Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 48

How NPOV is this page, really?

How can sentence like "Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science." made it in the article? I'm sure there are some who have called evolution as junk too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to the top of this page. There is a header-section marked "Please read before starting". Read it. This section links to a number of policy pages. Read them. They answer your complaints, which have been made by hundreds of creationists before you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Others" is referring to people of the scientific and education community, you know, relevant people.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, not everyone in the scientific and education community are relevant and not all of them called Intelligent Design 'Junk Science' (only those against it). I still think this article is clearly too biased. You got to be blind not to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.104.99 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They are blind, they don't see it, and they don't want to see it. The facts are that ID is not accepted as science by nearly every single biologist with credentials, that no reputable biology journal has published anything from Demski et. at., that the IDers have lost their case in court and have deserved to. But this article is so obviously biased that it is clear that the Wikipedia position is the anti-ID position. The article could just state the facts, let the IDers hang themselves, and not inject such clear evidence of the anti-ID position of the self-appointed editors and let the article at least appear less biased. But these editors clearly want the article to take an unreserved position that ID is bad, and they think that is "neutral". 207.190.198.130 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right not everyone is relevant...however all those who are (i.e., actual authorities on biology) think ID is junk. 67.184.132.39 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know better places to get information about ID, but this article with it's accompanying regular editors is an interesting look into the social aspect of the controversy.71.185.15.84 (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A misrepresentation in the article

From the article:

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.

The two statements following the italicized sentence do not conflict. For instance, the legal system prevalent in the US is certainly not religious, but nonetheless arguably has its foundation in the Bible. The italicized sentence should therefore be removed or corrected. My preference is for the former; doubtless the readers can judge the motivations of the cdesign proponentsists adequately enough themselves. Phrenophobia 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is at odds with the judgement of a federal court. If you feel so strongly, why not get a few million dollars together and try to challenge the court ruling? Otherwise, I think this is quite accurate.--Filll 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the idea that the US constitution has its foundations in the bible is nothing but rightwing revisionist propaganda. The US constitution conflicts with the bible far more than it agrees with it. Guettarda 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Neither statement implies the falsity of the other. Ideas proposed, inspired or endorsed by religious texts are not necessarily religious in themselves. Ilkali 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentences could be worded better. However, the truth remains that intelligent design, as a movement, is firmly rooted in religious ideas, motivated by religious beliefs, promoted by religious zealots, funded by religious donors, etc. The connections between intelligent design and religion are pervasive and extensive. Of course, one could in principle envisage an intelligent design movement and theory that was not connected with religion. However, this is not the reality that one observes, and we have mountains of evidence that they are deeply connected and intertwined. The only evidence we have to the contrary originates from the Discovery Institute itself, which then turns around and in the next breath, or in front of a different audience, declares that "of course intelligent design is about a religion /dominionism /injecting God into the public square /creating a Christian theocracy /etc. People in the public are too stupid to realize it" and so on and so forth... So please, give it a rest. We are not stupid, you know. --Filll 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't any hypocrisy in the ID crowd. I'm just saying that the italicised statement is not supported by the claims following it. It should be reworded, replaced or removed. Ilkali 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is accurate, but needs to be better cited: to prominent IDers saying, in at least two quotes of each claim, that it is and that it isn't religious. E.g.:

The world is a mirror representing the divine life... The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.[1]

Here's another good one for "it's religion:

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.[2]

KvD would probably be a good source for "it's not religion" quotes from them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful to distinguish between "X is religious" and "X is motivated/endorsed by religion". ID clearly isn't a religious claim. Ilkali 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The above quotes don't show ID as being "motivated/endorsed by religion" they show it as being founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'founded on religion' does not entail 'religious'. Ilkali 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context" most certainly does entail religion. When something "is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" it cannot help but be fundamentally religious. Can you tell be how a theology explicitly enunciated in the Christian New Testament is not religious? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

""founded on religion, to the extent of having no meaning or purpose outside that religious context" most certainly does entail religion". No it doesn't. Whether a claim is a religious one is determined by its content, not its underlying intentions. Additionally, ID does have meaning outside a religious context. It doesn't make reference to any exclusively religious concepts, nor make any religious presuppositions. It makes a plain, perfectly meaningful statement about the universe, which just happens to be unfounded. Ilkali 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your bare assertion that "whether a claim is a religious one is determined by its content, not its underlying intentions." ID makes no "reference to any exclusively religious concepts" as part of a Neo-creationist attempt to disguise its religious nature. I would argue that it does make religious presuppositions, specifically a rejection of methodological naturalism in favour of theistic realism. I likewise dispute your assertion that it "makes a plain, perfectly meaningful statement about the universe" -- as any positive assertion that ID may purport to make is vague (particularly on the who/how/when/why of the design) to the point of meaninglessness. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree with your bare assertion that "whether a claim is a religious one is determined by its content, not its underlying intentions."" Then what does it mean to be a religious claim? "I would argue that it does make religious presuppositions, specifically a rejection of [...]" You are confusing its presuppositions with the presuppositions of those who birthed and support it. "I likewise dispute your assertion that it "makes a plain, perfectly meaningful statement about the universe" -- as any positive assertion that ID may purport to make is vague [...]" And here you are confusing 'vague' with 'uninformative' (or possibly 'general'). Ilkali 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<unident>Ilkali:

1. A claim that, while not making explicitly religious/supernatural assertions is still a religious claim if it makes no sense outside a religious context. An example is the claim that there has been a global flood within the last 10,000 years. This claim is only meaningful within the framework of a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is thus a religious claim.
2. ID only makes no sense within any secular set of presuppositions -- it is the equivalent of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
3. ID is vague -- it says nothing whatsoever about who/why/how/when/etc of the design. It has been found to be vacuous, completely meritless, without scholarly or practical use.

In any case all this seems to be complete hair-splitting. I am sick of it. We have judges, theologians, philosophers of science and scientists lining up to say that ID is religion. Unless you can come up with some WP:RSs to the contrary, I see no point in discussing this further. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"A claim that, while not making explicitly religious/supernatural assertions is still a religious claim if it makes no sense outside a religious context". This "makes no sense outside a religious context" thing is entirely idiosyncratic, and doesn't even apply to ID.

"ID only makes no sense within any secular set of presuppositions". You are confusing 'makes no sense' with 'has no utility'. ID is meaningful without a religious context, it's just not well-motivated.

"ID is vague -- it says nothing whatsoever about who/why/how/when/etc of the design". You are still confusing 'vague' with 'uninformative' (or possibly 'general'). If I tell you "I went to see a film yesterday", I'm not being vague just because I'm not specifying what/why/how/when/etc. See: Vagueness. Additionally, vague claims are by definition meaningful.

It has been found to be vacuous, completely meritless, without scholarly or practical use. Irrelevant.

"We have judges, theologians, philosophers of science and scientists lining up to say that ID is religion" What makes judges and scientists reliable sources on language and philosophy? Where are the reliable sources saying that ID itself is religious, rather than just a tool of the religious? Ilkali 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnson, Dembski, Forrest and Kitzmiller for starters, as references given in the article. Where are the reliable sources saying that ID itself isn't religious, or are you just trolling without bothering to read the article? ... dave souza, talk 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could argue about reliability of sources, I could argue about contexts of utterance, I could argue about analytic truth overriding external testament, but... forget it. It's obvious that I don't care about representing ID neutrally as much as you care about representing it negatively. This is a hopeless battle. Ilkali 12:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd isn't it how ID defenders can come up with bare assertions until the cows come home, but always give up the "hopeless battle" against the 'demonic darwinist evil atheist conspiracy' just when the're nailed down on substantiation. You can argue how many angels can dance on a pin as much as you like Ilkali, but until you can show them under a microscope, it's just so much WP:OR WP:RS-less hand-waving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of those evil atheists, you moron. The fact that you'd assume I'm a creationist just because I disagreed with some wording neatly vindicates my decision not to bother with you and your ilk. Ilkali 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What has been found, over and over and over on these talk pages of intelligent design and creationism is that only those who are religious fundamentalists or biblical literalists claim to be atheists here. I guess they think if they loudly claim themselves to be atheists, this gives their complaints some extra value.--Filll 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Filll it doesn't really matter if he's Richard Dawkins' biggest fan or Ken Ham in drag -- all we have from Ilkali is another bare assertion. No WP:RSs in sight. It is that, not his religious views, or lack thereof (whatever they may be), that is the issue here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> As Hrafn stated, the biggest problem with intelligent design, and the biggest reason it is a threat to science, is that it demands that the list of causes accepted by science include magic. This does not necessarily have to be magic caused/ created/ produced by a god, but just some superior intelligence; an intelligent designer or group of intelligent designers. The only context in which this demand or requirement has any sense is if intelligent design is irrevocably rooted in religion, and is inseparable from religion.

The difficulty with requiring that we include magic in science is that it throws most of what we know out the window and is pure poison to science. For example, there is no reason to investigate anything we do not understand; it can just as easily be postulated as "it was done by magic". There is no reason to keep anyone in prison; a reasonable defense would be "the evidence was put there by magic".

