus as biased and irrelevant. In fact, that's what this discussion boils down to; there's an overwhelming consensus that ID isn't science among mainstream scholarly opinion, which is what Wikipedia is based on. No sources you've presented have yet disproved that, or shown that anything more than a tiny and usually highly biased (i.e. creationist) minority of scholars believes otherwise. In consequence, showing pros and cons would create a false balance by giving equal validity to two viewpoints which aren't equally valid. Rwenonah (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, User:Rwenonah. The book brings down an alternative point of view, and, let us not forget that it was written by a Berkeley law professor. His opinion is heavy-weight, so much so that the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) was forced to change their official position on a statement issued by them in 1995, in which they had erroneously written: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution; an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments." After the publication of Johnson's book in 1997, the words unsupervised and impersonal were deleted from the NABT statement. Furthermore, all the above arguments that I've taken the time and patience to write are just as valid as any. Would you agree that we pursue mediation, and let them decide what should and should not be in the main article?Davidbena (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a display of political pressure and the action of the massive intelligent design lobby in the US, not a change based on philosophical or scientific considerations, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I think you used the word "erroneously" to describe the idea that evolution occurs impersonally and without supervision makes your POV on this topic obvious. Rwenonah (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

By the dupes of words artfully framed it is, sometimes, easy to misconstrue the simple facts. My opinion still stands.Davidbena (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, Phillip E. Johnson's "theistic science" has gained no traction, not least because it's unworkable.[7] . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Dave souza, if you approach the subject from the position and perspective of theology, you might be right. Here, however, we should avoid discussing the theological ramifications of ID, and just limit this article to the scientific and logical conclusions reached by the scientists in their various researches. Let us not forget, too, that ID theorists are broken-down into several categories: There are those on the extreme opposite spectrum, viz. those who adhere to naturalistic evolution. Then you've got theistic evolutionists (such as Dr. Keith Fox), and then you've got `Intelligent-design` theorists (such as Dr. Michal Behe), and finally you've got scientific-creationists who believe in the literal six-days of creation. Best to avoid all of this and to discuss only the aspects of the ID theory itself. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote from the WP article on Johnson's ideas, "The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution ... to be pseudoscience.". Rwenonah (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: location within lead

Exactly so. Johnson is a law professor bent on bending laws to comply with religious perspectives, not at all interested in science.

My argument against the lead word "pseudoscientific" I have brought up in the past and it was never adequately addressed, but rather each time I brought it up the discussion diverged and my objection was always dismissed. The problem is, we could substitute the word "pseudoscience" with "bullshit" in the lead sentence, and it would mean the same thing to nearly 100% of lay readers, which is Wikipedia's intended audience.

Those of us with scientific training know exactly what the words "pseudoscience" and "theory" mean, and we know that ID is pseudoscience, and not a scientific theory. But we are not writing for an audience of scientists. My position always has been that it is not Wikipedia's business to use contentious adjectives in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Using adjectives almost always comes across as telling readers what to think. Most sentences are improved and rendered more neutral if adjectives are removed. Then nobody can accuse us of telling readers what to think. The facts should speak for themselves. Simply starting out "Intelligent design (ID) is the view that..." would be a vast improvement, and the word "pseudoscience" can easily be inserted with references in one of the sentences that follow. I think it would flow better, be more accurate, and less contentious. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Amatulic#top, that is not an objective statement, but subjective. There are other scientists and researchers and college professors who clearly disagree with you, therefore, it is at best a disputed issue and worthy of being recognized as such. Why are we beating the bush here? Our friend Rwenonah brings down a group related to "the scientific community," and says their views represent the consensus - which, by the way, is far from being conclusive, as she overlooks the others who are related to the "scientific community": such as Dr. Michael Behe and Elliott Sober and Ronald L. Numbers and Pierre Grassé, a renowned French zoologist, who all question the integrity of Darwin's view on "accidental" evolution. Just for the record: Pierre Grassé concluded quite sarcastically, after assessing Darwin's seminal work, that "mysterious internal factors" in organisms enabled them somehow to evolve toward complexity and diversity. Then, after rejecting Neo-Darwinism, Grassé suggests: "It is possible that in this domain, biology - impotent - yields the floor to metaphysics." See Grassé's words in Doubts about Darwin, a book written by Thomas Woodward, p. 39. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there are only a small minority of scientists who would disagree with me. It isn't disputed that ID is pseudoscience; the dispute is manufactured by ID's adherents, who are not representative of the scientific community. Just a sampling of scientists named "Steve" far outnumber ID proponents with scientific credentials. My objection to "pseudoscientific" in the lead is a stylistic one relating to the WP:NPOV requirement in Wikipedia, and I believe that the basis of my objection has greater weight than than relying on the arguments of creationists like Phil Johnson, who does not practice science. Behe's arguments have been discredited already, and Pierre Grasse had no concept of pseudoscience; he wasn't opposed to evolution (his own views tended toward Lamarckism), he just objected to Darwinism specifically (and yes, there is a distinction, which few creationists can recognize). You are not helping yourself by rehashing tired arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are many scientists who would disagree with you. My wife's uncle is a nuclear physicist here, in Israel, and he holds to the theory of ID. While I have named only a few, I can bring down the names of others. In any rate, the current article is clearly slanted to represent only one view. It is far better for us as impartial editors to report in a fair and objective manner all views.Davidbena (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is a contest of numbers, the ID adherants are such a small minority that they are not significant. As stated earlier, the number of scientists named "Steve" outnumber all scientists who subscribe to ID. No need to play that game. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Amatulić, you'll appreciate that NPOV: Fringe theories and pseudoscience policy requires that "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." As you say, lay readers may not be familiar with the meaning, though the link gives ready clarification. The problem with moving the word later into the lead is that the ID definition obscures that point, and giving primacy to that obfuscation is likely to mislead these uninformed lay readers. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: I am well aware of WP:PSCI and what it says. There is zero requirement to use an adjective that equates to the word "bullshit" in the minds of most readers. There is a requirement to describe ID as pseudoscience (and it is a far stronger statement to describe it as a noun, not an adjective that is subjective by its nature). There is no obscuration of the fact in doing so, and I find the concept that it would be somehow "misleading" is mind boggling. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for current article: ID

Is it possible for us to agree here and to at least have the representation of other views, such as by adding this window to our article, or something along these lines (with or without modification)?

Robert Lanza and Consciousness

Robert Lanza in laboratory Dr. Robert Lanza, in his book Biocentrism, alludes to Intelligent Design without mentioning it. He has undertaken the tremendous task of explaining consciousness in all that pertains to those things in our cosmos, or what is another way of saying a Rational Being and, by extension, Intelligent Design: “In the last few decades, there has been considerable discussion of a basic paradox in the construction of the universe as we know it. Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist? For example, if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and life to develop. If the strong nuclear force were decreased 2 percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together, and plain-vanilla hydrogen would be the only kind of atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) would not ignite. These are just three of just more than two hundred physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random – even if that is exactly what standard contemporary physics boldly suggests.”

This, in my humble opinion, seems to be an easy way to tackle the issue of "divergent views," without voicing our opinion one way or the other. Davidbena (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is about ID. There's no reason to add books that don't even mention it as sources when there are virtually infinite numbers that do. To reiterate what was said above, there really are no divergent views, at least not among mainstream scientists. The idea that there are is manufactured by those who support ID to give credibility to their position. Rwenonah (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Lanza's remarks hit square in the center of the whole idea which surrounds, or revolves around, the issue of Intelligent design. He says there, "...These are just three of just more than two hundred physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random." The import of his words is as clear as water is clear. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We need not give consideration to authors who sacrifice their credibility by resorting to fallacies such as the argument from personal incredulity. You are basically asking that the article give undue weight to fringe viewpoints. Wikipedia articles are not a forum to provide a platform for airing minority, uninformed viewpoints. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that some of us may have lost sight of the issues at hand here. We are not trying to convince our readers of the correctness or rightfulness of the ID theory, but rather to present its relative arguments. Our readers will be the deciders of who is right and who is wrong. They do not need us to coax them in any one particular direction. We should, however, remain open-minded enough to present all scientific views. As for calling the theory of ID "pseudoscience," it is incorrect and misleading. If that were the case, all theories that have yet to be proven would be "pseudoscience." And, besides, it works on the assumption that Darwin's theory of random evolution has been proven correct, when it has not. Darwin's theory of Natural selection has, however, been proven correct. Mutations also occur in species.Davidbena (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ID is not a scientific theory. It was created ipso post facto to justify teaching creationism in schools in the United States. The article reflects its acceptance in mainstream sources. We're under no obligation to "present all scientific views", in fact, Wikipedia does not give pseudoscientific topics like ID equal validity to scientific ones to avoid creating a false balance.Rwenonah (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Intelligent design is widely accepted world-wide as a "scientific theory," and fits the definition of "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability." In fact, if you check the following web-sites you'll see how they define it as a scientific theory: [8] and [9]. In the latter web-site, scroll down to the sub-heading: "Intelligent Design." With no offense, it seems here that your view is the one that is a fringe-view. We're talking about theoretical science rather than about proven conclusions from science. Rather than continue to belabor this issue, can we reach a decision of compromise, and to include the reliable, published and verifiable opinions of others about this important issue? If not, can we seek mediation?Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The world is much more interesting than imagined by those blinded by ID, but what is needed here is an actionable proposal for an improvement to the article with reliable sources. Science involves a coherent explanation of real-world events with predictive power, and scientifically reliable sources are needed to support claims about science. The sources offered above are not suitable for commentary on science—please ask at WP:RSN if in doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center and Intelligent Design Network are not reliable sources. They falsely treat ID as a scientific theory when it is fundamentally unprovable, evidenced by the fact that the scientific community rejects it. As I said above, it's ridiculous you somehow think that the fact that organizations explicitly established to promote it treat it as a valid theory somehow necessitates either compromise or mediation. On the contrary, the fact that those types of sources are the only sources you've presented illustrates how wholly rejected it is by mainstream science. Please find reliable sources or drop this. Rwenonah (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena - I think you have your answer: no, there is no openness for cites here, they wanna slur it in the header and do not wanna hear issues with that -- TALK is just going to be a rant-fest and folks advancing causes and personal logic and just making up stuff. Meh. Been there, seen that, suggest best that can be done is leave it being clearly ranting and at least mentioning major elements in distorted manner as kind of two wrongs making an almost-right and maybe the best it can be for now. Markbassett (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying, but people have correctly pointed out that by Wikipedia policy, there is no basis in available sources supporting the removal of the statement that ID is pseudoscience and that it should be treated as theoretically plausible in this article. From a logical and empirical point of view, ID has exactly one axiom: A creator designed all life. From that axiom alone, there are no specific predictions that can be deduced for empirical test. Thus, ID is untestable in principle and so it is pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, even if the outcome or conclusion of ID were to suggest one axiom, namely, that a creator designed all life, there is nothing amiss with that conclusion. It would still be theoretical, until it can be shown most consummately that it is, indeed, so. By saying the ID proponents hold to a "pseudoscience," it follows that the effectiveness of what you hold to be "true science" is shown thereby to be deceptive, for it begins by saying that it can only answer certain types of questions and ends by saying that only those types of questions can legitimately be asked. I will remind you that ID theory is no different from Quantum theory, or Freud's theory of dreams, or Darwin's theory of evolution, or Chaos theory, or Le Sage's theory of gravitation, or Gunnar Nordström's second theory, etc., etc. and should not be singled out and discriminated against by saying it is "pseudoscience." Davidbena (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that evolution provides an explanatory framework that has been found to cover all current and extinct life, and which is testable—antimicrobial resistance describes a well-known example of evolution in action. By contrast, ID offers an explanation (God is responsible) that is not testable and which cannot be used to predict anything except implacable mystery. Please have the last word and then drop the matter (see WP:NOTFORUM) unless making a proposal regarding an improvement to the article backed with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, evolution should not be construed with natural selection, mutations, or resistance to diseases, etc. Evolution, that is to say, "accidental" or random evolution as espoused by Charles Darwin, is still a theory. Had it been proven, it would no longer be a theory, but a scientific fact. Therefore, so long as the theoretical evolution of all species from a primordial cell (which, allegedly, developed into more advanced life forms over many eons) has yet to be conclusively tested and proven to be a fact of science, it makes it no different from the theory of Intelligent design. The same can be said about "consciousness," which scientists know so little about. Henry Marsh, a neurosurgeon, recently said: “We can't even begin to explain how consciousness, how sensation, arises out of electric chemistry [of the brain].” This should not prevent scientists, however, from making hypotheses about consciousness. It is the same here, in ID, insofar that it is a theory having merits of its own, and begs the question, 'what is the cause of all these wonders in nature'? My request is simple: 1) Let us make this article more neutral, without getting into the issues of theism vs. atheism; 2) Let us change the lead sentence in the article to read: "Intelligent design (ID) is a theoretical view, etc." With that, I have concluded my request.Davidbena (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you don't understand what a theory is in science. We get that. Well, FYI, in the hierarchy of scientific explantions a theory is at the very top, it is the best there is. It is not some wild-arsed guess. Your "scientific fact" is a nonsense term. Science does not "conclusively test and prove" things to be facts. Science is always tentative for we do not know what we do not know. However, here's the thing - in the hundred and fifty years since Darwin first postulated the theory of evolution through natural selection, all the new evideence found has only ever served to strengthen the theory. No-one has ever produced any actually valid evidence against this theory. Oh, there have been plenty of nul arguments put by likes of the Discovery Intitute (who strangely enough seem light on discovering anything) but so far these have all be comprehensively debunked by the scientific community. The critical point here is that ID claims to be science and so it is judged according to scientific principle, and ID fails every test that might be applied to something claiming to be a scientific theory. That, my friend, is why ID is correctly called pseudoscience in this article. Your proposed change has exactly the opposite effect to the one you claim for it. Rather than making the article more neutral, it makes it far more POV. As an article about a subject that claims to be science Wikipedia NPOV policy requires us to represent it in the way it is viewed by the relevant scientific community. That means, in this case, by biologists, palaeontologists and others in the life sciences. That community overwhelmingly rejects ID as arrant nonsense. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne, you stand to be corrected on two points. One, there's more evidence to suggest that there has never been an unabated evolution of our species (and all other species, for that matter) from a single primordial cell, since there is no developmental fossil evidence to prove it for all stages until reaching perfection. It is only a theory taught in elementary schools (and some universities). I shall remind you, however, that science is not unassailable. Second, some theories, such as Einstein's theory about the deflection of light (which he arrived at while working on his theory of general relativity) was later proven correct by science, through the development of larger telescopes. But let's just get back to basics: By understanding what "pseudoscience" truly is ---- such as our modern-day astrology, and fortune-telling and palmistry, etc. ----- we can learn what it is not, such as the theory of Intelligent design. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent design, and said “God does not play dice with the universe.” Einstein’s view was said in order to refute that there is Randomness (indeterminism) in our universe. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability (i.e. the opposite pretensions of the Quantum Mechanics theory), and was averse to the idea of randomness as a fundamental feature of any theory. He believed that randomness could appear as some form of statistical behavior but could not be a part of the law, just like a pack of cards that is shuffled according to deterministic laws still shows a random arrangement. Einstein's view, by the way, stands in direct contradiction to that of another theorist, Werner Heisenberg, who believed that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, and which view he codified in his famous Uncertainty Principle. Given the weight of these great scientists, shouldn't we be disposed here to represent their views in this article without bias? Of course we should!Davidbena (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be continued at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Intelligent design. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.Davidbena (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that would be forum shopping and a further waste of editors' time.Charles (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

