Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Intelligent design

Intelligent design

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Davidbena (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Amatulic (talk · contribs)
3. Dave souza (talk · contribs)
4. Binksternet (talk · contribs)
5. Rwenonah (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Intelligent design

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Intelligent design#Proposal to Change Introductory Lines of Article

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

It is my view that the article Intelligent design should take more of a neutral position about Intelligent design, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:Weight. So far, the article takes a strong bias against the theory of Intelligent design, and wishes to expunge the views of scientists who hold to the theory, or else, discredit their views. It is best, in my opinion, to present the opinions, without interjecting our bias, one way or the other. Furthermore, the lead sentence in the article currently calls the Intelligent design theory a "pseudoscience." This designation is, in my opinion a wrong designation, and should rather be changed to "theoretical view." 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. I have already shown in the Talk Page of Intelligent design that Einstein's view is shared by many other scientists, and is, by no means, a fringe view. It is a disputed view, but not a fringe view.

These would be my suggestions for change in the opening paragraph of the current article:

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).

1. Can we make the page more neutral in its scope and overall portrayal of the theory known as Intelligent design (ID)?
2. Can we change "pseudoscience" in the lead statement for "theoretical view"?

Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1. For a review of all past-discussions on this subject, see: Talk:Intelligent design#Proposal to Change Introductory Lines of Article

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• While I have my own objection to using the adjective "pseudoscientific" in the lead of an article intended for laypeople who would consider the term pejorative and biased (I favor removing the adjective and describing Intelligent Design as the noun "pseudoscience" later in the lead), I disagree with the premises of this request for mediation. Namely, I disagree with (a) the premise that the article somehow fails NPOV because it doesn't give equal weight to a minority WP:FRINGE viewpoints, (b) the premise that the article attempts to "expunge" the views of ID proponents when the body actually goes into painstaking detail explaining the Intelligent Design position and hypotheses, and (c) the premise that a factually incorrect adjective "theoretical" is preferable to the contentious adjective "pseudoscientific". This request for mediation has nothing to do with neutrality; rather it suggests desire to have the article misrepresent the views the mainstream scientific community by bestowing an illusion of scientific credibility on the subject matter. Until a request for mediation can be formulated in a neutral manner that doesn't violate WP:FRINGE, I do not see any purpose in my participation. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Because I was listed as involved, and there was no place here to state that I reject this mediation request as forum shopping, I explained my objection above in the only place that seemed available. Consider this as a suggestion to improve the template. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Agree. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's note: @Amatulic: The exact scope and topics to be considered in any mediation resulting from this request will be determined by the mediator who accepts the case. If you feel that it ought to focus on issues other than what the filing party listed, your listing of them, above, will be considered by the mediator in making that determination and you will be free to withdraw from the mediation at that time if you do not care to continue. As it is, I'm going to evaluate your statement, above, as a rejection of participation in determining whether there is sufficient participation under prerequisites to mediation #5, unless you post an "agree" in the "Parties agreement to mediation" section. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Amatulic, I understand and will consider your response to be a "reject". For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reject. Failed to satisfy Prerequisite to mediation #5 "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)