This was exactly the approach taken by the Islamic world about 1000 years ago when they were world leaders in science, medicine, mathematics, navigation and many other technical areas. Al Ghazali wrote The Incoherence of the Philosophers, introducing some of these very ideas into Islamic science, with devastating effects. One thousand years later, Muslim science is still in an awful state.--Filll 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So the wording might have to be sharpened to make it more clear what the contradiction is. Obviously for legal purposes, the DI and its supporters claim that the "intelligent designer" is unknown and anonymous, and could even be a race of hyperintelligent space aliens. However, we all know from repeated quotes and other evidence is that they intend the intelligent designer to be God, and not just any God but the Christian God of the Protestant bible. So they are just being coy and possibly even disingenuous when they claim that the intelligent designer is anonymous or unknown or they do not intend it to be God. The agenda, as stated repeatedly, is to promote the literal reading of the protestant Bible and its incorporation into American culture in a more prominent way and even the establishment of a Protestant theocracy. This is why Muslim support for intelligent design is weaker than Muslim support for creationism. The Muslims recognize the covert nature of the movement and the misrepresentation and its true agenda, which they view as hostile to Islam (which it probably is, to be honest).--Filll 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the ID movement is disingenuous, and that this should be mentioned in the article. Ilkali 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding a demarcation issue. Some things can be proven, predicted, or indictated by science and others cannot. Let's take the mulitverse theory. Now it does explain a lot but I hope you do not think it can be proven or disproven. We can predict fairly accurately if certain things have been designed without know who designed it. The ID people are openly admitting that their theory can never prove that 'God' did it. They are saying it is matter of faith to believe that 'God' did or 'evolution' did it. I think you are having a problem understanding this demarcation issue just as many do not understand that evolution does not include how life began. I issues can be confusing and it takes some out-of-the-box thinking to get them sometimes. BobLMartin 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I dispute that "we can predict fairly accurately if certain things have been designed without know who designed it [why they designed it, how they constructed it, or anything else about the design process]."
2. These assertions appear to be both off-topic & WP:OR.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BobLMartin, I have to disagree with you on several points. First, why do you believe that the multiverse can never be "proven or disproven"? Never is a long time, and you clearly do not know much about physics if would you make such a claim. Also, the use of the word "prove" here is a bit problematic, although I know what you mean; if you want proof, go to mathematics or logic. Proof is not part of science. Sorry. And I think your statements about what the ID movement believes and supports are inaccurate and not supported by cites, although one might be able to find some. And the provisional conclusion that evolution is a viable explanatory theory that makes accurate predictions is based on literally 100s of millions of pieces of evidence, from DNA, from the laboratory, from field studies and from fossils. It is not based on faith in any way shape or form. There are axioms in science, but the assumption of the correctness or dominance of theory of evolution is not one of them, and such a claim would only be made by someone who knows nothing about science, biology or evolution.-Filll 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the point in some of the above discussion. If we visit say a moon of Jupiter and find remnants of ancient buildings and machines but no life forms we do not know who designed them but we would have to assume they were designed. And I think the multiverse theory is not falsifiable. Can we travel outside of our own universe? And I do not see where it has been proven that mammals came from reptiles. Show me the experiment. Showerrug 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to bet this brand new editor (above) is a sock? Anyone? I'll give good odds. Baegis 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You would win that bet. I've indefinitely blocked Showerrug as a Raspor sock. Raul654 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob L. Martin indefinitely blocked as another Raspor sockpuppet. Raul654 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"the legal system prevalent in the US is certainly not religious, but nonetheless arguably has its foundation in the Bible"

Has or Had? I would class anyone arguing the former (and advocating your first point, legal system is not religious) to be making the same sort of contradiction as the DI. ID has yet to seperate itself from religious dogma, see KvD, the proponents continually attempt to claim the otherwise, but not consistently.--ZayZayEM 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On an experimental test of the multiverse: Please look at WMAP cold spot.--Filll 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the cruft

A new editor was a bit too bold in cutting some cruft. I reverted that edit, and will remove most of the material, keeping the essential parts thereof. Bearian 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it was too much, but I do support trimming the fat. CruftCutter 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information is relevant. I also agree that it a tad bloated. Perhaps we can trim it down to the basics and include a "see here for full article" link? TechBear 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just trimmed a bit of the verbose fat. Bearian 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I just did some more. CruftCutter 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: This is the full article. It has a horde of daughters. See Category:Intelligent_design —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you have consensus for these changes. Please try to get consensus first.--Filll 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted your edit. Stop making wholesale changes to this article without discussing it on the Talk Page. I find it highly, highly suspicious that you registered today for an account and went about wrecking this article. Strange. Baegis 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit is wonderful. It is concise, gets to the key point (I.D. was found to be a creationist pig with lipstick and a pretty dress) and points the interested reader to the main article. CruftCutter 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

Regarding this, see Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I think we need to cite somebody who applied this analysis specifically to Dembski's formulation. CruftCutter 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If the concensus is otherwise, of course feel free to revert. CruftCutter 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the subsection. It is indeed a POV in opposition to Dembski's universal probability bound. If John Allen Paulos had been arguing specifically in terms of the teleological argument or fine-tuned universe argument, it might be different. But according to the copy of Innumeracy:Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences I'm looking at, Paulos wasn't arguing in this context. Thus, the section is an original synthesis. It's also fairly irrelevant to intelligent design. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not synthesis unless two things are combined to draw an original conclusion. In this case, that is clearly not happening; there are two things, but they are not combined. The first paragraph looks like a fair representation of Dembski's ideas, and the second paragraph is certainly a fair representation of Paulos, since it is mostly a direct quote from him. It is entirely sourced and therefore it is not original. This would be original research if we added the obvious conclusion that can be reached from these two facts, but we have not done that because that would be drawing conclusions which is exactly what WP:OR is meant to prevent. We present the facts and the reader draws the conclusions, that's how a fair article behaves. -- Lilwik (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are not combined, what is their relevance together. Implied combined OR should be deleted on tyhe basis of irrelevency.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it irrelevant. It is just as relevant as the creationist argument from improbability is relevant. Maybe that is a minor argument, but it seems worthy of mention in this article, and Paulos's ideas are clearly relevant from the other direction to balance the creationist argument. There is no such thing as implied OR. What one might call implied OR is just the reader drawing conclusions from what he reads, which happens with every good article. The a wikipedia reader is expected to use wikipedia for research; it's the editors who are not allowed to do our own research. -- Lilwik (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple inclusion of quotes that were not originally related to intelligent design, in the article on intelligent design, constitutes a synthesis. There doesn't need to be a narrative analysis; if we include content in an article on intelligent design, which has not been related by any reliable source to intelligent design, then that's a synthesis (see WP:SYN). If the argument, and the counter-argument, have been related in published sources to Intelligent Design, they should go in. If not, it can't go in. WP:SYN says:

"In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." (their emphasis)

If neither Dembski's theories nor the rebuttal have been related to ID, then the section shouldn't be in. If only Dembski's theories, and not the rebuttal, have been related to Intelligent Design, then only Dembski's theories can go in - although it might be pertinent to say something like "although Dembski's Universal Probability Bound has attracted much criticism from mathematicians" or "Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski has applied his much-criticised Universal Probability Bound to intelligent design" and link to the main article on the Universal Probability Bound, where criticism applied to the UPB but not specifically related to ID should be.

As is often said on this page (though usually when the question is rather the other way round to this), we don't need to provide balance. We are obliged to present the significant views which have been published on all sides "fairly, proportionately and without bias". If no rebuttal to a specific point has been specifically published, then we don't include one; we are not obliged - indeed we are forbidden - go out and find one to apply ourselves. TSP (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The "balance" we provide is established by NPOV#undue weight. It's questionable if this needs more than a very brief mention in the specified complexity section, and if such a mention is made it should be balanced by a mainstream view specifically addressing the argument. Try this one for starters. ... dave souza, talk 12:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We are forbidden to find and include rebuttals ourselves? Where is that written? Paulos's thing is clearly relevant in this case and it is on the subject of the section. How could it not be on related to the topic of improbability? Just read Paulos's quote and look at what it is talking about. Can you back up your claims with more quotes from policy? I ask because your claims seem pretty bold and unlikely. I doubt it says anywhere that we are forbidden from including rebuttals that were made without specifically referencing what they were rebutting. Paulos's statement was made in rebuttal to an entire class of misinterpretations of probability. That class includes Dembski's even if Dembski is not mentioned specifically. We're not claiming that Paulos mentioned Dembski; all we are saying is based on what Paulos and Dembski actually said and that is all that is required to make this not original research. I'm fairly certain that deciding what topic a work falls under and which articles should use any particular bit of scholarly research is entirely up to us as editors. Correct me with a link if I'm wrong. -- Lilwik (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. CruftCutter (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not helpful. That sort of OR requires text that expresses an editors opinion in the article, but there is no such text in what we are discussing, so that does not apply here. -- Lilwik (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can a position be expressed implicitly (e.g., via juxtaposition) as well as explicitly? I think the spirit of the synthesis link is clear and we should not attempt to find loopholes. CruftCutter (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not our fault that the conclusion is so obvious from the facts. All we are doing is juxtaposing related facts, just like every article does. If you think those two facts together say something, that is your inference, and as long as you don't write that inference in the article it is not OR. -- Lilwik (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. The deleted section produced an argument using a source which is unrelated to the topic. Not good. Use the source I indicated above, or find another. .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "A and B, therefore C" here. Two positions are expressed, that's A and B, but no conclusion is drawn, so there is no C. We leave the C up to the reader to decided, just like any fair article should. -- Lilwik (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If an argument is applied to a point, but not in the context of the topic it is irrelevant to this page. User TSP summarizes it nicely. Rebuttals to UPB that are not in the context of ID are not relevant to the ID page. To include them in this page is violating guidelines/policies on NPOV, OR and UNDUE weight. Implying a connection is as bad, if not worse, than providing your own uncited one.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI was a member of Hitler Youth in his early life. The Hitler Youth was a children's paramility arm of the Nazi Party, a political part whose eugenics program was responsible for the death of an estimated 200,000 people deemed "Life unworthy of life".