By no means would it be a waste of our time. We owe this to the community at large. Unbiased editing will greatly enhance this article, and open the public's mind to two viable perspectives.Davidbena (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no two viable perspectives. You are flogging a dead horse here. Time to put down the stick.Charles (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My Suggestions for Change in the Opening Paragraph

The Intelligent Design (ID) theory asserts that there must be intelligent causes to explain the complex and information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. It asserts that certain biological characteristics violate the Darwinian explanation of chance because they were probably designed. Design logically presupposes a designer, wherefore, the appearance of design in our universe, or in man, is seen by its proponents as evidence of the existence of a designer.

One of the main arguments in the Intelligent Design theory is the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle states that the world and the universe are very finely tuned to allow life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the air would be changed just a little, then many species would die out quickly. If the earth were a few kilometers away are more or less of the sun, then many species would quickly cease to exist. The existence and development of life requires that so many variables must be consistent with each other, so that it would be impossible that all these variables are matched with each other due to random and uncoordinated events.

Intelligent design is seen by others as a mere pseudoscientific view, and 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." Some educators, philosophers, and the scientific community claim that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, etc. (the rest as it appears in the current article). Davidbena (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Blatant POV. You are not going to get this up here. Please stop wasting all our time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's strange how the quotation from the Discovery Institute gets combined in the same sentence about "others" seeing ID as pseudoscientific.

Conservapedia is thataway →. You might get better traction there. Here, we represent mainstream views in accordance with Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:NPOV in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:POV, since we have only been pushing for a more neutral article which, at present, shows bias. Our first aim should be to explain ID, and then bring down its counter views.

Why should we or anyone be afraid to deal with scientific implications dealing with "the mysterious ineffable event"? After all, what is the purpose of science if not to investigate and question the things around us? Still, ID is only a theory about which this article is meant to explain, without bias. It is not some illusory issue, but rather a real issue that must be dealt with by scientific investigation and inquiry, and which some scientists have been trying to address. If you look at all the web-pages in foreign languages which speak of this subject (French, German, Hebrew, etc.), they treat it with the respect and dignity that it deserves. I think that we can do just as well. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ID is not, never has been and never will be a theory in the scientific sense. Stop wasting our time.Charles (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about time that somebody put an ARBCOM Pseudoscience template on David's Talk page. I'd do it, but the last time I did, I didn't do it correctly (I just cut and pasted a warning from my own Talk page), and the warning didn't get properly recorded. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, in response to your statement to me, it is the view of many academics in our pluralistic world (many of whom are named above) that any science whose pursuit is to understand the metaphysical causes of our universe through deductive logic (as opposed to Metaphysical naturalism) is still a science in its own right. Albert Einstein tried to understand these metaphysical causes. He could be described as an 'Intelligent-design' theorist, although not exactly a religious man, and one who claimed to have believed in the "God of Spinoza" (meaning, a god that does not involve himself with the affairs of man). In a letter to Max Born in December of 1926, Einstein wrote in response to a paper published by Max Born in June of that year, entitled, "Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge" (Quantum Mechanics of Collision Phenomena): “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice” (see: private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926: [10] Albert Einstein Archives, reel 8, item 180). Einstein’s view was meant to refute that there is Randomness (indeterminism) in our universe. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability (i.e. the opposite pretensions of the Quantum Mechanics theory), and was averse to the idea of randomness as a fundamental feature of any theory. He believed that randomness could appear as some form of statistical behavior but could not be a part of the law, just like a pack of cards that is shuffled according to deterministic laws still shows a random arrangement. Einstein's view, by the way, stands in direct contradiction to that of another theorist, Werner Heisenberg, who believed that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, and which view he codified in his famous Uncertainty Principle. In the final analysis, it is a scientific dispute, whether our universe is to be seen as evolving from "natural causes," or by some "metaphysical force" that has no less a form of consciousness as we do. Whether that be aliens, or UFO's, or something else, will be left-up to science to decide. Let us not be afraid to address these issues, and to give credit to those who are avant garde in this field of research by making use of the applied sciences.Davidbena (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Davidbena, offtopic. Unless a good quality published source specifically relates ideas to ID, they don't belong on this page. You're violating WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, User:Dave souza, and thanks for reminding me. I started this section in order to make a valid suggestion for improving this article. I will NOT use it as a forum to discuss the issues at hand, but only to make valid suggestions. If there are further objections to any of my points, I will address the parties concerned, privately, in their Talk Pages.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena Echoing what everyone is trying to point out to you, you are violating several Wikipedia policies by persisting in arguments when there is consensus that they are specious. You haven't made any valid suggestions and let me explain why there is no hope for you succeeding in in this line of argument. First, you apparently do not understand the basic foundations of modern science. Science is not metaphysics. Second, you apparently know little to nothing about the history of science. Einstein would absolutely deny your interpretation of his metaphysical views. Finally, if you truly believe that ID is a scientific theory, then it would be possible to design and empirical experiment such at if the results were negative, you would have to reject ID and become an atheist regarding an designer god.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I am One of Many, since this is not a forum, I cannot offer a rejoinder here, in accordance with WP:NOTAFORUM. I will address it in your Talk-Page. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena - I think that 'remove pseudoscience' is one thing, and would say that is not a label supported by RSS, plus a vague slur as immediate start is blatent bias. A full rewrite of the header though is bigger than just a TALK question, more a sandbox work. I wouldn't suggest it though -- I think the article is irretrievably biased, and being obvioulsy bogus may be as good as it can get. Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Markbassett. Since Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, chapter XIX), approached the subject from a philosophical standpoint, writing some 850 years ago: “We, however, hold that all things in the Universe are the result of design, and not merely of necessity… Here, in this chapter, I merely wish to show by arguments almost as forcible as real proofs, that the Universe gives evidence of design,” do you think that we can insert a reference to the fact that some view ID as a philosophical argument? I'm not pressing this issue, since I have no more to suggest in the improvement of this article, unless it be related somehow to philosophy (with reliable published sources), and Maimonides - albeit a Primary Source - is reliable.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's already covered, both in the article and in the lead: "ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,[10] a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[n 3]". . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal

I wish to make another proposal, namely, that we add to the leading paragraph that there are some who view the ID theory as simply a "philosophical point of view," with references brought down to support this view. For example, I would suggest this edit:

"Most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical [1] or scientific-theoretical [2] point of view. Others hold it as 'pseudoscience,' etc."

For the sources, I would add:

• [1] Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, chapter I; ibid., chapter XIX)

• [2] The Natural Selection of Universes Containing Intelligent Life (anthropic principle)

If anyone wishes to remark on my suggestions for improvement of this article, I will respond to him/her in his/her Talk-page, so as not to turn this into a forum.Davidbena (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No. do not respond on my talk page. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Maimonides is clearly a primary source with no evident relevance to ID as a modern form of creationism, the second source seems to be a parallel universe which again needs a secondary source showing any significant relationship to ID. Both might add to other articles, but not the ID creationism articles as far as I can see. . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually seen Maimonides' discussion of this subject in his Guide (Part II, chapter I; ibid., chapter XIX)? Davidbena (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy: we really need a secondary source to make any link with ID, or indeed to show any significance to the design argument. . . .dave souza, talk 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time that the community recognizes this proposal is specious and going nowhere and stops responding. Seriously, Maimonides as a source for modern ID. ID wasn't even invented until the 1970s, after Pandas and People was published and the Discovery Institute got up and running. If the sources being used are clearly irrelevant and involve WP:Synth just to make them relate to the article, it's probably time to treat the proposal that way, too. Rwenonah (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rwenonah, trying to go around scientific consensus and trying to inject the idea that ID somehow is scientific is not the way to improve this article, or any others. I fear Davidbena has an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's no more discussion needed here, as Davidbena cannot approach this topic neutrally, and his suggestions are likewise a violation of WP:NPOV. Nothing more to do. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Friends, I respect each man his opinion. I have come to realize that this is a contentious issue, so I would just as rather desist altogether from pressing the scientific-theoretical side of ID, and just present it as a "philosophical argument." Could we at least agree on this one thing, and to mention in the main article that some see it purely as a "philosophical argument." For Rwenonah, I can assure you that I have no other agenda, other than seeing a better written article.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Davidbena's proposal. The current lede is biased in favor of Materialism (as opposed to Idealism which is open to ID yet equally scientific, not pseudoscientific). Please suggest academic WP:secondary sources before making a change to lede though. I am sure there are many. Khestwol (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, pseudoscientific is the correct term for ID, as it does not adhere to the scientific method Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if "pseudoscientific" seems to be "consensus" here at wikipedia, citing "law cases" and refusing to acknowledge other bona fide scientists and faiths (Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Unitarianism etc.) which view ID as a valid scientific theory, means that the so-called "majority" is suppressing a purportedly "minority" view. This tends to suppress innovation in favor of "group-think". Einstein was the minority at one point, as was Fr. LeMaitre (physicist / priest who coined and demonstrated the Big Bang theory). It is a fact that not all of the mainstream scientific community considers ID to be "pseudoscience", so why act as if it is so? Historically, group-think has been proven false time and time again, so it would be a mistake to bias this article blatantly in such a way that mocks the many scientists (many of them Nobel prize winners) who believe in ID. As such this article is unbalanced, and fails to properly present the viewpoints of these latter scientists. Per wikipedia's own guidelines, better wording is "ID is a view that ..." and then "Proponents believe ..." while "detractors believe it is a pseudoscience". This wording would be fair and true to all parties, and would not violate wikipedia's neutral policies, as the present biased article does now. 67.45.106.84 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Einstein was a minority until he was able to convince the majority otherwise. Until and unless there is a tide shift in scientific opinion and the majority say otherwise, ID is a fridge theory. Wikipedia is under no obligation to say otherwise. TechBear | Talk