This is all "just facts", but everything beyond the first sentance is rather innapropriate on an article on Pope Benedict. And the details of Nazi Eugenics are not appropriate when dealing with just the HJ. "just the facts" is not as innocuous as it seems.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly does WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE say something that confirms your claims here? I'm not seeing it, so if you could point it out explicitly, that would be very helpful. I see your point about certain facts doing more harm than good, especially when it can be embarrassing for certain living people, but if UPB is noteworthy enough to have a section here then I think the relevance of Paulos's work is obvious to the topic of reasonable assumptions about probabilities. That's the topic of Paulos's work and that's the topic of a section on UPB.

I am not at all convinced that WP:SYN is intended to prevent us from using any sources that did not mention ID in this article. What would be the purpose of that? In the pope example, the facts were obviously relevant and the only issues could be excessive detail or embarrassment. The problem is not that the details of Hitler Youth were found in a work that did not mention the pope, and if policy does forbid such details then why would it be hidden away in WP:SYN instead of being openly stated like: All sources used in an article must explicitly mention the topic of the article, and not merely contain facts relevant to the article? If you could find a place where something equivalent to that is written, then I would believe you, but otherwise you seem to be stretching WP:SYN well beyond its spirit to apply to cases that do not even involve synthesis so you can exclude relevant facts. -- Lilwik (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth point in WP:OR lead:

Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.

Emphasis in original. The wording is not must "explicitly mention", but must be "directly related" to the topic of the article. This criticism is indirectly related, and therefore irrelevant to this particular article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty good quote. Thanks for that. I guess maybe that means what you say it means, though I don't see how that rule furthers the goal of avoiding original research. I'd like further elaboration on the intention of the words "directly related", but this may be getting close to lawyering. Doesn't it make sense that Paulos's work is not original research simply because Paulos thought of it first? It can't be original if it has already been published. But in that case, what is the purpose of this rule about being directly related? Perhaps the concept of UPB is the link that directly connects Paulos's work with ID. I may ask about this on the OR talk page. -- Lilwik (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The originality lies in connecting Paulos to ID through Dembski. Dembski is a synthetic (created by you/an editor) link between the two unrelated pieces of published thought. It is an indirect link, and as such, someone else has to make it before it is included in a wikipedia article. It doesn't have to be valid/true to go in wikipedia, it has to be verifiable from a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --ZayZayEM (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the context of the Paulos section? As I see it, it should be OK even if Paulos wasn't discussing Dembski specifically, provided that he WAS discussing the fallacy that "this phenomenon is so improbable that a supernatural agency must have been responsible" (which is relevant to ID, independently of Dembski). After all, this is the "Intelligent Design" article, not the "William Dembski" article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dembski is not sythesis, he is a real person who is probably not an editor of Wikipedia and certainly not invented by editors. He can publish whatever he wants and simply by that act of publication he is causing his work to not be original research when we included it in our article, and therefore not synthesis. Dembski made the link to ID himself and we are just reporting it, not inventing it. -- Lilwik (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I meant using Dembski as a link between ID and Paulos is a synthetic process.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as everything in the article is cited to a reliable source directly related to intelligent design. The problem was that the section as removed didn't actually mention ID at all, whether the source did or not; so it was unclear that the material related to ID other than by original-research implication.

Of course, whether everything that can be sourced to have been related to ID is sufficiently notable in the context to be included in the article is a separate question, and I believe there are questions on that matter too (at least, whether it is significant enough in the field of intelligent design to deserve the depth of coverage it was previously given in this article). TSP (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The section as removed did actually mention creationism, which is pretty much a synonym for intelligent design. Dembski's work is entirely for the purpose of providing evidence for intelligent design as I understand it. I haven't actually read his work, but I base my understanding on the Wikipedia article about his work. If you want to claim that UPB is not sufficiently notable to deserve a section in this article, I won't say you are wrong, however there definitely should be a link from this page to Universal probability bound, at least in the See Also section. -- Lilwik (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is not a synonym for ID. Marsupial is not a synonym for kangaroo. Information about marsupials goes on the marsupial page, not the kangaroo page.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Media articles

The Media articles section had this addition, briefly: *The Intelligent Design Debate A general article condemning intelligent design (Capital Weekly)

It's interesting to see how ID's being covered, though the reporter makes a common mistake in writing "For all intents and purposes, however, it is a phrase propagated by co-founder of Discovery Institute, Stephen C. Meyer." .. .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its a good article. Do we really need to link it? It's just some op-ed by someone (are they notable) that really doesn't bring any new cards to the table, and as you mention, maybe doesn't even bring the right sort of cards to start with.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV issues?

I just read this article, but it seems to me that it may be aimed at proving ID to be creationism, and not science, rather than simply describing it. The caption on Dawkin's picture as "intelligent design creationism"? One of the primary arguments of ID is that it is not specific to any one religious point of view, merely that we have been designed by an intelligence. And what about non-religious ID arguments, such as exogenesis? Whatever your POV on this, if the ID community disputes that it is teaching creationism, is it fair to use the term creationism to describe their views in an article? GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. GSlicer (t • c) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--Filll (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the Kitzmiller decision. Baegis (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal reading of the Neutral Point of View policy -

'None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively.' [...]

'The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better.'

- is that we shouldn't assert one of the views described as the truth, even if it is one supported by a court decision; I've already discussed this and found that others differ on the question, however. TSP (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This view (NO view) is not being asserted as true. What is being asserted true is that KvD (along with others, lots of others) find/found/have found ID to be religious in nature, and a subterfugeous and deceptive repackaging of old-school christian-based creationism that bases itself of many many fundamental misconceptions of science and reality. To overlook mentioning these significant findings, would leave this article very hollow and incomplete in describing what ID actually is.

Wikipedia is not asserting KvD is right, anymore than it is asserting DI is wrong. It is stating important facts such as "KvD found ID religious nature", "prominent science groups unilaterally dismiss ID as pseudoscience", "DI is the main espouser of ID", "ID is part of a wedge strategy", "ID is a teleological argument", "IDists seek to change the fundamental basis of science" etc. It states stuff. It sources this stuff. I can't find phrases like "ID is based on fallacy", "ID is stupid", "ID is wrong", or similar phrases that would explicitly damn ID. Anything close is attributed a particular critic or critical body.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>The article does not assert what is the truth. It does state the different views of different groups are, however. And your point is?--Filll (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't using the phrase "intelligent design creationism" in the encyclopedic voice, not attributed to any source, saying that Wikipedia believes intelligent design to be creationism? TSP (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It's used in several reliable citations given in the article make clear the direct connection, i.e. that ID is a subset of creationism. No additional citation is needed for each usage of this phrase. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whereas ID advocates dispute that (source: [3]). Do you mean that when a sufficient number of references supports the majority view of a dispute, the article may start using that majority view as an assumed fact? As I say, that simply isn't my reading of WP:NPOV.

(This isn't a making necessary assumptions issue; firstly because that relates to series of articles not relating to the dispute, whereas this is the article which is actually about the dispute in question; and secondly because the assumption is not necessary - "intelligent design" is available as an undisputed term with the same meaning, but not the assumptions, as "intelligent design creationism"). TSP (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but AFAIK Wikipedia is not properly a mouthpiece for public relations campaigns. The very purpose of attempting to divorce "intelligent design" from "creationism", as is already described in the WP article and cited to numerous reliable sources, was to attempt to satisfy the standard set by Edwards v. Aguilard in order to teach intelligent design in science classes. The reliable sources including representative organizations of the scientific community, educational community and US federal court system have had their say on the matter, and it's clear that these sources disagree with the Discovery Institute's contention that ID is not a creationist or religious view. It might also be worth pointing out that the book Of Pandas and People, the 1989 textbook that swapped the words "intelligent design" for the word "creationism" without any corresponding change in meaning, was the same book that students in Dover Area School District were referred to as an alternative explanation for the educational content of their biology class. And so forth. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a huge volume of evidence in favour of one side of the dispute. I just don't agree that that means that Wikipedia should take that side.

I absolutely see your point that there is significant evidence that one side of the debate is not being put in good faith, and the article should absolutely present that evidence; but I don't see anything in Wikipedia's policies saying that a belief, even one held with good cause, that one side of a dispute is in fact merely a 'public relations campaign' removes the requirements of the NPOV policy and allows us to take the other side of the argument. We should absolutely be clear on what the view of the scientific community, the educational community and the US court system are; but still, "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in." While the adherents of ID at least claim to believe that it is not creationism, I don't think that under the NPOV policy we should make the bald statement that it is. TSP (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, referring to ID as creationism is similar to calling Democrats liberals and left-wingers interchangeably in an article. Maybe the terms are synonymous, but this would certainly be inappropriate. Democrats are liberal, and left-wing, but those shouldn't be the terms to describe them in an article specifically about the Democratic part. Maybe ID people all are theists and creationists, but it's inappropriate and confusing to use the terms interchangeably in an article about ID. I think it's especially inappropriate when the movement explicitly states that it is not creationism.

Hey, how about this: the article says that the scientific community, judges, and whoever else believes that ID is creationism. And then we refer to ID as ID throughout the article, rather than using the terms ID and creationism interchangeably? Any objections? GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

the ID community disputes that it is teaching creationism

The ID community teaches?.

Seriously: This entry states ID is creationism, it does not prove it. This article describes ID as creationism. And it sources those descriptions. The article states and attribute significant views of ID in formulating a description of ID, its activities, motivations, history, supporters, key concepts etc. It does not present a POV. It does not argue a case, present evidence, or even launch an attack. It certainly doesn't prove, or set out to prove anything. Encyclopedias don't prove stuff. They state stuff that's already been proven by somebody else.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, mere creation as the cdesign proponentsists put it. For a detailed account of the expert opinions of historians, philosophers of science and theologians who describe ID as creationism, see s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism. As that states on p. 35, the testimony offered by expert witnesses Behe and Minnich claimed that ID isn't creationism "primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism..." Note also the policy WP:NPOV#Undue weight "though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.", and the detailed policy in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views...... dave souza, talk 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; the ID proponents' case is very weak, and the opponents' case very strong; and if we present both fairly this should be obvious to any intelligent reader. Nevertheless, in this article, which is the article about that dispute, we should not take a side or state one side of the dispute as fact; which is what we do if we use the term "intelligent design creationism" in the encyclopedic voice.

Undue Weight applies to weight - how much coverage should be given the non-majority views. It doesn't apply to how fair that coverage should be. Also, it primarily applies to articles not specifically about the dispute - so, for example, the Evolution article or the Dinosaur article shouldn't include much, if any content on intelligent design. However, when it is covered, as it should be on this page ("Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them") then it needs to be done fairly - not presenting the minority view as the majority, but also giving the minority view a fair hearing by not presenting the majority view as fact or as Wikipedia's opinion.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views in various sections describes how it is important to make sure that it is clear that the majority view is the majority view; but it is also at all times clear on where the boundaries of this lie; that this does not compromise the fairness with which we present minority views. For example, from the 'Giving equal validity section:

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." (my emphasis)

In my view, using a term such as "intelligent design creationism", which presupposes the correctness of the majority view (if the ID proponents were correct that ID was not creationism, there would be no such thing as intelligent design creationism and Dawkins could not be a prominent opponent of it), goes beyond "describing the majority views as such" and into "taking a stand on [the dispute] as encyclopedia writers". TSP (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On use of phrase "intelligent design creationism"

"Intelligent design creationism" is limited to two three instances in the body of the article, both of which are direct quotes attributed to source.See Intelligent design#Movement

• "several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]"
• "[Barbara Forrest] has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."[110]
• [caption] "Richard Dawkins, a prominent critic of intelligent design creationism."

  I just edited out a hyphen from this, which was messing my ctrl+F search; this is the only 'suspect' usage of the term. It has been previously discussed

  The outcome last time was based mostly on the prevalent usage of the term by critics, including Dawkins, and therefore "intelligent design creationism" more accurately describes what Dawkins is against.

  • Personally I feel "creationism" can, and probably should, be removed--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also included a further four times in the references as that is the title of the works in-there-listed. [Edit: There are also three cases of "intelligent design creationist" in the reference list, this term is not found in the body of the article.]

If you wish to actually make a case for assertion-of-disputed-opinion-as-fact please find a different phrase.

The two cases of "intelligent design creationism" used within the article are clear statements of verifiable fact, not the assertion of a POV.

1. Several authors have used the term
2. Barbara Forrest is one such author

Thank you.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no problem with the quotes - expressing the views of prominent authors as their views is exactly what we should be doing. My problem, and GusChiggins21's above, is with the two image captions which use the term (sorry, I have been omitting the hyphen) "intelligent-design creationism" without attribution of the implied view to any source. TSP (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The two captions are easily solved -- simply put the ID=creationism aspects into direct quotes from Dawkins & Judge Jones respectively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be completely satisfied with that. If no-one else does, I'll go for a hunt for the relevant quotes (obviously, we need to establish that they did in fact use that precise phrase before we can attribute it to them!) later in the day (but now - work!). Thanks - hopefully this is a solution that everyone can agree is within both NPOV and its 'restricting clauses' (Undue Weight, etc.). TSP (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-captioned the Panda to a direct quote. Can anybody come up with one from Dawkins on the ID=Creationism equivalence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The Kitzmiller case found compelling evidence that intelligent design is "creationism re-labeled""" looks fine, but I'm uncomfortable with "and thus that teaching it is prohibited in public school science classes." which should really be "and concluded that requiring that it be taught in public school science classes violated the Establishment Clause. .. dave souza, talk 14:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't see anything in any of the Dawkins sources we link to or on the web, and I don't have Dawkins books on hand here at work.

Is it possible that Dawkins actually never has used the phrase? Judging from our sources, its use is in a minority even among ID opponents; and while Dawkins' message is always forthright, his style tends towards the understated - it's possible that he balks from a phrase that seems to presuppose some of his conclusions. In, for example, this article, he uses "intelligent design" when he uses any term at all. In fact, he rarely even uses the term "intelligent design" - possibly because he is British, and the term isn't so widespread over here, although clearly he is addressing the proponents of the US movement - he usually just seems to refer to "intelligence" or "a designer". I'll try to find a chance to look through some of his books for the phrase, though - presumably most likely Climbing Mount Improbable (I don't actually have that one) or The God Delusion - The Blind Watchmaker is too early to use the phrase Intelligent Design at all (though it could be in the 1991 appendix).

On an entirely un-balance-related matter, the Pandas and People caption is very long (WP:CAP - "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting" - on my monitor, this caption is currently 18 lines) - need all that content be in the caption, or could some be left in the main text of the article?

(edit conflict) ...and would be 20 lines (and visually longer than the section it illustrates) with Dave's suggested amendment. It is indeed very hard to cover a topic with completeness and accuracy in an image caption - this being the case, might it be best to reduce the image caption to a brief description like "The 1989 textbook Of Pandas and People, written for use in secondary school biology classes, was the first book on intelligent design." and leave the article itself to describe the controversy? TSP (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have changed the Dawkins caption. I do not see it as appropriate to use the phrase there without violating POV. It does not promote extra understanding of the subject of the photo to use the phrase therein. I cannot find this elusive second caption related to Kitzmiller.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unequivocal Consensus?

Is is the general consensus of the scientific community, or unequivocal? Unequivocal implies that there is no dissent whatsoever, like the theory of gravity. It's certainly the general opinion, but there are some scientists who argue that ID is a scientific theory, with a hypothesis and predictions. Shouldn't this phrase be changed to something implying that there is a small minority that disagrees? GusChiggins21 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no reputable scientists who dispute evolution. Anyone who does is (almost by definition) not reputable. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are surely some equally reputable scientists who argue that IF is a scientific theory, this has been discussed before with reference to definitions and been found accurate. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Behe appears to be professor of biochemistry at an accredited university, which at least according to our page would seem to make him a member of the scientific community. Isn't it begging the question to say (in effect) "The scientific community unanimously agrees that ID is not a scientific theory, because no reputable scientist believes that ID is a scientific theory, because if they did, they wouldn't be a reputable scientist, because ID isn't a scientific theory"?