|Contributions 01:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ID isn't Zoroastrian, Muslim or Unitarian. It was invented by American evangelical Christian pressure groups and remains accepted mostly only among that demographic.Rwenonah (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

pseudoscientific is not just consensus here, but in the academia. Reason for it is not because intelligent design idea is false or true, it's because it is not testable, (you can't test it if you are correct or not) it's not observable,( there is no direct or indirect evidence of it) it's not falsifiable(basically what they say is there are gaps we can't explain) and it does not have predictive power. A scientific theory must be observable, testable, falsifiable and must have a predictive power. Intelligent design, presents itself as science but it's not science, hence we call it pseudoscientific. I don't think this proposal will achieve a consensus anytime soon. Perhaps we should stop now?Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

abiogenesis is just as testable (or) /untestable as ID. The citation that purports "most geologists don't accept it" is misleading, since it is not true that most Physicists and Biologists reject ID. Geologists as a group, like Anthropologists, tend to be atheists. But Physicists & Biologists who believe in ID, particularly Nobel prize winners, far outnumber those who reject ID. Either way, this is not a reason to bias these articles in such a way as to effectively suppress, or make mockery of those many bona fide scientists who accept ID. Among those scientists who deserve mention, are those from the Islamic and Jewish communities. The article behaves as if it is merely a "Christian right" thing, which is a distortion of the actual facts. 67.45.106.84 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a forum we have to stick to the article and not wander off into other topics. I don't know where you get the idea that "Physicists & Biologists who believe in ID, particularly Nobel prize winners, far outnumber those who reject ID." but I have to tell you that in science there is no authority, so you can't say this person's beliefs should be important because said person won a Nobel prize. In science, ideas stand or fall on their own merits, and intelligent design just doesn't adhere to the scientific principles. What anyone believes is their business, but we can't present their beliefs as science, we are following the scientific consensus and the scientific consensus says ID is pseudoscientific. You should try to change the scientific consensus, if you can achieve that, we will change accordingly. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see evidence that physicists, biologists and most Noble Prize winners believe in ID (the idea that God being the creator of life can be scientifically proven).--69.157.254.210 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

you are in error: ID is not 'the idea that God being the creator of life can be scientifically proven'. John.r.r (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case how do you explain the numerous sources stating that ID has been presented as a science? Also, if that were true, the people arguing against using pseudoscience could have easily pointed out that ID was never claimed to have been one In the first place, ending the pudeoscicnece debate then and there.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with our friend whose name is not mentioned here, since that is how it is portrayed on most web-sites. However, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that this article should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Be well, gentlemen. I will not force my opinion on anybody here. I will only ask, do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See my response on my talk page. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent Design presents itself as a scientific theory but it has been seen as pseudoscientific by the academic consensus. Sure there are people, within the academia, who would consider it as science but their views are considered WP:FRINGE and therefor it's undue weight to mention them as equal to the scientific consensus. A scientific theory is a well defined term, we can not inject the idea that scientists are debating whether ID is scientific or not, there is no such debate going on in the scientific community. As I previously told, if you want to change the article here, you gonna have to change the scientific consensus first. Davidbena, I appreciate your politeness, and I hope you understand why we can't change the article. There are many who believe as you do, maybe the majority of the world's population, but scientific topics have to be held to a different standard than other subjects, and for a good reason. If Intelligent design were not promoted as science by it's creators and promoters, we could be in an agreement, that we should represent both sides equally but it's not. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have since corrected my errors in the French translation. Since the consensus within the scientific community says that ID is not a science, I think that it would be fair to say that it is a philosophical argument nonetheless. In this way, the present negativity is cancelled. Philosophy is approached differently from science, and is sometimes equally as effective in making a point. BTW: Science has not disproven the claims advanced by the ID proponents. They have merely chosen to accept the Darwinian theory of evolution. Bye.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be correct if our sources reported that it's being promoted as a philosophical argument and not science. But our sources report it as being presented as science and not a philosophical point. Note that people like Michael Behe do not reject the Darwinian evolution, they simply assert that there are difficult parts that can't be explained by the theory of evolution. Have a good day, cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The one thing I think we can agree on is what I am One of Many said: "...like the English version, the French article is about the modern notion of Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute." To insist that the article with the unqualified title Intelligent Design (not Intelligent Design movement or Intelligent Design movement in the United States or Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute) is about specifically what a discredited organization like DI promotes is non NPOV.

Rwenonah keeps repeatedly repeating the canard that "ID wasn't even invented until the 1970s, after Pandas and People was published and the Discovery Institute got up and running." (As if there was no record of the term prior to the 1970s.) It's a blatant falsehood. Even Darwin was using the very term to describe the very concept. To insist on making the article about what Discovery Institute says and does, is as neutral to the topic as insisting that Pol Pot solely defines the meaning of socialism. The fact that these facts are repeatedly deleted even from the talk page is evidence of culpable bias. Davidbena, sorry, but you will not get anywhere with these guys because they are confident that their own POV is the wp:NPOV. They're not intellectually honest about the topic and they don't want to be. That fact is verified by the short period of time it takes for them to delete this very note.

69.157.254.210 asks: "I would certainly like to see evidence that physicists, biologists and most Noble Prize winners believe in ID (the idea that God being the creator of life can be scientifically proven)." Well, there aren't any that say that, but that is not what ID says either. I can point to three or four noted authors that have all indicated that there is reason to believe, from observation of the Universe, that it shows evidence of "purpose", or having been created with "purpose". None got a Nobel, but they don't lack for awards nor recognition in their scientific discipline. I'll only bother to name them if this note is not deleted. 76.118.23.40 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@IP76, the proposition of design by a creator is an old one. The key point about this article, which you are overlooking, is that the view that intelligent design can be a scientific theory is a new one promoted by the Discovery Institute. Before that, it was strictly viewed as a religious/philosophical position. Also, I don't recall in any of Darwin's writing where he used to phrase "intelligent design" nor where he considered it a possible scientific explanation. If there are such passages, I truly would be interested in you showing them to me. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to click on the link provided? "One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed;...", I wonder who wrote that? 76.118.23.40 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's already in footnote 29 to the article, a letter (not formal writings) in which he disagrees with the idea that it's scientifically valid: the sentence continues "yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this." Note the capitalisation in the preceding point CD makes, "The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure". Design was a commonplace in natural theology, as discussed here, ID wasn't yet a term. . dave souza, talk 06:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid ID was invented by evangelical Christians in the '70s and popularized by the Discovery Institute. Obviously, the phrase was used earlier, but the philosophical concept was very much a creation of modern American political polarization. To speak of ID earlier than that is the to speak of something that didn't exist as an idea, only as a pair of words, like "cell phone" before they were invented. ID proponents like to falsify a historical background (and foreign acceptance) that doesn't exist. This helps give it the kind of intellectual credibility in their eyes, and helps them pretend that the science v. Religion conflict they seek to incite is ancient and global when in reality it is nmodern and chiefly American. So no, that wasn't a "blatant falsehood".Rwenonah (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestion of changing this article's text based on arguments found in works published more than 100 years ago is nonsense, as the basic topic was established in the 1970s (sorry to those who can prove that a few instances of the phrase "intelligent design" existed before the 1970s... that's not the point, of course. It's the topic as it stands today that we are all discussing.) Any suggestion to use an astronomy journal article from 1995 to help us define the topic is unhelpful, since this is a religious topic, and the astronomy scholar would be out of his area of expertise. Any suggestion to look to French Wikipedia is not going to find much leverage here, as that group of editors is not this group, and their consensus is not our consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, User:Binksternet, and User:Rwenonah, but Maimonides wrote some 850 years ago in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, chapter XIX): “We, however, hold that all things in the Universe are the result of design, and not merely of necessity… Here, in this chapter, I merely wish to show by arguments almost as forcible as real proofs, that the Universe gives evidence of design.” Of course, I'm not pressing this issue, since I have no more to suggest in the improvement of this article, unless it be related somehow to philosophy (with reliable published sources). I was just correcting here an error. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

David! They don't care! Just give it up. Wikipedia will never be an NPOV, impartial, and balanced when it is judged on the basis of this article. 76.118.23.40 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What we care enough is not to give equal validity to mainstream astronomy and beliefs such as flat Earth or geocentrism. Wikipedia was never meant to do so, that is simply a misunderstanding of encyclopedic neutrality. Wikipedia isn't neutral in respect to mainstream science, it is wholly pro mainstream science. That's what any serious encyclopedia should do. So, if you want to change the status of ID inside Wikipedia, first change scientific consensus and Wikipedia will faithfully record such change. What you should not do is advocate certain fringe views inside Wikipedia in order to change scientific consensus. While scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong about something, it is not our role to venture such projections. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It isn't an "anything goes" forum for crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In a way, you are correct that Wikipedia does not listen to editor's own arguments if ID is pseudoscientific or not. In this respect, as explained below, Wikipedia only listens to scientific consensus or, in poor-researched subjects, to debunkers. So, if you don't have mainstream reliable sources to back up your position, you have nothing. You might have thought "If I make this brilliant argument, which no one has ever heard, then Wikipedia will stop considering ID as pseudoscience." You were wrong, we don't listen to original research. But it is not because we don't care, we care very much about reflecting mainstream science and not editors' personal musings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

AGAIN! you are in error: ID is not 'the idea that God being the creator of life can be scientifically proven' ID never states that GOD is the designer ID can be tested and observed also John.r.r (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ID is portrayed as scientific by its adherents, despite the fact it obviously isn't testable or observable. Incidentally, leaders of the movement treat the "designer" as the Christian God, and the two are treated as synonymous, which is why it's never really caught on among other religions. Rwenonah (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena - the proposal at start of section seems within scope, if there is significant body of RSS saying so. But it would belong to the body not the lede unless it is a major item of body. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Markbassett.Davidbena (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

David you may have a good case for expanding the section on Jewish philosophy in the teleological argument regarding Maimonides but his writings occurred before the emergence of modern science. Also note that he holds that "all things in the Universe are the result of design, and not merely of necessity", which means that the universe and everything is designed is at least necessarily true. He also appears to believe in addition that we can observe evidence of design. However, since Maimonides holds that all things in the universe were designed is necessarily true, that means for him that there is no possible evidence that could count against it. Thus, he would surely conclude that ID is not a scientific theory. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your words are greatly appreciated by me, and important. I will look into editing the section that you mentioned in the teleological argument. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The idea of intelligent design

The idea of intelligent design has been expressed in the same terms going back hundreds of years. Then in 1989, Of Pandas and People was published, and, according to some wiki editors, presto chango this idea of intelligent design, even though it is expressed in the same way, using the same words, is “New ID”, and if we are to believe the constant drumbeat of repetition, is somehow not the same idea as “Old ID”.

To those who assert that Old ID was merely a philosophical rather than a scientific proposition forget that philosophy and science were considered much the same thing up until a couple of hundred years ago. To those who say that the post-1970 ID proponents invented the assertion that ID could be scientifically proved, I would point out that this is disproved by the writings of the early 20th century scientists Pierre Lecomte du Nouy and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, both of whom wrote on the scientific evidence for of ID. As a nonbeliever in ID myself, I would call these scientists mistaken, but they were not pseudoscientists.

The ID theory certainly has religious implications, and often religious motivation, but we should not trash an idea on that basis. When Darwin published, his theory was attacked as an attempt by atheists to spread their irreligion – and sometimes it was, but that did not make it pseudoscience. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how gleefully my fellow unbelievers point out that ID has religious implications (horrors!), disregarding the enormous religious implications of Darwinian evolution. Einstein’s scientific view was guided by philosophical/religious precepts he expressed as “God does not play dice with the universe,” and “God is subtle, but not malicious.” Yet his work continued to be scientific, not pseudoscientific.