It's true that "unequivocal" doesn't exactly mean "unanimous"; it means "clear", "unambiguous" or "unquestionable". On the other hand, "consensus" already means something like "the clear opinion of a group"; so I'd expect an unequivocal consensus to be something a bit more - that the consensus is actually questioned by no-one, which isn't quite the case here. If we mean "clear", could we just change it to "clear consensus"? If the precise meaning of a non-technical word has had to be debated multiple times on a talk page, I'd tend to take that as an indication that it might be worth considering replacing the word with a clearer one. TSP (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that it is begging the question. Specifically, it's a No true Scotsman argument, which is why I said "almost by definition" instead of "by definition" :)

As to Behe, he's not reputable. Every time he opens his mouth, he's proven wrong. (Like his recent comments about HIV/AIDS being evidence for ID), and he's taken to simply repeating the same old debunked claims again and again (like the mousetrap canard). Even Dawkins made some comment along the lines of "ID advocates like Behe, who look at a mountain of evidence supporting evolution, and say 'it's not convincing enough, show me more'"

But to get back to the greater point here, we'll keep the article at "unequivical consensus" because watering it down plays right into the creationists attempts strategy to mislead people into think that evolution has holes (it doesn't) or is somehow flawed (it isn't), or that evidence against evolution exists (it doesn't) or evidence supporting a competing theory exists (it doesn't). Raul654 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with clear consensus? That is what it means. Would you prefer some other superlative? Something like the vast overwhelming majority? Well in excess of 99.9% of all scientists (in relevant fields)? The problem is, we want something that expresses the reality, but is succinct without the need for a lot of caveats and not too technical with numbers and data etc. This has been discussed over and over, and we always come back to leaving it alone. It is accurate. It is not too long. Why water it down? Why weaken it? What is your purpose?--Filll (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "clear consensus", and it seems to have been agreed that that is what we mean by "unequivocal consensus". Multiple people have come here, though, and said "doesn't this mean 'unanimous consensus'?" and presenting counter-examples (Behe and Kenyon, as PhD-holding professors at reputable accredited universities, would I think both conventionally be considered part of the scientific community). Even if dictionaries back up the meaning of "unequivocal" as "clear" rather than "unanimous", the fact that multiple people have independently questioned the meaning seems to me to indicate that it isn't the clearest possible use of words. I think that if we are accidentally using "unequivocal" instead of a more readily-understood term like "clear", then we should change to a simpler term to avoid the confusion that has repeatedly been demonstrated; if we are deliberately using "unequivocal" to imply "unanimous" even though that isn't quite supportable (except by applying the 'no true Scotsman' argument), then we should change to a simpler term to be honest. TSP (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Clear consensus" does not convey the same meaning as "unequivocal consensus" (or "unanimous except for one or two people whose merits as scientists are debatable") Raul654 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How about 'overwhelming', which I think 'unequivocal' replaced (though after a gap with no qualifier at all. It's about as strong as 'unequivocal', and is perhaps a little emotive, but at least it isn't confusing. TSP (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, just noticed that Filll proposed this earlier. Yes, I would be happier with 'overwhelming'. My purpose is to stop confusing people.) TSP (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We also do things by consensus here on WP, and the unequivocal consensus was in several previous discussions of this issue was that "unequivocal consensus" was the wording that was most accepted.--Filll (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; but concensus can change. TSP (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but asking "has it changed yet?" every couple of months, without providing any new evidence, or demonstrating any actual understanding of what the words they are querying actually mean, is unlikely to change anything. Lacking any such new evidence or understanding, this continuous whining will tend to be regarded as disruptive editing by those who have answered the same old misinformed questions over and over before. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "unequivocal"

• wikt:unequivocal -ZayZayEM
  • "singularly clear" -- I like that, it's a very good characterisation of the word's full meaning. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In threads questioning the use of the word "unequivocal", there seems to be a frequent undercurrent of misapprehension that the word means "unanimous" (e.g. "implies that there is no dissent whatsoever" above). It. Does. Not. Mean. This. It means "without equivocating" (taking its derivation), "(1) leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous (2) unquestionable"[4]. It implies that there is no reservations/doubts/second thoughts whatsoever, not that there is no dissent. As such it is a far stronger word than "clear" and used legitimately here: there are no reservations/doubts/second thoughts whatsoever in the scientific community as a whole that "intelligent design is not science" -- which is why we see so many scientific associations making emphatic statements on the subject. The most that there is is dissent on this subject from a vanishingly small number who have defected from the scientific community to the Christian apologetics community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that it doesn't generally mean that (although 'unquestionable', in the context of a consensus, could be taken to mean 'questioned by no-one', which is not precisely the case). I just would prefer not to use a word for which there is such a widely-held misapprehension about its meaning. I don't think that people should have to look in dictionaries to understand non-technical words used in Wikipedia articles. TSP (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unquestionable" means (as a simple matter of etymology) "not capable of being questioned", which is not at all the same as "unquestioned" or "questioned by no-one". There are indeed people who question it, generally for religiously inspired reasons, but there are no scientific grounds on which it can be questioned, and it is therefore (from a scientific perspective) un-question-able, i.e. unequivocal. Yup, unequivocal is is unquestionably the right word. Snalwibma (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For unequivocal, Chambers Dictionary gives unambiguous, explicit, clear and emphatic, The Concise Oxford gives not ambiguous, plain, unmistakable. Nothing there about unanimous. Note also the linked articles: Scientific consensus does not mean unanimous. Scientific community notes that "Status within the community is largely a function of publication record." There has recently been comment on relevant records.[5][6] Behe's status in his own department is spelt out at the university website.[7]

Equivocal is given by the Oxford as 1. of double or doubtful meaning, ambiguous, 2. of uncertain nature, 3. (of a person, character etc.) questionable, suspect. For an example of equivocation see Casey Luskin's November 1, 2007, essay – "while biological structures may be scientifically explained via intelligent design, the structures themselves have no way of directly telling us whether the designer is Yahweh, Buddha, Yoda, or some other type of intelligent agency. Thus, in contrast to the professor’s incorrect accusation that this is part of a “strategy … to wedge ID into science classrooms,” ID’s non-identification of the designer stems from a scientific desire to take a scientific approach and respect the limits of science and not inject religious discussions about theological questions into scientific inquiry. In other words, using present knowledge, identifying the designer can’t be done by science. It is a strictly theological question, and thus for the theory of ID to try to identify the designer would be to inappropriately conflate science with religion." [8] So that's why they want the "ground rules of science" (quoting Kitzmiller) changed to equate unexplained complexity or alleged improbability with "evidence" of an unknowable "designer". .. dave souza, talk 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that people should have to look in dictionaries to understand non-technical words used in Wikipedia articles Although I am somewhat sympathetic to this view, the main articles in Wikipedia are generally aimed at a fairly high level of understanding and use fairly sophisticated language in general. That is why the word teleological was used in this article.

That is why there is a movement afoot to produce simpler articles that are aimed at a slightly less sophisticated readership on Wikipedia. For example, we have evolution, and introduction to evolution. We have quantum mechanics, and introduction to quantum mechanics. We might eventually have introduction to intelligent design. See [9] and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. In addition, there are articles on many of these subjects on Simple Wikipedia which are aimed at an even lower level of sophistication.

What this means is that "complicated" words like "teleological" and "unequivocal" will remain in the main intelligent design article. What we can do, if there is consensus, is to wikilink the word "unequivocal" in the article to the wiktionary definition of unequivocal.--Filll (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two cases are the same. Teleological is a technical term, specific to the domain we are writing in. Domain-specific terms should be used, for clarity and lack of ambiguity but should be explained (Wikipedia:Explain jargon). 'Unequivocal' is not specific to the domain we're writing in; it's simply a an English word, but one which, as the repeated questions about this show, many people are unclear on the meaning of. This only reduces clarity and adds ambiguity. In my opinion this makes it not a piece of jargon that needs explaining, but simply an unclear choice of word which needs replacing.

If "clear" is too weak, would "overwhelming" not serve the same purpose? I have no wish to weaken or change the meaning of the phrase as it is intended to be read, merely to remove the (presumably) unintended misinterpretation which multiple questioners seem to have read into it. TSP (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• wikt:overwhelm

That would requiring some form of whelming (emotional overload? physical overpowerment?). This is a unequivocal statement, not an overwhelming one. It's not oevrwhelming anyone or anything. Please don't fix something that is not broken. Wikipedia is not responsible for user illiteracy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just feel that, in an encyclopedia, causing repeated misunderstandings in its readership is a form of brokenness. TSP (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that we had "overwhelming" for several months earlier this year, and wouldn't be opposed to its reintroduction. I agree that it's clearer to the general reader than "unequivocal". Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Major ID break through - Dembski has identified the designer!

"The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." - William Dembski, 12-14-2007. http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm

I wonder why he did not publish this major ID discovery in a science journal instead of breaking this news to the Focus on the Family people? In the article he does not give evidence or even reasons of why the designer is the christian god, but I'm convinced he has a very solid scientific reason for it. I guess the lone Jewish and single "athiest" supporters of IDC will need to find a new home, or convert.

How should this unexpected IDC scientific discovery be incorporated into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting question: Is he saying that the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer, or is he saying the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God? The first phrasing gives lie to the alleged secular purpose of ID; the second is abject heresy as it replaces the Christian God with something else. (Insert scientifically engineered cackle of evil glee here.) TechBear (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Heresy. It will feed their persecution complex if catholics hate them too.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So we don't get accused of quote mining:

4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God
The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.
There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm.

Since Dembski has determined the intelligent designer is the christian god, why not simply teach the christian bible in public science classes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion? Raul654 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a Time magazine article in their 22 March 2007 issue - The Case for Teaching The Bible - it is constitutional to have a class on Bible studies in U.S. public schools. But the classes must not be devotional or sectarian in character. The Bible must be studied as a cultural artefact like Shakespeare. And, the class certainly can not merge with the science class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. This has always been true. I even support this. However, this is not what fundamentalists want. Otherwise, they would just do this and be done with it. Decades ago. No; there is something else going on here.--Filll (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly a "major ID breakthrough" -- ID advocates have been, as a matter of personal belief, identifying the ID Designer with the Christian God since virtually the start of the movement. They simply discliam that the "science" of ID can make that identification. Nothing new here, so let's move on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a breakthrough, but certainly a good reference to cite. Have we yet?--Filll (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose this is a good time to think about re-opening the debate over "God" vs "Abrahamic God" vs "God of Christianity"? We now have a source, in addition to Judge Jones, for "God of Christianity", from the core of the movement itself. Tevildo (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Interview.

[10] Have a look at Dembski's answer to question 4. It's at the least interesting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Curses! Too late! Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Pearcey quote

“ By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist’s “chair” even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena. ” — Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, pp. 204-205, [11]

I think this statement leaves Dembski's recent quote in the dust. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, I would like to know how intelligent design can deny the supernatural and miracles and still reject materialism (from the last book, The Design of Life. I am missing something...--Filll (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

'Tis easy -- you just litter your arguments with God-shaped holes, and deny any scientific effort to fill them in with genuine research, and any theologian who points out their obvious God-shapedness. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So what?

Who are these people; Dembski and Pearcey? Folks who quote their "wisdom" as science need to give their academic credentials. The Pope's credentials were highly-scrutinised by the College of Cardinals, and for Roman Catholics his word is infallable, yet I doubt he would agree with much of the rubbish these anti-science neo creationists say. I recall a priest in the 60's giving a sermon that dispelled any possibility of conflict between evolution and creation. He said the Bible is allegorical--when man evolved to capability of reason (ergo the ability to ascertain right from wrong) was the day man was born. I have spoken to a number of biblical scholars, all of whom state that the bible books were edited and written many times in many languages in ancient times after being handed down verbally through many generations. The Bible deals with science very poorly.

Our American Founding Fathers (in establishing a government free of imposed religion) remembered well the Jesus quote. When asked whether a coin belonged to God or to Caesar, "Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and to God that which is God's."

I find it hard to believe that any man who believes in a literal interpretation of every word of the "Bible" would listen to Nancy Pearcey.

From The Good Book: I Timothy, 11-14: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

According to Apostle Paul, we men should never listen to a single word she (or any woman) says.--W8IMP (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My wife has read and approves of this message.

As you would have realised, had you actually bothered to read the articles on them, both William A. Dembski‎ & Nancy Pearcey are senior fellows at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture -- the organisation that created intelligent design and the intelligent design movement. As such, they can be considered to speak authoritatively for it. Dembski is (along with Michael Behe‎) one of ID's principal theorists. Pearcey is a lesser light, but still fairly high up in the ID movement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking - Dembski as mouthpiece

From Intelligent design#Intelligent deisgner

"The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian god, to the exclusion of all other religions"

Both references for this statement are quotes from Dembski (I added the latest one). Is it fair to use him alone to support a statement that "The leading proponents" have zeroed in on Jesus³ as the designer. Surely there are quotes from other cdesign proponentists out there. And if there aren't, can we justify this statement as is?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also Pearcey's comment above. Also, I think Behe (and possibly Minnich too) made similar admissions in KvD. Johnson's almost certainly said something similar, but I couldn't tell you where. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a refname link to the KvD p. 26 summary by Jones, which provides a reliable secondary source that "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Reference 109 gives a more wooly statement from Johnson referring to the logos of St. John, Dembski is the most explicit we have to hand that it's Christianity. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pearcy is pulling a usual tactic of supporting a Christian basis for ID without specifically stating the designer must be "The Christian God". They are crafty.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Might it be worth losing the "the" before "leading"? If that's going to stay, we really need to source, for every person who could be considered a leading proponent of ID, that they consider the designer to be the Christian god. TSP (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Poindexter's The Horse's Mouth may be useful here. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those are as clear and explicit as Dembski's latest interview that reveals "The intelligent designer ... is the Christian God". It supports that the DI and other proponents are predominantly evangelical conservative Christians who perceive darwinism as a atheist amoral agenda, not science. Not the same thing.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

POintdexter also has a collection of quotes in an essay Who Said Anything about God, I think these are more sepcific in helping illustarte proponents identifying the desigenr as Jesus³ (also Horse's Mouth in HTML).

Can we cite this?--Filll (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's self-published, by someone who doesn't appear to be a published author on the subject, and consists of claims about other living people who are not the author; so under Wikipedia's WP:V policy, it can't be used as a source. Where it is probably useful is as a reference to where to look for the original reliable sources that Poindexter quotes. TSP (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link to it; I accept that it seems a useful thing to refer people to, but both the Verifiability policy - "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" - and the Biographies of Living People policy - "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself" - are pretty clear that we can't use a self-published document as a source for alleged quotes from living people. If we verify that the published sources he cites really do say the things he says they say, and include them individually, that'll be fine. TSP (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. If we take this material from Poindexter, shouldn't we cite him? Sure, we should verify the accuracy of the quotes, but to take his quotes without acknowledging the source is, to some extent, claiming his effort as our own. Cite, but verify. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps (although obviously he holds no copyright in simply having collected the words of others, he has put effort in). However, I'm not sure we can refer people to the document itself, even if we have verified every part of its content as it currently stands, as it might later change and remains a self-published source containing details relating to living persons who are not its author, which we are explicitly forbidden by policy to use. If we use significant content from it, perhaps we could put something like "Some sources obtained from Brian Poindexter's "The Horse's Mouth"." after the sourced material. (Not sure how best to phrase it to make it clear that only a reference to the material was obtained from that source, not the material itself which we will by then have independently verified.) TSP (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda here. This is self-published, but it is an aggregated tertiary resource. I only have mild reservations of protecting ourselves from quote-mining-by-proxy here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "the exclusion of all other religions"
• None of the sources used in this instance support this part. I think "exclusion" may be too strong without a citation to the effect. We need hardcore evidence of exclusion of other religions. I think "refusal to acknowledge any other religion" or "no acknowledgement of any other religion" may be an acceptable movement. DI seems to avoid confronting this issue by saying "we are right" and not "they are wrong" when it comes to religion (a problem they don't have with science). ODIN!--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip E. Johnson has suggested on more than one occasion that at first, they will use their "mere creation" big tent to get support from everyone, but after that success, he would favor a young earth creationist interpretation. I would expect that the fundamentalist biblical literalism elements would take over the movement with time, since they are the most radical and loudest and have the most at stake.--Filll (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate seems to have stalled without ever really fixing the problem. The text still says, "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God." However it is still cited only from Kitzmiller, which says "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." - not "the leading ID proponents", but "leading ID proponents", i.e. some; from Dembski, who only speaks for himself; and from the Horse's Mouth which is explicitly under Wikipedia policy an invalid source. At the moment, this statement (about living people) is still inadequately sourced. It would be adequately sourced if "the" were removed from the start. I'm still uncomfortable about The Horse's Mouth having been replaced without discussion of policies which appear to forbid its use. TSP (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See Kitzmiller pp. 25 – 28: "it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.... the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest... has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony.. and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.... Phillip Johnson.. has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” .. In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.” (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” ... Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.”... Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God... Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition". That covers the primary proponents I can think of off the cuff. .. dave souza, talk 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

These examples are similar but not synchronous with the original statement. This statement has several parts that are not explicitly backed up by the sources provided in text with the statement

1. "The leading proponents" - current in text references refer to statements by Dembski only.
2. "made statements to their supporters" - this accurately describes Dembski's comments, and most comments being listed here by other leading proponents
3. "they believe the designer to be the Christian god" - this accurately describes Dembski's comments; it does not accurately describe many other comments by other proponents. This statement requires a statement akin to Dembski's Q4 interview "I believe the intelligent designer... to be the Christian God". It is not the same as supporting biblical literalism, it is not the same as acknowledging a Christian basis for Intelligent Design. It explicitly requires acknowledgement that their belief is the designer is or has to be God.
4. "to the exclusion of all other religions" - no source as yet provided has supported this statement. The DI seems very wary of criticisng others' religious beliefs (though panspermia and other pseudo/protoscience is fair game). This statement requires a negative statement denouncing another creation myth (Norse, Hindu, Chinese etc.) as being incompatible with intelligent design.

...--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Directed panspermia?

The idea that life came from other planets, or was created purposely by aliens is a design argument. Does it belong in the article? GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if a reputable published source has made the connection between the two. TSP (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no, regardless. Raelian ID is a "design argument" as well, but we decided a long time ago to limit this article to DI-ID, both because it's the most common usage of the term, and simply to try to keep this article coherent and manageable. Guettarda (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be covered here in any depth; but if we find that the comparison has been made by a sufficiently notable source, we should probably include a brief mention with a link to the relevant article. We've seen no evidence so far that this comparison has been made, however. TSP (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Crick proposed it. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who have proposed panspermia or other variants, such as Fred Hoyle. Obviously, in the book Contact by avowed atheist Carl Sagan, something like this was also proposed (of course, not seriously, since this was a work of fiction).

And there are other alternatives:

• people travelled backwards in time to create life in the distant past
• only our souls are from God, and our bodies are from the natural world (a form of creatianism)
• design by committee of superior intelligences rathern than one
• only the initial abiogenesis was of Divine origin, and the rest is by natural mechanisms
• this entire existence is an illusion (Something like The Matrix, or maybe solipsism)
• There is some unintelligent but unseen life force permeating the universe that creates life, sort of like orgone energy
• any of the origin beliefs of literally thousands of faiths and sects

This can be like a parlor game; how many ways can you think of for life and its diversity to have been created on earth? The Discovery Institute and other creationists that like to make it a choice of two possible origins are presenting a false dichotomy. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities to choose from.