ID has its limitations. It challenges other theories to prove themselves, but does not itself lead to alternative scientific solutions. In this way it is very similar to the null hypothesis. But the null hypothesis is not pseudoscience.

Is the idea of intelligent design in itself pseudoscience? Based on scientists who have held the view, and written extensively on the scientific evidence for it, it is not pseudoscience. However, it is possible to use pseudoscience to argue for any idea, and perhaps the book Of Pandas and People contains such pseudoscientific arguments (I don’t know; I haven’t read the book). But of course, if I wanted to, I could use pseudoscientific methods to argue for Darwinian evolution, but that would not make evolution itself pseudoscience.

Tactics and arguments used to push ID may be pseudoscientific, but the concept itself is not. It is fair to disagree with ID, and to detail why this and that argument in favor of it do not carry the weight of science. It is not fair to demonize it with the pejorative description “pseudoscientific”. Thank you for indulging this lengthy post. Plazak (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The article describes what ID is in 2015. Hundreds of years ago there may have been something that a handful of people referred to as "intelligent design", but there was almost no science then, and there were no useful explanations of what was responsible for the features observed in living creatures. The notable topic known as ID concerns exactly what the article says—the pseudoscientific view that an intelligent cause did it. The US battles over issues such as Of Pandas and People have made ID a notable topic which the article covers. ID is pseudoscientific precisely because it is presented as an explanation for what is observed in nature—an explanation that makes no predictions and which cannot be tested, and which is contradicted by scientific investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent design#History covers both the Origin of the concept and the Origin of the term, making the earlier theological or philosophical roots clear. ID is pseudoscience because it obscures these roots and is claimed by its proponents to be "a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences". Which is untrue, but central to its purpose of getting a particular religious belief taught in science classrooms as though it were modern science. There were points Einstein found hard to explain, but he never said "therefore, a miracle has been done by an unknown entity". . . dave souza, talk 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Also as has been mentioned several times the historical meaning is covered in the Teleological argument article and that article does not use the term pseudoscience since that was a philosophical arguement not a scientific one. The same can't be said here.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My last two-cents: I suppose the only way that the ID theory can effectually be tested is to call out to that "Intelligent designer," whoever or whatever that might be, and to see if "he" or "it" will do some extraordinary new thing at one's mere calling, proving that "he" or "it" or "whatever" has some reasoning faculties and acts in accordance with our dire need of circumstance. Of course, that would already become metaphysical, wouldn't it? Enough said. Have a good day friends.Davidbena (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A last tuppenceworth: "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system." . . dave souza, talk 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, even if someone were to argue that the intelligent agent is not God that would still not make ID a science since that would not remove the problem of testability.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do mind that in describing topics we follow WP:COMMONNAME, that is use the most common name of the topic from reliable sources. As such intelligent design is different from argument from design, through the eyes of most contemporary reliable sources which write on either subject (or both). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If we seeded, say, a planet that could sustain life with genetically modified plants and animals and some visitors came back one million later would they be able to tell if the life was 'intelligently designed' or if it came about thru unguided means?

Also how would you falsify 'evolution'??

John.r.r (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

falsifying evolution:

• Charles darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
• "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" would also do it.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do consider the above as only an illustration, since Wikipedia editors do not make the call upon what is pseudoscience. Academic consensus makes that call. Or in some poor-researched subjects debunkers make that call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

oh but they * do * make the call ... ID is elsewhere called creationism, not a vague pejorative. Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No one argues creationism is pseudoscience, because it's being presented as a belief not science. ID is an overhaul of the old creationism to brand it as science to push the idea into science classes, that is why it's called pseudoscience. And that is why it's important to note in Kitzmiller case it was pushed as science(and rejected). ID is not a philosophical argument, it's an attempt to make creationism look like science. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet elsewhere it is usually called creationism (or true) ... pseudo is a fringe view being pushed here....Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere meaning the creationist gatherings? Do you think the scientific consensus is fringe? Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Called creationism in academic circles, and Kitzmiller refers to its creationist roots, and generally media makes that association and Scientific community as said by National Academy of Science also 'creationism' and not pseudo ... seems like few serious folks use vague pejoratives you see, and Wikipedia is pushing a fringe view to topline here ... Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

roadislong -- the darwin quote sounds like irreducible complexity ; the rabbit sounds like false dichotomy though hmm shouldn't rabbits recur under random evolution .... Evolution modern synthesis just is nt satisfiably testable of course. Markbassett (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you should study evolution a bit more, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Evolution predicts that a rabbit fossil in Precambrian era is impossible if you can find it you disprove evolution. Also you should check Hardy–Weinberg principle for falsifiability. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not about ID, it is about scientific creationism, but you get the idea:

If students of the nature of science are in agreement on anything, it is that science is a communal activity. The individual scientist may indeed formulate a particular theory explaining some phenomenon. But that explanation does not really enter the domain of science until it has been scrutinized, criticized, and tested by his or her colleagues in the relevant discipline. And, when the colleagues in a particular scientific discipline are in well-nigh complete agreement on the validity of some given explanation, it comes close to a form of scientific lunacy to proclaim the learned majority opinion wrong and to advocate some explanation that they emphatically reject. This is not to say that the majority is always right.

— Leon H. Albert, "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience

Available at [11] (read the whole article about falsificationism in respect to evolution). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, Google rabbit Precambrian, the issue of this falsifying evolution is more complex than a simple abandonment of evolution if such fossils would be found.

(It should be pointed out, however, that, when confronted with one or a few such falsifying events, a theory that has withstood numerous attempts at falsification and which has no serious, legitimately scientific competitor, will still be retained, in spite of such anomalies.)

— Leon H. Albert, "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett:: About an WP:RS/AC source for "ID isn't science" see [12] (pages 40-45). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Or, I should rephrase, the source claims that ID has failed in its attempt to be science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: - Thanks, that is National Academy of Science saying ID is creationism, another example that 'pseudoscience' is NOT what the scientific community uses and WP is pushing in a fringe view with that label Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

   {{falsifying evolution:

   Charles darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
   "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" would also do it. }}

yes of course IF it could be demonstrated! but exactly HOW would you demonstrate that??

and

how would a rabbit GET into the precambrian strata?? God did it??? remember you cannot enlist the supernatural. Also there are plenty of out of place fossils but they do not falsify evolution.

and

in order to falsify evolution you must show that an intelligence guided evolution rather than thru natural selection! HOW can you possibly do that?

sorry evolution is NOT falsifiable. It's a interesting explanation but certainly not science.

John.r.r (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have any proposals to improve the article I suggest this is now closed as per Wikipedia is not a forum Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

John.r.r - the proposal was/is pretty clearly to drop the label 'pseudoscience' or at least out of the lead. Seems so far reasons to do so are (a) PSCI is a tactic not the idea, and (b) historical idea is philosophy and/or predates science, (c) test provided (so no longer not untestable ?); (d) it's not the WP:commonname label , (e) it's not WP:consensus, but rather a source of frequent disagreement here, (f) same as centuries ago thus creationism, though I may have read one or two differently than meant. Markbassett (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what a number of these points mean, but, as I've said above, there is no "historical idea" of ID. It's a recent product of politicized American Christianity, regardless of occasional coincidental uses of the term by earlier individuals. Rwenonah (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Rwenonah - That was my summarizing the various reasons folks gave in this thread for why it's inappropriate to use 'pseudoscience' in the header. The Intelligent Design phrase was relatively common use circa 1880-1900 as Darwin used it, but debate over whether pre-Panda belongs here isn't in the Pseudoscience topic of this thread. Markbassett (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand what it is, but I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in most of those points. And again, there was no ID - either as a movement or a coherent concept - before the '80s. If it indeed doesn't belong in this thread, at least two of the points you advanced above are by your own admission irrelevant, since they are premised on that contention. Rwenonah (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Rwenonah - Nah, all 7 are valid as being so far stuff what seemed in this thread on reasons that the pseudoscience label is inappropriate. As to the ID of circa 130 years ago related or not it seems still in limbo -- many said separate topic yet when crafted as separate topic it was ruled a content fork dupe of the same topic so neither here nor there at the moment. Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The NAS source says that ID is creationism masquerading as science, in order to violate the Establishment Clause and that there is no evidence for ID. ID is condemned as a conflation of theology with science and as failed science, so NAS means that ID is pseudoscientific even if it does not employ that word. NAS even states "Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested." Further it describes creationism (ID including) as seeking to compromise scientific education. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Then "NAS says creationism" or "not science" is what is supported. That "Tgeorgescu says they meant Pseudoscience" - goes outside the scientific community position. Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If ID were presented as a merely theological and philosophical view, it would be very strange to affirm that "it cannot be empirically tested" (cf. difference between belief and knowledge: theology is something to be believed not something to be empirically tested). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a severe case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT going on in this talk page, and I believe we have indulged it long enough. Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The the horse is dead, long live the horse. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 16:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is who's not "getting it". When you have atomatons in the echo chamber repeating the canard: "but, as I've said above, there is no "historical idea" of ID. It's a recent product of politicized American Christianity, regardless of occasional coincidental uses of the term by earlier individuals" and blatantly ignoring the historical context, so they can allow the DI to appropriate the term Intelligent design and then discredit the "concept", "idea", "theory" (whatever you wanna call it) along with DI because of guilt by association, when the groupthink insists on being stuck on that mis-justification, it's not the dissenters who don't "get it." (Regards from Harvard.) 50.198.99.124 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, there are two articles on two different subjects: intelligent design (contemporary pseudoscientific movement) and argument from design (the philosophical argument which has inspired the ID movement). Even if they would be renamed to intelligent design (contemporary movement) and intelligent design (philosophical argument), the problem would still be there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Not "intelligent design (contemporary movement)", note this article header has this article is ID the form of creationism, there is a separate article on ID Movement the campaign to promote and support ID. Anyway, this thread is from Plazak's "It is not fair to demonize it with the pejorative description “pseudoscientific”." Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you can see that it's about the intelligent design (pseudoscientific "theory"). It's named Intelligent design per WP:COMMONNAME because ID the pseudoscientific theory is most commonly known today as intelligent design. Just google "intelligent design" and see. IP user from Harvard said we allow Discovery institute to appropriate the term, we are not. It's already appropriated, we are just using the contemporary mainstream definition of the term. Anyway, from what I can see, there will not be a consensus for removing the "pseudoscientific" from the lede, so I ask of you not to further comment on the argument, as it has been stated, the horse's long been dead. Also I dislike thread closing, but in this case I would understand if anyone does it. Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

seems like this article has a hostile tone

for instance here is what encylopedia.com says:

intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. In addition, the theory has been attacked on the grounds that many aspects of nature fail to show any evidence of intelligent design, such as "junk" DNA (see nucleic acid) and the vestigial webbed feet of the frigate bird (which never lands on water).

very calm, academic and accurate without the hostility. esp the 'pseudoscience' label. article seems VERY biased

John.r.r (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

NOT using it as a forum! I am saying that the tone needs to be changed. comparing this article to more intellectual academic definitions of intelligent design. want to discuss WHY britanica etc do not have this hostile tone.

John.r.r (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

'#9; is from the 'daily beast' Is that REALLY a credible source??

John.r.r (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That particular source is for the content provided in the article, yes. ldvhl (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For Wikipedia academic consensus is its beacon, its light on the path. So if its light tells Wikipedia that intelligent design is darkness/pseudoscience, Wikipedia has to render such conclusion. As simple as that, what scientists consensually call pseudoscience is also called pseudoscience by Wikipedia. We call a spade a spade. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add that there is nothing hostile about using the term "pseudoscience" to describe ID. It simple states that ID is "is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status", which is the scientific consensus. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary theory adheres to the scientific method? can be tested? please explain how. my point is that this article favors evolution over ID without a logical reason. sure there is an emotional reason because so many people believe in evolution.

just think the article should not be biased. evolution sure could be argued to be 'pseudoscience' even popper said so

John.r.r (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The reasons are: WP:VER and WP:SOURCES. We even have a reliable source that Popper has retracted that stance: http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution . Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides, Wikipedia editors are not called to prove that evolution is falsifiable. That is prohibited by WP:OR. All they have to do is quote reliable sources which affirm that evolution is falsifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty ridiculous that you're contending evolution is favoured because of emotional attachment to the idea. That seems more like the province of ID. Rwenonah (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

John.r.r, before pushing this point further, you might want to go to a university library and look through a journal such as Evolution and look at the variety of experimental studies that have been published. So, any argument that Evolutionary Theory has the same scientific status as ID is simply an argument from ignorance. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

now now dont be nasty! the go to university crack was unnecessary. you are confusing the term evolution with the theory of evolution. of course there are 100s of experiments showing evolution but almost none showing that speciation can happen thru natural selection. go ahead show me one.

but you are getting off the point. my point is the hostile tone of the article. if you read britanica or others they present their aritcles in a calm level headed manner with out the attacks.

why do you think the article i quoted from encylopdeiac.com is in error. i would just like to see wiki be as good as that.