The basic problem does not come from the advancing of ID as an agenda; it is the anti-science baggage that it comes with. If it were not that ID has associated itself with anti-science proposals of various kinds, I think few if any would object to it. --Filll (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To be included in this article, any such proposal would not only need to have been notably made and recorded by some reliable source, but the comparison between it and Intelligent Design would also need to have been notably made and recorded by some reliable source. There's no need for us to play the game of 'what other things could plausibly be included in this article?' - we simply need to read the sources and see what things THEY compare to Intelligent Design. If we have no source in which a given concept n is compared to Intelligent Design, we don't even need to think about whether we should include it in this article. TSP (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely true. However, I am suggesting that even if one finds all kinds of reliable sources for these kinds of ideas, the place for them is probably not in this article, which is already pretty swollen. We are bursting at the seams just trying to cover the simplest theme; ID is promoted by the DI in the US as part of the Wedge Strategy to force science teachers in secular schools to proselytize for some very narrow interpretation of a handful of minority Christian sects using someone else's money, or suffer legal penalties. Just describing that alone is complicated enough that this article is already pretty long. All the related parts we could throw in here, like ID around the world, or historically what happened to ID in the 1800s, or all the varieties of ID or all the reactions of various faiths to ID, or any of dozens of other topics (only a few of which are covered in our daughter articles, since this is such a big job), just cannot be squeezed into this one article.--Filll (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To a degree. Our approach should be simply to emphasise those things that reliable sources indicate are most notable about intelligent design. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the article should have a narrative theme that it's trying to get across, and include or exclude things based on whether they aid that theme. For me, that's rather close to the boundary between trying to exclude the extraneous, which we indeed should, and choosing which facts to include in order to push a particular point of view, which we certainly shouldn't. TSP (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should not have this material on WP. I am saying we cannot have one article that includes everything. One article cannot be all things to all people. Thankfully, we can and do have other articles.---Filll (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have many other things in the article, and people are always coming up with new ideas for things to include. However, the article is already a bit on the long side, and most of these other ideas have to be relegated to other articles.--Filll (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer Gus' specific point, while we're using the DI definition - "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" (emphasis added) - design arguments solely about life don't come into the article's ambit. I'm also not sure that panspermia is a _design_ argument - at best, it argues that life is too complex to have developed naturally _on Earth_, not that it's too complex to have developed naturally _anywhere_. Tevildo (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Panspermia doesn't involve design. Directed panspermia is more akin to agriculture/gardening (plant it and watch it grow) than engineering.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the DI has definitely used panspermia as an example of the "intelligent designer" when they did not want to say "Christian God" for legal reasons.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

quo Jones, p. 25, "Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM" .. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where and when? Did they use the exact term "panspermia". I really don't think so. As dave's Judge Jones quote shows, DI's record is to offer no other *serious* alternative to Jesus³ in an intelligent design scenario.--ZayZayEM (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness

Doing a bit of reading on the DI's website, I came across the claim that ID is completely compatible with universal common descent: [12]. I get the impression that on many issues, to keep as many people as possible in the "big tent", the DI is quite vague, as in discussion of nature of the intelligent designer, biblical inerrancy, age of the earth/dating creation, speciation, macroevolution, etc. If they make it vague enough, they can get almost everyone in the "big tent", including assorted deists, pagans, pantheists, panentheists, polytheists and even some agnostics and atheists.

However, when push comes to shove, they want to trot out these ridiculous attacks on evolution, and start spewing almost incomprehensible nonsense about materialism, naturalism, ontological naturalism, scientism etc (in the new book Design of Life, they apparently claim that intelligent design rejects the supernatural and miracles but also materialism !!??). So no matter how hard they seem to want to disguise their agenda, when you wait long enough, or dig a little, you uncover raving young earth creationists and anti-science bigots and luddites just beneath the surface. Not sure if references for any of this can be found, but it is somewhat interesting as I slowly start to find out what intelligent design really is.--Filll (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An entertaining apologia, they undermine the "compatibility" with common descent further down where they discuss human chromosome fusion, "This evidence is equally consistent with both human descent from an ape-like ancestor, or a completely separate design of the human species, and therefore does not offer decisive information regarding whether humans share a common ancestor with apes." Vague as ever, surprised they don't claim ID is fully compatible with atheism. Nice the way they approvingly quote from Charles Thaxton's Kitzmiller deposition – "I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there." Ben Stein will be furious about keeping God out! .. . dave souza, talk 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The Discovery Institute itself has invested a huge amount in keeping God out of their "science", for legal reasons, as the lawyer Ben Stein should realize. No wonder they are a bit unhappy with the way the film is being promoted.

Of course, you can explain any observation away including the sphericity of the earth if you are willing to keep adding epicycles to your model, and discard the parsimony of Occam's Razor. The people in the Flat Earth Society offered a prize to anyone who could prove to them that the earth was not flat, and no one ever collected. They debated the foremost figures in science and academia and never "lost" a debate. They always had a perfectly good explanation for how every piece of evidence was consistent with a flat earth! That is why it is important to consider WHY a theory becomes accepted, and why some are discarded.

When they make the tent sufficiently large, someone like me or User:Orangemarlin become "believers" in intelligent design. Which works for a while until they start spewing unscientific nonsense, and then they lose a lot of people.--Filll (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Insufficiency

Kenneth Miller says that intelligent design is just another name for a much older theory called "evolutionary insufficiency" (in his 2005 debate with Nelson). Anyone know about this? Should it be in the article?-Filll (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Wesley R Elsberry (USER) @ The Loom. [13]

I'd like to make an observation on "intelligent design" in general. ID claims are aimed at obtaining a concession that evolutionary processes are insufficient to account for observed biological phenomena. After that, ID advocates hope that people will simply fill in with an "intelligent designer" of their preference to cover the gap. ID arguments are all of the negative variety: because evolution can't do this, you must accept that an "intelligent designer" did.

So, how do ID advocates wend their way toward finding evolutionary insufficiency? Do they identify phenomena with good evidential records of their origin and find that no natural mechanisms are able to cover the situation? No, they do not. ID advocates identify the systems that have the least evidence that can bear upon just how they might have arisen and whack on those. If evolutionary biologists don't have the evidence to work with, they certainly can't generate "detailed, testable pathways" that ID advocates like Rob claim it is their burden to produce. This is such a weak and pathetic strategy that the term I use for Michael Behe's arguments now is "God of the crevices". You see, Behe's claim to fame is to have taken the old young-earth creationist bleat of "what good is half a wing?" and bring it into the modern era of molecular biology, reborn as, "what good is half a flagellum?" Biochemistry, Behe says, is the basement floor, and there is no further place to go. Thus, the gaps Behe goes on about have a bottom, and are crevices.

Back in 2001, I was in a panel with William Dembski, and pointed out that the only way for ID to progress was to take up those case where there was evidence at hand. Things like the impedance-matching system of the mammalian middle ear and the Krebs citric acid cycle. Michael Behe was sitting in the audience at the time. Have ID advocates taken up those sort of systems for analysis? Not on your life.

"Intelligent design" advocates use Behe's "irreducible complexity" and Dembski's "specified complexity" as arguments to convince people to disregard theories which have some evidential support, and force acceptance of conjectures with no evidential support. It's a good trick, that. -March 26, 2004 11:54 AM

bolding added to original--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up.

We finally have a pre-release review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: [14] Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Newspaper article . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "Assertion"

OK, as directed I'm taking this to the talk page. I don't think the term "assertion" should be used in the first sentence, because advocates of ID do not consider an argument un-necessary. They do at least attempt to defend their position, regardless of whether they do so in a way that is scientific, accepted or correct. Furthermore, in that same paragraph it says ID is a modern equivalent of the teleological argument for theism. One would never consider the teleological argument an assertion, because it is...an argument. It has more than just the assertion, there's an argument with it, convincing or not.

Anybody agree/disagree? I haven't read the whole talk page and article history. Is there a good reason why the word "assertion" was agreed upon? I changed it because I consider it obvious that ID is not an assertion, but a theory, in my opinion an unconvincing one, but still not an assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelChrysanthemum (talk • contribs) 10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, your edit did not involve calling ID "an argument", it called it a "body of theories" -- which is clearly fallacious, as even some ID advocates admit that ID has no formal theory. Also see WP:WTA#Theory.
• Secondly, the 'teleological argument' has experienced sufficient rebuttal over the centuries (see Teleological argument#Formal objections and counterarguments) that to reduce a modern attempt to retread it (and to portray it as "scientific") to the status of "assertion" is not unreasonable -- and this use of it is characterised as an "assertion" in Teleological argument#The intelligent design movement.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, then why not use one of the words "belief", "conjecture", "idea", or "notion", as these words are neutral with regard to whether or not the notion is defended.