John.r.r (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@John.r.r, that was no crack, the most comprehensive collections of scientific journals are typically found in university libraries. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no duty of proving to you anything. All that Wikipedia ask us is gather verifiable information from reliable sources. There are reliable sources (including those written by Popper himself) who make clear that evolution through natural selection is falsifiable. There are plenty of reliable sources making abundantly clear that ID is pseudoscience. We cannot simply erase those papers from peer-reviewed journals or pretend that they don't exist. The Kitzmiller case makes clear that ID is creationism in disguise, pretending to be science in order to teach in public schools some stock knowledge which simply does not exist in the peer-reviewed journals that matter to the scientific community. We do not tell the reader that he/she should not believe in ID, we simply state that the scientific community considers ID to be religion masquerading as scientific theory. We are not to mislead the reader that ID would be accepted as an alternative to evolution, since this simply isn't the case in any faculty of biology from any major US, Canadian, EU or Australian university. Wikipedia has to reflect this, not hide it from the reader. Even the biology department which employs Prof. Behe stated that, though they love free speech, ID isn't science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Taint this all a forum? Juan Riley (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. It originally was an accusation of violating WP:NPOV and I have replied why it isn't such violation, namely because the scientific community flat out rejects ID. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is (barely) discussing article content. Unfortunately, John isn't getting the point that the "hostile" tone of the article is only in their perception. It is what it is, and nothing he has said, or is likely to say if it stays in the same vein, will result in any article changes here. I think he might be happier with the article at Conservapedia. But they have different standards than here. I think this whole thread has run it's course. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop...repeat STOP...feeding the animals. Juan Riley (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

John.r.r - hope that will do for an answer; may simply be that unbiased examination afterwards of reasons it is inappropriate or reasons it is appropriate fails at simple psychology 101. Meh. Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Break: Identifying the reliable sources

This thread has degenerated rapidly. I have blocked one user for disruptive editing here, and I suggest several others may have been unnecessarily ready to respond to provocation. Please remember that nobody can waste your time unless you let them. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok but how is something determined to be a reliable source? for instance your article considers 'the beast' reliable but works by behe, meyers etc as not reliable? WHAT is your criteria? seems like it is circular logic: anything supporting ID or criticizing evo is not relialbe. just tell me what is so wrong with encylopedia.coms version? it criticizes ID as non science but without the hostility. can wiki take the high road? and also britanica. just tell me what is so wrong with their verions am i allowed to talk about whether evo can be tested on my own talk page? thanks! John.r.r (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC) I am not saying the article should say ' ID is science' or anything like that. it is NOT the CONTENT that I object to, it is the wording and the style and the order in which things are presented. NOT the content. astrology is pseudo science for sure and homeopathy but the style used in those article is not hostile and attacking. just tell me why the way encylopedia and britanica has presented ID is so unacceptable. at least you can do that. every other encyclopedia presents ID in a cool academic manner but not wiki. WHY??? John.r.r (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) @John.r.r, our article starts out by stating the entire content of ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It does differ from some other encyclopedic article by reflecting the scientific consensus on ID. What has emerged is a consensus on what reliable sources–from the relevant scientific community–have to say about the scientific status of ID. It is harsher than some, but it also more accurately reflects the scientific consensus than some other encyclopedic articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) specifically WHY do you think wiki is more accurate than the others. to me wiki seems LESS accurate. how about the TONE of the article BEYOND the content? also am i allowed to talk about whether evo can be tested on my own talk page? thanks! and please answer why you consider 'the beast' a reliable source but absolutely no pro ID sources?? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.r.r (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC) It's simple, when a source goes against the scientific consensus and promotes fringe ideas as equal to the mainstream scientific knowledge, it is considered not reliable. We follow the scientific consensus for a reason, because in Academia all ideas are subject to constant review and falsification. Of course some theories are so well proven, no one even bothers to disprove because it's a waste of time to do so. For example no one tries to refute the fact that Earth is round because evidence is overwhelming, it's same for evolution. However, if someone can find evidence in contrary(for both cases) they can publish that evidence and if their evidence is sound, it will be accepted by the scientific community and the theories will be amended accordingly. You also said the tone of other articles like astrology is not "hostile" here is the first sentence of astrology article: "Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world." I can't see the difference, nor can I see any hostility for that matter. By the way, I will just leave this here: [13] Darwinian Ape talk 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) ok so any source that supports ID or doubts evolution is not reliable?? you really do not see how that is circular reasoning?? by the way the earth is not round and again could anyone answer: specifically WHY do you think wiki is more accurate than the others. to me wiki seems LESS accurate. how about the TONE of the article BEYOND the content? yes in the astrology article they say that it is pseudoscience but then it does not attack over and over again. and am i allowed to talk about whether evo can be tested on my own talk page? thanks! this articles beginnning comes off like a tirade, an accusation and there are many MANY holes and inconsistencies in evo theory. to deny that is to be an ostrich and that is NOT good science John.r.r (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Oh by all means go and demonstrate those "many" inconsistencies in the scientific arena and win a Nobel prize, we will change the articles when you do that. But until then, I'm afraid there isn't going to be a change to your liking. Ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand by the way.(I know I shouldn't have, but couldn't resist.) Darwinian Ape talk 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "by the way the earth is not round." Let's stop feeding the trolls and bring this discussion to a merciful end. the ostrich thing is an EXPRESSION. go to my talk page if you want to discuss off subject topics. my point is that several are trying to strawman is what is so wrong with the encylopedia article. i think it is much better and not hostile and more accurate. John.r.r (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) As stated by an expert at the Kitzmiller trial, that's true for all scientific theories: they all have gaps, (even quantum electrodynamics, which is the most accurately tested theory humanity now has). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) nothing wrong with gaps. but i think some honesty would be good. if you want to talk off subject go to my talk page John.r.r (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) I think there's a serious case of refusal to understand here. Wikipedia treats pseudoscientific theories as pseudoscientific; that's policy. We don't give them equal validity to more credible theories by omitting words like pseudoscience. ID, by presenting itself as science but being unprovable and relying on the existence of a god, is pseudoscience. The encyclopaedia.com article is much shorter, as is the Brittannica article, meaning a direct comparison is useless. I seriously recommend that you do some reading, which will undoubtedly prove to you that the earth is, in fact, round, contrary to what you said above, and that ID is not science. Rwenonah (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Only saying the obvious....this discussion goes nowhere....tis becoming a forum for John. End it. Juan Riley (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) specifically why do you think 'this is a forum for john' I think many others are many off topic responses to my criticisms of the article. why dont you address my criticisms instead of trying to strawman me??? John.r.r (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) sorry I think YOU are not getting it. I never said it is not feasible to call ID a pseudoscience. you are stawmanning. my point is that the TONE of the article is hostile. i dont necessarily object to the content. but the second point is that circular logic is being used to determine if sources are 'credible' I was told that sources that support ID are not credible and those that criticize evo are not credible. you honestly do not see how that is circular logic. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ most science smart junior high kids that i have talked to know its not round unless you want to debate with sci american John.r.r (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) ID is a pesudoscience. Any sources which propound it as legitimate science are therefore propounding a fringe viewpoint and are also fringe, in the same way a source arguing that the earth is flat is fringe because of its rejection of the scientific consensus. Sources that support ID as science aren't credible because no credible scientists support ID as science. As wp guidelines state "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative." The article is "hostile" because we describe ID the same way reliable sources do - as fringe, pseudoscientific, and unaccepted among mainstream science. Incidentally, the earth's not being a perfect sphere doesn't change the fact that it's [[14]]. Rwenonah (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) None of the literature supporting ID and/or denying evolution is published with peer-review in the journals that matter for the scientific community. To be accurate, once such an article bypassed peer-review and it was subsequently retracted. That's not called "circularity", it is called identifying reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable. — User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Somebody please put this thread out of its misery per WP:NOTFORUM.Charles (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC) And save us all from platitudinous nonsense...where are those officious admins when we need them! Juan Riley (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The admins are as much of the problem as anyone else. This nakedly biased article cannot 'take the high road". Doesn't matter what example other encyclopedias set. 50.198.99.124 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 50.198, i agree with you. go to my talk page so we can discuss John.r.r (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Do you have evidence of editors or admins misrepresenting reliable sources for the topic? ldvhl (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC) one editor said that sources that support ID are not reliable and those that support evo ARE reliable. to me that does not seem like a valid criteria of what is REILABLE. John.r.r (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) The scientific consensus has all out rejected ID. This article simply reflects such stance as a fact. So, if you want to change the reflection, first change the fact (i.e. scientific consensus) and Wikipedia will faithfully record such epochal change. All scientific theories could be revised if there is good evidence for doing that. But it is a non sequitur to affirm that "all scientific theories could be revised, therefore evolution theory is false". ID simply wants to replace evolution theory without doing its homework (i.e., providing good evidence), like a man who wants to graduate university but has never done his homework, nor he intends to do so. ID simply states there is irreducible complexity, no mention of how it was created and no serious method to distinguish between irreducible complexity and natural processes, just an intuition that it looks complex, so it has been probably designed by an intelligent creator. It is laughable to base science just on intuitions (i.e., metaphors). Intuitions are valuable for science, but only if they are operationalized empirically and backed by good evidence. First get a scientific theory accepted by the scientific community, then it gets broadly taught in universities, and only then it may get to be taught in state schools. ID wants to do it backwards, i.e. start with teaching the metaphors in state schools and expect the new generation to do the homework they should have done in the first place. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Take the faculties of biology from the top 100 US universities. How may of them teach evolution as fact? How many of them teach ID as fact? How many of them teach "evolution isn't proven" as fact? Make an educated guess. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC) tgeorge it seems like you are using this as a forum. i think that is against the rules. John.r.r (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? This thread should be closed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) seems like this article has a hostile tone for instance here is what encylopedia.com says: intelligent design, theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. In addition, the theory has been attacked on the grounds that many aspects of nature fail to show any evidence of intelligent design, such as "junk" DNA (see nucleic acid) and the vestigial webbed feet of the frigate bird (which never lands on water). very calm, academic and accurate without the hostility. esp the 'pseudoscience' label. article seems VERY biased can anyone tell me WHY the present wiki article is better than this very unbiased article by encycopedia.com??? and how can 'the beast' be a reliable source when as i read the wiki on 'reliable sources' it says that tabloids are not. seems like this article cherry picks its sources. John.r.r (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) That's literally copy pasted from above. Could someone uninvolved please close this thread?Rwenonah (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Stop...repeat STOP...feeding the animals. Juan Riley (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC) so WHAT if it was copied from above. no one has properly addressed my point. can someone PLEASE STOP letting the idiots hijack this article 22:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC) John.r.r (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

First line phrasing/cite

(I've inserted a divider here just to make the indexing straight ... Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)).