I don't see why we would doubt that there are theories involved in ID, if theory can have all of its usual definitions. Just Behe's theory about irreducible complexities is a theory. When I put in that edit, I hadn't seen the note on this page that says the word "theory" is being used only to mean "scientific theory". Theory can in general refer to all of

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory

But if you guys want to use the term "theory" that way, fine. Why not call ID a belief, notion, conjecture or idea instead of an assertion? By using "assertion" we imply a lack of an argument, and these other word options don't imply that. Meanwhile an attempt at argument is made by some ID believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelChrysanthemum (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You will find that scientists and even a court of law agree there is no supporting argument behind ID, unless we accept that the deus ex machina approach adheres to the scientific method and is not a logical fallacy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• ID is not a "belief" as many ID advocates are YECs whose actual beliefs are only tenuously related to ID.
• ID is not a "conjecture" or a "notion", because these are speculative -- and ID is a prejudged position.
• ID is not a "theory", even under a colloquial definition, (1) because it makes no novel predictions & (2) because it is entirely lacking in specificity.
• Irreducible complexity is not a theory, it is an argument from ignorance and thus a logical fallacy.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How about replacing "assertion" with "philosphical position" ? It's the sort of thing the DI say, though they tend to add "theological" ... dave souza, talk 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would accept calling it an "intuition" -- which reflects its nebulous & getting-ahead-of-the-facts nature. I think "philosophical position" is rather vague. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What about "assertion"? :) Sadly, this is a road we've been down before. We don't have a better word, since the most accurate characterisation I can think of ("body of half truths and lies") doesn't flow well enough to use in the opening sentence. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment from an occasional visitor, if I may: the only problem I have with "assertion" is that it looks syntactically a bit odd. Supporters of ID presumably assert that ID is the explanation, but ID surely isn't itself an assertion. ID is ... the suggested route by which things got to be the way they are ... a proposed explanation for the natural world ... Hmmm. On reflection, maybe it's simplest just to say "ID is the assertion that ..." Or how about "ID is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it explanation for ..." Snalwibma (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course ID isn't itself an "assertion", to be technical. The term or phrase "intelligent design" refers to an assertion that the WP article proceeds to summarize for the reader. Nonetheless, that is the same as saying intelligent design is an assertion, the nature of which the article proceeds to describe. It is an entirely valid use of the word "is". ... Kenosis (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I like that. "Refers to the assertion..." Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design refers to the assertion...", or "The term "Intelligent design" refers to the assertion..."? My preference would be for the latter, but I agree that both are an improvement over the current opening. Tevildo (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we want to go back to the "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God" opening that held sway at the beginning of the year (accurate, perhaps, but a little provocative), how about simply "Intelligent design asserts that "[...]". It is a modern form of the teleological argument..."? Alternatively, if we're sticking to the existing sentence structure, how about "proposition"? Tevildo (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why ID could not be called a belief. A belief is something one believes. The ID supporters believe it, so it is their belief. If one is a YEC, then there's an obvious connection between ID and being a YEC. Also not all ID supporters are YECs.

Does anybody object to calling ID an "opinion"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.226.150 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read the archives you'll see we've discussed this issue at length many times before and the consensus was strongly in favor of "assertion." Unless there's something new to discuss, and it appears there isn't, "assertion" it is. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of all, ID is an argument against naturally-caused evolution. The main point of the argument is covered in Irreducible complexity.

And this relates to the bit that H just reverted - very politely, by the way. :-)

A significant number of ID proponents want their anti-evolution argument to be considered on its own merits. They claim to have "scientific" objections to evolution, along the lines of saying that the Rosetta Stone showed "signs" of having been designed.

A lot of the difficulty we've had at Wikipedia, describing the conflict, is that people don't want to take their opponents' arguments at face value. Well, I for one believe in the sincerity of people who cling to naturalistic evolution on the grounds that only material forces can be detected with the senses.

Support for naturalistic evolution need not be motivated by materialism or atheism, so I do not claim it is even if "those suspicious religious folks" level that accusation. Correlation is not causation, right?

Likewise, opposition to naturalistic evolution need not be motivated by religious belief.

At some point, Wikipedia is going to have to come to terms with the fact that some ID proponents simply think it's the best explanation, and that there is a disputed between (1) the side which claims that ID *is* creationism and (2) the side which says that ID is just as distinct from creationism as naturalistic evolution is distinct from atheism and materialism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the two sides do not have equal weight of argument as (1) there is considerable (academic and court) evidence that ID is a close descendent of Creationism; (2) for there to be equivalence, it would have to be between evolution<->atheism and creationism/ID<->theism, but this is clearly untenable given the significant number of theistic evolutionists. I would also point out that as ID explains nothing (not who, how, why, where or when), it can hardly be a "best explanation", and that Wikipedia thus has no need to "come to terms" with this patently fallacious viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For once, I've some sympathy with Ed's basic point, and think it would be appropriate to change "assertion" to "argument" – ID is essentially a theological or philosophical argument. As for the other points, without doubting their sincerity, it's puzzling to me how frequently ID proponents feel that the logos of St. John (I am the way, the truth, and the light) is an imperative instruction to tell outrageous lies. Perhaps their very ability to see physical evidence of the supernatural blinds them to the plain facts that are in front of them. The parable of peppered moth evolution is instructive in that regard. ... dave souza, talk 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument vs assertion

Strictly speaking an assertion is a statement (e.g. "all plants are green") and an argument is an attempt to substantiate an assertion based upon more basic axioms and logical inference (e.g. "all plants are green because they contain chlorophyll"). An argument can be invalidated by proving its axioms incorrect, or its logic invalid, an assertion can only be invalidated by a counter-example (though it can be rendered unproven by invalidating arguments made for it).

I would assert 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" is an assertion.' It contains neither axioms nor logical inferences from them (it contains no "because"), it is simply a statement.

The argument generally made for it is that (1) evolution has been disproven (e.g. by irreducible complexity) and that (2) because of this 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" must be true. (I of course dispute the truth of axiom (1) & the validity of inference (2).)

Unless specific axioms and inferences are hard-wired into the articulation of ID, it cannot be an argument, and remains an assertion (on the basis of arguments that are not themselves essential to ID). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking as ID is only an assertion, it cannot be "a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God" in and of itself, however taken in conjunction with its underlying arguments (irreducible complexity, specified complexity and/or a fine-tuned universe), it is. I can't immediately think of a concise phrasing of this to go in the lead. Perhaps "In conjunction with its underlying complexity and improbability arguments, it is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're parsing words too closely here. Whether it's an argument or a critique, the point is that ID supporters are "arguing" against naturalistic evolution.

What gets lost is the dispute over whether the critique necessarily entails belief in God. "Shows signs of having been designed" can mean different things to different people. I don't thing a plate of spaghetti designed the flagellum. Nope, pasta just isn't smart enough for that, even if my friend last month called me "dumb as a bowl of pasta". Edgar Allen Poe wrote a classic detective story in which a deceased showed "signs of having been murdered". If you haven't read it, sorry to spoil it for you, but it hinges on the species of the killer.

There is a dispute over whether the two ideas are separable: (1) that some forms of life show signs of having been designed and (2) that only a god (or the Abrahamic God) can design life.

Come to think of it, if assembling a flagellum is so easy that natural forces can do it, maybe it doesn't take an infinitely wise being.

Anyway, I'd like the article to report neutrally on the issue of whether ID's argument implies that the "designer" is God. I come to Wikipedia for answers, so I'd like you well-read folks to tell me who says so and who says not. From glancing at the intro, I get the idea that all pro-evolution people say that ID makes God the designer - hence the argument that ID = creationism. But I seem to recall reading at least one notable author who claims that "signs of having been designed" are unrelated to the "who the designer is". (Could be spaghetti, an ape, E.T. or anything other than an "unguided force".) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ID taken as the statement 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" is even less a critique than it is an argument. That ID supporters make arguments does not make ID itself an argument. This is not a matter of "parsing words too closely" it is a matter of basic meaning. If we don't pay attention to this, we may as well call ID a "butterscotch" or a "concerto". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Before wikipedia can "report neutrally on" issues related to it, we first have to establish that "ID's argument" (as opposed to ID's assertion) exists. What are its axioms, what are its logical inferences, and what WP:RS documents them as being essential to ID? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ID is not, in and of itself a "critique of evolution", it is an assertion, for which several of its supporters make arguments that are critiques of evolution. Unless it can be claimed that IC/CSI/FTU/etc is essential to ID, such that refutation of the argument counts as refutation of ID itself, then ID is not itself an argument or critique. This is a matter of "what is ID?" Is it the statement 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 does it also explicitly contain claims about IC/CSI/FTU/etc? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As set out carefully in the Dover judgement, ID is the argument from design, though in its own definition the DI simply presents an assertion that "this is the best explanation". Either term does. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Jones said that the "argument for ID" (my emphasis) was the argument from design, again differentiating between assertion and supporting argument. I have no objection to the lead speaking about this "argument for ID", as long as it doesn't conflate this argument with the assertion it is supporting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that ID supporters might object if you defined ID as just a complaint about evolution, since some of them have no problem with evolution. They onl claim that they see fingerprints of design. That is their one common feature that defines the "Big Tent". --Filll (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sober makes a nice distinction between what he calls "mini-ID" (the core assertion that we cite in the beginning of the article, which is common to various ID proponents and acceptable to both YECs and other creationists) and the different specifics that people like Behe, Dembski and Wells have come up with. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)