I think the first line could be phrased better and I think that britannicas article is overall better and could be emulated. Also it seems that the first source is quote mined. John.r.r (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is actually what the source says:

""Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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."" John.r.r (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-published source, and unduly self-serving in that ID isn't a scientific theory: even cdesign proponentsists admit that in their more candid moments. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

are you saying the source is unreliable and should not be used??? what is a cdesign proponentsist??? John.r.r (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Answer to first question: yes. Answer to second question: please click on the linked term cdesign proponentsists for further details. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 00:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ebyabe, to best of my knowledge cdesign proponentsists is just a mistype.John.r.r (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah! That's what makes it funny. It also unequivocally shows that ID is just creationism re-branded and therefore not a scientific theory.--McSly (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

mcsly, I think you are using this as a forum or somewhere to make jokes. I think that is against the rules. How is what you are saying trying to improve the article??? John.r.r (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

John.r.r or dave souza ??? What source are you referring to in 'the first source is quote mined'??? The first article cite seems Boudry, (mistaken URL actually think it goes here,) but I do not see a definition there that matches to the above. I think the definition comes from the third cite block to the CSC FAQ where it reads "1. What is the theory of intelligent design? 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." But that does not match the text above either so please clarify the cite involved. (Not that I think the article can be fixed but at least we can be clearer about the issues.). Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to nip it in the bud, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. ldvhl (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

dvhl, this is not a forum. John.r.r (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett, thanks for the response. My point is that in either case only PART of the definition supplied is quoted here which to me is a type of quote mining or cherry-picking that creationists have been accused of so I don't think this article should do the same and dave souse says the source is unreliable and should not be used. John.r.r (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a primary source for one of the things that proponents say, and it's not a definition of ID and so not the one we use. The definition put forward by proponents is from a primary source with a reputation for misrepresentation, and as such must be used with care. The claim to be a "theory" is misleading, and as discussed earlier it's inappropriate to use that word at the outset without explaining the context. You seem to want to want to give equal validity to that misleading claim, which is against WP:GEVAL policy. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

dave souza, no I do not want to give 'equal validity' as you seem to imply. What seems wrong to me is to claim a source is unreliable and then use it for the opening of an article. And then to cherry pick parts of a sentence from an 'unreliable source'. It reminds me of using a jail house statement of a known liar and criminal and then to use only PART of what he says to convict someone. Seems that accusing creationists of 'quote mining' and then doing the same thing in an article criticizing creationists is either careless or hypocritical. I think the whole quote should be used or not used at all. And if a source is considered 'unreliable' then that source should not be used, PERIOD. Again its like labeling someone a liar then using what he says to support your argument. It does not work both ways. John.r.r (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We can use sources with fringe views, but we cannot represent their contents as not-fringe. For instance, if John Smith writes a book that claims the sky is made of blueberries, we can cite his book to verify he is making the claim: e.g. "John smith claims...[1]" That doesn't make his book reliable, and we cannot use it to suggest there really are blueberries in the sky, or there is controversy about sky-blueberries. It requires careful balance. Our opening sentence places ID's claim in context as their claim, so it's fine to use ID literature for verification. It would not be ok to use ID literature exclusively to define the whole topic, or to repeat their claims as facts (or even as "controversial" facts). If you have a non-ID source which defines the topic better than the DI that you'd like to use instead, feel free to propose it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I fixed the indenting. John, can you try to indent your posts like I did here? It really makes the conversation much more legible.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If John Smith claims that the sky is made of blueberries AND pumpkins it would be wrong to quote him as JUST blueberries. ID proponents, 'their claim' is that 'ID is a scientific theory like other historical sciences that blah blah blah. But it is quoted JUST the blah blah. And I think ID is more that just a 'view'. That seems dishonest. I really do not think 'scientific theories' have to be proven in order to be 'theories'. Take gravitation theories for instance. There are several and they conflict with each other but that does not mean they are 'pseudo sciences' simply because they never have been tested. Has big bang theory been proven?? Is it a pseudo science then? Panspermia is considered a 'hypothesis' Seems like ID is more of a hypothesis. How about 'aether theories' in wiki are referred to as 'theories'. ""The extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is the claim that some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are best explained as being physical spacecraft... "" Now that seems like a non hostile honest lead. Something like the "Intelligent design hypothesis is the claim that..." but also stating that proponents believe it can scientifically proven but most scientists think it is pseudoscience. A non hostile honest lead is what this article needs. And its not so much a matter of sourcing but PHRASING. John.r.r (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." ID is not well-substantiated, wasn't acquired through the scientific method and hasn't been tested or confirmed - thus the fact that the scientific community virtually totally rejects it. Likewise, a scientific hypothesis is "an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon ... the two primary features are falsifiability and testability." ID is impossible to test - thus the scientific community rejects it as a scientific hypothesis as well. The extraterrestrial hypothesis article doesn't actually say what you quoted; in fact, it treats the idea with due scepticism: "The extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is the claim that some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are best explained as being physical spacecraft occupied by extraterrestrial life or non-human aliens from other planets visiting Earth. As yet, no widely-accepted evidence exists to support these claims." In summary, unless you present something other than your conviction ID is legitimate, or Discovery Institute polemics, the article will continue for effect the scientific consensus. Rwenonah (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article on what a scientific theory actually is, like I helpfully linked above. ldvhl (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but John, your understanding of the terminology, state, and method of science, is mistaken. It will be tough to correct those misconceptions without venturing into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Suffice it to say, our academic sources are very clear that ID is not a scientific theory, and not in any sense a part of science. The DI source does not contradict that. If you have a specific proposal, you should briefly propose it: use specific wording, with links to sources. Independent, secondary ones are best.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE read more carefully. I never proposed saying in article 'ID is science' and I AM familiar with the defitnions. You need to read what I am saying more carefully. It seems you want to make this a forum on why you dont like ID so I think you should stop that. If you want to debate the 'legitmacy' of ID put it on my talk page where I am assuming that is allowed.

What I am saying is that to me the sourcing is not accurate and the phrasing is bad. If no one else can see that then its all a moot point. I would like this ID article to be phrased more like the ET article which I think is done much better.

And again this is not a forum so please do not write arguments for or against ID etc. Thanks you. John.r.r (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Too vague, and you don't seem to be getting any traction for your ideas. If you accept it's a moot point, you should stop beating it. . . dave souza, talk 12:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

this does not make sense to me: ::

""Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] ""

proponents say it is a theory then say it is not a theory??? Also the source just says that a couple of old timers thought it was not a fullly developed theory like evo. but proponents in GENERAL say they think it is a theory and a scientific one.

the "while conceding that they yet to produce a scientific theory" should be deleted since it is not sourced and illogical

John.r.r (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is because ID is not really a well-thought-out worldview but rather a public relations campaign. It started when creationism was declared religious and not-a-science in the courts, barring it from being taught in public schools. So creationists needed a new name for their ideas, while hiding the overtly religious parts. Thus, ID is inherently dishonest, and since consistent lies are difficult to maintain, some proponents pretended they have a theory while others admitted they do not. Though the article is not to blame if the community of ID proponents cannot get their act together, it should reflect the various opinions of the proponents regarding that point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

proponents of evolution cannot agree on a lot of things also but that is not put in the lead there. is evolution gradual or sudden? lots of debate on that. but you are starting to make this a forum which you should stop. if you want to debate these things go to my talk page

John.r.r (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gradual or sudden? Ask a neontologist (a biologist who is concerned with living species) how long speciation takes, and he will say "oh, it is very slow, it takes a few thousand years." Ask a paleontologist (who is used to timespans in the millions), and he will say "oh, it is very quick, it just takes a few thousand years." Gradual from one point of view, sudden from the other. But actually they agree.

You brought the point up: does ID have a theory or not? Of course it hasn't. Nobody I ever asked, or has been asked by somebody else while I was there, was able to name that theory. All they can give is untestable blather. If an ID proponent admits that, it should be in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

John.r.r - Yah, that is poor quoting. The topic has come up before and as you can see there is some soapbox insistence for the way it is. I think that it would be better fidelity to quote the complete sentence including the initial phrase "theory that" which editors find objectionable. That would better conform to WP:CITE, WP:QUOTE, and wp:GOODDEF, particularly the MOS:CITE, MOS:QUOTE, WP:INTEGRITY, WP:QUOTEMARKS. May as well wish to wipe out that line's WP:CITECLUTTER and WP:CITEBUNDLE while I'm at it. Meh -- at least it has some definition and the bias/mess is kind of visible to readers. Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett very well expressed! why has this article gone down the tubes?? John.r.r (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Could this thread, I mean the whole thread that started in June, be closed as well. The discussion reached a conclusion a while back, and is just restating things now and sides entrenched. I can't see anything productive coming from keeping it open any longer, but that's just me. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

the word theory etc

I think the first sentence should read:

Intelligent design (ID) is a theory 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."

or

Intelligent design (ID) is a philosophical theory 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."

Yes I know sources say that it is not a 'scientific' theory but according to the wiki definition of 'theory' or philosophical theory' it works. Plus ID is not a 'view'. The source does not say it is a view.

Also it seems to me that the article as it was in 2005 and 2010 is better than now. When did it get the special award? Seems like the article is deteriorating.

John.r.r (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, John, welcome to the reality of Wikipedia. Until there are a sufficient quantity of editors that simultaneously call for reform of this blatantly biased article, it will not be reformed. Yes, sometime around 2007, this article became more and more and more blatantly POV and the defenses of that non-neutral POV were shallowly dishonest. But they have the numbers and the politically correct position at this time is to identify ID with DI not with any usage of the term that preceded DI by a century or two. Classic case of well-designed biased editing.

The other technique they use will be to eventually accuse you of being a disruptive editor and get you community-banned. They've done that a few times before.

Rots 'o ruck. 76.118.23.40 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In case you did not follow the previous discussions, argument from design has a separate article. Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the most common name used by reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

but the evolution article violates WP:COMMONNAME and the word 'view' does not have an RS another violation but those are overlooked to keep the article biased John.r.r (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno about IP 76.[..], but I have been following the article and discussion for at least 10 years. The article, as it is now, is as 76 says: Blatantly Biased and not NPOV. The lede sentence and paragraph give it away. The bias is no secret. Dead give-away.

And your appeal to WP:COMMONNAME falls flat. You allow (or sorta conspire with) the Discovery Institute in hijacking the term which has had usage in the English language long before DI appropriated the term. I think it was William Paley who might have coined the term. 75.144.141.50 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

IP guys, I agree with both of you. Can you get handles so I can talk to you on your talk page or you can talk to me on mine? John.r.r (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide citations from scolarly sources before 1989 which discuss/establish a theory/notion/argument of/from "Intelligent Design". Please take into account that merely a usage of the term "intelligent designer/creator" in a single sentence (William Paley) doesn't account for the above mentioned theory/notion/argument. After you present these sources we will have to determine how prevalent this theory/argument/notion is in the scientific literature. Perhaps it merits an article "Intelligent design (pre-DI)".

AFAIK no such sources exist. I remember reading an article which discussed the usage of the phrase "Intelligent design" pre 1989. It presented the advertisment of kitchen furniture as the most prevalent use of the phrase before 1989. 93.104.29.152 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• The word 'view' is strongly supported by this encyclopedia entry about ID, written by Rodney Wallace Kennedy, PhD, who is the director of the Baptist House of Studies at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. Published in 2010 by SAGE, a scholarly imprint, the encyclopedia introduces ID as "the view that the universe was created by some sort of intelligent designer..." Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Then why not USE that as the source in the aricle? Can we also use from your source where it says ID is a theory?? And other things that your source states like that ID is not creationism?? John.r.r (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that ID proponents claim it is a "scientific theory", we cannot use the word "theory" in some other non-scientific sense without extensive clarification. Yes, the word "theory" can mean different things, which is precisely why it would be a disservice to our readers to conflate those meanings and introduce ambiguity (or worse, imply something was true that is verifiably not).   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Ok then lets put for the lead something like "Intelligent design proponents claim that ID is a theory but most scientist believe it is not. John.r.r (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We are already saying that with this line: "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that..." your sentence is the definition of pseudoscientific view Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

but you dont have a source that says "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view" you are cherry picking parts of a source. that seems dishonest to me. John.r.r (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That line has two citations, first one's title is "Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience" what seems dishonest? Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's pseudoscientific by definition, since it doesn't rely on the scientific method. I've linked this information for you recently. ldvhl (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2015

Hatting as old and not going anywhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view Please remove the word "pseudoscientific" from the opening sentence because that implies malicious intent on the part of the Intelligent design movement. They are using the same darwinian method as all other science does to propel their ideas within the academic and scientific communities. The only difference is in how one interprets the data or evidence. They are not making up the science, they are reading the same data as everyone else. Who ever edited that opening sentence may have a different philosophical view of the world but intelligent design is far from pseudoscientific, and the editor needs to read the data and evidence before hurling insults and stifling honest research. Secular science and the intelligent design movement both deal with the how. Where they differ is the darwinians stop at the how, where as the intelligent design movement goes one step further and asks WHY. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan batke (talk • contribs)  Not done We have had pointless discussions on this long enough Darwinian Ape talk 05:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Ryan, current consensus on the talk page for this article is to have the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. If enough people come to this talk page and object, at around the same time, to that word, and therefore change the current consensus, then it can be removed. Consensus (numbers) trumps everything on Wikipedia except WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Unless a significant number of those persons were meat puppets, or they failed to cite any relevant policy or sources. Consensus is not just numbers, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Sources and policy apply to the article body. Since the lede is a summary and subject to editorial judgement, consensus triumphs. And, accusing another editor of being a "meatpuppet" is a violation of WP:NPA as there is no WP policy prohibiting editors from agreeing with other editors, even if they have a low edit count or activity rate. Again, if the numbers support it, "pseudoscience" in the lede gets nixed. Those are the rules. Cla68 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3)Wow, that is so wrong that you must be having trouble sitting after pulling that out. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations says "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." It says that citations that appear later in the body do not need to be repeated in the lede if the lede is summarizing that information, but it does not say that sources and policy apply to the article body. Also, you seem to be missing the point that consensus is not a simple vote, but that policy and sources are an important part of consensus. Again, see WP:Consensus not numbers and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, which represent a site-wide consensus (so even if your numbers claim was initially right, you are still overwhelmingly outnumbered on this matter). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (which also represents a site-wide consensus) says "The lead should [...] summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." In other words, if the relevant sources are nigh-universal in their assessment of a topic, then the lede must mention that assessment, otherwise the lede does not accurately summarize the body. It is not a violation of NPA to point out a meatpuppet if there is good evidence -- see WP:SPADE. If it was always verboten to utter the word "meatpuppet," we wouldn't have a section about meatpuppets at WP:SOCK, and WP:SPI would have a notice at the top of the page saying "sorry, don't handle meat puppet cases, because we totally forgot about WP:NOTDEMOCRACY." If "numbers" try to sway an article as you suggest is possible, Wikipedia can and will tell a POV-pushing mob to sod off, as we did with the gamergaters, the Church of Scientology, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and many other groups. Those are the "rules," now please quit making up stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC) By the way, there is a way to keep "pseudoscience" from being removed from the lede if people keep trying to remove it without consensus to do so. All you have to do is put this article on your watchlist and check it every 15 minutes (or your email notifications) so you can revert anyone who tries to do so. You'll need to keep checking your watchlist every 15 minutes for the rest of your life, or for as long Wikipedia is around, to make sure. Otherwise, people might read this article without knowing that ID is a "pseudoscience" and all heck would break loose. Vigilance. Cla68 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC) No, achieving consensus is not a bunch of people saying or complaining "(we) want it that way," it's a bunch of editors, who are not meat puppets!, either explaining why they want it that way, while citing relevant policies, and or sources, or it's a bunch of editors who understand why it's that way. Otherwise, we would have a tyranny of the majority where a bunch of whining creationist trolls will get together and present a fake majority in order to inappropriately rewrite pages to their liking without anyone to stop them. "Pseudoscience" in the lede would only get nixed if someone can explain why Intelligent Design is not pseudoscience, and if same said someone PROVIDES SOURCES AND CITATIONS THAT SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS SOURCES AND CITATIONS.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Mr. Fink, I suspect that there are literally hundreds of emotionally immature people out there just looking for an opportunity to swoop in here and remove "pseudoscience" from the lede. We must remain vigilant to keep it from happening. Could you please put this article on your watchlist and check it every few minutes to make sure it doesn't happen? Also, if anyone posts on this talk page that they want to remove it, please make sure you object within a few minutes time so that a local consensus cannot develop to do so. It's very important that you do that or else someone might read this article and get the wrong idea about what ID is. Cla68 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Cla68, your views on site policies are starting to border on trolling. First you advocate meatpuppet-mob-driven POV-pushing, then you claim that policies don't apply to ledes, now you're advocating edit warring. You should probably find another topic to work with, because you're clearly not in the right mindset to handle this topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC) At last, something that I can agree with Cla68 about, more or less. I realise that he's sugar coated it with knobs on, but yes, that is one of the purposes of a watchlist, but here's the thing ... you dont have to check it every few mins, once a day is enough, lots of people do it, its how we protect the project from vandals and hastenists. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Since it's blatantly obvious that the only reason Cla68 resurrected this thread is to troll people with his inanity, why don't we just hat it?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Undid hat - was labeled hatted for use as troll bait ???? Will rehat as due to age -- really folks, y'all could have just left it and archiving would handle. Get over it that there are serious points against it, and many detractors.

Question

Troll bait, hatted in accordance with WP:TPG. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there a proven scientific method that shows, unequivocally, that the universe, the planet earth and the living animal species therein have NOT been created by Intelligent Design? If so, what is it?Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) You have answered your own question there with your fifth and sixth words. Well done! --Pete (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC) I have undeleted this section, and suggest folks Talk be to discuss it reasonably re potential edits or else not really WP useful to TALK. In my case I will say I am aware of no cites to speak to this so the due WP:WEIGHT is not a mention. The lack of a published topic is not a reportable section by WP guidelines, it makes no sense to try and have article content talking about where there is nothing ... Markbassett (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Not only does that make zero sense grammatically, it contradicts WP guidelines per WP:NOTAFORUM .Rwenonah (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Rwenonah - restating since you voiced it as not clear: on the thread of whether there had been 'proven scientific method' to show ID wrong I see no obvious discussion in cites so by WP:WEIGHT it is not due a mention. Markbassett (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC) @ Davidbena, your question is both malformed and contrary to talk page guidelines. The answer was perhaps best stated at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." . . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Dave souza, you're wasting your breath, as Davidbena did not make this question in good faith, and is not interested in discussing anything with anyone who does not mirror his own personal sentiments.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Support hatting this section as it does not appear to be an attempt to improve the article nor does it appear to have any chance of becoming productive. Hy Brasil (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion by others is inappropriate

Hat off topic posts per WP:TPO
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A section for the other topic of folks deleting others TALK just to remind folks that is contrary to WP:Talk page guidelines at WP:TPOC. If it's stupid y'all don't have to respond. If you want to say Off-topic, fine. If it's off-topic to extensive length the admins are guided to collapse it, not delete it. Markbassett (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC) "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)", or of course maybe best to hat offtopic rants. . dave souza, talk 13:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC) dave souza - *sigh* The thread topic here is deletions that were not appropriate to WP guidance, nor something to be ignored for what was trivially handleable within WP guidance and also easily just left lying alone. Only the DELETE seemed in need of any response, to undelete and instead move to more properly close topic. After a second delete it then seemed necessary to post actual TALK to point folks to WP guidance and deletions propriety. To the part of WP:TPOC you are looking at, that seems more about unreadable text but in any case ends "be sure to err on the side of caution." As to the maybe better to hat, well yes but this simply was not a hat collapse and had not even reached the heat or length of such WP:Refactoring talk pages around here. (Examples archive 83 here; and there. So it's a thread post pointing people to 'Deletion by others is inappropriate'. Delete it if it's in ARTICLE -- but not within TALK. Markbassett (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC) I delete these threads because I've seen and participated in enough of them to understand intimately that the Trolls For Jesus who start them ALWAYS start these threads in deliberate bad faith in order to deliberately antagonize other editors in protest and revenge over how both Science and Wikipedia are evil and stupid and wrong and evil and stupid because the articles at Wikipedia are not so pro-Creationism so as to border on genital suckling. None such threads that I've seen or participated in produced anything of note beyond bannings, blockings and bad feelings all around. And the guidelines at WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DENY all suggest to delete such inappropriate threads from talkpages. Furthermore, for the record, @Markbassett:, I do not delete these threads because I oppose the editors' point of view, I delete them because these threads are either inane rants, or have been made in deliberate bad faith in order to deliberately antagonize other editors. Not a single such thread I've seen or gotten tangled up in have ever produced anything productive whatsoever, especially since these editors refusal to understand even the most basic editing guideline or rudimentary etiquette routinely borders on gross incompetence.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC) I mean, honestly, why is it inappropriate to delete a thread started by a Troll For Jesus who has absolutely zero intentions of discussing anything with anyone beyond deliberately antagonizing other editors and or making obscenely inane Ejaculations For Jesus?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Markbassett is probably right that it's better to let people vent or comment without deleting them. However, a benefit of deleting people's comments from here is that it likely makes them enemies of Wikipedia for life. At least, it's a benefit for those of us in the "hasten the day" camp regarding the future demise of WP who are happy to see people get treated that way. So, I say, delete away gents! I also understand that some of you likely don't interact much with real human beings outside the Internet or, for various reasons, are unable or unwilling to feel empathy for the feelings or opinions of others. If so, please be aware that there are consequences for your actions, some of which may or may not be what you intended. Cla68 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Could you re-explain the benefits of allowing talkpages to be playpens for Trolls For Jesus and Assholes For Jesus? Or at least, bring up some benefit that actually is beneficial, as opposed to cautioning that we should coddle Trolls For Jesus and Assholes For Jesus lest they hate forever for not massaging their egos when they demand us to?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Mr. Fink. Cla68 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC) @Cla68:, can you please answer my request for clarification about the alleged benefits of coddling trolls who would abuse talkpages, please?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC) @Cla68:, or should we assume that your sarcastic inane comment is solely intended to insult, if not insult and intimidate those editors who would want to keep trolls from shitting everywhere? I mean, that is why you refuse to clarify what the alleged benefits of coddling trolls who abuse talkpages in the hopes of transforming Wikipedia into anti-science religious propaganda For Jesus, right?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

"This article is about a form of creationism." should state "This article is about a scientific theory." with link to scientific theory. Here is a quote from a prominent theoretician in the field: "In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven." This is a quote directly from Michael Behe's page on Wikipedia.

The opposition quite liberally oppress Behe...they have even gone as far as said that it is not scientifically tested; yet the theory utilizes current scientific principia and verifiable, quantifiable evidence.

Also, the phrasing "pseudoscientific view" should be changed to "scientific view," as it does in fact follow scientific evidence--the same evidence utilized by evolution...There is no ifs about this--it's clearly a scientific viewpoint. He provides numerous quotes that I've read a number of books on the subject and regarding the importance of the theory, it does not belie what or who is the "designer" involved in the theory, but instead what is obviously assertable as evidence of the theory. That being said these two statements at the top of the page can be considered harmful to the theory's efficacy--since many detractors would even use Wikipedia as evidence instead of vice versa.

Thanks for the help. Cobaltspin (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Behe's 1996 suggestion for an experiment looks rather like the E. coli long-term evolution experiment which started in 1988, but ID proponentsists probably don't like that one. Or think an Unknown Designer fiddled with the E coli using unknowable techniques, which of course is untestable. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Articles are based on reliable sources and Michael Behe does not have the qualifications that would be needed to overturn modern science. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, Behe never did any experimentation to determine, define, or detect what "intelligent design" is beyond solely stating it's any biological phenomenon magically too complex for any stupid mortal researcher to ever hope to explain. Simply throwing up one's hands and saying "it's too hard for me to understand" is not a "scientific theory" by any competent definition, especially when Behe also has repeatedly failed to explain how "intelligent design" can be applied to scientific research.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Cobaltspin - I think the article is irretrievably biased, offset by it is so badly done that it is kind of two wrongs make an almost-right. However, I think your proposal does not suit as ID being associated with or a form of creationism is a major viewpoint with a few cites shown, and you have not presented countering cites to support the line you propose. I'm also thinking that design would inherently be a 'creation' anyway, as opposed to the gradualism or incrementalism of the Darwinian model so even if one gets past the label-wars and the politics and the ranting like above, I think you'd come to a 'scientific theory about creationism'. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• As with other WP:FRINGE claims, the only people who start to think it's the least bit scientific are its advocates, not mainstream scientists in relevant fields (who are expected to be able to look at competing theories and at a minimum at least say "I don't agree with the other idea for X reasons, but I can see why someone would advocate it for Y reasons"). The IDers are not using the same methods nor even the same philosophy of science, they are not seeking approval or review from mainstream scientists but from each other, and their starting point is pretty clearly "not Evolution and 'not' Genesis." It is a theological statement pretending to be science (not merely scientific, but usurping the role of science) while rejecting all the trappings, methods, and works of science it finds inconvenient or just doesn't get.

If it was truly about trying to reconcile science and creationism, it'd be theistic evolution (accepting the science while maintaining the theology). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - the topic seems notable and polls in article all indicate the majority of U.S. adults kind of feel similarly, so 'fringe' seems inappropriate. Likewise the indications are an attempt was made to make this science (not scientific) and I've not seen otherwise. Please show any cites supporting the statements, and if they're viable for the article then I suggest submitting them. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fringe among qualified experts is what's important, not the general public. And no, no attempt was actually made to make ID science.Farsight001 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Farsight001 -

* Mostly the wording 'fringe' connotation of 'tiny group' makes it seem an inappropriate article phrasing given the polls. How much of the public tending the ID way also I think winds up affecting the WP:WEIGHT of citeable material.

* The 'qualified experts' are largely lobbyists, lawyers, and philosophy of science or theology etcetera by dint of the topic label as Creationism and the actual materials in existence -- it's in the "Creationism" bin as a major branch of that, and "Popsci" or "Op-ed" by recent events, and by the published works. It is not in the serious science bin other than that community having passed, which seems notable. Seriously just follow the cites and presenting content fairly in due weight to prominence should mean a lot of non-scientists content while making it clear this is *not* accepted in the biology community -- since basically there's not scientific publications on it or scientists speaking to it. Just two sides of advocates throwing word games and media coverage of same.

* The article presents ID as having made an attempt to be science enough to be in science curriculum, ("advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula") which was the cause of much educator heat and many scientific communities issued statements saying it is not science. (Not calling it pseudoscience, just dramatically denying it standing ...)

Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, good thing that there're no other countries in the world besides America and that science is nothing but polls. I guess we just need to do some polls among Americans to ask them how to cure cancer and AIDS. Maybe it's Brawndo, the thirst killer! It's got electrolytes! I mean, it's not like this sort of thinking is such a crass ignorance of how science works that one should have no right to comment on scientific matters until they actually bother to read something besides pablum by anti-science zealots. Maybe we can conduct a poll to find out that brown is not actually a color! That wouldn't just mean that the majority of Americans are simply wrong about something, a poll among Americans means something must be true!

Did you even try reading the Criticisim section or the main article Intelligent design and science? Plenty of sources all around. Same for the Evolution article. There are sources, plenty of them, you just didn't look at them at all, which indicates that you are not here for the sake of truth but to POV-push.

You are pushing a religious doctrine and pretending it is science. You are not Galileo here, you are one of the guys who rejected germ theory because "Galen doesn't mention 'germ' as one of the four humours." Please just stop, you are wasting everyone's time, especially your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - Don't sweat it so much. I said 'fringe' seemed inappropriate given the poll included in article, and suggested that if you did have a cite for it then add it to the article as new material -- since there is no such statement in the article now. If you don't OK, if you do OK. Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for this discussion. The FAC Q2/A2 at the top of this page already answers this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Or FAQ Q1/A1. Good post. Markbassett (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to resort to extensive sarcasm here. Besides pointing at sources, explain your reasoning. Simply point that "Argumentum ad populum": "a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." " does not define the answers to scientific questions. The scientific method requires "empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." Ideas which contradict the evidence, misrepresent the evidence, or willfully ignore it are rejected, no matter how many adherents they have.

In the case of intelligent design, its adherents have yet to produce sufficient evidence to support their ideas. The celebrated argument for irreducible complexity has been rejected because of its poor representation of "self-organizing chemical processes". Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) have not formulated a scientific theory. The literature is confined to attempts to find difficulties with evolutionary biology. As the "definition" phrases it, ID is the claim that there is a better account than one using naturalistic evolution: it is not a description of such a better account. No such account has been explored in the literature, it is only a matter of what are thought to be deficiencies in evolutionary biology. What happens so that the world of life on Earth turns out as it does, rather than something else, among the unlimited possibilities open to designers without any specified constraints? What is the evidence supposed to be for? ID is silent. Wikipedia is open to any description from reliable resources, but not to speculation that there might be such a theory. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

TomS TDotO - the characterization of ID being just pointing out difficulties with evolutionary biology isn't one that the article has. If that comes from a useable cite, I suggest adding it to the article. I've seen cites mostly characterizing it as either (a) one branch of creationism or (b) a rejected effort to be science. Markbassett (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

— Eugenie C. Scott, PBS Nova, Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial, 2007

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have enough in the line of reliable sources to back up my claim that there is no theory of ID. What I do feel free to say, is to point out on this Talk page, that the burden is on anyone who makes the claim that there is a scientific theory, (at the very least) to state what that scientific theory is; and I am saying that I have never seen such a statement. But it is difficult to "prove a negative contingency". Thanks to Tgeorgescu, I think that that may represent the beginnings. TomS TDotO (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

See intelligent design#Arguments from ignorance – "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." It continues, "Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design." . . . dave souza, talk 06:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, in 2004 Paul Nelson said "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design." The Measure of Design, A Conversation About the Past, Present & Future of Darwinism & Design, July/August 2004 issue.. . dave souza, talk 06:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

TomS TDotO - I think then that you did not mean to portray a characterization of ID being just pointing out difficulties with evolutionary biology. The article is still a bit muddled on what ID is, I think that goes with there being a lot of contentiousness on the topic. Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

dave souza - presuming you are proposing those for inclusion, the first seems just commentary on their argumentation style and not a statement of what ID is; the second seems valid cite to a characterization of what it is and if there are any others I'd suggest adding it to the article. Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark, the first is already in the article, the second point is covered in the lead. As we note, ID is a religious argument, not a scientific theory. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the second contains more in the way of actual rhetoric, even though the rhetoric makes a sound and valid point. The first example is essentially restating what almost every ID publication claims in summation, in one form or another. It could also be phrased more sarcastically as, "Aha, gotcha! You're wrong, so God did it." Of course, as has been pointed out in countless academic rebuttals and even (ad infinitum) on this talk page, all such arguments have been fundamentally flawed and have never disproved anything about evolution. Thus the constant moving and resetting of the goal posts, and/or attempts to muddy the waters for people just beginning to learn scientific theory, by introducing ID as counterpoint in a [middle] school curriculum... Even if it's just a disclaimer that evolution is "only a theory" stamped by schools on the inside cover of textbooks. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Intelligent Design is not a science or a theory, was never a science nor a theory, never intended to be a science or a theory, and not a single one of its proponents neither understand nor care to explain how it's supposed to be a science or how to use it in science. Even its inane creators at the inane Discovery Institute admit that Intelligent Design was not intended to be a science, but a Trojan Horse with which to sneak Creationism and anti-science religious propaganda into science classrooms. That is, in addition to being wholly unable to explain how and why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science or theory. And it's, shall we say, incredibly exasperating dealing with naive editors here who steadfast refuse to get this particular memo.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr Fink Just follow the cites -- ID intended to be a theory is shown in the article content and cites of line 1, where e.g. CSC says "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." and "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is not accepted as a theory by the scientific community. It is generally regarded and stated as that theory language, and widely viewed as a form of creationism. Wiki edits were unable to otherwise resolve this and cut off the words "The theory". Markbassett (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And the placement of "cdesign proponentsists" in "Of Pandas And People" is deliberate.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote does not show that ID was intended to be a scientific theory, just that was pretended to be one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[Re-indenting] @Markbassett: a scientific theory needs testable hypotheses, and data, rather than simply a thesis statement. I could say that the sky being blue is better explained as something other than the diffusion of visible light in the atmosphere, and then further critique any number of demonstrable ways in which we show the existence of a spectrum of light...

But none of these things actually constitute a scientific argument, provide testable hypotheses, or disprove anything about the accepted scientific understanding of light accumulated over the ages. It doesn't actually engage in the scientific process, and thus, ID isn't science, and it doesn't intend to be science. Rather, it's an attempt to use scientific language to frame a theological argument, and then posit a bunch of "what if" questions, while (myopically) critiquing certain experimental processes in order to confuse the average reader about the results. I say "myopically" because the sheer volume of confluence and correlation of data in multiple fields essentially proves evolution by natural selection- ID is a generalised attempt to discredit the notion of evolution itself in the mind of the average reader.

There is no question that evolution exists. Or that natural selection is the most likely method of selection, according to the science, though it's certainly possible other forms of selection exist of which we're unaware. This doesn't discount the notion of theistic evolution, of course. Genomic sequencing and mapping has essentially put this question to rest, as we can positively show that evolution exists through the genetic heritage of various organisms, and we can demonstrate natural selection in variety of ways, and its observable and testable.

ID instead intends to confuse the average reader, as I've said, and frame theology using scientific jargon. It's not attempting to be science, but to sway public opinion, so as to lend credibility to their argument - to make it easier to allay the questions of the faithful who are already convinced of the infallibility of scripture, and make it easier to bring people to [the] faith by making them think there is reason to distrust scientific consensus. Ultimately, the reason they want it to be taught in schools is to retain the notion of infallibility among children raised in the faith, and/or make it easier to convince people if they find themselves drawn to an evangelical interpretation of faith later in life. The last part of this is to some extent opinionated commentary, but is nonetheless true. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco - Just follow the cites - see the FAQ Q4/A4. This is just a forum for discussing edits to the article in finding relevant cite and appropriate wording so it presents the viewpoints that exist in due weight to their prominence and accordance to WP policy. The viewpoints on 'what ID is' out there seem to be either (a) creationism, or (b) theory (rejected by scientific community), some discussion from TomS TDotO and then a dave souza quote of Paul Nelson that verges on another (c) collection of intuitions and notions. I do not think TomS or Dave souza intend to add that to the article, but if they have more cites that are usable in that theme I do suggest they do so as the article does not currently have that viewpoint represented. Otherwise continued at user Talk. Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware. User talk pages, while being given more latitude and liberties, are also for discussion within and about the encyclopaedia. You'll see that my comment was a reply to you (or specifically, your earlier claim), in addition to an addendum of sorts to what Mr. Fink said. It's addressing, without saying as much, the tendentiousness of certain editors on this talk page. I'm remiss to comment on users directly, even when its apparent they're WP:NOTHERE. I'm not a regular contributor to this article, but it's among the many pages I watch in the categories of religion, pseudoscience, and fringe topics. It's tiring for users to get caught up in cyclical and often fruitless discussions. They've been extremely patient, and that's commendable. But there's a point of diminishing returns, especially when it's the same user(s), whether or not they've learned to "talk the talk" and their purpose here is far more obfuscated as of late. I've watched this talk page for quite a while now, and while some occasional contributions and positive results have come from those tendentious discussions they're few and far between. I'd just invite those whose aim is to make ID more plausible or palatable to the average Wikipedia reader (admitted or otherwise) to ask themselves whether they're actually providing a positive net worth given the level of discussion, and whether their efforts, after some self-appraisal, would be better spent elsewhere. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was taking the liberty in expressing my opinion on this talk page, where I wouldn't feel that it would be appropriate on the regular page. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco - Observing Just follow the cites post and discussing how to improve the article, in particular keeping the discussion focused on this thread is about the hatnote of what ID is or what this ID article is, "This article is about a form of creationism" -- That line is one of two main viewpoints and has a few cites shown, the suggested alternative did not, and a potential third viewpoint mentioned by TomS/Dave souza (unclear) seems minor subtext that I suggest go into article body if they have more. If there's additional on thus thread topic, please Talk here. Otherwise continue at User talk. Markbassett (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark, the article already covers these points, giving due weight to mainstream views. . . dave souza, talk 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

dave souza - *sigh*. Pointing towards WP:TALK Stay on topic; Discuss edits; Deal with facts (just follow the cites); Be positive (propose improvements). If you've got more cites to add to your earlier (of ID being just bundle of criticisms to Evo,) I suggest add to article separate from this topic rather than as topline or think you meant that to affect the topline, yah ? Markbassett (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not proposing a change, and if you're proposing a change you have to show reliable sources. If you're not proposing a change, then your comments are just extended forum stuff, and WP:NOTAFORUM so time to archive this section. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dave - Thanks for clearing up your offer of cite to TomS was not intended as any change, on thread topic or for getting redirected. For your interest re edits see the WP:TALK#USE mention is a mix - my first post is discussion of the proposal, and it goes on into discussion of ways to improve, along lines that "form of creationism" sort of fits, improvement of covering the other view/views would be wished for. From your interest for more discussion about actual change to article text, I'll add that inserting something to also cover more of the article seems desirable. But something other than combining the existing and proposed 'scientific theory' since that hasn't been given support and it then wouldn't reflect the 'rejected' part of 'rejected theory' in the article. The 'form of creationism and rejected theory' looks too awkward though. That's as far as I have. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)